The goal of the Animal Rights movement is to end the ownership of companion animals initially, and ultimately to sever all relationships between humans and all animal species by prohibiting the ownership of any animals and all uses of animals and animal products.

Although promoted as animal welfare measures, the “puppy mill bills” proliferating in dozens of states are simply the initial steps to facilitate the eventual end to breeding of companion animals. These bills are crafted primarily by the Humane Society of the United States, which recruits local groups to enlist legislatives sponsors for them.

Some states face a multitude of HSUS-promoted bills to regulate and restrict every aspect of animal ownership. The HSUS is a political action organization that raises vast sums of money from unwitting donors who think their contributions are supporting animal shelters. In fact, HSUS does not operate any animal shelters. It uses a small portion of its over $100 million fortune to support some genuine education programs relating to animal welfare and responsible ownership of companion animals. The majority of its spending, however, is to leverage legislation that will advance its Animal Rights agenda, and to raise further funds to expand this campaign.

The HSUS claims the purpose of these bills is to address deplorable conditions in facilities that mass-produce puppies for profit. They claim there is no way to enforce existing animal cruelty laws except by regulating virtually everyone that breeds dogs or cats for any reason, including those who show them and occasionally raise litters in their homes.

There is a legitimate need for more effective enforcement of laws prohibiting animal cruelty in many states. There are some substandard and abusive pet breeders whose practices warrant enforcement action. The “puppy mill bills” rarely include changes to the enforcement process in existing cruelty laws. Their purpose is to make it more difficult and more costly for anyone to breed pets on any scale, for any reason. The bills cast the widest possible net; they seek to regulate hundreds of responsible breeders in every state to discourage them from breeding. The regulations would require expensive annual licenses for any animal that has the potential to be used for breeding, even if the owner does not make a decision whether to breed it until it is 3-4 years old, or has other reasons for keeping it intact when it is an adult. The bills call for unannounced inspections of the premises of licensed breeders, including intrusion into private homes where animals are kept – the very environment that is best for raising puppies and kittens.

There is no need or justification for invading a person’s residence to “wipe out puppy mills,” as the proponents of this legislation claim they wish to do. The true intention is that expressed by Patrick Kwan, HSUS director in New York State, at a workshop for volunteer lobbyists in February of 2009. An attendee at that training reports some of Kwan’s remarks:

"The initial HSUS bill will set a cap of 50 intact animals per location, but once this cap is in place, HSUS will strengthen this in the future by lowering the cap each year. He likened it to getting something criminalized as a misdemeanor at first and then increasing it to a felony … HSUS will 'crack down in later sessions.'

"Kwan noted that last year [2008] 91 animal related bills were introduced (although only 18 were voted on) while this year it will be 120. He said that HSUS drafts bills for legislators, and that he himself has written many of them."

To actually address the problem of inhumane treatment by large-scale pet breeding facilities, resources should be directed to effective enforcement of existing laws and rules – animal cruelty is now against the law in every state, and pet breeder regulation does not alter those laws. The backers of these bills provide no data to indicate that there is a relationship between the number of animals owned, or the number of litters produced, and inhumane or substandard care of the animals. They simply say, “We know substandard breeders are out there and we need to find them.” Thus, they admit they have no idea of the scope of any actual “problem,” but facts are irrelevant to this effort. The HSUS strategy of getting reasonable-sounding bills passed so the numbers can be incrementally reduced reveals that anyone who breeds pets is the actual target. This foot-in-the-door legislation would be extremely detrimental to the interests of responsible pet owners and hobbyists whose activities do not impinge on any public health or animal welfare interests, but instead provide an opportunity to participate in wholesome activities involving pets, or simply to enjoy and appreciate having pets in their lives.

There are people who believe that the lives of animals should be held in the same sanctity as those of humans. They believe that all animal species – companion animals, livestock, and wildlife - are spiritually equivalent to human beings, and should have comparable rights.

The constitutions of the United States and of individual States give them the right to hold that belief, and to practice it in their personal lives.

No state, however, should enact legislation that effectively imposes this ideology on others by criminalizing activities that Animal Rights adherents believe others should not engage in.