Yeah, as long as they enforce the law.

deb18 What a sad but typical story. These people obviously couldn't care for one dog. Many people of this type decide to obtain several dogs to abuse and neglect. Perhaps if owners were required to take a class, pass a test, and pay for a license these people wouldn't have killed that dog or endangered your family with the vicious dog they created. Perhaps if the laws were more preventive rather than reactive these people wouldn't be allowed to own a dog or own a vicious dog. The laws as they were written weren't able to help the dog nor were they able to protect your family. The laws aren't very responsive after a tragedy either. Those dog owners would have a right to their dog even if it attacked your kids, you, or your pets. They have a right to that dog and a chance to harm the dog and the community again. They might get a stern lecture, a small fine, and then they get to break the law again. The community is not protected nor is the dog protected. You were lucky in one area - the dog didn't attack you or your kids. You chose not to directly confront the dog owners and the humane society didn't make the situation worse by revealing that you complained about how they don't care for their dog. In many communities animal control won't do anything to help the dog or the community but will go out and talk to the dog owners that are abusing/neglecting their dogs and reveal who complained. This does nothing for the dog as they are unwilling to help the dog. Often the unstable dog owners will start to harass their neighbors, shouting at their neighbor, vandalizing their neighbor's property, threatening their neighbor etc. Animal control believes that these dog owners are reasonable people who just don't know how to care for their pets and will shape up with some education or that these people are just innocent dog owners that are persecuted by their neighbors. Under current laws these people have a right to own a dog or dogs even if they aren't taking care of the dog or dogs. Your lucky you moved after the dog died and before they got more dogs. My neighbors trained their dogs to bark constantly. Their dogs became vicious of course and eventually attacked a child. They got rid of the dogs a few months after the attack and got about a half dozen smaller barking dogs. I had no break in between to sell my house - despite all the dog owners out there no one seems to want a house next door to half a dozen dogs that bark constantly. Maybe their should be zoning neighborhoods for dogs and neighborhoods for people. Ideally people would only own dogs if they properly care for the dogs. Those that couldn't care for the dogs would have their dogs immediately seized to be either adopted by a responsible owner or euthanized. Those dogs who aren't owned by professional breeders or dogs that are unsuitable for breeding should be spayed or neutered. There are way too many dogs and cats compared to people and its even worse when you narrow it down to responsible and knowledgable people who want to own and are willing and able to care for a dog or cat.

Yes, but you'll never stop the people from buying them. Sure, we can educate some, but most people have no idea what a puppy mill is or why they shouldn't buy from them or the pet stores they supply. And, as we occasionally find out from people who visit this forum, some people are determined to buy the cute puppy they saw there no matter how many reasons you give them not to. Legislative changes and enforcement of the laws is the only way to bring about drastic change, IMO. If the laws make it less profitable to sell puppies, they'll find something else to sell. I live in the next county from Lancaster, and two weeks ago my own niece bought a puppy from an Amish farmer there. I'm sure she wouldn't have if I had known about it and could have explained why she shouldn't. She thought she had done a good thing buying from a nice Amish man. In this area, the Amish are a huge tourist attraction and they are practically revered, so people tend to think buying from them and helping them continue in their "gentle, simple" lives is a good thing to do.

So you agree, all breeders of show GSD's and English Bulldogs are not good breeders? Of course not ALL breeders of show dogs of any breed are good breeders. I know many show breeders that are not good breeders. There are always bad apples in any bunch. And if I want a purebred dog, I have to pay your price, a price that subsidizes your showing hobby? I have NO idea what you are talking about. Showing is one of the ways that you can tell if a dog is meeting the ideal of its breed -- that's often one of the whole points of getting a purebred, no? You want dogs that are bred from champions -- you can't have champions unless they are shown. And anyone else that breeds nice healthy purebreds but does not show is a backyard breeder? Even if they do testing? They may be nice, healthy purebreds, but they won't be champions. And that is important to a lot of people. It's one of the ways that you can tell that a breeder is at the top of what they are doing. YOU may not like it, but it's the reality of the situation. The average person can not look at a purebred dog and tell if it is well-formed and meeting the ideal of its breed (at best, they can say "That's a Labrador Retriever, that's a Malamute, that's a Pug") -- I've seen many, many "backyard breeders" that are turning out healthy "purebred" dogs. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're coming anywhere close to the ideal of the breed, and in some cases, they are coming so far from the ideal of the breed, that they look like another dog breed altogether.