Registered Breeders

[Annie99]

The big question is - when they have their way and we all have to have permits and licences to breed dogs and work under mandatory codes which are more difficult than a code of conduct will that make it almost impossible to tell us apart?

It is hard enough to tell you apart now, which was very evident from the other thread

[Annie99]

I've been blessed to have wonderful , supportive, caring breeders in a very large variety of breeds, not one issue with any of them. :D

I think it goes both ways though, buyers also need to do the right thing too.

The one I rang today about the puppy in the paper could not have cared less about the home I was giving it when I rang.

Only interested in the $$$.

Also advertises on the net.

Could not care less about the buyer, just the cash.

[benshiva]

Ive got a real easy solution for it - when you are looking for a new puppy or recycled dog go to an MDBA breeder or rescue member. :D

Trouble is Ive no doubt registered breeders who are not our members wont see that as a viable solution.

You're absolutely right. This is one reputable breeder who doesn't see it as a viable solution ;)

So what is?

Sadly I don't have the answer.

I guess what I would like to see is the ANKC undertake a nationwide add campaign. Maybe that would get people to use them as an initial starting point when looking for a puppy.

I'd like them to provide "So you're looking for a puppy" packs for anyone who enquires. In these packs I'd like a list of questions that potential puppy buyers could use when speaking to breeders about puppies.

Questions like, registration, health testing, etc etc. Of course there would have to be explanations as to why they puppy buyer needs to know all this.

I also thought the DogsNSW day they did last year for the general public was a very good idea. There was a fantastic amount of general public come through and if well advertised this could become an important tool as well.

Not brilliant ideas but ideas just the same :D

Edited January 8, 2011 by benshiva

[Sheridan]

I thought she was using caps to emphasise. Better not use caps any more Annie it ticks people off.

Italics are used for emphasis. Caps is yelling. It's basic netiquette, something that I'm increasingly thinking should have a compulsory lesson before people are allowed on the Internet.

[Erny]

I thought she was using caps to emphasise. Better not use caps any more Annie it ticks people off.

Italics are used for emphasis. Caps is yelling. It's basic netiquette, something that I'm increasingly thinking should have a compulsory lesson before people are allowed on the Internet.

From http://www.hoax-slayer.com/do-not-use-all-capitals.html

If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting.

For those of us who spend a lot of time hanging out in cyberspace, messages written in all capital letters are reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in which one person is shouting every word while others are speaking at a normal volume.

Also, a message written in all capitals is harder to read. In blocks of text rendered in all capitals, words lose their "shape" because they are all the same height. Each word becomes a uniform rectangle. Most people read and quickly recognize words by looking at their overall shape. We do not read by visualizing words one letter at a time.

Capital letters are best left for their intended usage and, sparingly, to emphasize a particular word or phrase.

If you are new to the ways of the Internet, this restriction on the use of capital letters might seem silly and you might dismiss it as unimportant. However, using all capitals in your messages will adversely affect how people perceive you online.

My highlights and underscore. I didn't think Annie was yelling either, rather than placing emphasis on a few words to push her point/make her point clear.

ETA: Sorry for the OT ..... but sometimes I use caps to emphasis a word or two here and there rather than using bold highlighting without any intention of yelling and to my knowledge I've not had people misinterpret my intentions.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Erny

[Sheridan]

I thought she was using caps to emphasise. Better not use caps any more Annie it ticks people off.

Italics are used for emphasis. Caps is yelling. It's basic netiquette, something that I'm increasingly thinking should have a compulsory lesson before people are allowed on the Internet.

From http://www.hoax-slayer.com/do-not-use-all-capitals.html

If you USE ALL CAPS in your email or message board posts, you will immediately make yourself seem inexperienced or ignorant. Most experienced computer users consider the use of all capital letters to be the Internet equivalent of shouting.

For those of us who spend a lot of time hanging out in cyberspace, messages written in all capital letters are reminiscent of trying to hold a conversation in which one person is shouting every word while others are speaking at a normal volume.

Also, a message written in all capitals is harder to read. In blocks of text rendered in all capitals, words lose their "shape" because they are all the same height. Each word becomes a uniform rectangle. Most people read and quickly recognize words by looking at their overall shape. We do not read by visualizing words one letter at a time.

Capital letters are best left for their intended usage and, sparingly, to emphasize a particular word or phrase.

If you are new to the ways of the Internet, this restriction on the use of capital letters might seem silly and you might dismiss it as unimportant. However, using all capitals in your messages will adversely affect how people perceive you online.

My highlights and underscore. I didn't think Annie was yelling either, rather than placing emphasis on a few words to push her point/make her point clear.

Not when every other phrase is caps, it isn't. I realise that Annie is enthusiastic but whatever message she's trying to convey is getting lost in the shrieking.

[Erny]

Not when every other phrase is caps, it isn't. I realise that Annie is enthusiastic but whatever message she's trying to convey is getting lost in the shrieking.

ok (Erny whispers)

Sorry Sheridan. Just kidding. Couldn't help it.

[yarracully]

Here is my solution to the problem.

SCRAP all the dog bodies, councils etc, and make one body (or one that has the same ethics in every state)You could call it REGISTERED BREEDERS - NOT PUPPY FARMERS OR BYB SCUM.

One of the ETHICS/CODE OF CONDUCT or whatever you want to call it is

1 LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOGS (NONE OF THESE BIG 100 PLUS establishments)

2 PURE BREDS ONLY

3 MAKE A WEBSITE FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS AND A CONDITION OF JOINING IS THAT YOU ARE PUBLICALLY PUT ON THE WEBSITE

That would be very easy for the average pup buyer to understand.

So it would be simple. REGISTERED REPUTABLE breeders vs Puppy Farm scum

So you are with one or the other.

The problem as I see it is that some "so called" reputable breeders end up being puppy farmers.

The governing councils need to get serious and put DOGS first

Problem then becomes that a group decide they dont like some part and then they form their own registry. Opps thats what has already happened.

Trouble is that certain groups making new registries all the time simply compound the issue. If we only had the one registry (ANKC) then there would be no need for this discussion. But the forming of various different groups and their registries simply makes the situation where members of the public are confused. And a new registry just started by a certain body only adds fuel to the fire.

[2psinapod]

I have been reading this whole thread from the start to the end, just hanging to suggest the same jolly thing as Benshiva!!!!

Why can't the ANKC do a decent ad campaign

I really wish it was like the old days, just under the ANKC rather than different State bodies, each State seems to have their own set of rules on varying things, I think it should just be one governing body and while they're at it ....... have the admin staff at least know one end of dog from the other as opposed to the clerks they have that don't even own dogs let alone be in the Show World. But, alas, gone are the days of volunteers too

[Steve]

Here is my solution to the problem.

SCRAP all the dog bodies, councils etc, and make one body (or one that has the same ethics in every state)You could call it REGISTERED BREEDERS - NOT PUPPY FARMERS OR BYB SCUM.

One of the ETHICS/CODE OF CONDUCT or whatever you want to call it is

1 LIMIT THE NUMBER OF DOGS (NONE OF THESE BIG 100 PLUS establishments)

2 PURE BREDS ONLY

3 MAKE A WEBSITE FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO VIOLATE THE TERMS AND A CONDITION OF JOINING IS THAT YOU ARE PUBLICALLY PUT ON THE WEBSITE

That would be very easy for the average pup buyer to understand.

So it would be simple. REGISTERED REPUTABLE breeders vs Puppy Farm scum

So you are with one or the other.

The problem as I see it is that some "so called" reputable breeders end up being puppy farmers.

The governing councils need to get serious and put DOGS first

Problem then becomes that a group decide they dont like some part and then they form their own registry. Opps thats what has already happened.

Trouble is that certain groups making new registries all the time simply compound the issue. If we only had the one registry (ANKC) then there would be no need for this discussion. But the forming of various different groups and their registries simply makes the situation where members of the public are confused. And a new registry just started by a certain body only adds fuel to the fire.

Our registry was started as a service to our members to enable them to track genetic , health and temperament issues and to ensure that any dogs being placed on that registry had the necessary proofs in place to ensure the genetic data was being collected and recorded. We do not have one breeder member who is not also an ANKC member - our registry isnt an instead of but rather an as well as and there is nothing fuelling any fire except people who want to make it into something it isnt by accusing us of doing the most ridiculous things. A handful of people decided it was one thing and the crap that is spread is taken as what it is. For over 6 years the MDBA has worked to encourage people to join the ANKC and to promote purebred dogs but now because we introduced something which is a tool our members can use which helps to see things in a pedgree which to date hasnt been available we have to be treated like we have committed some crime.

The only thing we have done which is any different than hundreds of others have done is that we have done it for all breeds rather than just one. Pick a breed and most of them have a separate registry and they have had for years which records genetic test results and makes them available to their members.

If Annie had been talking to someone who was registered with the MDBA then she wouldnt have had a problem because the expectation is what is expected for an ANKC member.

The problem has nothing to do with us providing extra data on a pedigree it occurred because she bumped someone who was registered as a breeder with a commercial cross bred registry using the same language she expected only purebred regsitered breeders would use.

As far as any registry such as the pet breeders registry is concerned the government is responsible for that because they have given exemptions to the ANKC and the only way any other group could get the same exemptions for their members is to register their dogs. If Annie or anyone else bumps into someone saying they are registered with less requirements on them than an ANKC breeder that has nothing whatever to do with us.

Accredited breeder schemes via the ANKC elevate one registered breeder over another and put more requirements on what a breeder has to do to register their puppies and that is seen as O.K. but because we have made it much harder than they have for our members and to be able to register their puppies it's frowned upon.

Dogs NSW and Dogs queensland can say that some of their members are better than other members who they still register and who they still register puppies for but when we say our members are better than some other breeders all hell breaks. Some of the breeders who have been given accredited breeder status wouldnt get into the MDBA and their puppies would not be able to be registered on our registry.

Across the board everyone has seen what we have done as something great with the exception of a handful of purebred breeders who made a snap decision based on assumption and feed it up to be something it isnt.

Councils have been registering breeders and their dogs, issuing permits and the like and so have the the AAPDB for years . Breeders have been saying they are registered

when they are not ANKC registered and trying to pin the situation on us as fuelling the fire by introducing ours makes little sense.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Steve

[Kirty]

I'll tell you what the problem is - the general public don't give a shit. I have lost count of the number of people who have come to me (being the relative/friend who is into animals) and asked where they should buy a puppy/kitten from. I give them links to DOL, ANKC, breed clubs, rescue groups, etc. I explain about puppy farms and pet shops - and 2 weeks later they are calling to tell me all about their pet shop puppy or kitten. I'm so over it. Just last week a friend called to tell me that her Mum was buying a pet shop CKCS - I don't want to know about it! These people are not stupid, they do not lack education - they lack patience, they lack restraint and they lack the ability to comprehend how frickin selfish they are being. And guess who then gets called in 6, 12, 18 months when the cat/dog has got issues...

[Steve]

Crapping on about what has caused it isnt finding the solution. Whether you like it or not if we say go to an MDBA member there isnt any confusion because that's who they are no matter where they live and we are not using the registered word. For us its a good solution and we can promote that to the general public.

However up until right now this minute the term registered breeder is used to describe someone who is registered with their Canine Council as the only way of identifying who is the best to go to. Its been used for a hundred years and has been gven status by everyone advising someone on where to go to buy a puppy.

On any day here on this forum someone is advised to go to a registered breeder.We forgot that registered could be used to describe the very people we were advising against and what happened with Annie illustrates the fact that its time we started using a different adjective which is unique to who we are.

If you want to use it as an opportunity to tell us how terrible the MDBA is for starting a new registry as a service to their members - its a free country - but what we do and how we promote our members has no impact on you. If we say ours are good doent mean we are saying anyone else is bad and you have the same options to address the issue we do. Find another word or phrase to identify yourselves over other registered breeders because being "registered" no longer says what we thought it said.

As I said its not my problem and my intent was to help people who were involved in the first thread to understand. It doesnt bother me if you lot get put in the same basket as any other breeder and puppy farmers ride on the back of the decades of promoting registered breeders. Even right now we have new accredited breeder schemes - and guess - what the pet shop people are about to start their own system of issuing accreditation to breeders too. So even if you race in and get the accredited registered breeder tag you will have to share that too.

[Kirty]

My point is though, that you can label things as much as you want, and define things as much as you want - but its all pointless. People don't get 'confused' by registered vs registered - they don't care!!

[Steve]

I'll tell you what the problem is - the general public don't give a shit. I have lost count of the number of people who have come to me (being the relative/friend who is into animals) and asked where they should buy a puppy/kitten from. I give them links to DOL, ANKC, breed clubs, rescue groups, etc. I explain about puppy farms and pet shops - and 2 weeks later they are calling to tell me all about their pet shop puppy or kitten. I'm so over it. Just last week a friend called to tell me that her Mum was buying a pet shop CKCS - I don't want to know about it! These people are not stupid, they do not lack education - they lack patience, they lack restraint and they lack the ability to comprehend how frickin selfish they are being. And guess who then gets called in 6, 12, 18 months when the cat/dog has got issues...

Yes that is a problem but its not this problem. This problem happened because someone had heard about registered breeders and wanted to do the "right thing" and purchase a puppy from a registered breeder. The registered breeder turned out to be a registered breeder with another group who this person had deliberately tried to avoid.She picked up the inconsistencies and came here to ask about reporting them because they were breaching the code of conduct but they werent breaching their code of conduct.

So its a different group of people - this one wants to buy from a registered breeder because they are trying to follow advice given them by people who have told them the best place to go for a pup is to a registered breeder.Your people have not given a hoot about the advice and havent cared if the breeder was registered or not - or perhaps they did and got sucked in by the lingo. Different problem - different solution.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Steve

[Steve]

Edited so as to remain on topic. I've deleted the rest of my post but this is still relevant.

Before you actually 'enter' the dog ownership world, registration doesn't mean a whole lot because it just means that so and so has paid fees and filled out paper work with yet another regulatory body ... It's actually just plain confusing. Before we actually 'entered the dog ownership world' like many people, we just assumed that if you got the puppy young enough and looked after it well, it would turn out the way you wanted it to.

...

Also, to be perfectly frank, even now after having entered the 'dog ownership world', the fact that a breeder is registered still means very little to me. Whether it's ANKC, WKC or whatever - it is actually nothing more than a threshold consideration because there are so many factors I would now take into account before getting a dog. Registration is a box that must be ticked but recommendations from other people I trust would be just as critical. Finally, it would be whether I liked the breeder on a personal level, whether he/she was pleasant and approachable and was willing to share his/her knowledge with me when asked.

Yes but we are registered breeders and usually when people come to us they want that piece of paper and it means a lot to them and its why they choose us over a pet shop.They believe we do some things and dont do others which they want to be in place from a breeder. Annie thought that being registered meant certain things which lowered the risks she felt she wated to avoid because she was following advice of going to a registered breeder.

This isnt about what you want to look for in a breeder its about the fact that people are being advised the best place to buy a puppy is from a registered breeder but registered is not what the people who are doing the advising mean it to be and its time to further qualify it - because it is confusing.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Steve

[tdierikx]

So when recommending a "registered" breeder, we should qualify that by saying "ANKC registered"... yes? Being that the ANKC is the only truly nationally recognised body for registering purebreed dogs...

But where does that put those looking specifically for certain working breeds (for example) - they have their own registry due to their breeds not being recognised by the ANKC.

What if I don't want to buy an ANKC recognised "breed" of dog? What if I have a preference for a particular mixed breed? Is there somewhere I can go to research what to look for from "breeders" of mixed breed dogs, so that I can make a more informed decision as to the possible health and temperament issues one may face down the track?

As an average joe, I have purchased dogs from internet ads, petshops, CC members, etc... maybe I have been lucky that none of the many pure or crossed breed dogs I've brought home have had any inherent issues that we are told that these sorts of dogs should (or will definitely) have...

T.

[Steve]

So when recommending a "registered" breeder, we should qualify that by saying "ANKC registered"... yes? Being that the ANKC is the only truly nationally recognised body for registering purebreed dogs...

But where does that put those looking specifically for certain working breeds (for example) - they have their own registry due to their breeds not being recognised by the ANKC.

What if I don't want to buy an ANKC recognised "breed" of dog? What if I have a preference for a particular mixed breed? Is there somewhere I can go to research what to look for from "breeders" of mixed breed dogs, so that I can make a more informed decision as to the possible health and temperament issues one may face down the track?

As an average joe, I have purchased dogs from internet ads, petshops, CC members, etc... maybe I have been lucky that none of the many pure or crossed breed dogs I've brought home have had any inherent issues that we are told that these sorts of dogs should (or will definitely) have...

T.

The reason people have to date plugged away and recommended registered breeders isnt anything to do with it being the only recognised national registry - it was because it was promoted as having breeders who did things a certain way under a code of ethics. Granted what people thought they could and couldnt do wasnt quite what they thought it was when they began and continued to promote them as the "ethical" place to buy a puppy. The reason they have been granted exemptions at law is because they have standards on their breeders and police breaches. Traditionally when ever the term was used people knew they were referring to one group - the only group with a code of conduct which told their members what they could and could not do. Its not about potential inherent issues - its about predictibility.

You obviously can live with any breed of dog. I cant and lots of people cant and wont. If I were to simply go out and buy a mixed breed dog there is a high risk the dog would be miserable and so would I. When I choose a dog Im aware of my own lifestyle and my family's needs, strengths and weaknesses so I choose a breed which is most likely to be able to fit without too much adjustment or management issues Im not prepared to live with.

Any body can breed a dog but breeding healthy predictible well temperamented dogs over many generations takes skill and science.

A purebred dog without a registered pedigree can not have health or temperament issues recorded for breeders to take into account when selecting their breeding dogs.They are bred with luck and over several generations the luck runs lower. A mixed breed or cross bred dog is also bred with luck and some people can live with what ever turns up but the people who come to me for a puppy cant. Its why we breed what we do the way we do.

Its hardly reasonable to expect purebred breeders on a purebred forum will advise you or anyone where to buy a mixed breed puppy but its obvious that is the aim of the RSPCA and the AAPDB - go to a registered breeder. This used to qualfiy what they bred and how they bred them now its obvious it puts them in the same pond as any other person who allows two dogs to have sex and make puppies. So if the adjective which used to describe them which has been used to recommend them to people like Annie doesnt get people who are being advised to the same place the advisor thought they were its about time the language being used to recommend them is changed.

The problem with saying ANKC registered is that every state is called something different even though they are all under the same umbrella and even some of their own members wouldnt know they are ANKC so it would require a bit of thought .

Whether its true that "registered " breeders have been a good place to buy a puppy from or not the point is that now the term isnt describing the same people it used to.

Edited January 8, 2011 by Steve

[Staranais]

It's hard since it's all so grey.

If there was concrete published proof that registered dogs are on average substantially healthier than non-ANKC registered dogs (which as far as I'm aware, there isn't), or if all registered breeders were invariably ethical and all unregistered breeders were horrible to their dogs (which isn't the case), then it would be easy to just say "go find an ANKC registered breeder" to anyone who is interested in an ANKC-breed pet.

Saying "go find a MDBA member breeder" gets rid of that issue I suppose, since all MDBA members are (theoretically at least!) held and policed to a high standard. However, a breeder can be very ethical and not be a MDBA member, so that advice cuts a lot of good breeders out of consideration.

[Steve]

It's hard since it's all so grey.

If there was concrete published proof that registered dogs are on average substantially healthier than non-ANKC registered dogs (which as far as I'm aware, there isn't), or if all registered breeders were invariably ethical and all unregistered breeders were horrible to their dogs (which isn't the case), then it would be easy to just say "go find an ANKC registered breeder" to anyone who is interested in an ANKC-breed pet.

Saying "go find a MDBA member breeder" gets rid of that issue I suppose, since all MDBA members are (theoretically at least!) held and policed to a high standard. However, a breeder can be very ethical and not be a MDBA member, so that advice cuts a lot of good breeders out of consideration.

Thats it. I wont recommend a breeder who is not MDBA anyway but I do recommend them generally as a group. I felt sorry for Annie who had a clear idea of what the term meant and got clobbered - could have been worse she may have purchased the dog and probably would have if she didnt at least have a general idea of what she felt was behaviour from the breeder she didnt want to shop with.

[Steve]

The other side of it all is of course that ANKC registered breeders dont breed enough dogs to get anywhere near filling the demand there is for puppies so unless there is a way for people to determine who is a the best breeder to go to other than ANKC registered breeders they end up buying from real dodgy puppy farmers.

However, I dont care what term they use to describe them is except that it removes the meaning from the way the word has been used traditionally and confuses the buyer if they are looking for what we have traditionally called a registered breeder.