What is the free-market solution to this scenario?

[nodeal]

Here is the story http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/missouri_tea_partiers_joe_the_plumber_join_movemen _1.php

If you don't feel like reading it, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is passing Prop B, or "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act". This is a measure that will essentially call for government intervention in the breeding business, using legislation to ensure that each dog gets "sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things." The act will apply to commercial breeders, affecting those who have more than 10 breeding females.

Now I understand government regulation is damaging to good business, and I can see prices for dogs going up and quality of breeding going down as is usually the case when government intervenes, but this is a tad different because we aren't talking about assembly line toys here -- we're talking about living creatures.

That being said, any breeder who treats their dogs like crap is not going to get business from someone looking for a quality dog. However, what if there is a market of dog-buyers who are just looking for a puppy at a cheap cost and are not so concerned with health? If this were the case, then facilities that have bad practices would be able to pump out dogs at low costs because they don't properly maintain their facilities or puppies. This would allow them to sell the dogs at a low rate, and there may be a big enough market out there to sustain a business of such cruel nature.

Pumping out cheap, poorly made toys at a low cost is one thing; but doing the same thing for a puppy mill is a different story. A standard should be maintained for a living creature. Is government fit for this job? I don't know how my free-market philosophies coincide with my demand for clean, safe puppy mills.

Any thoughts??

[mczerone]

Didn't read the question but the answer is: whatever you want it to be.


After reading the question: If you want certain treatment regulations, you are in your power to influence others to only patronize those breeders who have certain private certifications. If the private certification isn't effective enough, you can always start a new one with tighter regulations and procedures.

Will this totally eradicate mistreatment of animals? Probably not, as some people don't care how their pit-bull was treated as a puppy. But the government will not do any better, and in fact will probably allow more people to get by with mistreatment because they are an unaccountable regulator. Their policies probably wont meet the standards you want, and will probably require more policies that are meaningless to you, like what percentage of their diet should be provided by FDA regulated food producers. And would you rather have a single set of regulators open to lobbying and bribery, or many competing regulators that no one breeder would be able to control?

[TonySutton]

The two malls closest to me both lost their pet stores (which sold mostly puppy mill animals) and were replaced by stores which sell rescues for a much lower adoption fee.

[Sola_Fide]

That being said, any breeder who treats their dogs like crap is not going to get business from someone looking for a quality dog. However, what if there is a market of dog-buyers who are just looking for a puppy at a cheap cost and are not so concerned with health?


If there is a market for it, what good does the government do to regulate it?

There is a market for drugs. Look at all of the unintended evils that come from intervention. Intervention produces more evil than the original issue would ever produce.

[dean.engelhardt]

Here is the story http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/10/missouri_tea_partiers_joe_the_plumber_join_movemen _1.php

If you don't feel like reading it, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is passing Prop B, or "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act". This is a measure that will essentially call for government intervention in the breeding business, using legislation to ensure that each dog gets "sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things." The act will apply to commercial breeders, affecting those who have more than 10 breeding females.

Now I understand government regulation is damaging to good business, and I can see prices for dogs going up and quality of breeding going down as is usually the case when government intervenes, but this is a tad different because we aren't talking about assembly line toys here -- we're talking about living creatures.

That being said, any breeder who treats their dogs like crap is not going to get business from someone looking for a quality dog. However, what if there is a market of dog-buyers who are just looking for a puppy at a cheap cost and are not so concerned with health? If this were the case, then facilities that have bad practices would be able to pump out dogs at low costs because they don't properly maintain their facilities or puppies. This would allow them to sell the dogs at a low rate, and there may be a big enough market out there to sustain a business of such cruel nature.

Pumping out cheap, poorly made toys at a low cost is one thing; but doing the same thing for a puppy mill is a different story. A standard should be maintained for a living creature. Is government fit for this job? I don't know how my free-market philosophies coincide with my demand for clean, safe puppy mills.

Any thoughts??

Puppies at cheap cost with health problems don't exist, maybe initially but the vet bills are going to well overtake the saving at the purchase.

It is my experience that puppy mill dogs are more expensive than home bred dogs. I've never paid for a dog and never had a difficult time finding a fine one.

[fisharmor]

Here's the straight, unadulterated fact of the matter.

Kowloon Walled City is one of my favorite examples of the free market in action. It was a totally stateless society.
One of the reasons it was popular with locals is that it was the one place in Hong Kong where you could eat a dog.

There was a market for dog restaurants, the government didn't like it and tried to shut it down, and it was probably one of the reasons why they marched everyone out at gunpoint and bulldozed the place. But the point is, there was a market for dog restaurants.

And if anyone in the world believes that it is now impossible to eat a dog in Hong Kong: you win the stupidest person in the world award.

Outlawing puppy mills will do nothing, zilch, nada, zero to get rid of puppy mills.
There is obviously a market for them.
They will continue to exist. In this case, they will simply exist with 10 or fewer breeding females. You see, they can't help it - they put the exceptions into the legislation. They always do.

If this bothers you, the only way to change it is to affect the market. It's so mind-bogglingly easy to do, it really surprises me nobody tries. All you need to do is spread the rumor that aerosol sprays are killing the planet, and tomorrow every company is getting rid of them. WTF is so hard about affecting dog breeding?