Most dog lovers know about the often horrid conditions of puppy mills, the unregulated breeding facilities owned by disreputable breeders. Dogs are often bred far too frequently, are kept cramped together in squalor, and are not socialized with humans. In addition, these breeders do not always care about the health and strength of the breed, which often results in genetic illnesses, poor health in general and unlikable personality traits. But many of these same dog aficionados, who have t-shirts and bumper stickers denouncing puppy mills, don't know that most puppies sold at pet stores come from there.

There are some pet stores that buy their puppies from commercial kennels regulated by the Department of Agriculture. However, even these pups tend to be unhealthy and unsocialized. This is partly due to the fact that commercial kennels tend to breed many different breeds in one facility and they breed for quantity, not quality. Therefore, their interest does not lie in the healthy promotion of a certain breed but rather in how many sales they can get. So, before you buy that cute puppy in the window, consider the downsides of pet store pups:
10 Reasons Not to Buy From a Pet Store

1. Bad Health: Because so many pet store pups come from puppy mills, they are not the result of careful breeding and they are usually not well cared for before coming to the store. Some common illnesses and conditions are neurological problems, eye problems, hip dysplasia, blood disorders and Canine Parvovirus.

2. Behavioral Problems: Because breeding is indiscriminate, behavioral problems are not weeded out generationally. You'll also find that a pet store's staff is not likely to have any training in dealing with behavior issues so the puppies continue to do the wrong things, which become habit.

3. No Socialization: Pet stores pups are often pulled away from their litter at far too young an age, often at only four or five weeks. The earliest a puppy should be separated from his pack is eight weeks and most reputable breeders will say at least 10 weeks. This lack of time socializing with his siblings means that puppy will not develop important canine skills. Likewise, a puppy who has not been handled by people from about three weeks will not naturally socialize well with them.

4. The Downfall of the Standard: In a broad sense, purchasing a puppy from a pet store and then breeding her means you are ruining the standard of that breed because the previous breeders were not concerned with it.

5. Lack of Information: A member of a pet store staff is not an expert on a breed and often not on dogs in general. Purchasing a puppy from a store means you will not get the lowdown on that breed or likely help with any behavioral or other questions.

6. Return at Your Puppy's Peril: Most pet stores do offer a warranty of sorts where you can bring the puppy back if he has problems. They don't tend to tell customers that the puppy's fate, once returned, is usually euthanization.

7. Housebreaking is a Chore: Pet store puppies have spent all their short lives in cages. They do not have the opportunity to develop the natural canine instinct of eliminating away from their food and bed. This causes problems when you try to housebreak them.

8. What You See Isn't Necessarily What You Get: If you see what looks like a Maltese in the window, you may find, as she grows, that there's a little Maltese in there somewhere but mostly she looks like a Terrier. There is no guarantee you will get a purebred dog if that's what you're after.

9. Poor Value: A puppy from a pet store generally costs between $400 and $2,000. This is often more than you'd pay at a reputable breeder who can ensure you get a healthy puppy and provide support afterward.

10. Questionable Pedigree: You're paying for a pedigree, or AKC papers, when you buy a puppy from a pet store but it's very likely that it's not genuine. If the papers are genuine, it still doesn't mean the puppy is a good example of its breed - you need a reputable breeder to prove that.

What are our options other than pet store puppies? Find a reputable breeder or adopt your next dog from the local animal shelter or breed-specific rescues!

Reputable breeders are knowledgeable about the breed they represent and can help with behavioral and physical issues that might come up later. These breeders socialize their puppies early on, breed in good traits and breed out bad ones and they can show you your puppies' parents and give you their history. Human Societies, local animal shelters and breed rescues are all good places to look. True, you don't have the benefit of meeting your pup's parents but rescued puppies are thoroughly examined for any illness or condition, are socialized by staff and trained early on. Also, if you adopt a mixed puppy you will likely find he is very healthy as mutts are often healthier than purebreds.

So the next time you see that adorable puppy in the window, pause and think about the downsides of pet store pups. Buying from such a store is, in essence, supporting them and the horrible practice of puppy mills. And it is also almost a sure bet that you'll have a bad experience.

You probably can guess our answer. anything to open the awareness of animal abuse should be done at this point. We believe we simple eons behind in what we should be doing to help and preserve animal life.

Here is the story:

Cruelty to animals, it is said, is often a precursor to graver crimes. So would there not be some usefulness to a registry of individuals convicted of felony animal abuse? Legislators in California want the Golden State to be the first to establish such a record — just as California was the first in the nation to create a registry of sex offenders.

The goal of the registry, which would list crimes against both pets and farm animals, is to make it easier for shelters and animal-adoption groups to identify people who shouldn't be allowed access to animals. It would also be a boon to law enforcement because animal abuse, the bill's authors' say, often escalates to violence against people. Abuses covered in the bill would include the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding or killing of a living animal. It would also target pet hoarders and operators of animal-fighting rings (such as dog-baiting and cockfighting) who have felony convictions.

"We think California is primed for this kind of a bill," says state senate majority leader Dean Florez, who introduced the bill in late February. "We've progressed to the point where we as a legislature are moving in a direction of this bill, which is ultimately, How do we in essence prevent repeat offenses when it comes to cruelty to animals in the state of California?" It is an issue that, Florez says, Californians care for deeply. About 60% of California residents own pets, he says; add in farm animals, and 80% of the population has some kind of ownership of animals. (See pictures of people raising goats in Oakland, Calif.)

The bill's biggest stumbling block may be the funding it would require. Created with the assistance of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the bill would raise the approximately $500,000 to $1 million necessary for its launch through a 2- or 3-cent tax per pound of pet food, says Florez, a Democrat who is chairman of the Food and Agriculture Committee. He estimated that after it's launch, the project could cost between $300,000 to $400,000 a year to maintain. Yet even that relatively small amount has some organizations, including a national pet-product trade group and even the Humane Society, raising concerns. Jennifer Fearing, California senior state director and chief economist for the U.S. Humane Society, supports the measure's aims but worries about whether it can get passed. Says Fearing: "I would be shocked if this legislature is prepared to enact any tax this year, much less one levied on pet owners who are struggling to care for their animals, when many of them are dropping them off at shelters."

Ed Rod, vice president of government affairs for the American Pet Products Association, says the proposal is inherently inequitable."You're looking at pet owners paying for something that's really going to benefit everyone," says Rod. "And animal abuse certainly affects pets, but it also affects agricultural animals as well, and in this case I don't believe there is any provision to impose a fee on livestock feed. The goal we support, certainly, but we think this is kind of a blunt instrument to reach that goal."

There may be other ways to fund the registry. Fearing says the Humane Society supported a similar law in Tennessee that called for those convicted of animal abuse to pay $50 toward the cost of an animal-abusers registry. The bill, however, was defeated. Florez says having offenders pay a fee toward the operation of the registry is also under consideration in the California legislation.

Even if those convicted of animal-abuse felonies were charged a fee, however, that may not be enough to cover the cost of the registry, since only a small percentage of animal-abuse cases result in felony charges, according to Madeline Bernstein, president of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Los Angeles. "The bottom line is that there aren't a lot of felony convictions for animal abuse in the state of California," says Bernstein. The proposal also puts an added burden on local police — operating at a time of state funding cuts — by requiring them to gather registry information on convicted felons and transfer the information to the Department of Justice within three days of collection.

Despite the obstacles, Florez expects to push the legislation as far as it can go. Could he get the two-thirds majority required to turn the bill into law — particularly from the Republican minority that pledged not to raise taxes? "In this case," he says, "the issue is simple. Do Republican members ... really want to be seen on the side of animal abuse? I don't think they do."

A small Arizona restaurant found itself at the center of a nationwide backlash that included a bomb threat after it announced plans to offer lion burgers this week as part of a World Cup promotion.

But following the supply chain back to the mom-and-pop butcher that processed the alleged lion meat turns up an even more bizarre tale.

The story started when Cameron Selogie, owner of Il Vinaio restaurant in Mesa, Ariz., bought about 10 pounds of so-called African lion meat, planning to mix it with ground beef to make burgers honoring the FIFA World Cup's South African location. Selogie sent an e-mail newsletter to his restaurant's patrons advertising the special.

That newsletter -- which was the sole publicity Selogie had planned -- exploded into a media blitz when one of the e-mail recipients turned out to be an animal activist.

She spread word to a local TV station, and the news has since circled the globe, even garnering a brief write-up in the online version of London's Daily Telegraph.

Lion burgers are an attention-grabbing idea, but it raises the question: How, exactly, does an Arizona restaurant manage to get its hands on African lion meat?

Welcome to the mysterious world of back-alley exotic meat purveyance.

Selogie said he bought the meat through a Phoenix distributor, Gourmet Imports-Wild Game -- a one-man operation owned by Rick Worrilow. Selogie says he did his research, and was told that the meat came from a free-range farm in Illinois that is regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Meanwhile, Worrilow, who essentially serves as a middleman between farms, meat processors and restaurants, also said the meat came from a completely legal plant in Illinois. And even though he didn't know the name of that plant, Worrilow said he was confident that the meat was inspected by federal regulators.

So where's this supposed African lion farm in Illinois?

Well, here's one clue: When the meat arrived at Il Vinaio on Tuesday evening, Selogie said it came in packaging with the name "Czimer's Game & Sea Foods."

Czimer isn't a free-range farm. It's a butcher shop located just outside of Chicago in Homer Glen, Ill.
Lions, ligers and bears ...

Czimer's website advertises standard wild game: pheasants, quail, ducks, venison, buffalo and so on. But then, sprinkled through the product list, some wilder offerings pop up. Like llama leg roasts. Or camel cutlets.

And African lion meat. You can snag it in shoulder roast, steak, tenderloin or burger form -- or, for a bargain, try the ribs at $10 a pound.

So where does Richard Czimer, the company's owner, get these lions?

The meat is the byproduct of a skinning operation owned by another man, Czimer said in an interview with CNNMoney.com. He declined to name that gentleman.

"This man buys and sells animals for the skin, and when I need something and he has ability to get it, I will bargain for the meat. It's a byproduct," he said.

And where does that mystery man get the lions? "I wouldn't have any idea," said Czimer, who operates a small retail store in addition to his wholesale business. "He has his sources, and I do not infringe on his business, just as he does not infringe on mine."

He's willing to take a hands-off approach: "Do you question where chickens come from when you go to Brown's Chicken or Boston Market?" he asked.

Czimer's exotic-meat dealings have landed him in hot water before. Back in 2003, Chicago newspapers covered his conviction and six-month prison sentence for selling meat from federally protected tigers and leopards. Czimer admitted to purchasing the carcasses of 16 tigers, four lions, two mountain lions and one liger -- a tiger-lion hybrid -- which were skinned, butchered and sold as "lion meat," for a profit of more than $38,000.

His supply chain may be murky, but like the Arizona restaurateur and the meat salesman, he expressed total certainty that his lion meat is USDA-approved and thoroughly inspected by regulators before it reaches his processing plant.

But here's a twist: The USDA says it doesn't inspect lions bred for meat. That's the job of the Food and Drug Administration.

Is it legal to eat lions? Yes, according to the FDA's communications team. The African lion isn't currently a federally protected endangered species and it qualifies as a game meat, FDA spokesman Michael Herndon said in an e-mail.

While the African lion is not considered endangered by U.S. regulators, it is classified as "threatened" by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, an international protection agreement.

As for Czimer, his shop is officially registered with the FDA and has been inspected by state regulators, Heardon said.

Meanwhile, back in Arizona, Selogie is taking the protests in stride. He plans to have bins of ice water outside for picketers who brave Arizona's 100-degree heat to protest as he serves up the burgers on Wednesday and Thursday night.

"I do feel bad that people are so concerned about this. But for most people, this is the king of the jungle and that's the only reason they can give me for their concern," he said. "We're not doing anything to endanger the species."

Had it not been for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, federal investigators might never have known about conditions inside U.S. Global Exotics, the "massive international exotic-animal wholesale facility in Arlington" raided on December 15. For seven months, PETA had a man on the inside gathering evidence that owners Jasen and Vanessa Shaw were allowing tens of thousands of exotic animals to live -- and, in most instances, die slow, horrible deaths -- in what PETA calls "continuous, cruel confinement." As a result, U.S. Global Exotics was shut down -- and now, Jasen Shaw's on the run, a fugitive from federal authorities who allege, among other things, that he violated the Lacey Act.

Following this morning's story about Shaw's apparent run to his native New Zealand, PETA's David Perle, in its D.C. office, directs our attention to its newly updated Web site filled with graphic, often grisly, footage -- the very evidence it used to convince federal authorities to raid the facility shortly before Christmas. The special section devoted to U.S. Global Exotics is called "To Hell and Back: A Journey Inside the Pet Trade," and, fair warning, it lives up to its name.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday forcefully struck down a federal law aimed at banning depictions of dog fighting and other violence against animals, saying it violated constitutional guarantees of free speech and created a "criminal prohibition of alarming breadth."

The 8 to 1 ruling, written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment's protection of even distasteful expression. Roberts called "startling and dangerous" the government's argument that the value of certain categories of speech should be weighed against their societal costs when protecting free speech.

"The First Amendment itself reflects a judgment by the American people that the benefits of its restrictions on the government outweigh the costs," Roberts wrote. "Our Constitution forecloses any attempt to revise that judgment simply on the basis that some speech is not worth it."

The decision was the second major First Amendment ruling of the term, and far more unified than the first. In January, a divided court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions have a right to use their general treasuries and profits to spend freely on political ads for and against specific candidates.

Paul M. Smith, a Washington lawyer who had filed an amicus brief in the animal cruelty case on behalf of civil libertarians who opposed the law, called it "quite a strong decision" and said it was more evidence of a "court that is moving in the direction of strong enforcement of the First Amendment."

The law was enacted in 1999 to forbid sales of so-called crush videos. They appeal to a certain sexual fetish by depicting the torture of animals -- cats, dogs, monkeys, mice and hamsters, according to Congress -- or showing them being crushed to death by women wearing stiletto heels or with their bare feet. While dog-fighting and other forms of animal cruelty are already illegal, Congress said the legislation was necessary to stop the production of videos for commercial gain.

But the government has not used the law to prosecute any producer of a crush video. Instead, the case before the court, United States v. Stevens, involves Robert Stevens of Pittsville, Va., who was sentenced to three years in prison for making videos of pit bulls fighting. An appeals court overturned the conviction when it ruled the law was unconstitutional.

Roberts' opinion said the court was not passing judgment about whether a narrower statute limited just to crush videos and "other depictions of extreme animal cruelty" might be constitutional.

But the court said the legislation passed by Congress was far too broad. Anyone who "creates, sells or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty" for commercial gain can be imprisoned for up to five years. A depiction of cruelty was defined as one in which "a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed."

Roberts wrote that the definition was so loose that it could include all depictions of wounding or killing animals, even hunting videos or magazines. He said the law's exemption for works of "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value" was not enough protection, and the court was not reassured by the government's argument that prosecutions were rare.

"We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly," he wrote.

Besides, he added, when President Bill Clinton signed the measure into law, he said the Justice Department would limit prosecutions to "wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex." That was not the case in the Stevens prosecution.

The court has identified only certain categories of speech as outside the First Amendment's protection: obscenity, fraud, incitement, defamation and speech integral to criminal conduct. The last time the court decided speech was so unredeeming it did not deserve such protection was 25 years ago, and the subject was child pornography.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was the lone dissenter in Tuesday's opinion.

He said the law was enacted "not to suppress speech, but to prevent horrific acts of animal cruelty." He said that the entire law need not be found unconstitutional, and that the "practical effect" of the ruling would be to spur production of crush videos, which opponents such as the Humane Society of the United States said had decreased with passage of the 1999 law.

Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle said his organization was prepared for the court's ruling given the tough questioning of justices at oral arguments last fall. "We're hopeful that a more narrowly tailored law aimed at vicious and illegal acts of cruelty" would pass constitutional muster, he said, adding that work already is underway with supportive members of Congress.

David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, said in a statement that the court rightly decided that if the First Amendment were rewritten "every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn't have any free speech left."

Horowitz -- whose organization represents publishers, booksellers and producers, and retailers of movies, videos and video games -- said that "animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer."

A young 37-foot whale stranded on the shore in West Seattle, and it had a summary of what we're doing to our oceans held within its stomach. As photographer Chris Jordan documented in birds' guts, our marine animals are filling up not on nutritious sea life, but the junk we toss out that makes its way into the oceans. Fifty gallons of contents were examined from this near-adult male gray whale, and you won't believe some of the garbage this poor beast had swallowed.

According to Cascadia Research Collective, 50 gallons of stomach contents were sorted through. Most of it was real food - algae and other bits common to a gray whale diet - but also included were more than 20 plastic bags, small towels, surgical gloves, sweat pants, plastic pieces, duct tape, and a golf ball.

If there were any doubt before, there is none now - the ocean has become a landfill. However, if there's a bit of a silver lining, the trash made up just about 2% of the total contents, and it doesn't seem to have been the cause of death. But what Cascadia Research points out, "It did clearly indicate that the whale had been attempting to feed in industrial waters and therefore exposed to debris and contaminants present on the bottom in these areas."

Gray whales are bottom feeders and get their nutrition from the sediments in shallow waters. They filter small organisms as their food, but apparently they aren't always able to filter out human pollution. Researchers are currently studying the whale to find out the cause of death, which could be anything from not getting enough food (three other whales that died in April during migration appeared emaciated and perhaps didn't get enough to eat in Alaska last year) to pollution and chemicals in the water. The results won't be known for several weeks.

Who knew that they still even had animals in a Circus, I thought it evolved into Cirque Du Soleil type stuff a decade ago. Well if they do still abuse animals so random carny weirdos can travel middle America for the sake of a desperate mealiness life then I stand by Olivia Munn... it's time to shut this down!

Date Night and Iron Man 2 star Olivia Munn has been so upset by the poor way circus elephants have been treated, that she she strips down to her bare skin in a new PETA awareness campaign!

“I had seen a video online about the mistreatment and abuse of these elephants at the Ringling Bros. Circus Events and I was brought to tears,” Olivia says. “When you look at something like the circus and everyone is laughing and there is color and music and everything seems so great, but go right behind that door, they are in these crates all day long. They’re getting shocked and beat, just so that they can get up and dance around on a ball. It was just so sickening!”

Olivia asks everyone at home to get the message out. “Every extra person that hears about it, helps,” she explains.

Mostly, Olivia wants people to “STOP GOING TO THE CIRCUS!”

A male orangutan weighs 250 lbs. Although the apes are trained to pretend to be knocked out, they could easily hurt one another in the boxing ring. They could also hurt, or even kill, a human trainer. We've already seen this movie, both at Seaworld and at the Circus, we should know how it ends: a captive wild animal will eventually kill a human trainer.

The Thai government was right to ban this bizarre animal cruelty six years ago. It isn't clear why the ban was lifted.

The Safari World website advertises the orangutan boxing: "Your closest cousins will tickle you with their keen sense of humor and dazzle you with their mathematical gifts." I'm not sure what mathematical gifts Safari World believes orangutan boxing exhibits, but abusing our endangered "closest cousins" definitely doesn't add up.

Tell the Thai government to permanently ban orangutan boxing.

More information from CNN Orangutan Boxing

UPDATE: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the poachers were attacked by Rhinos. It was the hippos.

Poaching seems quite a bit less appealing today after an incident that occurred in South Africa. All that remains of one man, who entered Kruger National Park with the intent of illegally hunting animals, is his skull and a few scraps of clothing. After he and two companions snuck into the nature reserve under cover of night to check some illegal traps they had assembled, they were apparently ambushed by a group of angry hippos. The three men all ran in different directions, but only two made it out of the park with their lives. The third, park officials say, was devoured by lions.

According to the report from BBC Brasil, the two hunters who escaped the park after being chased by rhinos hippos informed their unlucky partner's family of the grim news. The family then told officials, who later found the man's remains--which were few after the man had been taken for a meal by lions in the park.

Officials aren't sure exactly which animal killed the poacher, telling the Mirror:

It appears the dead man was charged and injured by hippos. It's impossible to say whether he was alive or dead by the time the lions got him.

Poaching in Kruger National Park, and throughout South Africa, is not so uncommon--with rhinos being the primary victims, long hunted for their coveted horns. Recently, however, officials have stepped-up surveillance hoping to nab poachers crossing into the park.

Officials say the deceased man's two accomplices remain in custody, likely thankful to be alive. The group involved in the incident are suspected to have been poaching in the park before, setting up traps to ensnare animals.

This story should serve as a cautionary tale for any would-be poachers considering a career in illegal wildlife trade. While authorities may have their hands full when it comes to stopping hunters, there remains a more natural form of justice, lurking among the wildlife so often pillaged--and in this case justice, like dinner, was served.

The Cove exposes the slaughter of more than 20,000 dolphins and porpoises off the coast of Japan every year, and how their meat, containing toxic levels of mercury, is being sold as food in Japan and other parts of Asia, often labeled as whale meat. The majority of the world is not aware this is happening as the Taiji cove is blocked off from the public. The focus of the Social Action Campaign for The Cove is to create worldwide awareness of this annual practice as well as the dangers of eating seafood contaminated with mercury and to pressure those in power to put an end to the slaughter.

And it’s been working. The film has been making waves since it premiered last year. Critical praise and audience awards worldwide have focused international attention on Taiji and the annual dolphin drives off the coast of Japan.  Under intense pressure, Taiji called for a temporary ban on killing bottlenose dolphins. The film, which was originally rejected, was shown at the Tokyo Film Festival due to public outcry. Residents in Taiji are being tested for mercury poisoning, and for the first time Japanese media are covering the issue.

Close to a million people have signed on to the campaign, but this is just the beginning. The fisherman are clearly rattled, but haven’t stopped killing dolphins.

Visit the website here: The Cove