The First Of Many Questions For You Re Rescue, Breeding,owning Dogs

[mita]

In our research before attending the Building Better Dogs seminar at Monash the statistics were 600,000 pups produced in Australia annually with an estimated 9 to 10% from registered breeders.

And the University of Qld research revealed that it was registered breeders who tend to socialise their puppies far better than unregistered breeders. This socialisation tends to lead to less behavioral problems as adults. Behaviour problems that could then lead to dumping & surrendering or even PTS.

In other words, registered breeders tend to be the people who best lay down the foundations for a dog to live closely beside humans and other dogs, whether in the role of showdog or full-time companion dog,

The same research pointed to another trend. Unregistered breeders tend to produce far more accidental litters. It would seem registered breeders tend to be far more on top of their game, in the decisions they make about breeding. Which augers well for registered breeders contributing to a sustainable & healthy dog population...as well as a well-socialised one.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mita

[Sheridan]

I do support registered breeders merijegs?? I see breeding well socialised, healthy, sound, dogs (in body and mind) for the pet market an admirable goal though.

I would also challenge whether there are enough registered breeders pups to meet demand- i don't think thats the case.

There were 96 litters of staffy puppies listed on DOL last month or maybe the month before. That is just one breed of dog and only here on DOL. Surely that is plenty when you add it to the total of dogs needlessly pts each year as well? If people have to plan and wait for a dog rather than impulse buy then that is a good thing in my book given how many years that dog will be needing care for.

My question then is why is it that the registered breeders need to take a hit and not produce puppies but that BYBs and puppyfarmers are given a free pass? Yes, there are bad eggs in registered breeders, particularly those who export to MacDougall, but an ethical puppyfarmer is an oxymoron.

[SpikesPuppy]

I do support registered breeders merijegs?? I see breeding well socialised, healthy, sound, dogs (in body and mind) for the pet market an admirable goal though.

I would also challenge whether there are enough registered breeders pups to meet demand- i don't think thats the case.

I'm with you, Cos!

When I bred my litter, I was breeding to get something for myself to go on with (as an improvement on the chosen parents, yes), but at the end of the day, I knew the majority of my litter would be going to loving companion homes.

I don't believe that breeders of pedigree dogs should just breed willy nilly or breed the dogs they have just because it is convenient BUT I have no problems with someone who breeds healthy, sound (mentally and physically) pets that are clear & solid examples of their breed with no, or little intention of keeping a puppy from every litter.

I also agree that there is a shortage of registered, ethical breeders in relation to the current demand for puppies. Not everybody who would like a pup at a particular time is an impulse buyer!!! Often people don't realise that they may have to wait a year or more for a pedigree animal, and sometimes they want the pup at a particular time so that it fits in with their lifestyle (perhaps a high school graduate taking a GAP year from uni wants to spend that 12 months raising a puppy??), or a young couple who wants to raise a puppy prior to having their human children, or a stay at home mum who is able to spend the time raising a puppy alongside their human child etc. Or maybe they have earnt their long-service leave and would like to use that time for their new pup.

What this country needs, in my opinion, is more excellent examples of pedigree, registered companions. The 96 stafford litter adverts mentioned... I would wager that a vast majority of them are NOT from ethical and responsible breeders but in fact imagine that a large portion would be from breeders who have jumped on the blue stafford money-making machine.

[goldchow]

All the registered breeders I know socialize their puppies within the home with all associated noises and different people coming and going, not by being kept in concrete runs & kennels as advocated by the guidelines being touted as the correct way for breeding bitches and raising puppies.

[Little Gifts]

I do support registered breeders merijegs?? I see breeding well socialised, healthy, sound, dogs (in body and mind) for the pet market an admirable goal though.

I would also challenge whether there are enough registered breeders pups to meet demand- i don't think thats the case.

There were 96 litters of staffy puppies listed on DOL last month or maybe the month before. That is just one breed of dog and only here on DOL. Surely that is plenty when you add it to the total of dogs needlessly pts each year as well? If people have to plan and wait for a dog rather than impulse buy then that is a good thing in my book given how many years that dog will be needing care for.

My question then is why is it that the registered breeders need to take a hit and not produce puppies but that BYBs and puppyfarmers are given a free pass? Yes, there are bad eggs in registered breeders, particularly those who export to MacDougall, but an ethical puppyfarmer is an oxymoron.

I was going to expand on what I said but felt I was already going OT and didn't want to lose the overal theme of the thread.

In my perfect little world you would only be able to buy puppies from registered breeders or desexed puppies and desexed adult dogs from shelters or desexed adult dogs from private citizens needing to legitimaly rehome them. Losing puppy farms and BYB's and minimising the number of unexpected litters happening in general through desexing would open up more opportunities for registered breeders to do what they do well. It would make dogs a little harder to get and hopefully more planned and valued and certainly healthier. How new owners care for and treat their pets might also improve if registered breeders are able to assess who they sell to as well. The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose. Do we police the issue to the point that only pure bred dogs can be bred because that then restricts people's freedom of choice. I'm unsure on this but I am clear that I think overall numbers need to reduce and the best number to reduce is the ones who are most at risk - puppy farm and BYB bred ones.

[poodlefan]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

[Little Gifts]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

I was thinking of the whole crossing with poodles thing to make a dog for people with allergies. Practical crosses - not just to make them look cuter. And that is the only example I was thinking of but there could be more?

[poodlefan]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

I was thinking of the whole crossing with poodles thing to make a dog for people with allergies. Practical crosses - not just to make them look cuter. And that is the only example I was thinking of but there could be more?

Bad example. Most poodle crosses shed and many folk have allergic reactions to them. As a "practical cross" its been an abject failure. Guide dogs got out of the crossing business because they could not stabilise the low allergy wool coat. Not that the oodle breeders will tell you that.

What's wrong with the low allergy breeds we now have anyway?

[Sheridan]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

I was thinking of the whole crossing with poodles thing to make a dog for people with allergies. Practical crosses - not just to make them look cuter. And that is the only example I was thinking of but there could be more?

Except that such crosses are rarely hypoallergenic. There are plenty of purebred dogs that fit this bill.

[mita]

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose. Do we police the issue to the point that only pure bred dogs can be bred because that then restricts people's freedom of choice.

One possible answer to your dilemma is that what 'good' registered breeders actually do, should be made the standard for breeding any dogs.

And the key things that they do, can be pulled out of the research which concluded they tended to lay the best foundations for dogs' future & welfare.

[SpikesPuppy]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

I was thinking of the whole crossing with poodles thing to make a dog for people with allergies. Practical crosses - not just to make them look cuter. And that is the only example I was thinking of but there could be more?

Bad example. Most poodle crosses shed and many folk have allergic reactions to them. As a "practical cross" its been an abject failure. Guide dogs got out of the crossing business because they could not stabilise the low allergy wool coat. Not that the oodle breeders will tell you that.

What's wrong with the low allergy breeds we now have anyway?

Leonberger, Black Russian Terrier are 2 breeds that come to mind as originating from deliberate crosses for a reason/purpose. What do you think of the introduction of Pembroke Corgi into the Boxer to create bobtails?

Not all crossbreeding is done as a cash cow. Most would be, but not all.

And the idea of the labradoodle is, in theory, a great one. No one was able to foresee the havoc it would cause

[Little Gifts]

Thank you for the info about crossing breeds for allergy reasons I didn't know they weren't actually successful And in all honesty I don't know much about low allergy breeds either but thought it might be a 'community' issue so was just raising it as a matter I was unsure about. I don't have a breeding background - mainly focussed on rescue but find DOL such an amazing source of information and knowledge. That's why I am more focussed on reduction of the numbers overall from the less desirable sources but am definately supportive of registered breeders and healthy, family suited animals.

[Staranais]

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose. Do we police the issue to the point that only pure bred dogs can be bred because that then restricts people's freedom of choice.

One possible answer to your dilemma is that what 'good' registered breeders actually do, should be made the standard for breeding any dogs.

And the key things that they do, can be pulled out of the research which concluded they tended to lay the best foundations for dogs' future & welfare.

I agree. I don't really care for crossbreeding in companion animals, since I think it rarely achieves desired aims.

But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

[Joan of Arc]

Sorry I dare not post what I actually think here because I could be in trouble.

Breeding without providing adequate kennel enrichment or exercise.

Providing no veterinary care for pups because it is not cost effective.

Breeding from stock with no knowledge of the dog's pedigree/genetics. Breeding from unregistered stock.

Breeding every season.

Breeding with a bitch up until the time she dies.

I will add more when I think of them.

That's a good start.

Suffice to say that BYB, puppy farmers etc what ever you want to call them are evil, and one way to tell them from us is that they appear to make a profit from their litters. Could that be because they dont do all the tests, worming, use the best foods and supplements etc?

[mita]

But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

I couldn't agree more. Your examples are spot on. I'm sure if we pulled out precisely what those 'good' breeders do.....it'd be exactly what the 'good' registered breeders did as described by the research study.

I'd expect the military dogs program up here would fit that category, too. All the essentials are there....the socialisation & enrichment activities given these puppies are brilliant & there's control over breeding decisions....and detailed records kept. Excellent vet care. All in a context where the dogs are valued & much loved.

Before their military training commences at 12 months of age....the puppies have the same great life that a good registered breeder gives.

Well designed space for birthing....deliberate handling by humans from birth. Then, as puppies, great socialisation around the air force base...with passing people & planes! Then at 4 months....out to live with families in the community... playing with children, going to the footy.

No wonder that any who fail to make the military grade at 12 months are already primed to be adopted as wonderful pets.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mita

[Greytmate]

But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

I disagree.

The important thing is keeping breeding records. That is what registries are actually for.

Keeping proper breeding records means that responsible breeding choices can be made, because the pedigree shows who the dog's ancestors are. It also means that the dogs produced can be used for future breeding programs by other responsible breeders.

People that breed unregistered dogs are irresponsible as they have no way of knowing what genetics they are breeding with and what traits they may be breeding in to their pups. What they do is a waste, as none of the dogs they breed can be used by other responsible breeders that do breed responsibly.

[Greytmate]

For the purposes of law reform, I think it would not be a good idea to differentiate between breeders based on whether or not they profit or by how much they profit.

I believe this for various reasons, but mostly because a dog should not be expected to live in substandard conditions because its owner is or isn't drawing an income from breeding.

[casowner]

The issue for me about comments re breeders breeding for profit is that what about your very expensive breeds eg bostons, frenchies, BB's these puppies are sold for very high prices does this land them in the breeding for profit category? If the breeder maintains all of the other important qualities eg health/temperament testing, conformation, hygeine, socialisation etc etc why shouldn't they make a profit?

What I mean is that it shouldn't be profit based and those not providing the other important needs should be targeted not the ones ticking the correct boxes.

Edited June 29, 2010 by casowner

[mita]

But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

I disagree.

The important thing is keeping breeding records. That is what registries are actually for.

Keeping proper breeding records means that responsible breeding choices can be made, because the pedigree shows who the dog's ancestors are. It also means that the dogs produced can be used for future breeding programs by other responsible breeders.

People that breed unregistered dogs are irresponsible as they have no way of knowing what genetics they are breeding with and what traits they may be breeding in to their pups. What they do is a waste, as none of the dogs they breed can be used by other responsible breeders that do breed responsibly.

It depends on who's doing the breeding & keeping of records And also the extent to which they're available to others breeding for the same restricted purpose. I'd expect the kinds of examples that were given would be people knowledgeable about breeding & who'd consider the tracing of dogs' ancestors as vital to breeding decisions. They'd be light years away from the Backyard Breeder who just pumps out dogs to sell.

Only the 'oodle' breeders would fit into that BYB category. They do what BYB's do....but also on a larger scale. That's a competitive commercial business based solely on making profits, not on breeding for some behavioral purpose. So 'oodlers' are not likely to have any interests in expanding gene pool via sharing records or information generally.

Edited June 29, 2010 by mita

[Staranais]

But there are plenty of (IMO) responsible breeders breeding unregistered purebred animals. I'm pretty sure our police here breed purebred but unregistered GSD. The farmers I know who breed good working heading dogs & huntaways are all breeding unregistered dogs. These dogs are not just pets or sport dogs or show dogs, they fill a real need in society, and are bred for a purpose. To me, an organisation that classes these breeders as puppy farmers or irresponsible oodle breeders, simply because they are not registered, loses credibility.

I disagree.

The important thing is keeping breeding records. That is what registries are actually for.

Keeping proper breeding records means that responsible breeding choices can be made, because the pedigree shows who the dog's ancestors are. It also means that the dogs produced can be used for future breeding programs by other responsible breeders.

People that breed unregistered dogs are irresponsible as they have no way of knowing what genetics they are breeding with and what traits they may be breeding in to their pups. What they do is a waste, as none of the dogs they breed can be used by other responsible breeders that do breed responsibly.

I agree with your first three paragraphs - I agree that a responsible breeder will keep records, and do as much research as they can before they breed dogs. I rather suspect the police and MWD people do this. I know that really good farm dog breeders do. They're not interested in producing bad dogs. They want to produce the best working dogs they can, for obvious economic reasons. And to do that, you need to know what you're breeding from.

I just don't think that these records need to be kept in an official registry such as the AnKC, or that a registry system needs to be closed, or accessible to the public, for a breeder to be responsible.