Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[mita]

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?

I work backwards from what is produced. The registered breeding world works around breed standards, which are tested publicly via the dogs being exhibited for judging. So I'd only be interested in purebred dogs coming from the lines of registered breeders who show dogs.

(And the socialisation provided in show attendance is an associated bonus.)

It's a free country & others may choose to go about their dog-breeding differently. But I wouldn't go to them for a purebred dog. Once again, it's a free country, & others may.

I'd call this breeder preference.

[shortstep]

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

You are confused that I hold two different plans of action for 2 different registies, breeds, and breeders?

Well I am only following what has been said by the OP about the other breed. Some pretty bad breeders are in the kennel club, so clearly something drastic needs to be done. The Unis and RSPCA have been trying to come up with some plans to protect these breeds and work with the orgnizations that are having these sorts of problems, so that is what I would sugest they follow. 10 point plan and so forth

On the second group ISDS, I know this group well and they are very concerned and ethical breeders, working in the best interests of the breed. No one outside the group would have the knowledge and skills with the breed that they have, so it is best to leave them to do what they know how to do best, breed great dogs.

Does that help?

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[Rysup]

In my breed we call anyone who has more litters than they "need" to, a puppy farmer, but its a reasonably light hearted reference. We do not mean they are indeed true puppy farmers, but that they are breeding for the pet market, for the money, not to improve their stock.

I find that article a bit extreme. I also dont believe blanket health testing is the answer. Dont ask me what is though!

[MolassesLass]

You are confused that I hold two different plans of action for 2 different registies, breeds, and breeders?

Well I am only following what has been said by the OP about the other breed. Some pretty bad breeders are in the kennel club, so clearly something drastic needs to be done. The Unis and RSPCA have been trying to come up with some plans to protect these breeds and work with the orgnizations that are having these sorts of problems, so that is what I would sugest they follow. 10 point plan and so forth

On the second group ISDS, I know this group well and they are very concerned and ethical breeders, working in the best interests of the breed. No one outside the group would have the knowledge and skills with the breed that they have, so it is best to leave them to do what they know how to do best, breed great dogs.

Does that help?

So the kennel clubs have unethical breeders and should be constrained by outside bodies but the ISDS breeders are perfect and shouldn't? But you agree with the article that says no breeder is unethical?

Edited March 1, 2011 by molasseslass

[mita]

In my breed we call anyone who has more litters than they "need" to, a puppy farmer, but its a reasonably light hearted reference. We do not mean they are indeed true puppy farmers, but that they are breeding for the pet market, for the money, not to improve their stock.

Dead right... the proof lies in the outcome. The australian research showed that the significant majority of registered breeders had more control over the numbers of litters they produced, than did unregistered breeders. And this control was linked with better welfare outcomes for the puppies.

You & your fellow breeders are highlighting your preference about controlling litters. Which has positive outcomes.

Edited March 1, 2011 by mita

[shortstep]

You are confused that I hold two different plans of action for 2 different registies, breeds, and breeders?

Well I am only following what has been said by the OP about the other breed. Some pretty bad breeders are in the kennel club, so clearly something drastic needs to be done. The Unis and RSPCA have been trying to come up with some plans to protect these breeds and work with the orgnizations that are having these sorts of problems, so that is what I would sugest they follow. 10 point plan and so forth

On the second group ISDS, I know this group well and they are very concerned and ethical breeders, working in the best interests of the breed. No one outside the group would have the knowledge and skills with the breed that they have, so it is best to leave them to do what they know how to do best, breed great dogs.

Does that help?

So the kennel clubs have unethical breeders and should be constrained by outside bodies but the ISDS breeders are perfect and shouldn't? But you agree with the article that says no breeder is unethical?

I can only respond to the information and really could be considered a warning that the other posted presented. I do not think it matters where they register their dogs, if there is a lot of bad stuff going on then maybe they do need outside help to fix it. This is exacty what is being proposed by the Unis and the RSPCA and parlament hearings by the governments. So we can conclude they have listened to the people saying there are big problems in kennel clubs dog breeding. Right now as we speak they are trying to take some action to protect the pedigree dogs. This is the point of the writer we are discussing.

ISDS ABCA on the other are not bad mothing each other, are trying to do the right things and are doing really good job. They have not found themselves in need of attention of the gevernment nor do need breeding laws to prevent unethical behaviour. That is the point of the writer too.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[MolassesLass]

If you can reconcile those ideas in your head, then good for you but I'm out. I can only discuss rational, logical thinking.

[shortstep]

In my breed we call anyone who has more litters than they "need" to, a puppy farmer, but its a reasonably light hearted reference. We do not mean they are indeed true puppy farmers, but that they are breeding for the pet market, for the money, not to improve their stock.

Dead right... the proof lies in the outcome. The australian research showed that the significant majority of registered breeders had more control over the numbers of litters they produced, than did unregistered breeders. And this control was linked with better welfare outcomes for the puppies.

You & your fellow breeders are highlighting your preference about controlling litters. Which has positive outcomes.

This needs to addressed and right away. You should pick a number of litters that is ethical and would prove they are bettering the breed and would assure the poistive outcomes desired. Maybe one litter every 3 years would be good. Then make this a law with some government oversight. This is such a shame to hear this is happening in the ANKC.

[shortstep]

If you can reconcile those ideas in your head, then good for you but I'm out. I can only discuss rational, logical thinking.

You really do not understand? That ANKC breeders are getting exactly what they ask for?

[Rysup]

In my breed we call anyone who has more litters than they "need" to, a puppy farmer, but its a reasonably light hearted reference. We do not mean they are indeed true puppy farmers, but that they are breeding for the pet market, for the money, not to improve their stock.

Dead right... the proof lies in the outcome. The australian research showed that the significant majority of registered breeders had more control over the numbers of litters they produced, than did unregistered breeders. And this control was linked with better welfare outcomes for the puppies.

You & your fellow breeders are highlighting your preference about controlling litters. Which has positive outcomes.

This needs to addressed and right away. You should pick a number of litters that is ethical and would prove they are bettering the breed and would assure the poistive outcomes desired. Maybe one litter every 3 years would be good. Then make this a law with some government oversight. This is such a shame to hear this is happening in the ANKC.

I personally, average about 1 litter every 5 years, give or take. But there are breeders within my breed who have no hesitation in breeding 10-15 litters a year.

[Sheridan]

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.

But therefore do we support registered breeders come what may? I don't think so.

[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

You are confused that I hold two different plans of action for 2 different registies, breeds, and breeders?

Well I am only following what has been said by the OP about the other breed. Some pretty bad breeders are in the kennel club, so clearly something drastic needs to be done. The Unis and RSPCA have been trying to come up with some plans to protect these breeds and work with the orgnizations that are having these sorts of problems, so that is what I would sugest they follow. 10 point plan and so forth

On the second group ISDS, I know this group well and they are very concerned and ethical breeders, working in the best interests of the breed. No one outside the group would have the knowledge and skills with the breed that they have, so it is best to leave them to do what they know how to do best, breed great dogs.

Does that help?

nope, all I see is a double standard. The breed you know best is above reproach so should never be checked up on, others who aren't up to your standard should be pinned down with even more rules and regulations.

[moosmum]

The article could have been better written,but it seems some are deliberatly misreading the sentiments behind it which are I.M.O quite valid.

Some of the present arguments are only high lighting that there are many different groups breeding dogs with their own ultimate goals and priorities.Whats needed and works for one is not what is universaly needed.

Take responsibility for problems with in your own area of expertise so fingers can't be pointed.

If problems are rife and come to public attention,be sure your own group can at least say "we have a plan to overcome this",or "this is not a problem for us because..."

Let people hold responsiblitiy for their own messes with out dragging every one else down.

Saying all dogs should be health tested regardless,be shown,live in such and such conditions,have so many litters,be raised in in this way forgets the diverse world we have.There are species of dogs still evolving for different purposes and environments.Most unregistered,just as pure "Pedigree" dogs originated.

This ongoing process is needed for the viability of dogs as a species.

Of course welfare is important,and there are laws suposedly to address matters of cruelty that could be better enforced,and education for the majority who simply don't have a clue.

But try telling the Eskimos that they are not doing it right when their pups are whelped in the snow,never shown or health tested and cross bred with whatever looks good to the owners or wins the right against the pack.When the bitch is bred for her 4th generation cross to a wolf and has proven her worth and her health in trying conditions. It may be an extreme example,but realy just one of the broadest.

[poodlefan]

But try telling the Eskimos that they are not doing it right when their pups are whelped in the snow,never shown or health tested and cross bred with whatever looks good to the owners or wins the right against the pack.When the bitch is bred for her 4th generation cross to a wolf and has proven her worth and her health in trying conditions. It may be an extreme example,but realy just one of the broadest.

I wouldn't dream of it. I confine my remarks to breeders in this country and for them, not testing for known inheritable conditions is irresponsible IMO. In Victoria, its also illegal.

People like the Inuit allow nature to cull their litters and don't breed what cannot perform a necessary function. Outside of the world of working dogs, things are different.

Edited March 1, 2011 by poodlefan

[Gayle.]

Is it illegal? Or is it illegal to knowingly breed animals with heritable defects?

I don't actually know, but if it's the second case, that's different to being legally obliged to carry out health testing.

Edited March 1, 2011 by GayleK

[poodlefan]

Is it illegal? Or is it illegal to knowingly breed animals with heritable defects?

I don't actually know, but if it's the second case, that's different to mandatory health testing.

Its the second Gayle. I'd say mandory health testing is the flow on result.

[oakway]

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!

I have never given this guarantee on my children.

My beed has no health test.??????????

[poodlefan]

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!

I have never given this guarantee on my children.

My beed has no health test.??????????

Nothing mandatory although you could make a case for hips and heart as a precaution. I know Whippet breeders that test hearts.

[Gayle.]

Is it illegal? Or is it illegal to knowingly breed animals with heritable defects?

I don't actually know, but if it's the second case, that's different to mandatory health testing.

Its the second Gayle. I'd say mandory health testing is the flow on result.

but the way around that is to not carry out any health tests. If you don't know about the conditions you can hardly breed "knowingly".

That is kind of a stupid law, don't you think? It's like saying if you don't have a speedo in your car you can't be booked for speeding because you couldn't know you were speeding ( thanks civic compliance for that little surprise in yesterdays mail.)

[moosmum]

But try telling the Eskimos that they are not doing it right when their pups are whelped in the snow,never shown or health tested and cross bred with whatever looks good to the owners or wins the right against the pack.When the bitch is bred for her 4th generation cross to a wolf and has proven her worth and her health in trying conditions. It may be an extreme example,but realy just one of the broadest.

I wouldn't dream of it. I confine my remarks to breeders in this country and for them, not testing for known inheritable conditions is irresponsible IMO. In Victoria, its also illegal.

People like the Inuit allow nature to cull their litters and don't breed what cannot perform a necessary function. Outside of the world of working dogs, things are different.

Yes,but some still try to apply blanket logic over all such groups.In smaller pockets,dogs are still evolving to working and other stardards within australia,and may one day be recognised and bred to a show standard.Much more often in less developed contries.

And I agree on health testing,but you are leveling your values at "Known" Heritable diseases relevent to specific groups.Its their responsibility to address this where it applies,or accept the consequences.If this group directly affects you or is within "your" breed then yep,thats you and you are right to push for responsible action.

Why make it law? Instead correct it from within, without outside interference.Taking responsability to your own interests.

Edited March 1, 2011 by moosmum