Breeder Feedback - Criteria To Determine Acceptable Breeding Practises

[BJean]

It is not necessary for the Purebreed Associations nor the RSPCA to restrict the Association membership from having litters. Chances are the industry would start to settle into an acceptable level as the excessive breeders have lost the avenue to 'dump' excess puppies via the pet stores, hence they are likely to reduce their breeding program over time, whereas the 'acceptable' breeders are often breeding with some puppies being pre-ordered and/or only running one litter at any one time which gives a stronger likelyhood of homeing all pups.

Is this fact?

Where did you get your information?

[alpha bet]

Is this fact?

Where did you get your information?

lilli..... sorry dont understand your problem with my post..... after all thought you were posting to get other members thoughts..... don't expect you to agree but nothing wrong if someone has some ideas that may differ from your own.

have a nice day

[BJean]

Is this fact?

Where did you get your information?

lilli..... sorry dont understand your problem with my post..... after all thought you were posting to get other members thoughts..... don't expect you to agree but nothing wrong if someone has some ideas that may differ from your own.

have a nice day

I dont have a problem with your post.

You defined an 'acceptable' breeder as:

breeding with some puppies being pre-ordered and/or only running one litter at any one time which gives a stronger likelyhood of homeing all pups

I was interested in the source, perhaps you had read it somewhere.

Edited August 5, 2010 by lilli

[Alyosha]

I'm sure I might have missed something... But isn't the main source of revenue for puppy farners based upon the fact that there is a market demand for puppies?

So if they restrict the registered and ethical breeders even more, and continue to choke down numbers produced, won't that just create more potential buyers for irresponsibly produced pups?

Shouldn't the CCs be pushing for a drive in public education about where to get a good dog, and encouraging the buying public to source pets from registered breeders? If those breeders are not allowed to breed there is no point, there'll be nothing for the public to buy...

[whippets]

Dogs Vic are now on facebook asking this same question. Might want to post your responses there where they will see it (I know it gets watched here as well but posting on there would probably be better).

[Puppoochi]

This is scary.

The sad thing is that the Canine Council have done NOTHING to ensure that registered breeders are producing animals that are "Better and Healthier" than the average BYB or Puppy Farmer.

Why is it NOT mandatory to test all breeding stock for common health complaints pertaining to the breed.

In 2004, they were going to introduce DNA profiling for all breeding stock, whatever happened to that???

So, what is it that makes a registered breeder's dog so much better than one from a BYB???

IMO, the CC has shown evidence that our dogs are any better than the average BYB .

[asal]

I'm sure I might have missed something... But isn't the main source of revenue for puppy farners based upon the fact that there is a market demand for puppies?

So if they restrict the registered and ethical breeders even more, and continue to choke down numbers produced, won't that just create more potential buyers for irresponsibly produced pups?

Shouldn't the CCs be pushing for a drive in public education about where to get a good dog, and encouraging the buying public to source pets from registered breeders? If those breeders are not allowed to breed there is no point, there'll be nothing for the public to buy...

correct me if im wrong, but isnt that the general idea?

no puppies available to any but the breeder to show and prove their ethical or only available to friends who promise to show.

sooo no more available as pets so no chance of em ending up in pounds because they aint there?

think thats the rationale behind it?

[WreckitWhippet]

This is scary.

The sad thing is that the Canine Council have done NOTHING to ensure that registered breeders are producing animals that are "Better and Healthier" than the average BYB or Puppy Farmer.

Why is it NOT mandatory to test all breeding stock for common health complaints pertaining to the breed.

In 2004, they were going to introduce DNA profiling for all breeding stock, whatever happened to that???

So, what is it that makes a registered breeder's dog so much better than one from a BYB???

IMO, the CC has shown evidence that our dogs are any better than the average BYB .

I believe there was an issue with guaranteeing the data base beyond a certain amount of time. ML explained it better than I can a couple of time but it was to do with the storage of our data and if it could not be guaranteed, then it wasn't worth going ahead.

[asal]

This is scary.

The sad thing is that the Canine Council have done NOTHING to ensure that registered breeders are producing animals that are "Better and Healthier" than the average BYB or Puppy Farmer.

Why is it NOT mandatory to test all breeding stock for common health complaints pertaining to the breed.

In 2004, they were going to introduce DNA profiling for all breeding stock, whatever happened to that???

So, what is it that makes a registered breeder's dog so much better than one from a BYB???

IMO, the CC has shown evidence that our dogs are any better than the average BYB .

there are breeders who have been doing this for decades, long before the dna tests became available,

some actually knew what they were doing and what they were looking for.

prior to that some breeders of many breeds, not just dogs, were testing by specific matings to determine if parents were clear. one of the quickest was sire to daughter and dam to son. it was not just a tool used by lazy or shonky breeders as now being said.

unfortunaly great as a tool dna is, it has only tests available for a fraction of the problems needing testing for as yet.

so parents and grandparents etc found clear by age is still worth continuing as well until such tests down theline do become available.

trouble is a significant portion still think a mismating will give x bred puppies being able to show up for the remainder of the bitches life? so theres a huge differnce in knowledge base among members.

Edited August 10, 2010 by asal

[Puppoochi]

This is scary.

The sad thing is that the Canine Council have done NOTHING to ensure that registered breeders are producing animals that are "Better and Healthier" than the average BYB or Puppy Farmer.

Why is it NOT mandatory to test all breeding stock for common health complaints pertaining to the breed.

In 2004, they were going to introduce DNA profiling for all breeding stock, whatever happened to that???

So, what is it that makes a registered breeder's dog so much better than one from a BYB???

IMO, the CC has shown evidence that our dogs are any better than the average BYB .

I believe there was an issue with guaranteeing the data base beyond a certain amount of time. ML explained it better than I can a couple of time but it was to do with the storage of our data and if it could not be guaranteed, then it wasn't worth going ahead.

I heard that's why it didn't go ahead, I thought it was a crock of poo then, and I still maintain it's a crock of poo now, there are ways to get around that very easily. Very poor excuse I recon, anyone with half a brain in their head would know it's quite easy to store and back up this info. My impression of it all was that there are too many dodgies in charge that would be caught out by having falsified reg papers and they don't want others to know about it.