Today Show story on breeding
Merideth Viera has done many stories about animal health and adoption. This story was a travesty. I hope that we can muster a letter/email campaign to Ms Viera that will entice her to show the other side of responsible breeding. The only source she used for comment was the AKC and it was pitiful. You can see the story at the Today Show site, link is on the front page. I'm sending an email today when I get home. |
|
|
| I saw it.
Very sad. That poor little dog. If he/she was in any pain, I would hope the owners would do the responsible thing. As for the topic, I'm sure there are a lot of responsible breeders out there that do the right thing. And I'm sure that there are a lot of irresponsible breeders who do the wrong thing. I think it's a good idea to bring this type of bad breeding to the public's knowledge. The full show (which is a British show) will be broadcast tonight on BBC America. |
| I agree bad breeding should be brought to the attention of the public. The format used on the Today Show did not leave room for the thought of "there are good or bad breeders".
This sort of all inclusive reporting is the type of thing that prompts the actions currently taken against responsible breeders. The harrassment and threats of removing dogs will increase. It will only fuel the fire behind groups demanding all breeders be put out of business. If they want to put an end to bad breeding, lets put the spotlight on those that are guilty and highlight those that take care. |
| Maybe the responsible breeders need to contact the news to show their side of the story. If they went on and told of all that they do to produce healthy dogs, at least the public would see the other side of the coin. |
| I missed it. Today school was 2 hrs late d/t needing to get roads plowed and windchill - so Bre was watching cartoons!
Hopefully some news stories get out there to show the good, responsible side of the coin. |
wendy58 wrote: Maybe the responsible breeders need to contact the news to show their side of the story. If they went on and told of all that they do to produce healthy dogs, at least the public would see the other side of the coin.
That's my point. But if people don't step up and drive it, our beloved breed won't be around in the forseeable future. |
| Ahem...our wonderful breeders???? Where are you? |
| We need to STOP playing into the hands of the A/R by using terms like responsible breeders. Like everything else there are good and bad in every field. Lets stop apologizing for the act of breeding - unless you want to support HSUS and PETA and their goal of NO PETS.
This ia an excellent article on the problems with buying into their terminology and what dog breeding really is and what ''puppy mills'' are not.. The author is not only legal advisor to the UKC, but a very long-time breeder of Scottish terriers (Anstamm). http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/WebPages/ComDogOwnerRights posted to the UKC site, June 1, 2009 An Obituary for Words by Cindy Cooke, legislative advisor to the UKC You can’t really ban a word. In fact, an attempt to ban something often backfires, particularly in the United States, where we don’t like people censoring our speech. So I’m not going to tell you not to say “puppy mill”. I’m going to give you some very good reasons for not using that phrase. I speak to a lot of dog clubs and frequently hear dog breeders supporting so-called “anti-puppy-mill” laws. When I ask these people to define “puppy mill,” invariably the definitions given include: • People who “overbreed” their dogs; • People who don’t take care of their dogs; • People who have too many dogs; • People who breed dogs “just for money”; and • People who don’t take health issues into account when breeding their dogs. Let’s look at these definitions in turn. What is “overbreeding”? In the wild, most canids can only reproduce once a year. Most domestic dogs can have two litters a year. When I first became a dog breeder, it was almost a religious belief that no female dog should be bred more than once a year. We were told that it was important to “rest” the uterus between litters. Today, however, thanks to advances in veterinary medicine, we know that an uterus is actually damaged by the elevated progesterone levels that occur in each heat cycle, whether the dog is pregnant or not. Veterinary reproduction specialists recommend that dogs be bred on their second or third heat cycle, that we do more back-to-back breedings, and that we spay the dogs at around age six. The “overbreeding” argument also treats reproduction as something that female dogs wouldn’t do if they had a choice. Dogs aren’t people - female dogs actually want to be bred when they’re in heat and, with few exceptions, enjoy raising their puppies. It’s not an unwelcome event for dogs. People who don’t take care of their dogs are already guilty of a crime in all 50 states. There is nowhere in the United States where it is legal to neglect or abuse dogs. Sadly, a small minority of all dog breeders - commercial, home and hobby - commit neglect and abuse. Some of these do so out of ignorance, some out of laziness, and some out of meanness. All are already breaking the law. It just needs to be enforced. One of our biggest problems now is that animal radicals insist that every dog be raised like a hothouse flower. One bill proposed this year would have required every kennel to be air conditioned. Many owners of working dogs prefer that their dogs be acclimated to hot weather so that they can work when the temperature goes up. Likewise, sled dogs in the north often sleep outdoors in the snow. Dogs can live and thrive in a wide range of environments. The Arctic Circle, the jungles of Africa, and the deserts of Arabia have all produced breeds of dogs that can live happily in conditions that might not suit all dogs. It is important that we not let activists redefine the needs of dogs to the extent that we are forced to provide a brass bed and a down pillow for every animal in the kennel! What is “too many” dogs? Most of our breeds were developed by wealthy people who kept large numbers of dogs. Hound breeders traditionally kept good-sized packs, and early show breeders did as well. Now that our sport includes more mainstream people - people with jobs or people who need jobs - it’s hard for many of us to keep large numbers of dogs. There is no inherent link between numbers of dogs and neglect. People who have the resources to keep big kennels provide a service for all of us, particularly if they maintain a good number of useful stud dogs. Breeding dogs is expensive, and getting more so daily. It’s just plain silly to pretend that none of us needs the money generated by puppy sales and stud services. Without that income, the vast majority of middle class breeders could not afford this sport. When our sport was solely in the hands of rich people, it was the norm to sneer at people in “trade”, and part of that attitude was handed down to us with the culture of our sport. Today, however, the majority of us in the sport are “in trade”, in the sense that we have to work to support ourselves. Our dogs must, at least in part, support themselves or most of us would have to get out of the game. We have among us a small but vociferous group of people who think that breeders only care about producing great hunting or show dogs, and nothing about health. In fact, I’ve never met a breeder who wasn’t concerned about the health of his dogs and the health of his breed. Most health problems in dogs don’t have simple solutions, so it is only natural that breeders are often going to disagree about how to address health problems. When there’s no right answer to a question, then breeders who follow a different path than you might choose are not necessarily wrong or unconcerned. I know that many believe that commercial breeders don’t care about health, but the fact is that their professional organizations provide some of the most sophisticated health seminars in the country for their breeders. Twenty years ago, animal activists created the phrase “puppy mill”. Back then, it was only applied to commercial breeders, and then only to those who were breaking the law by neglecting their dogs. In a futile attempt to placate activists, many hobby breeders adopted the term “puppy mill” and used it to separate “them” from “us”. It was a mistake then, and it’s rapidly becoming fatal today. Every one of these so-called “anti-puppy-mill bills” has a definition that could easily include breeders of hunting and show dogs. Every time you use that phrase, you’re contributing to the idea that dog breeders need to be regulated out of existence. The message we need to send to America is that purebred dogs are good, not just because they have pedigrees, but because of their predictability, and that people should shop at least as carefully for a puppy as they do for a car. We don’t need to help the animal radicals spread their message by using their favorite term: puppy mill. |
| The clip on Today did not mention the word Puppy Mill once.
We can debate forever amongst ourselves, but until people start to take action outside of the dog world, more and more breeders will suffer through unannounced visits from local authorities. Once the people that care about health and well being are gone our breed will be left to those that hide from authorities or breed under the auspices of the USDA. |
Sheepdogma wrote: The clip on Today did not mention the word Puppy Mill once.
I never said they did - I said by using the words responsible breeder you play right into their hands just like we did when we let them coopt us into the puppy mill discussion. breeders are breeders. some are good some are bad. don't let them define the conversation. |
kerry wrote: I never said they did - I said by using the words responsible breeder you play right into their hands just like we did when we let them coopt us into the puppy mill discussion. breeders are breeders. some are good some are bad. don't let them define the conversation.
The problem boils down to the side supporting good breeding practices aren't standing up for their rights. They aren't taking the issue to the streets. The AKC was the only source used for a quote on the topic and it was pathetic. I appreciate what Cindy Cooke has to say. However it appears that she is preaching to the choir. The message needs to get out to the public. I have yet to see a news report that focuses on good breeding. |
| it shouldn't have to - a/r has convinced people that there is no such thing as responsible good breeding. we need to remind people that the conversation is really about the right to own pets. |
| Kerry, do you know what a puppy mill is? Perhaps you can do a search on the internet for pictures and videos etc. The term was created, yes, and now is part of our language, and well understood by the general public. I think we can be assured that they have no concern over the slope of a neckline, or the strength of a muscle, or the amount of white on a particular body part.
I, for one, am very glad that the term "puppy mill" was created as that is what the general public needed in order to visualise where the pet store pups (and now the internet ones) come from. I am certainly not an A/R activist, as I like to "own" my pets, thank you..... 
But there are breeders who go beyond what should be done to improve a breed. Like the ones who breed "lethal whites" in the aussie breed, or examine a line and take the stand that the genetics will probably create some puppies with known defects, but will do it anyway for the chance of a great one in the bunch. Those breeders know what they are doing. Puppy mill breeders don't give lines and genes any kind of time or studies. Perhaps you can better understand the difference if you look at them as 2 distinct groups, rather than all together, as most people do appreciate and recognize the difference.. |
kerry wrote: it shouldn't have to - a/r has convinced people that there is no such thing as responsible good breeding. we need to remind people that the conversation is really about the right to own pets.
Sorry Kerry, I respectfully disagree. If those that support and endorse good breeding practices haven't gone public, then the statement that people are convinced there is no such thing as responsible breeding is moot. The issue is, people have not been given all the information on the topic. Pet ownership is being undermined by the groups that started by attacking breeders. It's a matter of standing up for the entire topic. If we allow the breeders to be undermined without taking public issue, it's a short campaing for a/r to win everything they want. |
kindtodogs wrote: Kerry, do you know what a puppy mill is? Perhaps you can do a search on the internet for pictures and videos etc. The term was created, yes, and now is part of our language, and well understood by the general public. I think we can be assured that they have no concern over the slope of a neckline, or the strength of a muscle, or the amount of white on a particular body part.
I, for one, am very glad that the term "puppy mill" was created as that is what the general public needed in order to visualise where the pet store pups (and now the internet ones) come from. I am certainly not an A/R activist, as I like to "own" my pets, thank you..... But there are breeders who go beyond what should be done to improve a breed. Like the ones who breed "lethal whites" in the aussie breed, or examine a line and take the stand that the genetics will probably create some puppies with known defects, but will do it anyway for the chance of a great one in the bunch. Those breeders know what they are doing. Puppy mill breeders don't give lines and genes any kind of time or studies. Perhaps you can better understand the difference if you look at them as 2 distinct groups, rather than all together, as most people do appreciate and recognize the difference.. Well I for one do not make my decisions based on Internet photographs or other propaganda planted by well meaning and unsuspecting peopel. You may think you know what they are referring to when they say PM - but the next person might have a different definition. what you think of as a puppy mill is most likely already illegal in the state in which you live. what YOU don't realize is that the people defining the conversation have no interest in protecting your rights to own a pet, and indeed want to eliminate that right. by using their undefined terms - and don't kid your self you have no concrete concept of what they really mean by it - you are perpetuating their argument. Case in point, I have an intact female and an intact male - to some that makes me a breeder (regardless of the fact that I don't breed) and since my dogs may be outside playing without a proper shelter to some this makes me a puppy mill. Again, they are not two seperate things. Your lethal white breeders are unethical, but they are breeders. Regardless of what you think, you know what, the general public will always shop in puppy stores. I would venture a guess that their definition of a puppy mill is different than yours as well. But when you think of it its a nice strategy - it works for A/R. In the meantime clueless celebrities are still financing the movement to end your right to own a pet, while you rail against the undefined puppy mills. |
Quote: Well I for one do not make my decisions based on Internet photographs or other propaganda planted by well meaning and unsuspecting peopel.
The phrase was coined before the internet was commonplace. |
Anonymous wrote: Quote: Well I for one do not make my decisions based on Internet photographs or other propaganda planted by well meaning and unsuspecting peopel. The phrase was coined before the internet was commonplace. Am I the only one puzzled by this one? |
| once again a troll........someone who won't put their name to their posts. |
| To me, the piece wasn't horrible. Yes, it only told one side, but to me it was telling people to be careful as to where you get your puppies from. Just because the AKC is mentioned, doesn't mean the breeder is any good. I took away that people should do research and look for healthy dogs.
Also, I don't understand how you think animal rights activists have convinced people that any breeding is bad? That may be what the A/R want, but I really think that's stretching things a bit. People know A/R people are/can be extremists. |
| well you don't - but how many people do you think actually believe the rhetoric that any dog from a breeder kills a shelter dog?
How many people insist they just have to get a rescue dog, they couldn't possibly get one from a breeder? the messages are insiduous, as is using the language they have decided defines the conversation. |
| barney1 and kerry, it goes to my original point. Unless those promoting healthy reasonable breeding stand up and make the public aware of the other side of the story, yes the radical nutjobs will have their way.
So far, I'm not seeing anyone/group that is willing to get this information out. The AKC comment in the Today segment was so weak, it was an embarassment. It's a shame they are considered the go to expert. It's time to teach the public another set of words to believe. |
| Yes!!
First join your breed club(s) they do work behind the scenes to counteract the negative discussiosn out there. Next, look for and join your state's dog federation - in NY its DFNY they are working to 1) stop sensless legislation and 2) joining with other pet dog associations to educate State agencies as to what good pet ownership is and what the difference between hobby breeders (their term) and commercial breeders are. other groups are out there - you just need to look and volunteer your time and effort (and funding) |
| In Wisconsin it's the Dog Federation of Wisconsin. http://www.dfow.net/
Individuals can be members, as can dog clubs. I'm one of two delegates to the DFOW for the OES Club Of SE Wisconsin. Kerry is correct. Most states these days have organizations dedicated to combatting counter-productive pet legislation as well as promoting responsible dog ownership. Why can't "we" mount a successful "defense"? Excellent question. In part, probably because we're usually playing catch up. The animal rights industry has had decades (we've been headed in this direction very blatantly since the 80s, at least, though the birth of the movement goes back much further) to line their coffers and pay to get their message out there. They've been so successful (The Humane Society of the United States - HSUS - is generally the poster child for this kind of success and the driving force behind the anti-pet, anti-farming, anti-hunting, anti anti anti legislation, because they have the hundreds of millions needed to do it) they can not only hire top notch publicists to spin their message and get it out there, they can often "buy" legislators as needed. Nice work if you can get it! Wealthy converts (celebrities are always a good bet on this one) pour more millions into the cause. They drop endowments on vet schools and law schools where softhearted graduates-to-be soak up the message and are released upon the world upon graduation to further "the cause". They're darn good at what they do. You have to give them their props. And here we sit, a bunch of idiot dog people, really. The only thing we know, beyond whatever it is we do in real life to pay for our affliction (also known as "dogs"  ) is, well, dogs. We feebly try to point out that their rhetoric is just that. That rarely does it jive with science. Or fact. And that their statistics are more often than not pulled out of thin air. But, you know, we may as well be pissing in the wind most of the time.
The AKC can and will continue to take its lumps right along with us for not getting the message out, and rightly so. I didn't listen to the Today piece in question. I saw they were interviewing some Animal Rights academic and didn't have a barf bag handy here at work so had to pass. So I can only imagine what weak little defense (and we're always on the defense, it seems, not a good starting point, really) the AKC served up. Though in all fairness, often what they (and we) get, at best, are 30 second sound bites (and consider yourself lucky if you get that if your message is counter-culture, or you deal with facts rather than play on emotions -- i.e. you're BORING - sad to say, but we ARE  ) If any of you talented people have a better plan for getting the message out there in a creative, inexpensive and engaging way, your local dog federation and dog clubs desperately need your input!
We're tired. Very tired. As for the dog breeder definitions - Kerry's, and Cindy's points are well taken, the ARista's definition of a RESPONSIBLE dog breeder: a breeder who doesn't breed
All the rest of us? Puppymills. 
They OWN the language. The OWN the agenda. Bit by bit they're changing what dogs, if any, we are permitted to own, what we can eat, what we can wear, how we raise our children. It's one of the most powerful religions in recent history. And until people wake up and stop fueling them in the way that matters ($$$), well, we won't give up without a fight, but this is what we'll continue to look like  (Thank you, Ron. I knew that would come in handy some day).
Dog friends don't let dog friends donate to HSUS. You're much better off supporting your breed rescues and local shelters. And if your breed rescue or local shelter supports HSUS, well, I'd give them a good long look-see, wonder about their political agenda, and probably donate elsewhere.
Off to stock up on barf bags again.
Kristine |
| I did see the Today Show piece and was mad as hell. Which prompted me to send an email to them.
Kristine- the AKC was quoted in a one sentence statement... meanwhile the AR "expert" went onto state that no one on the US tracks health issues and we just breed for the "perfect dog". Funny that they failed to mention the AKC's Canine Health Foundation and teh Canine Genome Project, or the health surveys we conduct or the health registries we have in place. Unfortunately, breeders have been trying to speak up for years...no one is interested as Kristine so eloquently stated because we are boring...yes it's kind of true. Take a look around, the media sensationalizes everything and the public sucks for it. The person who gets their message out first and is more of a drama queen/lime light hogger gets the focus... Just as an example how many of you have been caught crying when you see those HSUS commercials or the Pedigree Adoption ads....they know how to bait a hook and fish for new supporters...emotions are where it's at people. They say that sex sells...oh no, try raw, hit you where it counts, emotions. If they have you crying they have you buying... into their load of crap. Think about that next time you see one of those commercials. How can breeders use that to their advantage? If you've got ideas we REALLY need them or as much as I hate to be an alarmist, we all may be without dogs in the future...Try to imagine life without your sheepies and then you might have a small understanding of why we are all up in arms over something as simple as a documentary. Just my 2 cents. |
| it is to bad that dog breeding isn't run like the Friesian horse breeding. FHANA judges the offspring and actually selects those studs that match the ideal standard and are later rejudged on their offspring. If the studs have too many offspring with poor conformation, quality they can lose their standing to breed. Those of us with mares can look at a studs profile and see the offspring and how they did at judging and what they excelled at (driving, pulling,dressage). You can see how many offspring went on to become the best of the best and had the fewest health issues. This probably arose since the breed was almost extinguished and the group was set up to insure quality studs and a strong genetic pool. It is frowned upon to breed a mare with a stud who does not meet the high standands and the offspring can NOT be registered with the group.
It is too bad that the AKC or any subgroup controlling a specific breed of dog doesn't move in this direction. It would show what an active role breeders are taking to insure the quality and genetics. The public might also like it since it would help weed out breeders using animals with poor of untested genes. I don't think that the general person thinks about hip or eye issues when they start their search. Most think "oh the parents are AKC registered it must be ok" It is probably unrealistic however it would be nice to look up the history on the sire and dam of that the dog I rescued. There are so many more breeders in the dog world versus the horse world but I can only hope that Bella won't develop hip or eye issues later on in life. |
sheepiegail wrote: it is to bad that dog breeding isn't run like the Friesian horse breeding. FHANA judges the offspring and actually selects those studs that match the ideal standard and are later rejudged on their offspring. If the studs have too many offspring with poor conformation, quality they can lose their standing to breed. Those of us with mares can look at a studs profile and see the offspring and how they did at judging and what they excelled at (driving, pulling,dressage). You can see how many offspring went on to become the best of the best and had the fewest health issues. This probably arose since the breed was almost extinguished and the group was set up to insure quality studs and a strong genetic pool. It is frowned upon to breed a mare with a stud who does not meet the high standands and the offspring can NOT be registered with the group.
It is too bad that the AKC or any subgroup controlling a specific breed of dog doesn't move in this direction. It would show what an active role breeders are taking to insure the quality and genetics. The public might also like it since it would help weed out breeders using animals with poor of untested genes. I don't think that the general person thinks about hip or eye issues when they start their search. Most think "oh the parents are AKC registered it must be ok" It is probably unrealistic however it would be nice to look up the history on the sire and dam of that the dog I rescued. There are so many more breeders in the dog world versus the horse world but I can only hope that Bella won't develop hip or eye issues later on in life. Well, technically you can and should do all that for any breed of dog right now. The only thing is no one certifies your dog for breeding, which, politics being what thye are is probably a good thing. As for Bella - assuming no one knows where she came from, because they would have returned a dog to the breeder if they knew who that was and it was possible, why would you assume there would be hip issues? Most dogs are in need of rehoming because they were never properly trained, not because they had a horrid beginning in life. and yes hips are a problem with this bred, but some breeders have hip issues as well as other health issues. I can't remember, did they health survey show a greater tendancy to hip issues in "rescues" than in other OES ? DO what we all do, take xrays when she is old enough, hope for the best, prepare for the worst and oh yeah - properly train your dog |
kerry wrote: I can't remember, did they health survey show a greater tendancy to hip issues in "rescues" than in other OES ?
We never specifically looked at that. The raw data is there, so I presume we could. Realistically and more relevantly what I think you would find is that dogs that came from parents that were not screened probably had higher rates of/more severe forms of CHD, whether obtained as rescues or not. And, of course, like Bella, often the parents' health screening was not known for the rescue dogs, so they would have to be excluded when looking for that particular correlation unless otherwise reported. Kristine |
sheepiegail wrote: It is too bad that the AKC or any subgroup controlling a specific breed of dog doesn't move in this direction. It would show what an active role breeders are taking to insure the quality and genetics. The public might also like it since it would help weed out breeders using animals with poor of untested genes. I don't think that the general person thinks about hip or eye issues when they start their search. Most think "oh the parents are AKC registered it must be ok" That is the heart of the issue. An AKC registered dog is the gold standard to most people - They simply assume that the dog is bred to a certain standard of health and temperament because it has been registered. In fact, many people who buy 'purebred' dogs boast about the fact their new puppy is 'registered', not realizing that registration is far from a guarantee of a sound dog. AKC accreditation is what allows dogs like that spaniel to be bred without regard to the health of the breed and sold as a purebred dog. That process needs to change, and only the AKC can do it. There is a HUGE difference between a responsible breeder who breeds for the betterment of and love of the breed, and a 'puppy mill' breeder who churns out litter after litter of unhealthy miserable dogs, in miserable conditions, for the money. The distinction must be hammered home again and again, by people who know the difference and are sick of being ostracized the A/R and, if they dare to be breeders, lumped in with the truly despicable proprietors of factory farmed animals. I love my dogs, and I will NEVER give up my right to welcome dogs into my life and home as long as I have breath in my body, to make sure that those dogs are healthy and sound and have been bred to a standard of excellence. However, neither will I stop fighting the 'people' who are churning out thousands of animals every year without regard to their health or living conditions. Puppy mill puppies are adorable, all cleaned up and fluffy but with ticking time bombs inside them that cost their owners thousands of dollars in medical bills and indescribable grief when the dog they love is too sick to save, and all the while puppy mill mom and dad are living in a crate with no solid floor, permanently glued to the mesh by their own feces encrusted coats. THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE. |
| This is coming from a person (I hate too say it I do feel really really stupid and I also really feel like I was taken advantage of)
But I found a breeder on the Internet, spoke with them they recommended another breeder who still had puppies left. I really really wanted one.... I picked my beautiful boy Frankie out from a picture. I sent them a deposit and 2 weeks later we went and picked him up. YES AKC REGISTERED not knowing to ask about anything else. I was excited he was "REGISTERED" a pure bred oes. Now my prescious boy has ocd, hip dysplasia had multiple uti's when he was a young pup and many stomach issues. I know this is going to cost us alot of money, and as long as I can make sure Frankie isn't in pain we will do whatever we have to to make him happy. Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally. Frankie and Lisa |
babysheepie wrote: Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally.
Frankie and Lisa About the only way to stop them is to make it uprofitable for them to breed. Meaning people have to quit buying on impulse from people like your breeder. They have to ask questions about health screenings. They have to demand to see proof of health screenings. And they have to walk away from those cute little puppies when these breeders can't produce those documentations. It won't guarantee you a 100% healthy dog when you do purchase one but it sure will lessen the odds of getting an unhealthy dog. |
ChSheepdogs wrote: babysheepie wrote: Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally. Frankie and Lisa About the only way to stop them is to make it uprofitable for them to breed. Meaning people have to quit buying on impulse from people like your breeder. They have to ask questions about health screenings. They have to demand to see proof of health screenings. And they have to walk away from those cute little puppies when these breeders can't produce those documentations. It won't guarantee you a 100% healthy dog when you do purchase one but it sure will lessen the odds of getting an unhealthy dog. absolutely Marian!!! why would you expect the State to define who can breed when you don't take the time to do your own homework? - and yes we have all been there. As for the dogs permanently encrusted to the mesh on their crates --- COME ON PEOPLE. that's already illegal, and probably not as common as everyone likes to think. the only thing that will come of all this responsible breeder stuff is less hobby breeders - you know ht epoeple you call responsible breeders. |
kerry wrote: ChSheepdogs wrote: babysheepie wrote: Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally. Frankie and Lisa About the only way to stop them is to make it uprofitable for them to breed. Meaning people have to quit buying on impulse from people like your breeder. They have to ask questions about health screenings. They have to demand to see proof of health screenings. And they have to walk away from those cute little puppies when these breeders can't produce those documentations. It won't guarantee you a 100% healthy dog when you do purchase one but it sure will lessen the odds of getting an unhealthy dog. absolutely Marian!!! why would you expect the State to define who can breed when you don't take the time to do your own homework? - and yes we have all been there. As for the dogs permanently encrusted to the mesh on their crates --- COME ON PEOPLE. that's already illegal, and probably not as common as everyone likes to think. the only thing that will come of all this responsible breeder stuff is less hobby breeders - you know ht epoeple you call responsible breeders. But until the people who know all of this information get a voice and USE IT, Joe Public isn't going to learn the lessons necessary to make the right decision. |
Sheepdogma wrote: kerry wrote: ChSheepdogs wrote: babysheepie wrote: Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally. Frankie and Lisa About the only way to stop them is to make it uprofitable for them to breed. Meaning people have to quit buying on impulse from people like your breeder. They have to ask questions about health screenings. They have to demand to see proof of health screenings. And they have to walk away from those cute little puppies when these breeders can't produce those documentations. It won't guarantee you a 100% healthy dog when you do purchase one but it sure will lessen the odds of getting an unhealthy dog. absolutely Marian!!! why would you expect the State to define who can breed when you don't take the time to do your own homework? - and yes we have all been there. As for the dogs permanently encrusted to the mesh on their crates --- COME ON PEOPLE. that's already illegal, and probably not as common as everyone likes to think. the only thing that will come of all this responsible breeder stuff is less hobby breeders - you know ht epoeple you call responsible breeders. But until the people who know all of this information get a voice and USE IT, Joe Public isn't going to learn the lessons necessary to make the right decision. agreed - ideas? |
kerry wrote: ChSheepdogs wrote: babysheepie wrote: Yes I was very ignorant and should have done my homework better, but I do agree that things need to be done to stop these breeders, so other dogs don't have to go thru what frankie has and will have to for the rest of his life. As well as what the families that own these dogs have to go through fiancially and mentally. Frankie and Lisa About the only way to stop them is to make it uprofitable for them to breed. Meaning people have to quit buying on impulse from people like your breeder. They have to ask questions about health screenings. They have to demand to see proof of health screenings. And they have to walk away from those cute little puppies when these breeders can't produce those documentations. It won't guarantee you a 100% healthy dog when you do purchase one but it sure will lessen the odds of getting an unhealthy dog. absolutely Marian!!! why would you expect the State to define who can breed when you don't take the time to do your own homework? - and yes we have all been there. As for the dogs permanently encrusted to the mesh on their crates --- COME ON PEOPLE. that's already illegal, and probably not as common as everyone likes to think. the only thing that will come of all this responsible breeder stuff is less hobby breeders - you know ht epoeple you call responsible breeders. The problem is that, in actuality, it IS as common as everyone thinks. I have personally been present at puppy mill raids in 3 different states as part of my work with shelters and humane law enforcement. More than once we have had to remove the entire cage to remove a dog, simply because we could not free him from that cage without causing more damage. My own Loki Bear was a puppy mill stud dog - When he developed a testicular infection that made it impossible for him to breed, he was turned loose to die. When he was picked up by animal control 2 counties away he was matted to the skin with feces and his testicles were the size of grapefruits. That was right here in New York State, and yes, he was registered.  I traced it back through the tattoo on his ear. The owner of the mill was in fact arrested and charged with over a hundred counts of animal cruelty.
There needs to be a national effort on the part of those of us who believe passionately that dog owning and responsible breeding is not criminal, rather it is a celebration of the joy of the bond between animal and owner and a commitment to assuring that every dog is the best that it can possibly be in terms of health and temperament. Perhaps it needs to start with a united front between all breed clubs working towards the goal of distancing themselves from the hysteria, large enough and credible enough to attract the attention of both the media and lawmakers across the country. It's time to fight back. |
Lokis Mom wrote: The owner of the mill was in fact arrested and charged with over a hundred counts of animal cruelty. Yep already illegal and therefore no addditional legislation is needed. sorry - a pet peeve There needs to be a national effort on the part of those of us who believe passionately that dog owning and responsible breeding is not criminal, rather it is a celebration of the joy of the bond between animal and owner and a commitment to assuring that every dog is the best that it can possibly be in terms of health and temperament. Perhaps it needs to start with a united front between all breed clubs working towards the goal of distancing themselves from the hysteria, large enough and credible enough to attract the attention of both the media and lawmakers across the country. It's time to fight back. Absolutely!!! And the one thing that is needed is money, followed by energetic people who have creative ideas to bring attention toward the ideal of the purebred dog. |
kerry wrote: Lokis Mom wrote: The owner of the mill was in fact arrested and charged with over a hundred counts of animal cruelty. Yep already illegal and therefore no addditional legislation is needed. sorry - a pet peeve Mine as well. I don't think the argument is that abuse never happens. Though a growing number of highly publicized "awareness raising" raids of large scale breeders smoothly orchestrated to support legislative agendas have surprisingly produced as often as not nothing noteworthing in terms even of neglect. I know pet owners with one dog whose dog might <gasp> need their nails trimmed or could use a teeth cleaning.  We don't typically bring them up on charges of neglect.
When the H$u$ set its sights on WI this year and introduced so-called "anti-puppy mill" (read: anti breeding) legislation at the hearings leading up to the legislation, they brought in their professional agitators. The usual AR leaning rescues and shelter personel showed up en masse to testify as well. What did they use as "evidence" that Wisconsin was the new "puppymill capital" of the Midwest (every state they attack is the new puppymill capital of...)? A well publicized bust of a large volume SHELTER that purchased puppies from midwestern and southern brokers and otherwise imported small breeds and puppies from shelters elsewhere, as our largest shelter regularly does to fill demand. Who did they make the poster child for puppymills? A large scale commercial breeder whose facilities and care most shelters, even our wealthy ones, can only dream about emulating in terms of standards of care etc. Mind you, he's retired and sold his dogs to a large shelter which turned around and resold them easily for a tidy profit. (He had mostly small breeds which are very much in demand) He sold his remaining litters to them as well and they ended up <oops> breeding some of their own. Yes you read that correctly. It's an ongoing joke among WI breeders, but an embarrassment to the shelter community. Or at least it should be. His dogs were in surprisingly (to the shelter community which persecute him for years) good health. Not saying I'd want a dog from such a breeder, but his dogs were in indisputable good shape. Some how by the time the hearings rolled around, the shelter that was busted magically became a "puppymill" (huh?!) and the WI poster child for commercial breeding was no longer breeding - mind you, his dogs were raised in better conditions than even our weathly shelters can muster. Not having any real targets to go after, they decided SMALL breeders are the real problem in this state (puppymill being a conveniently fluid term ).
Representatives of the DFOW were there at the hearings. They said there was much tears and teeth-gnashing as the evils of breeding and breeders was laid out at length, but little to nothing in the way of actual facts. When one member noted that there are "good" breeders out there and she, as a search and rescue person who is dependant on such breeders for a quality dog that can stand up to the work she does, was concerned that all the proposed legislation would do is persecute these breeders, the masses started booing and hissing that there is no such thing as a "good" breeder. Ironically many of whom stand shoulder to shoulder with the local rescue community every day and do more than their share of the actual work . She was surprised. Most of us were not. Not saying it doesn't hurt to get stabbed in the back that way, but we had already read the writing on the wall, so surprise was not part of the package.
The legislation passed. It effectively targets a number of the breeders who actually give a damn. Even that did not go far enough. The AR proponents wanted the numbers of puppies/litters you are permitted to breed in a given year without be classified as a commercial breeder (otherwise known as a puppymill) lowered even further. I'm sure they'll be back to try to enact even more punative and worthless feel-good legislation. Shortly after the hearings someone started using an online breeder directory to target show breeders. We're visible, so vulnerable. I wonder how many more they'll succeed in driving underground, fighting the losing battle of quietly trying to preserve what's left of their respective breeds? In the mean time, go back and read Kerry's and Marilyn's excellent posts. The answer to eliminating sub-standard breeding is spelled out there. It's been said over and over and over again. It's not rocket science. If people still aren't getting the message, I dare say there's really nothing more we can do. You can only spread yourself so thin and still effectively work towards preserving what's left of the breed. Kristine |
| Nicely put, as usual Kristine. New York is currently working on a new definition of commercial breeder. The new working definintion is if you own three intact females andsell or offer for sale ONE dog, then you are a commercial breeder. As one person pointed out, if you have three intact females, and they don't get along (imagine that!) and you try to rehome one then you are a commercial breeder.
Makes as much sense as most things in NY I guess. |
Mad Dog wrote: If people still aren't getting the message, I dare say there's really nothing more we can do. You can only spread yourself so thin and still effectively work towards preserving what's left of the breed. Kristine
People aren't getting the message because it's not going out to them. Proponents are working with legislators, they aren't going to spread the word. The other side sends their message to the public. Until Joe Public is educated a cause doesn't stand a chance. Choose your battles and look for high profile. At the beginning of the post I suggested a large scale email campaign to the Today Show. Not just the folks from the forum, but your friends, family, and anyone else that believes in the cause. It won't cost a dime and will take less time than posting to the forum. Suggest they review this thread for in depth information. Going forward keep your eyes open for news reports or documentaries with that sort of content and do the same thing. Power in numbers. Attitude drives the project. If you think it's not going to help, then it won't. |
kerry wrote: Nicely put, as usual Kristine. New York is currently working on a new definition of commercial breeder. The new working definintion is if you own three intact females andsell or offer for sale ONE dog, then you are a commercial breeder. As one person pointed out, if you have three intact females, and they don't get along (imagine that!) and you try to rehome one then you are a commercial breeder.
Makes as much sense as most things in NY I guess. How scary!!! I have three intact females, one spayed female and one neutered male. I have yet to breed one of my 3 (waiting until 2 & testing clearance) and have never had more than one litter in a year between the other two. To think that I would be defined as a commercial breeder is pure poppycock! Not to mention that the connotation of 'commercial' is someone who MAKES money from their breedings. lol As most breeders, I am lucky to break even! (Although I did use the $$$ as justification to the ex when he gave me a hard time for 'pouring money into the dogs' I just conveniently omitted the part pertaining to how much money I put into our dogs before breeding, for breeding & $$$ into the puppies. *oops, my bad* )
It almost seems like a lost cause to try and educate as most people are inundated by images/ads about animal abuse and animal rescue. I have to admit to donating on several occasions to the HSPCA and volunteering in kill shelters. Not many people want to think of animals stuck in cages and euthanized due to overpopulation.
Obviously there is a real problem out there. However, much of the problem stems as much from the owners who relinquish their dogs to shelters as it does from 'breeders'. If people correctly understood what a dog was, trained them & had realistic expectations for their pets, I daresay most of the dogs in shelters today would not be there! Obviously bad breeding contributes to health and behavioral problems. However, it is simply not right that all breeders take the brunt of the 'overpopulation' bashing. Different dog breeds were created for unique purposes and many would cease to be without those same 'dreaded' breeders! |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|