What do puppy mills and the NRA have in common? That could be the opening to a sick joke. Unfortunately, it is not. It is a real life question that both NRA members and animal welfare advocates are asking when they learn that the National Rifle Association is dispatching national lobbyists from the East Coast to states where puppy mill bills have been introduced. The lobbyists work to water down or kill any legislation that would regulate dog breeding. That was certainly the case in Minnesota, where an NRA lobbyist convinced a member of the Minnesota House Ag Committee to introduce an amendment that would, in effect, exempt breeders of hunting dogs from being regulated. Does the NRA really want their members to buy hunting dogs from unregulated, mass-production puppy factories? The answer to that question appears to be "yes" since the NRA has brought out their big gun lobbyists all over the nation, including in states like Ohio, Arizona and Indiana. In Minnesota, the result has been that the legislation has been tabled until next year. The bills are still alive in the House and Senate. Hopefully, rational minds will prevail that understand that everyone, even hunters who want good, quality hunting dogs, will benefit from regulation of the dog breeding industry. In the meanwhile, I have one recommendation for NRA members who care about the quality of your hunting dogs: cancel your membership.

Related Links: Related Stories Donate to Help

Have something to say about this article? Share Your Comments with our readers. Or, leave a message on the Animal Wise Radio Comment Line by calling toll-free (888) 668-0687.

Comments from readers:

On 09/02/2009 Mike Fry said: Thanks for the Post Liesl Thanks for the post, Liesl. Unfortunately, you seem to have gotten your facts wrong. No where in the article on the Animal Ark web site did Animal Ark make any reference to NRA members. In fact, I strongly suspect most NRA members have no idea the NRA is involving themselves in issues wholly unrelated to the Second Amendment. You referenced a quote from the Huffington Post about a bill in another state with entirely different language. The bill in MN would actually address the concern raised by the Huffington Post. As a result, I am having a really hard time understanding the point of your post. The NRA members I am hearing from are confused, disgusted and angered that an organization they have supported has interjected itself into a discussion about which they have little or no expertise. Additionally, while I agree with you there is the potential for groups like HSUS to attempt to make unwanted changes to the legislation, Animal Ark and many breeders have been working to ensure that has not happened and that it will not happen. This is why a large, and growing, number of breeders are supporting the bills in Minnesota.

On 09/02/2009 Liesl said: In Defense of the NRA's position While I'm not a member of the NRA, nor even a supporter, I am surprised by the total marginalization of their position by this otherwise-respectable site. Yes, it must be that members of the NRA, (with its close ties to the hunting dog community), simply hate all dogs, and are cruel, irrational people, especially since they don't want MORE GOEVRMENT REGULATION of the industries affecting their lives. That is what this is about, more government regulation vs less. Here is a blurb from The Huffington Post regarding the NRA's position. "SB 460 requires "commercial dog breeders" to be licensed, then subject to regulations and inspections. But if you operate a facility that has "overcrowded and cruel" conditions, you likely know this is the case, and simply would not apply for a license. No license means no regulations and no periodic inspections. In other words, the same laws that are currently on the books to target true animal cruelty are the only ones that would apply to investigating an unlicensed "commercial dog breeder." On the other hand, those responsible dog breeders (which are the vast majority of them) that do comply with the licensing requirement, should SB 460 become law, may find themselves regulated out of business. The bill states that certain standards must be met, but does not spell them out. Instead, it allows a bureaucratic rules process for setting the standards, using vague, subjective terms for stating what those standards will be. The terms 'adequate' and 'appropriate' are used, which have widely different meanings, depending on the application and who is doing the applying. You can bet HSUS [Humane Society of the United States] operatives will try to influence the rules process to implement the most draconian rules possible in order to promote its anti-breeder agenda."

On 04/25/2009 Cindy Lease said: Big mistake by NRA Their backwards thinking is to allow the breeding of inferior, genetically defective dogs by puppy millers. That has a huge effect on the ability of the hunting public to buy quality dogs. Quality breeders should be estatic about a bill to put puppy millers under a microscope. Less of these abusive breeders will increase the demand for high quality dogs and puppies. The quality of the breed will be better because puppy mills breed anything and everything with no thought to substance, confirmation or genetic defect. It's unfortunate the NRA doesn't see the advantages not only to the mill dogs but to their members.

On 04/24/2009 Mike Fry said: I agree, Charlotte I agree with Charlotte 100%. Even more strange than the positions of the NRA lobbyists is their methods. After spending much time at the legislature and watching them, I believe they work to keep their official opposition semi-secret or secret. It is hard to come out actively in favor of animal abuse, or working to protect perpetrators of domestic violence. So, they do it in a very covert, stealth manner. I have yet to hear a coherent argument by them in favor of their positions. I get the impression that legislators are afraid of the NRA, so the NRA does not need to form a good case for their positions. Additionally, I suspect that a large number of NRA members have absolutely no clue the organization they are supporting is doing these sort of thing. They think the NRA lobbies for the right to own guns. What does protecting perpetrator of domestic violence or animal abusers have to do with owning guns? The laws referenced don't even mention guns. So, it appears the NRA has no dog in this hunt.

On 04/24/2009 Charlotte said: another sick joke The NRA also lobbied against the pets in orders of protection bill in the Minnesota legislature, whereby judges would be allowed to include companion animals in orders of protection issued in domestic abuse situations. That is just so wrong and so disgusting on so many levels.