Pet stores selling commercially raised puppies cause a world of hurt
USDA-licensed breeders can legally confine breeding dogs to stacked, wire cages only six inches larger than their bodies for their entire lives. Photo by Getty Images.
An innocent look. A wag of a tail. It's kind of hard to resist the tug on your heart to buy the dog you see in a pet store window. The problem is that buying a pet shop puppy amounts to a direct investment in the cruel puppy mill industry, which treats parent dogs as breeding machines and puppies as mere products.
Sad to say, public records show that the puppy mill-to-pet store pipeline is thriving in Minnesota. We've connected puppy stores in the state to puppy mill facilities cited by the United States Department of Agriculture or a state agency for numerous violations of animal welfare laws. There are likely more Minnesota puppy mills cited for violations and involved in-state sales to pet shops, but there are limits to what we can determine since Minnesota state inspection reports are not made public.
Even so, the simple fact that pet shops are sourcing dogs from puppy mills with violations remains disturbing, not least because the bar for legal compliance is so incredibly low. USDA-licensed breeders can legally confine breeding dogs to stacked, wire cages only six inches larger than their bodies for their entire lives. They can repeatedly and excessively breed dogs without limits, and they can kill dogs they no longer want.
In a disturbing appraisal of federal inspection activities, a new internal audit by the USDA's Inspector General documented major deficiencies in enforcement. The report stated that the pattern of continued noncompliance with Animal Welfare Act requirements by licensed dog breeders 'poses a threat to the well-being and safety of their dogs, leaving them vulnerable to neglect, mistreatment and suffering.'
Here in Minnesota, the puppy mill issue got so bad in Winona County that the County Commission voted to pursue a permanent ban on new breeders.
Luckily, the solution to the puppy store problem is simple. There is a bill in the Legislature, SF 1943/HF 2627, that would phase out the sale of puppies in pet shops, banning any new stores from selling puppies and holding existing stores accountable for their sourcing of animals.
This legislation tackles puppy mill cruelty, but breeding conditions are just the first stop when it comes to welfare issues in the dismal puppy mill-to-pet shop pipeline. It gets worse. Weeks-old puppies endure grueling and often filthy transports, and they are so likely to be sick they are often pumped with antibiotics, which has led to antibiotic-resistant infections that have spread to humans.
Far too often, too, families end up with sick puppies, steep veterinary bills and heartbreak. They can also fall victim to predatory lending schemes when they take out a loan to pay the exorbitant price that puppy stores charge — often paying thousands of dollars and high interest rates.
In fact, several customers have told the Minnesota Senate their story about buying sick dogs from a local puppy store, with some accounts that end with the death of their cherished pets.
In-store conditions are troubling too. Humane World for Animals — formally called the Humane Society of the United States — has conducted undercover puppy store investigations across the nation and nearly each time we have uncovered awful in-store conditions, sick puppies and connections to puppy mills. Our most recent investigation, released in January 2025, detailed a heartbreaking scene in a Nevada store: In the store's back room, a tiny brown-and-white Havanese puppy was vomiting and lethargic — and left entirely alone to suffer. Staff members failed to take the puppy to a veterinarian, and she later died. This is a common story at pet shops around the country — ailing puppies denied veterinary care and even a measure of human kindness.
The massive animal welfare and consumer protection problems posed by puppy stores have led eight states and nearly 500 localities, including nine in Minnesota, to ban the sale of puppies in pet shops. Our state lawmakers should do the same.
This is a commonsense policy because no Minnesotan needs a pet shop to find the pet of their choice. Shelters, rescues and responsible breeders who go to great lengths to care for their dogs and only sell puppies directly to consumers will remain great options for pet acquisition. We are lucky to have a wide network of responsible breeders in the region, including 37 breeders who refuse to sell their puppies to pet stores, and have signed a letter acknowledging that only a puppy mill would do so.
Further, no pet shop needs to sell puppies to be profitable. According to the American Pet Products Association, Americans spent $147 billion on their pets in 2023, with food, treats and product spending dominating. Pet spending is predicted to have 'solid year-over-year growth through 2030.' Similarly, Morgan Stanley reported the pet industry is 'poised to nearly triple to $275 billion by 2030 thanks to a surge in new owners, favorable demographics and increased per-pet spending.'
Any puppy store owner would be smart to transition away from the sale of puppies and towards a pet products and services model. Many have, including Angel's Pet World in Hudson, Wisconsin, whose owner stated in her testimony to the Minnesota Senate, 'some people ask me how that decision impacted my sales… within 2 years, our customer base grew about 70%.'
SF1943/HF2627, led by Sens. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis and Jim Abeler, R-Anoak, and Reps. Matt Norris, Blaine, and Elliott Engen, R-White Bear Township, is a long overdue, bipartisan animal welfare and consumer protection measure that promises to bring genuine improvements in this area of concern.
This issue is a matter of great public import and goes to the very heart of our duties of mercy and kindness toward animals.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


WIRED
an hour ago
- WIRED
A Political Battle Is Brewing Over Data Centers
Jun 10, 2025 2:56 PM An AI-related provision in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' could restrict state-level legislation of energy-hungry data centers—and is raising bipartisan objections across the US. A data center in Sterling, Virginia. Photograph: Gerville/ Getty Images A 10-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation included in President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' has brushed up against a mounting battle over the growth of data centers. On Thursday, Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, posted on X that the megabill's 10-year block on states regulating artificial intelligence could 'make it easier for corporations to get zoning variances, so massive AI data centers could be built in close proximity to residential areas.' Massie, who did not vote for the bill, followed up his initial tweet with a screenshot of a story on a proposed data center in Oldham County, Kentucky, which downsized and changed locations following local pushback. 'This isn't a conspiracy theory; this was a recent issue in my Congressional district,' he wrote of concerns over the placement of data centers. 'It was resolved at the local level because local officials had leverage. The big beautiful bill undermines the ability of local communities to decide where the AI data centers will be built.' The same day, the National Conference of State Legislatures, a nonpartisan group representing state lawmakers around the country, sent a letter to the Senate urging it to reject the AI provision. Barrie Tabin, the legislative director of the NCSL, told WIRED that the organization had heard directly from multiple state lawmakers who were concerned about how the moratorium may affect data center legislation. Laws passed by local legislatures, the letter states, 'empower communities to weigh in on data center sitings, protecting ratepayers from increasing utility costs, preserving local water resources, and maintaining grid stability.' Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, who admitted that she hadn't read the provision in the bill when she voted for it, posted a long response to Massie in which she compared AI to Skynet, the fictional AI from the Terminator movie franchise. 'I'm not voting for the development of skynet and the rise of the machines by destroying federalism for 10 years by taking away state rights to regulate and make laws on all AI,' she wrote on X. 'Forcing eminent domain on people's private properties to link the future skynet is not very Republican.' Since its introduction in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the AI moratorium has drawn widespread criticism, including from some major AI companies, for what some say is a heavy-handed regulation of all state AI laws for the next decade. On the other hand, supporters of the moratorium—including White House AI adviser and venture capital investor David Sacks—say that the proliferation of state-level AI laws is creating a patchwork of policies that will stifle innovation if they continue to be passed. A senior official directly involved in negotiations in the Energy and Commerce Committee told WIRED that restricting states' rights over data centers, including the use of water, is not the intent of the moratorium—something lawmakers should have 'communicated better.' Rather, the goal was to establish a framework for regulating AI models at the federal level and to avoid any confusion that might come with a patchwork of state policies. 'I think it's the right policy, for us to take a national standard,' they said. While the intent of the AI moratorium may not have been to regulate physical infrastructure, the reaction from Massie illustrates just how much of a hot-button issue data centers are becoming across the country. The rapid growth in the number of data centers across the US has seen a corresponding rise in local pushback against them. While the projects bring in tax dollars, they often use massive amounts of electricity and water. A recent BloombergNEF analysis found that AI's electricity demand in the US is expected to triple by 2035, while in Virginia data centers currently use as much electricity as 60 percent of the households in the state. A recent report from Data Center Watch, a project run by AI intelligence firm 10a Labs, found that local opposition to data centers has blocked or delayed their development in many places across the country over the past two years, with Data Center Watch counting more than 140 activist groups working across 24 states. The report noted that pushback against data center construction is 'bipartisan,' with both Republican and Democratic politicians making public statements opposing data centers in their districts. 'From noise and water usage to power demands and property values, server farms have become a new target in the broader backlash against large-scale development,' the report notes. 'The landscape of local resistance is shifting—and data centers are squarely in the crosshairs.' In Virginia, data centers have already reshaped political battle lines: In Prince William County in 2023, the chair of county supervisors was ousted in 2023 following community opposition to a new data center complex. Data centers also played a starring role at a recent debate for the Republican primary for Virginia's 21st state House district, with candidates focusing on issues around tax rates and zoning for data centers. Whoever wins that Republican primary later this month will face incumbent Josh Thomas, a Democrat, in the election for the seat in November. Thomas says that data centers have become a front-and-center issue since he took office in 2022. 'I wanted to run to help give families a place to live and help women keep their reproductive rights, but turns out, data centers ended up being local issue number one,' he says. Thomas has filed several pieces of legislation around data center growth since taking office; one passed with bipartisan support this spring but was vetoed by Governor Glenn Youngkin. The AI moratorium in the megabill, sources tell WIRED, was spearheaded in the House Energy and Commerce Committee by Representative Jay Obernolte, a California Republican. Obernolte is the chair of the bipartisan House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence, which worked over the course of 2024 to form policy recommendations for how to sponsor and address the growth of AI at the federal level. While the group's final report did not mention state-level data center laws specifically, it did acknowledge the 'challenges' of AI's high energy demand and made recommendations around energy consumption, including strengthening 'efforts to track and project AI data center power usage.' In March, Obernolte described the recommendations in the Task Force's report as a 'future checklist' at an event hosted in March by the Cato Institute, a right-wing think tank. Obernolte, who said at the event that he had conferred with White House advisers including Sacks on AI policy, also said that states were 'acting on their own' with regards to legislating AI models—a situation, he added, that made it imperative for Congress to begin regulating AI as soon as possible. 'We need to make it clear to the states what the guardrails are,' Obernolte said. 'We need to do this all at once.' It's not clear if the moratorium will survive the Senate. On Friday, Punchbowl News reported that Senator Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, will work with Democrats to remove the AI moratorium from the final bill text.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Henderson's experience? Another Le Fee? Fans on replacing Bellingham
[Getty Images] We asked for your views on what the impact of Jobe Bellingham's transfer will be, and how you would like the money reinvested at Sunderland. Here are some of your comments: Freddie: I would love to see another Enzo le Fee type name linked. Ardon Jashari from Club Brugge or Mohamed Camara from Monaco would be excellent business, sticking to our model of buying young and selling big. Advertisement Andrew: It was inevitable Jobe would move on and his comments today show maturity beyond his years. Best wishes to you and your family, Jobe. Tim: I don't see Sunderland rushing through any deals. I'd much prefer them to secure the right players at the right price. Jordan Henderson would be a great addition, with experience, but not if he is demanding silly wages. I do believe some of our current players will step up a level so a handful of new additions with experience would be great to see. Colin: Good luck to Jobe. He wants to play at the highest level in the Champions League and we have got a fair price, which I hope will be used to improve the squad! Graeme: Huge loss to Sunderland, but have total faith in club with replenishing the squad. Best wishes to Jobe (the adopted Mackem)!
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Calavo (CVGW) Stock Trades Down, Here Is Why
Shares of fresh produce company Calavo Growers (NASDAQ:CVGW) fell 17.3% in the afternoon session after the company reported weak first-quarter 2025 (fiscal Q2) results, which fell short of Wall Street's estimates across all key metrics, including sales, operating profit, and earnings per share. Top-line growth benefited from higher average avocado prices, which offset a year-on-year decline in volume. The volume decline was attributed to constrained supply out of Mexico and USDA inspection delays. Looking ahead, management expects volume growth to pick up, driven by new customer wins and expanded programs with existing accounts, as well as continued strength from the California avocado season. Overall, this quarter could have been better. The stock market overreacts to news, and big price drops can present good opportunities to buy high-quality stocks. Is now the time to buy Calavo? Access our full analysis report here, it's free. Calavo's shares are somewhat volatile and have had 13 moves greater than 5% over the last year. But moves this big are rare even for Calavo and indicate this news significantly impacted the market's perception of the business. The biggest move we wrote about over the last year was 9 months ago when the stock gained 12.4% on the news that the company reported strong second-quarter results. Revenue and adjusted EBITDA beat expectations, even if the magnitude of the beat was small. Keeping up with the positive theme, management's commentary was constructive: "Our third quarter results reflect continued momentum in our flagship avocado temporary industry supply disruptions from Mexico during the quarter, we generated strong financial results due to our operational flexibility." Lastly, peer Mission Produce (AVO) also reported strong results on the same day, showing that the industry seemed healthy. Calavo is down 8.6% since the beginning of the year, and at $23.30 per share, it is trading 21.4% below its 52-week high of $29.64 from September 2024. Investors who bought $1,000 worth of Calavo's shares 5 years ago would now be looking at an investment worth $397.61. Here at StockStory, we certainly understand the potential of thematic investing. Diverse winners from Microsoft (MSFT) to Alphabet (GOOG), Coca-Cola (KO) to Monster Beverage (MNST) could all have been identified as promising growth stories with a megatrend driving the growth. So, in that spirit, we've identified a relatively under-the-radar profitable growth stock benefiting from the rise of AI, available to you FREE via this link.