There are a lot of problems with their business, but it is hard to make out the people involved to be completely evil or complete monsters based on just the information given.
Once they are at the point where they have more dogs than they have money to maintain, what are they supposed to do? They claimed to try to adopt them out or sell them. Maybe they did a bad job of that or didn't try hard, but we don't have evidence of that either way at the moment. It doesn't seem helpful to complain of them putting down dogs, then also complain how others had malnourished and poorly cared for dogs as a result of not doing so. Them going out of business or otherwise dumping the dogs on some shelter probably would result in the same outcome for the dogs, while costing the shelter money that would have helped other animals. The vet refusing to help might have contributed to things being worse too, which is why a lot of vets won't refuse to put down healthy animals when they know the alternative is the owner doing a worse job of it.
This isn't to absolve them of wrong doing, just to say given the information in the articles, they were in a bad situation and their options could have been quite limited. Passing heavy judgement on that seems premature, especially if people are actually investigating this instead of just making assumptions on limited information.
More constructive responses would be to prevent the situation from coming up again. Banning such businesses is simple, although has other dislikes and problems. Maybe a better middle ground would be to require such businesses have money set aside for a dog's lifetime of basic care before being allowed to get the dog. So then regardless of what happens afterwards, money would not be an issue for the dogs.
There are a lot of problems with their business, but it is hard to make out the people involved to be completely evil or complete monsters based on just the information given.
Once they are at the point where they have more dogs than they have money to maintain, what are they supposed to do? They claimed to try to adopt them out or sell them. Maybe they did a bad job of that or didn't try hard, but we don't have evidence of that either way at the moment. It doesn't seem helpful to complain of them putting down dogs, then also complain how others had malnourished and poorly cared for dogs as a result of not doing so. Them going out of business or otherwise dumping the dogs on some shelter probably would result in the same outcome for the dogs, while costing the shelter money that would have helped other animals. The vet refusing to help might have contributed to things being worse too, which is why a lot of vets won't refuse to put down healthy animals when they know the alternative is the owner doing a worse job of it.
This isn't to absolve them of wrong doing, just to say given the information in the articles, they were in a bad situation and their options could have been quite limited. Passing heavy judgement on that seems premature, especially if people are actually investigating this instead of just making assumptions on limited information.
More constructive responses would be to prevent the situation from coming up again. Banning such businesses is simple, although has other dislikes and problems. Maybe a better middle ground would be to require such businesses have money set aside for a dog's lifetime of basic care before being allowed to get the dog. So then regardless of what happens afterwards, money would not be an issue for the dogs.