Editor’s note: In the Sep-Oct issue, we ran the column “Real Risk: Bans on The Sales of Pets in Stores Have a Negative Impact on the Industry,” by Pet Advocacy Network CEO Sandy Moore. We’ve received multiple letters to the editor from pet business owners about the column, including this one from Suzette Watkins of Riverside Resort for Dogs in Fort Worth, TX.
I wanted to respond to the editorial you recently published from Sandy Moore, CEO of the Pet Advocacy Network (PAN), regarding the Ethical Pet Sales Bill. As a longtime Texas retail business owner in the pet industry, I was not only disappointed by her mischaracterizations — I was deeply offended by the implication that pet professionals like myself were somehow “tricked” into supporting this important legislation.
Let me be clear: The pet business community was not fooled. We supported the Ethical Pet Sales Bill with full understanding of what it means — and why it matters. The claim that we were misled is not only patronizing, it’s flat-out inaccurate.
The legislation targets a very specific and well-documented problem: the retail sale of puppies from large-scale commercial breeding operations, commonly referred to as puppy mills. These operations have a long history of prioritizing profit over animal welfare — breeding dogs in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions with little regard for health, behavior or quality of life. Many of these puppies are transported over long distances and arrive at pet stores with infectious diseases or congenital issues. That’s not responsible breeding. That’s exploitation.
Yet Ms. Moore, in defense of the status quo, cites a USDA study that claims 1 million puppies are imported into the United States each year — suggesting this surge is caused by retail sales bans. What she fails to mention, however, is that the same study clearly states the vast majority of those dogs are personal pets traveling with their owners. That’s an important detail — one that completely changes the context of the statistic. Leaving it out feels less like an oversight and more like intentional misdirection.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time PAN has used selective data or misleading talking points to serve its narrative. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that their priority is not protecting pets or promoting responsible retail — it’s protecting the dwindling number of stores still profiting from puppy mill sales.
But here’s the truth the Pet Advocacy Network doesn’t often acknowledge: The retail pet industry has been evolving for years. In fact, in several other states where similar legislation has been introduced — including Nevada, Michigan and New Jersey — more pet retailers supported the bills than opposed them. That’s because many of us have moved on from the outdated “doggie in the window” model a long time ago. We’ve adapted to meet the expectations of today’s pet owners, who value transparency, compassion and ethical sourcing.
Independent pet retailers are increasingly partnering with local rescues, supporting responsible breeders, and focusing on health, education and quality care. We’re not just selling products — we’re building relationships with pet families and advocating for animal welfare in the process.
The growing support within the industry for legislation like the Ethical Pet Sales Bill is a reflection of our shared values — not a misunderstanding. We supported this bill because we understand the importance of improving standards, protecting animals and building a stronger, more ethical industry for the future.
So, rather than questioning why so many in our industry are moving in this direction, perhaps the better question is: Why isn’t the Pet Advocacy Network?