Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[poodlefan]

This is such a great topic to hash out as there are such strong feeling about it!

I agree with almost everything you have said and I think for the same reasons.

However I think one of the driving forces is the pitting of one group against the other, both outside or within the groups. We see it on here all the time. It starts witht he breeders. The animal rights groups pick up on this and use it. The end result right now is that purebred dogs are being actively taken down, all the purebred dog people do for the most part is blame the dog breeders who are ot just like them and in the end everyone will loose out.

We have to stop the cycle, stop the name calling, stop blaming other breeders and stop creating tension and driving division between groups of dogs breeders.

You know I have some pretty strong personal opinions on how I want to breed my dogs, but I do think for the most part I try not to say or imply that anyone doing otherwise is wrong or a bad breeder. I try to remember that in the bigger picture all dog breeders are important and all make their contribution. I have also found that I usually have the very best of conversations and communication with breeders who are very good at what they do even when it is very unlike what I do. I appreciate their skill and I believe they appreciate mine.

Different is not bad.

Of course the animal rights pick up on division. They may be fanatical but they ain't stupid.

The "shoulder to shoulder" argument is doomed to failure. The being held to a minimum standard of behaviour isn't. No dog should be bred in this country unless its parents have been screened for inheritable conditions. Every breeder should be able to articulate how well their dogs do or don't conform to a standard, the whats and whys of line breeding and how they are personally striving to improve their dogs.

Lack of education, lack of knowledge, lack of acknowledgement of breed issues and lack of planning for litters is doing a hell of a lot more damage to breeds here than name calling and accusations of puppy farming. What breeders do or don't call each other is largely unheard by the general public. It pays to bear that in mind.

[MolassesLass]

We have to stop the cycle, stop the name calling, stop blaming other breeders and stop creating tension and driving division between groups of dogs breeders.

<snip>

Different is not bad.

Can't agree - different can be bad though it isn't necessarily so.

I will NEVER stop standing up for those dogs who are mistreated in the name of breeding. And that includes the dogs that are born with health issues due to ignorant dog pimps.

I understand the point that there are some differences that are based on subjective feelings only (like only breeding with show champions) and these should not be used to call other breeders unethical or whatever. But you can't just blanket say, all breeders are doing ok and should be supported.

[Sheridan]

Well, what I got out of that is that you shouldn't criticise another breeder because it allows animal rights activists through the door. This is complete bullshit. There is plenty to criticise about breeders no matter what sort they are and that includes registered breeders, not all of whom are ethical. Gee, even those agreeing with this would criticise an unethical registered breeder. Wouldn't they?

[shortstep]

Good answer! I agree.

Where did it say that breeders who abuse their dogs dogs are to be supported?

Please give an example of a group of breeders that you personally know for a fact do not ever health test, do not provide a good home nor ever support their buyers?

the quote that I posted in response to Julie's post outlines where it says dog abusers are okay. It implies that as long as someone breeds nice dogs and gives them good homes then everything else is "none of your business". So that leaves out the welfare of their dogs, follow-up support of homes etc.

Breeders that I know personally who don't health test, easy!

1. The puppy farm (Freedom Kennels) that I got my boy from (I didn't really know about puppy farms then).

2. The ex puppy farm breeding bitch that I got via breed rescue. The puppy farmer hadn't ever taken her to the vet, never mind actually health tested her. Poor mite didn't even have a name. You'll find out more about her in next week when she celebrates two years of freedom (I'm going to do a big post with lots of pics ).

3. Read the DOL puppy pages. I suggest starting with the rare blue stafford. I've rung up a few out of interest and most that I spoke to didn't do any health testing.

4. The registered toy poodle breeder who advertises on gum tree a lot selling her "really, really, really tiny" toy poodles (anyone say "teacup"?).

It sounds like you got a very sick dog from a very bad place and I am very sorry that happened.

Freedom farms really is a large scale commercial buiness (known as a puppy farm).

That is not the the same stiuation as the writer was talking about.

They were talking about one breeder calling another breeder a puppy farm because they had more dogs then they thought was ok, or they did not show their dogs, or they made different breeding choices. We see it on here at times. For example an 'offender' is called a BYB and puppy farmer simply because they breed and no not show their dogs. BTW this does not even need to be a real person, it would apply to any person who did not want to show dogs. Take it a step further and it could apply to people who want to breed show dogs vs people who want to breed dogs for performance. So and so on. This is what the writer is talking about, not the practices of places like Freedom farms. It is important to understand this difference in intent.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

a classic example was the dol CCCQ thread where non-accredited CCCQ breeders were saying they wouldn't join the accredited scheme because there were dodgy breeders registered in that scheme.

i could not believe that breeders did not understand the implications of what they were saying.

they were really saying to the public, that the governing body cannot be trusted to get it right and the new accredited breeder scheme was just a money making venture.

this is all animal rights people need to hear to keep up the "breeders are bad" mantra.

i was also told that because i wasn't a breeder, did nothing for breeders and did not live in queensland, that i should not have commented in the thread. with comments like that (and how do they know what i do btw) is it any wonder we have a problem?

if we do not start to look at this issue strategically and politically then we will be picked off one by one and i have no idea why breeders cannot see this. we all need each other....breeders need puppy buyers and puppy buyers need breeders.

and when i talk about breeders i am talking about people who look after each and every dog they have, who health test and who enrich their dogs regardless of how many they own who take care in placing their puppies and who will take their puppies back at any time if they find themselves homeless.

eta when i say health test i also mean test for health and do not breed from dogs who have any health issues that could be passed on...health testing on its own is not enough

Edited March 1, 2011 by Jaxx'sBuddy

[Jed]

...and Shortstep, the proof of the pudding is .....................

[shortstep]

We have to stop the cycle, stop the name calling, stop blaming other breeders and stop creating tension and driving division between groups of dogs breeders.

<snip>

Different is not bad.

Can't agree - different can be bad though it isn't necessarily so.

I will NEVER stop standing up for those dogs who are mistreated in the name of breeding. And that includes the dogs that are born with health issues due to ignorant dog pimps.

I understand the point that there are some differences that are based on subjective feelings only (like only breeding with show champions) and these should not be used to call other breeders unethical or whatever. But you can't just blanket say, all breeders are doing ok and should be supported.

Ok I think we are mixing up people who abuse animals and breeders calling another breeder who does something different as 'bad'

Ok you have a breeder who does not show. You have a breeder who does not test for performance. Who is the most ethical?

Yoou have breeder who believe the physical form will follow function, you have a breeder who believe form must lead function? Who is unethcial?

You have a breeder who wants to breed cross breed, you have a breeder who want to breed purebreds, Who is more ethical?

None of these actitives in themselves make the person unethical, they are simply different ways at looking at dog breeding.

However there are a lot of people out there who will call any of these folks unethcial because they have an opposing point of view.

Does that make sence?

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[MolassesLass]

Given that I made the very same point in my post that you've quoted, yes, it makes perfect sense.

But the article does not make the distinction. The article does not mention that there are bad breeders at all and that makes it a completely useless article.

[poodlefan]

Given that I made the very same point in my post that you've quoted, yes, it makes perfect sense.

But the article does not make the distinction. The article does not mention that there are bad breeders at all and that makes it a completely useless article.

Agree. Acknowledging that there are problems within the fancy is the first step forward.

Things are NOT going to improve simply because breeders stop calling each other names.

Edited March 1, 2011 by poodlefan

[Rebanne]

I try to remember that in the bigger picture all dog breeders are important and all make their contribution. I have also found that I usually have the very best of conversations and communication with breeders who are very good at what they do even when it is very unlike what I do. I appreciate their skill and I believe they appreciate mine.

Different is not bad.

all dog breeders? even the puppy farmers?

[shortstep]

No dog should be bred in this country unless its parents have been screened for inheritable conditions.

Every breeder should be able to articulate how well their dogs do or don't conform to a standard, the whats and whys of line breeding and how they are personally striving to improve their dogs.

Lack of education, lack of knowledge, lack of acknowledgement of breed issues and lack of planning for litters is doing a hell of a lot more damage to breeds here than name calling and accusations of puppy farming. What breeders do or don't call each other is largely unheard by the general public. It pays to bear that in mind.

Ok from a different perpective.

For 200 years people have been breeding working dogs in Australia, Uk, Europe or the frozen north, the dogs have done their jobs well and this was and is in some cases still how they are still bred and live today. Why do these folks have to health test their dogs? Sorry but blanket health testing for every pup born does not make someone an ethcial breeder.

I would also argue that it will not make for over all healthy dogs either, just dogs that are free of the few simple recessive diseases they can be tested for. There is far more to breeding healty dogs than maditory health testing. Sooner people stop acting like a few health tests is a badge of honor the sooner we might start to make progress in breeding healthy dogs. Wow did I say that on DOL...LOL

Has anyone shown the Siberians the FCI breed standard? I think not. So you think Siberians should stop breeding Siberians the way they have always bred them and instead study the FCI breed standard that was written in the US or was it Canada, taken form a a couple of dogs (was it 3 maybe 5 dogs?) that founded all the rest of KC Siberian dogs in the KC world now. Besides the FCI and KC have said that Siberians from Siberia are not Siberians.

Please remember that not everyone thinks standards are the be all and end all of dog breeding.

How about ISDS founding registry of the breed, 104 years of border collies and not a physical standard to be seen, are they really damaging the breed and should be stopped and made to breed to a show standard?? BTW the number of working bred border collie owners far out number the KC border collies in the world. Maybe there should be a vote, no better not do that, as breeding to a show standard will loose.

However, uneducated breeders doing bad things which hurt their dogs, that is a different matter and needs to be delt with on an individual basis, as with all people who commit crimes.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[poodlefan]

Shortstep:

Why do these folks have to health test their dogs? Sorry but blanket health testing for every pup born does not make someone an ethcial breeder.

Perhaps not but its a good start.

Why health test? Because you can prevent problems in dogs that in working environments are generally solved with a bullet.

How about ISDS founding registry of the breed, 104 years of border collies and not a physical standard to be seen, are they really damaging the breed and should be stopped and made to breed to a show standard?? BTW the number of working bred border collie owners so far out number the KC border collies in the world. Maybe there should be a vote, no better not do that, as breeding to a show standard will loose.

I doubt few would argue that non ANKC breed registries should be a thing of the past. However if ISDS bred dogs can get CEA, then they need to be tested before breeding.

Edited March 1, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

I believe cross breeding as well as pure 'BYB's' and 'puppyfarmers' unethical.

I know a large group of Breeders Registered and Unregistered in my choosen breed that do no health testing and don't provide life time support and don't screen homes.....Ching Ching Ching!

Oh yes I have heard this too. I am in total agreement with you. I think the only thing to do is to make very strick laws covering the breeders and breeding practices in your breed. Maditory health testing, inspeciton by the RSPCA of the breeder homes and their dogs each year. All planning of litters should have to go through the Uni ANKC welfare monitoring program to be approve prior to breeding based on EBV, COI, temperament tests and fitness to breed tests. I am pushing hard for this as I so agree with you, we need to do something.

[shortstep]

Shortstep:

Why do these folks have to health test their dogs? Sorry but blanket health testing for every pup born does not make someone an ethcial breeder.

Perhaps not but its a good start.

Why health test? Because you can prevent problems in dogs that in working environments are generally solved with a bullet.

I think you know I do all available heath testing, so I am not the anitc** of heatlh testing.

However this is a totally different subject on which the collective you and I, hundreds of experts around the world could go on for ever about and there will be many many points of view. Here we see the same problem again, the This is what I do and I know best, so do what I do or you are unethical blanket approch to dog breeding. It does not solve problems.

[shortstep]

I doubt few would argue that non ANKC breed registries should be a thing of the past. However if ISDS bred dogs can get CEA, then they need to be tested before breeding.

Well lets talk about CEA and working border collies in ISDS and in ABCA (sister orgnization in the US). ISDS has always had maditory eye screening for CEA going back so far I cannot remember when it came it, before I was in the breed. I believe the ANKC is still trying to get this mandated.

ABCA and with support of ISDS arranged the reserchthat found the gene for CEA and did the bulk of the funding for oever 8 years. They also have several PhDs in dog genetics on their health board and several expert vets in dog health. They are currently funding reserch in Hip dysplasia and have cerated a new way to screen at 8 months of age that is very effective, they have just funnded research in to adult onset deafness and they thing they have found the gene, they have been funding gene testinf for epilepsy and have been doing so for about 8 years, bu no luck so far and they have ruled out an simple gene explinations. They also did the largest health survey of any breed, several 100 thousand dogs were surveyed for health problems. They in fact have been given several awards by leading unis int he world for going above and beyond in their efforts to protect the health of working border collies. I would say they are one of the most open, honest and progressive dog registries I have ever incountered when it comes to health issues. I do not think they need another group breeders or the government telling them how to screen for health problems.

[mita]

Things are NOT going to improve simply because breeders stop calling each other names.

Yes. The article is written by someone who seems to think that this is what all registered 'breeders' do. Reflecting their own paranoid tendencies.

It's appalling how this kind of 'stuff' is trotted out on a public forum. Imported from the culture wars of the USA. While distinctly positive aspects of the registered breeding world, are less likely to see the light of day.

Here in Australia, there's been extraordinary research findings on how registered breeders tend to hit the mark in producing/raising puppies with better welfare futures. Of course, not all do. But the significant number, do. Established in a rigorous scientific study. I've only ever seen you, Poodlefan....& Jed....refer to that study. With Jed giving a run-down on how she raises her puppies, to show people on this public list. what that means in practice.

I'm on a list with international registered breeders....including Australians, of course. Have been for years. I only see knowledge being shared, and deep interest in the standards of the breed as well as the welfare of the dogs. Those people don't confuse dog welfare with extreme animal rights, nor do they see it being incompatible with developing a breed. In fact, they go together.

As to their being differences of opinions on how best to do something, there'll be those in every hobby, trade or profession. And these differences can get a bit heated at times. But the proof will always lie with outcome. So the place to focus is what is produced & keep working to that.

Edited March 1, 2011 by mita

[saradale]

There is much truth in there.

Thing is we have become a society that likes rules. We like being told what to do, how to do it, when to do it, how often to do it, not to do it.

There is no room left for individuality, being accentric, doing your own thing or sheer common sense.

We must have black & white rules for everything.

Everyone else must agree with our way of doing things.

We must all be the same kind of normal.

I think this sums up and equates for alot!!

[Rebanne]

I am in total agreement with you. I think the only thing to do is to make very strick laws covering the breeders and breeding practices in your breed. Maditory health testing, inspeciton by the RSPCA of the breeder homes and their dogs each year. All planning of litters should have to go through the Uni ANKC welfare monitoring program to be approve prior to breeding based on EBV, COI, temperament tests and fitness to breed tests. I am pushing hard for this as I so agree with you, we need to do something.

They in fact have been given several awards by leading unis int he world for going above and beyond in their efforts to protect the health of working border collies. I would say they are one of the most open, honest and progressive dog registries I have ever incountered when it comes to health issues. I do not think they need another group breeders or the government telling them how to screen for health problems.

:D

[Gayle.]

Shortstep, have you ever bred Australian Shepherds? totally OT, but I'm curious and this is as good of a place as any to ask.

And on topic, just last week we had one poodle breeder calling another one a backyard breeder because she doesn' t show her poodles. Right here on DOL. Isn't that the type of breeder bashing the article refers to?

[shortstep]

Shortstep, have you ever bred Australian Shepherds? totally OT, but I'm curious and this is as good of a place as any to ask.

And on topic, just last week we had one poodle breeder calling another one a backyard breeder because she doesn' t show her poodles. Right here on DOL. Isn't that the type of breeder bashing the article refers to?

No never bred an Aussie, I only had the one dog.

Yes that is exactly what the type of thing she is talking about.

I know I have been guilty of doing this over the years, I hope less so now.