Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[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.??????????

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

No DNA testing for Whippets. No DNA testing for Italian Grehounds. Lets face it you can test for what ever you want.

I know and hear what you are saying. :D

[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.

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.

Ok lets start again.

The standard of what was happening in the ANKC breed (breed unkown to me) was set by this statment

QUOTE (MEH @ 1st Mar 2011 - 10:50 AM)

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!

Ok so I will accept that as true, it is not my statement of the conditions her breed is in, it is her statement.

I gave the statement for the condition of the ISDS/ABCA, which is how I understand the situation.

If you see a double standard, it is because the first posters opinion of the condition of her breed is very different from how I understand the condition of the ISDS dogs.

I did not set the condition of her breed, she did.

This is further demonstrated by the government, the unis and the RSPCA all wanting legal action taken to solve some of the problems being reported in pedigreed dogs.

In contrast to, the ISDS ABCA being given awards by leading Unis for their efforts in health and welfare for their breed, and by the lack of interest by any group uni or government to make dog laws about their breeding practices.

This is not my double standard, it is just what is happening.

All of the demonstrats exactly what the orginal post was on about.

Now I am fine with it, if the ANKC breeders doing the bashing understand and want to have severe government intervention on every part of dog breeding in ANKC.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[oakway]

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

Jaxx'sBuddy that is not correct what you have written ...no where did any person oppose an accredited breeder scheme in Queensland.

We opposed the form it was in. We all wanted one better to keep out puppy farmers.

[oakway]

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?

It makes sense to me.

[shortstep]

It makes sense to me.

Thanks, I need that. LOL

[mita]

It's a about breeder preference. Tracking who does what's best to get as close as possible to the results you want, for puppies & dogs.

My breed of interest has an international working party that deals with that. With health matters high on the list. Yes, Australia is represented.

And, to control conditions, lines are published that've been tested free.

http://www.tibbies.net/itswp/

Same for anything. You figure out what is likely to get the best outcome. Then go find who does what. What's missing, is public education about what's likely to get best outcomes... & highlighting the work of those breeders who do that. They already exist, in significant numbers, a study's revealed that.

[shortstep]

What's missing, is public education about what's likely to get best outcomes... & highlighting the work of those breeders who do that. They already exist, in significant numbers, a study's revealed that.

Not sure what study you are looking at, but using the sydney uni information, the RSPCA and the reports coming out the Uk on pedigree dog welfare investigations, then oddles, mix breeds and dog bred for work outside the kennel clubs would be coming out on top.

Be careful what you wish for you just may get it, and I do think you understand that Mita.

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

Jaxx'sBuddy that is not correct what you have written ...no where did any person oppose an accredited breeder scheme in Queensland.

We opposed the form it was in. We all wanted one better to keep out puppy farmers.

i was going to post from that thread but i have decided not to as i do not want to derail this thread. if you believe that all posters in that thread want an accredited scheme then we will agree to differ in our assessment of what was written.

not withstanding this disagreement, in that thread there was unbelievable statements made about breeders in that accredited scheme and i believe those statements have brought into disrepute all registered breeders in queensland.

[Sheridan]

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.

There's nothing in there about the intent of the rant article. You may be misreading the intent since people can only go on what's written. My reading of it may be wrong but so may yours.

[shortstep]

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.

There's nothing in there about the intent of the rant article. You may be misreading the intent since people can only go on what's written. My reading of it may be wrong but so may yours.

The intent as you call it is where it should be in the first few lines, at least that was how I was taught,

Here is it

Breeder-bashing isn't a new concept. However, with our rights to breed dogs under constant attack from the animal rights terrorists, led by none other than The Humane Society of The United States (which is in no way, shape or form a "real humane society", but rather an extreme animal rights organization), one would think that dog breeders could find some common ground, stick together, and dispense with the superiority complexes. No such luck.

That means, it is about her frustration with the way breeders go about bashing each other, only feeding people like you who have a lot of complaits about purebred dog breeders.

Hope that helps.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[mita]

What's missing, is public education about what's likely to get best outcomes... & highlighting the work of those breeders who do that. They already exist, in significant numbers, a study's revealed that.

Not sure what study you are looking at, but using the sydney uni information, the RSPCA and the reports coming out the Uk on pedigree dog welfare investigations, then oddles, mix breeds and dog bred for work outside the kennel clubs would be coming out on top.

Be careful what you wish for you just may get it, and I do think you understand that Mita.

I've already mentioned the contents of the study I was referring to. One that looked at specifically how registered breeders raised their puppies & managed their numbers of litters. This is getting repetitive. Not surprising when I also posted that Poodlefan & Jed have been the only people who've picked up on that study & its significance.

I'd ask you what I 'wish for' that I 'might just get'. Except I don't have to wish for anything. Quality already exists in the registered dog breeding world. It gets swamped by all the borderline paranoia in threads like this.

It simply needs to be made more aware to the public.

I'd also ask what you mean about that assorted bunch of dogs 'coming out on top'. If it's constitutional strength, marked by life span, Danish research found a bunch of pure breeds topped that scale.

As I've said, it's a case of breeder preference. It's a breath of fresh air to deal with my preferred registered breeders.

[mita]

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.

There's nothing in there about the intent of the rant article. You may be misreading the intent since people can only go on what's written. My reading of it may be wrong but so may yours.

Agree.

[Bullbreedlover]

not withstanding this disagreement, in that thread there was unbelievable statements made about breeders in that accredited scheme and i believe those statements have brought into disrepute all registered breeders in queensland.

Well seeing as I am one of those people you are referring to JB please enlighten me further as to how all registered breeders in Queensland have been brought into disrepute and how were those statements unbelieveable. By that do you mean to say...that you cant believe a breeder would be so unethical ...or do you mean I was lying when I mentioned what I know, therefore you dont believe me.

[Sheridan]

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.

There's nothing in there about the intent of the rant article. You may be misreading the intent since people can only go on what's written. My reading of it may be wrong but so may yours.

The intent as you call it is where it should be in the first few lines, at least that was how I was taught,

Here is it

Breeder-bashing isn't a new concept. However, with our rights to breed dogs under constant attack from the animal rights terrorists, led by none other than The Humane Society of The United States (which is in no way, shape or form a "real humane society", but rather an extreme animal rights organization), one would think that dog breeders could find some common ground, stick together, and dispense with the superiority complexes. No such luck.

That means, it is about her frustration with the way breeders go about bashing each other, only feeding people like you who have a lot of complaits about purebred dog breeders.

Hope that helps.

No, because she doesn't specify the type of breeder, whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. Do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the two latter or indeed, unethical registered breeders?

[poodlefan]

I didn't post in the accredited breeder thread either but I am no fan of a two tiered system.

If the system of registration and controlling the conduct of breeders is perceived to be so broken that a CC would propose an additional accredition system, the logical question is why can't you fix the problems in the existing one??

I think that's what Jaxx's buddy may have been driving at. If you ain't an accredited breeder within the proposed scheme, what does that say about you?

Edited March 1, 2011 by poodlefan

[shortstep]

What's missing, is public education about what's likely to get best outcomes... & highlighting the work of those breeders who do that. They already exist, in significant numbers, a study's revealed that.

Not sure what study you are looking at, but using the sydney uni information, the RSPCA and the reports coming out the Uk on pedigree dog welfare investigations, then oddles, mix breeds and dog bred for work outside the kennel clubs would be coming out on top.

Be careful what you wish for you just may get it, and I do think you understand that Mita.

I've already mentioned the contents of the study I was referring to. One that looked at specifically how registered breeders raised their puppies & managed their numbers of litters. This is getting repetitive. Not surprising when I also posted that Poodlefan & Jed have been the only people who've picked up on that study & its significance.

I'd ask you what I 'wish for' that I 'might just get'. Except I don't have to wish for anything. Quality already exists in the registered dog breeding world. It gets swamped by all the borderline paranoia in threads like this.

It simply needs to be made more aware to the public.

I'd also ask what you mean about that assorted bunch of dogs 'coming out on top'. If it's constitutional strength, marked by life span, Danish research found a bunch of pure breeds topped that scale.

As I've said, it's a case of breeder preference. It's a breath of fresh air to deal with my preferred registered breeders.

Mita you need to send the studies to the folks who are in the process of making all the laws about the welfare of pedigree dogs. They are the ones who have to think those studies should be used to make the plan and laws to protect the welfare of pedigree dogs. For some reason they have been lead to believe that purebred dogs are not in a good way.

[shortstep]

No, because she doesn't specify the type of breeder, whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. Do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the two latter or indeed, unethical registered breeders?

Oh, well that is because she is looking at the bigger picture where labels are not the center of world. But if you want bring it down to a lable, then go with pedigree dogs breeders. That should work just fine. Hope that helps.

Edited March 1, 2011 by shortstep

[mita]

If you ain't an accredited breeder within the proposed scheme, what does that say about you?

First, I believe that any organisation's accreditation system, if they decide to have one, should include all.

Having said that, seems DogsQld is making it voluntary.

Which means it's not a case of what non-accreditation says about a person....it's what the non-accredited person then says about themselves.

It means that a non-accredited person presents themselves to the public, the way they always have (hopefully). Indicating the ethical behaviour guidelines they follow in breeding, raising & placing their puppies and in looking after their dogs. With the evidence they'd have for that. Only difference, they'd point out, is that there hasn't been an inspection & a ticking of those boxes by the accrediting body

Edited March 1, 2011 by mita

[Sheridan]

No, because she doesn't specify the type of breeder, whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. Do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the two latter or indeed, unethical registered breeders?

Oh, well that is because she is looking at the bigger picture where lables are not the center of world. But if you must bring it down to a lable to understand, then go with pedigree dogs breeders. That should work just fine. Hope that helps.

Again, your interpretation. She doesn't say, 'Oh, I'm looking at the big picture and don't put labels on any of this'. And again, do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with BYB and puppyfarmers and unethical registered breeders? Do you just go, 'Oh, dog breeder, must not criticise' no matter what stripe of breeder it is? The dog breeder that crams ten dogs to a cage that has a wire floor and covered in faeces? Are you okay with standing shoulder to shoulder with that breeder?

[shortstep]

No, because she doesn't specify the type of breeder, whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB. Do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with the two latter or indeed, unethical registered breeders?

Oh, well that is because she is looking at the bigger picture where lables are not the center of world. But if you must bring it down to a lable to understand, then go with pedigree dogs breeders. That should work just fine. Hope that helps.

Again, your interpretation. She doesn't say, 'Oh, I'm looking at the big picture and don't put labels on any of this'. And again, do you intend to stand shoulder to shoulder with BYB and puppyfarmers and unethical registered breeders? Do you just go, 'Oh, dog breeder, must not criticise' no matter what stripe of breeder it is? The dog breeder that crams ten dogs to a cage that has a wire floor and covered in faeces? Are you okay with standing shoulder to shoulder with that breeder?

Sheridan, it just occured to me. She did not say but I am sure she would mean this. I promise you, she was not talking about you, you can complain, bash and lay judgement about dog breeders till your hearts content. OK.