Up For Some Breeder Bashing Today?

[shortstep]

Wow that sure is some list.

I health test all eye conditions annually in my bitches as diagnosable by a Veterinary Opthamologist tha are of concern to the breed. Litters are eye tested at 6 weeks.

Annual Vet checks for MVD

Annual Vet check for general health concerns to ensure all is in good order such as ears, skin, pattelar check etc.

Without any DNA markers available I would be wasting my time and money checking for any possible diseases that might occur (in any dog) such as Cushings for example.

As a hobby breeder and enthusiast I endeavour to breed from outwardly healthy stock, if my bitch is not up to scratch as a suitable specimen for breeding a healthy litter of puppies then she will not be bred from. If there are any indicators of conditions contrary to this she will not be bred from. My intention is that the puppies I breed go to homes that I have taken great care to select and have every chance of growing into strong happy healthy companion animals.

I bet you can now appreciate my concern (after looking at that long list) of the blanket idea that to be a reputable breeders you must do 'health testing".

Very easy to get accused of not doing test x or test y.

I believe you care about your dogs, will seek good advice and will do your best. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[moosmum]

Yes and yes.Work on your own problems.They exsist in all groups who will ultimately be judged,and harshly.

And when some are judged by others failure to work on the problems, what then?

Many professional associatons work on the principle of peer regulation - the reason is due to their desire to safeguard the reputation of the association generally.

The article isn't arguing beyond urging breeders not to bash one another. Ask breeders to put aside differences and work together for the betterment of the breed and I'll agree whole heartedly.

When others are judged by others failures to work on the problem?

Then there will be a price to pay.It my belief that breed clubs are in positions of custodians for their breeds and its members.Ultimately they will be held responsible for the direction taken and they owe it to their members to work together with them to identify problems and find solutions,making sure members are well informed of both.

Peer regulation can work with enforcable rules aimed at solutions.With out enforcement peer regulation can be seen as peer acceptance.

Ask breeders to put aside differences and work for the betterment of the breed and you will agree whole heartedly? Its a deal if you change the word breed to dog.

Edited March 2, 2011 by moosmum

[Jed]

Shortstep

In some few cases it might be beneficial for the

breed to use these homozygotes for breeding. Given they are

mated to dogs that do not carry the disease gene, none of the

offspring will get the disease. Testing is not necessary; they

will all be carriers.

Pardon?

[shortstep]

Shortstep

In some few cases it might be beneficial for the

breed to use these homozygotes for breeding. Given they are

mated to dogs that do not carry the disease gene, none of the

offspring will get the disease. Testing is not necessary; they

will all be carriers.

Pardon?

Not sure what your question is exactly, so guessing it is the use of an affected dog? Or the use of the word Homozygous or you could also call them homozygous recessives meaning affected?

Yes it can be correct to use affected dogs, in certain cases.

For example a disease may not be very disabling to the dog, meaning that the dog is still very functional. CEA in border collies is an example. I believe there have only been a handful of affected dogs that had any real vision loss and they almost all have only the least damaging expression of the disease. So the ethics of using the dog (from the dogs point of view) is OK.

Next to consider is that in this breed the rate of affected dogs and carriers is not that high and can easily be controlled with DNA testing, so no future dog is born with the disease. With just testing and preventing more affected dogs the rate of carriers will drop over time.

In this particular case, of this disease in this breed, it is acceptable in most genetic experts opinion to used affected dogs, of course all other things would have to be considered. In other words this disease is mild and well controlled with DNA testing, therefore keeping as many dogs as possible in the gene pool should be the priority when considering this disease.

Another example would be collies and CEA. I hope I am correct with this as it is not my area. I believe that the carrier and affected rate for CEA is much higher, they do not have a lot of dogs that are not affected or carriers. They also have more dogs that have the severe forms. (those modifying genes again at play making each breed have a different level of disease severity expression).

http://www.optigen.com/opt9_test_cea_ch.html

The frequency of the CEA/CH gene mutation in U.S. Rough and Smooth Collies appears to be extremely high. In general, the frequency of affecteds in Rough and Smooth Collies is well over 50%, and in some populations has been observed to be as high as 85-90% of dogs examined. Of the remaining, most are carriers.

They in effect have no choice but use some affected dogs, as if they eliminated all of them, it would put terrible stressors on the future of the breed. I believe they try to use less severely affected dogs to normal dogs. With affected to normal there are no dogs born with the disease. I am not sure if they breed carriers to carriers. At any rate the reasons they use affected dogs in their breeding program is different to the border collie but still in the best interest of the future of their breed and is the most common opinion of genetic experts on how to proceed.

Last part of the above statment no testing is required, all affected to normal offspring will be carriers, that is correct. The affected dog can only give an affected gene and the same for the normal dog it can only give a normal gene.

Am I on track with my answer?

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

And you breed carrier to carrier - so the next generation are all affected.

It would certainly want to be something which had nil effect even if the dog was affected.

And, I have to ask, why bother developing tests - which as we all know, cost zillions and which breeders mostly pay for - for a disease which has so little affect on the breed that affected dogs can be produced without problems?? In fact, so little affect that it is recommended that carriers be bred with?

Loony science. Or was that a test case to see if we were watching? And yes, I do presume that C x C = A, as it is in most diseases. Particularly homozygous carriers. Does the article presume that all clear dogs have other problems?

You mention using affected - I am not sure what the moi for CEA is,not having had to face it - but I would suppose that A x clear = carrier? There is no problem using affected dogs or carriers of anything, UNLESS affected stock are being produced. Why bother to produce affected, if there is no good reason for it, or if the dogs are going to have some health problem down the track.

Am I missing something?

I am sorry, my internet connection is too slow to access the site, so I will take your word that it is an ok one.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Jed

[shortstep]

And you breed carrier to carrier - so the next generation are all affected.

It would certainly want to be something which had nil effect even if the dog was affected.

And, I have to ask, why bother developing tests - which as we all know, cost zillions and which breeders mostly pay for - for a disease which has so little affect on the breed that affected dogs can be produced without problems?? In fact, so little affect that it is recommended that carriers be bred with?

Loony science. Or was that a test case to see if we were watching?

Am I missing something?

I am sorry, my internet connection is too slow to access the site, so I will take your word that it is an ok one.

Ok lets clear this up quickly.

I did not say that anyone breeds carrier to carrier, I said I did not know if the collie folks do, but the border collie folks do not breed carriers to carriers.

However to be correct, a carrier to a carrier will produce 1/4 normals, 1/4 affecteds and 1/2 carriers, so only 1 out of 4 would be affected.

Well there are thousands of colies that do have more severe problems, it also affects several other breeds, all of which would be better off if they did not have CEA. That is now possible for all of the breeds, to not have CEA affected dogs. That is wonderful.

Yes carriers can and should be bred with in almost all simple recessive diseases. You use the DNA tests to control disease, not to take out your breed by eliminating dogs from breeding. think of DNA testing as something that assists the breeder by allowing them many more options in breeding that will all end with no affected puppies. The goal in any breeding program is to control disease and keep as many dogs in the breeding population as possible.

If we take your view that breeding carriers is wrong and I will say you think breeding affecteds even worse, then you have just signed the death warrent of the collie. There is no need to do that, the collies will be fine. Over the next years there will be less and less affected dogs and less and less carriers and more and more normals. Over the years this will become a distant problem, but it takes time and every body has to back off and let the breeders with the help of science get on with it. They ( as with all breeders) need our support not our judgement.

This is exaclty why people need to stop making statements they think can apply to everyone and anyone not meeting their expectations should be bashed. 'Every breeder should health test' becomes rather meaningless when you apply the reality of each breed to that statement.

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Jed]

This is what I answered

In some few cases it might be beneficial for the

breed to use these homozygotes for breeding. Given they are

mated to dogs that do not carry the disease gene, none of the

offspring will get the disease. Testing is not necessary; they

will all be carriers.

There would be no problems in the first generation.

I mentioned it because the progression of carrier x carrier = affected would eventually mean the vast % of the breed was affected .... and where do they go then? Then I am back to - if affected had no problem, why bother developing a test? And if affected was a problem, why is the certain breeding of affected pups being advocated by the article?

I have no problem with mating carriers to produce either carriers or clear stock. That is why we shelled out for DNA tests, so we would know that we were doing.

I do think it is rather a pity that some of these articles advocate stuff which no one would do in the real world. See earllier post.

And I fully understand your last post. I just wonder whether the authors of the paper understand.

This is how it goes in the real world ... the bitch is a carrier, if I mate her to Ch Blind As, who is also a carrier, some of the pups will be affected - or all of them. I think the lines Blind As has will compliment my lines, but I don't want affected pups.

So, I mate to Ch Sees For Miles, who is clear. He may not be exactly the epitome of what I want to produce, but he will give me clear pups. I have the pups DNA tested, and I keep a clear bitch. I can then send that bitch to Ch Blind As, and produce clear or carrier pups - which I can DNA test before running on. And I will have the lines I desire, and hopefully, a good dog to continue with.

And yes, I do take the view that breeding homozygous carriers to carriers to produce affected stock is wrong. Unless - see my earlier post. Which is why I replied. I have been breeding for a long time, I tend to see the generation after this one --- and I plan so the problem of a kennel full of affected dogs never occurs.

And this is off topic anyhow, and I think I have clarified it enough.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Jed

[shortstep]

This is what I answered

There would be no problems in the first generation.

I mentioned it because the progression of carrier x carrier = affected would eventually mean the vast % of the breed was affected .... and where do they go then? Then I am back to - if affected had no problem, why bother developing a test? And if affected was a problem, why is the certain breeding of affected pups being advocated by the article?

Jed,

I have read your comments again and I am still confused why you keep talking about breeding carriers to carriers. It must be something I am saying which is being misunderstood to mean that I am saying to do that, I am not. Or we are saying the same thing and I just can't figure it out.

Mathematically (and do not ask me to prove this but all the experts say this is true) if you use only one rule, always make sure there is at least one DNA normal dog in every breeding, and the population is then all bred at random using the whole population, you will not have any affected pups and you will over time reduce the carrier rate. Remember that in populations there are also normal dogs that are also being bred to each other. So the use of a smaller number of affected dogs to normals does not cause an increase in carriers dogs over the progression of many generations of breedings the total population.

I believe this even true when you look at populations where the number of affected and carrier dogs is very high to start with. Where ther might be cause to do carrier to carrier breedings. This is from the CEA web site...

Understandably, genetic testing will be a difficult tool to use for some breeders of “standard” collies (i.e., Rough, Smooth, Show, Standard) where the disease is very common. In some circumstances, genetically normal – homozygous normal – collies could be difficult to find and it may not be practical for the breeder to plan matings that include one normal dog. And, it may not be reasonable to expect complete avoidance of CEA/CH in one generation. All the same, genetic testing is a sure-fire tool to move toward elimination of the disease. To start, breeding a carrier to a carrier will produce an average of 25% normals, 50% carriers and 25% affecteds. With genetic testing at each subsequent generation, and with a goal of breeding normal by carrier or normal by affected, the frequency of disease will drop and frequency of normals will increase without loss of other desirable traits valued in collies.

Now back to the border collie example of NOT breeding carriers to carriers, but using Clear to Clear, Clear to Carrier, and Clear to Affected.

In border collies there are only 2.5% or less than 3 dogs per 100 that are affected and this was prior to any DNA testing, this number is now close to zero affected and will remain at zero as long as people use at least one DNA normal parent. So the primary goal has already been reached, breeders now can breed without producing affected dogs.

Now the second goal, to keep as many dogs as possible in the gene pool.

Back to the use of affecteds topic, even if you used that 2.5% of affected dogs, and bred them to normals, the small number of carriers they would have added to the population would not over time cause the % of carriers to increase. In fact if you always use one normal dog in every breeding, the number of affecteds will drop to zero in the first generation and the number of carriers will drop slowly over time, without any other intervention. At the time the test came out is was around 25% carriers. Affected have all disappeared (or getting very old now). What is not so good, which I think I heard but cannot find any link to this now, was that the carrier rate is now falling way way too fast. Meaning way too many dogs are being culled from the population for no other reason other than to remove CEA carriers.

This is not in the best interest of the breed because there are many far worse diseases that we have no control over and that are far more complicated genetically than CEA. The very dogs being thrown out because they are CEA carriers might be the only dogs that do not have genes for these other diseases. We could be dooming our dogs to have very high affected rates of some other much more nasty diseases. This might come on very suddenly as the population diversity is reduced so quickly, which will concentrate any diseases in that now smaller genetic population. New diseases can rear their heads very quickly in closed populations where culling* large numbers of dogs is done. In effect we could be culling about 27% of the total population of border collies in a single generation, and all to remove a gene for a disease we have total control over! Not good at all.

* cull means to remove from the breeding population, that is all the word means when used way.

So now we come full circle again and back to the topic of this post. The concept of not selecting the next generation by automatically culling all affecteds and carriers can be very hard to get some breeders to accept, even harder to get them to practice. Many breeders believe they need to have "all dogs in my kennel are genetically Clear for...." as proof of their being a 'reputable' breeder.

This belief can come about from the constant pressure on breeders by those who are really not educated in breeding genetics, constantly setting all these so called standards that a reputable breeder has to meet. These very folks who want to be saving dogs from 'bad' breeders by forcing their message on to what a good breeder should be doing, are actually pushing some and often many of the 'good' breeders to make some very poor breeding decisions, against what is the best advise in genetics and science, so they can conform and avoid the labeling and bashing. Further, you suggest that this might be happening and it will set off a flurry of bashing to get this heretic under control...LOL Further what will happend if you say this....

I am breeding an affected CEA dog, fantastic animal, one of the best I have ever known and I very excieted about the pups!

Edited March 2, 2011 by shortstep

[Sheridan]

And again, you're okay with being lumped in with the puppyfarmer who breeds a bitch every season in deplorable conditions and then throws her away? It's amazing that this is okay with you, that you're unwilling to judge such a person because it's meaningless and negative and general. Amazing.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else.

The above example may not be a "puppy farm",but it is certainly my idea of a BYBer.Are they unethical? Should we be pushing for laws to make it impossible for them to breed dogs at all because their ideals are not ours? Should THEY be forced to stand with the puppy farmers in their corner?

There are no clear definitions of Registered,Ethical breeders,BYBers or puppy farmers yet.

You can criticise all you want and no doubt find justification with generalizations.Just don't be suprised that they do the same with their criticism of the pedigree show breeders.

There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves. I just find it astounding that some people in this thread are unwilling to condemn such people whether registered, puppyfarmer or BYB.

So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad.

Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you?

Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence.

Um, why are you accusing me of standing with the worst? Unless you think that ethical registered breeders are the worst? Cos I'm with them. Perhaps you mean someone else in the thread.

[moosmum]

And again, you're okay with being lumped in with the puppyfarmer who breeds a bitch every season in deplorable conditions and then throws her away? It's amazing that this is okay with you, that you're unwilling to judge such a person because it's meaningless and negative and general. Amazing.

No one is saying they want to be "stand with" or be "lumped with" bad or unethical practice.They are hoping that good practice can be universaly sought by various groups in the ways that suit them and work for them.That they can clearly see problems within their own groups and work to clean them up.Take personal responsibility for seeing their own group is beyond reproach before pointing the finger at some one else.

There are some pedigree show breeders that should be condemned alongside the puppyfarmers and the BYBs who keep their dogs in conditions that I have described in this thread because they're little more than puppyfarmers and BYBs themselves.

So you are saying you will continue to label people puppy farmers and BYBers and with no clear definitions of what those terms mean. but they re all bad.

Show breeders will be lumped into their own category.This allows you to condemn whole groups indiscriminatly while some of the worst can "stand with" you?

Wouldn't it make more sense to condemn ignorance and poor practice period and admit that it exsists amoung all groups of breeders? Seems to me your arguments would be given more credence.

Um, why are you accusing me of standing with the worst? Unless you think that ethical registered breeders are the worst? Cos I'm with them. Perhaps you mean someone else in the thread.

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

[Sheridan]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

[moosmum]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

I don't argue with with any of that,but you are missing my point about labels.They work against us all.

Joe public doesn't see this.They go by experience and heresay.EACH of the groups being discussed have genuine,legitamate complaints against them.And laws are being made because people with out intimate,experienced knowledge in their field are demanding blanket solutions.

We ask for legislation to curb puppy farmers and numbers of dogs owned/bred is limited.We have inspectors to see conditions before dogs can be bred,policing of practices and care to standards laid down by out siders who have no idea how their legislation affects people in other areas.

Dogs being bred in dirty,unhygenic conditions? Make a law that says concrete floors that can be hosed down 2x a day.

No veterinary care? Make a law that says all dogs must see a vet 2x a year. Must be vaccinated to prevent disease X times and have a health check before being bred at this age.

Kept in tiny cages with no excersize? We will fix that with a law to say dogs at all times must have room to streach out 2X their length and a run in an area no smaller than X 2X a day.

Backyard breeders churning out unwanted and un planned for litters? New law.Thou shalt not breed any dog with out a permitt obtained after council approval and inspection of premises and a bussiness plan.All progeny to be desexed.

Dogs being bought on the spur of the moment with no foresight? Puppies not to be displayed in public,taken to markets or sold via the internet.

Pedigree dogs being bred to standards that affect their health? Thou shalt not breed a dog with a known health issue and if we think a long coat is too hot, that will be out too.

Irresponsible owners are letting their dogs be a nuisance? Keep them out of sight and silent.

You can add to this list endlessly because there will always be those who will do the wrong thing,out of apathy or ignorance,and with the present mentality laws will be made to counter act .

Murder is illegal with harsh penalties but it still happens.

If you think these laws are good because they are only aimed at the relevant groups,think again.They can be and will be used against each and every one who owns a dog,more and more often as they are accepted by Joe public as the way its suposed to be.

Laws are being abused now to suit the agendas of various groups.

These laws play directly into the hands of the puppy farmers you abhorre,because they have the money and profit potential to ensure they are the ones left standing at the end of the day,when dogs are such a rare "commodity" they can charge what they like.

Surely, whats realy important is that dogs are not seen as the newest accessory,but are recognised as thinking,feeling beings that we choose to be responsible for,or not. An individual choice made with fore thought, acceptance of the responsibilities and understanding of the price paid for the privilege. If you choose to breed,you bear some responsibility for each and every life brought into the world and how that life is lived.Regardless of weather you make a profit or not.Regardless of weather the dog is pedigree or not.Wether you "knew" or not.

The ideal can't be legislated,but it can exsist accross the board and it can be taught,but not if dog ownership becomes so expensive and difficult Joe Public is never exposed to dogs .They will understand dogs and their care as much as they understand alligators.

A dog owner,for any purpose ,needs to understand and accept a duty of care. They have only the best of their own resourses to work with and are guided by their peers and percieved demands.

No one is born with the ideals they hold today for dog ownership.Its been a long process of experience and we have all made mistakes along the way.If not by our own standards then by someone elses.

Who will be left to teach?

Wow an epic.

Edited March 3, 2011 by moosmum

[shortstep]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

I don't argue with with any of that,but you are missing my point about labels.They work against us all.

Joe public doesn't see this.They go by experience and heresay.EACH of the groups being discussed have genuine,legitamate complaints against them.And laws are being made because people with out intimate,experienced knowledge in their field are demanding blanket solutions.

We ask for legislation to curb puppy farmers and numbers of dogs owned/bred is limited.We have inspectors to see conditions before dogs can be bred,policing of practices and care to standards laid down by out siders who have no idea how their legislation affects people in other areas.

Dogs being bred in dirty,unhygenic conditions? Make a law that says concrete floors that can be hosed down 2x a day.

No veterinary care? Make a law that says all dogs must see a vet 2x a year. Must be vaccinated to prevent disease X times and have a health check before being bred at this age.

Kept in tiny cages with no excersize? We will fix that with a law to say dogs at all times must have room to streach out 2X their length and a run in an area no smaller than X 2X a day.

Backyard breeders churning out unwanted and un planned for litters? New law.Thou shalt not breed any dog with out a permitt obtained after council approval and inspection of premises and a bussiness plan.All progeny to be desexed.

Dogs being bought on the spur of the moment with no foresight? Puppies not to be displayed in public,taken to markets or sold via the internet.

Pedigree dogs being bred to standards that affect their health? Thou shalt not breed a dog with a known health issue and if we think a long coat is too hot, that will be out too.

Irresponsible owners are letting their dogs be a nuisance? Keep them out of sight and silent.

You can add to this list endlessly because there will always be those who will do the wrong thing,out of apathy or ignorance,and with the present mentality laws will be made to counter act .

Murder is illegal with harsh penalties but it still happens.

If you think these laws are good because they are only aimed at the relevant groups,think again.They can be and will be used against each and every one who owns a dog,more and more often as they are accepted by Joe public as the way its suposed to be.

Laws are being abused now to suit the agendas of various groups.

These laws play directly into the hands of the puppy farmers you abhorre,because they have the money and profit potential to ensure they are the ones left standing at the end of the day,when dogs are such a rare "commodity" they can charge what they like.

Surely, whats realy important is that dogs are not seen as the newest accessory,but are recognised as thinking,feeling beings that we choose to be responsible for,or not. An individual choice made with fore thought, acceptance of the responsibilities and understanding of the price paid for the privilege. If you choose to breed,you bear some responsibility for each and every life brought into the world and how that life is lived.Regardless of weather you make a profit or not.Regardless of weather the dog is pedigree or not.

The ideal can't be legislated,but it can exsist accross the board and it can be taught,but not if dog ownership becomes so expensive and difficult Joe Public is never exposed to dogs .They will understand dogs and their care as much as they understand alligators.

Wow an epic,I have to go and will polish and complete this soon

Thanks for that, was really well said and inspiring.

Your last paragraphs are what I believe we all need to aspire to. Understanding the great privilege and the responsibility of owning dogs and breeding dogs.

It should not be a war zone. Breeders should, more than anyone else, be able to understand, help and support other breeders.

It is a real shame we have let it get to the state it is now.

But we can regain control over ourselves and stop these habitual negative behaviors that are so destructive to everyone who loves and owns dogs.

Edited March 3, 2011 by shortstep

[Steve]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Steve

[oakway]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

:D

[shortstep]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

:D

Did not see your post until now Steve...

Agree excellent post and to the point!

Edited March 4, 2011 by shortstep

[LizT]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

:D

Indeed. When I bought a pet 30 years ago who happened to be papered (rare breed), I went on to do Obedience with her, later decided to show her (Titled her) and toyed with the idea of breeding her, but didn't (for my own reasons) it was ALL within my decision making boundaries and no one elses.

Today as a Breeder and Exhibitor of a far more popular dog I find myself being judged with "What, when, where and how" I do things at every turn.

Some days I end up "carrying the donkey".

[moosmum]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

And :D again!

I did not breed in my younger days because I thought there were people more qualified and dedicated than myself. I only wanted a good dog as a companion and nothing to detract from that relationship.I could not be a show person.Wrong temperament.I thought I would have to show to be any good as a breeder.

I came to regret that decision when the breed of my choice took a different direction to my own ideals. What I wanted in my dogs could no longer be found.

Who is to say my ideals are wrong? When fads in the ring lead to unforseen problems down the track,the gene pool is too small to correct them easily or maybe at all the way things stand.

Even uniformity of type can be taken too far.With too narrow a gene pool you might as well just clone.

[Steve]

Sorry Sheridan, (and I said "some' of the worst,I definitely did not mean that proportionatly) It was your sentence that some pedigree show breeders should be condemned alongside puppy farmers and BYBers as they are little more themselves.

My point was that generalised labels are not fair on anyone.

If all pedigree show breeders can't be relied on to be ethical,then its very biased to lump people into broad groups and say "that lot is unethical,my lot is"

Ethics arent universal to pedigree or show breeders. So you may say you won't stand with such and such( undefined) groups, yet "your" group is allowing them to stand with you in condemnation of others,who will very likely have ethical members also trying to clean up their act.

If "ethics" is defined,I'm sure there are many many BYBers who can be shown to be ethical,and quite possibly some puppy farmers too.

If you are looking for them on DOL,you won't find them.Before anyone jumps on me for this statement,I am NOT implying that there is nothing wrong with either BYBers or puppy farmers!! I AM objecting to the way these labels are used to divide and legislate when there is no consensus on what the terms mean.

And if you are being fair,too many people on Dol use the terms "Pedigree/show breeder" interchangably with Ethical to define this group.

I think there are probably some ethical BYBs but I doubt whether any puppyfarmer is in it for anything other than a love of money. And there have been many a conversation on DOL about unethical registered breeders, for example, those who have sold to McDougal, some of whom are show breeders. This is a fact, not a generalised label. Do people really want to stand shoulder to shoulder with these people? They are condemned in thread after thread but all of a sudden, they're supported because they're registered? Not by me and not by anyone with an ounce of ethics. I don't support people who sell to pet shops, whether they do it themselves or via a broker.

Yes but there is a difference between not supporting them because we dont agree with their assumed motivation or where they sell their puppies or if their philosophies are different to ours and fighting a war about it. No one is saying if they are breeding dogs in rotten conditions that we should not say so and work against this.

Stand back from this a minute and look at it objectively.

On this forum there is a consensus that breeding ANKC registered purebreds dogs is the preferred method of producing a puppy and there is a bunch of assumptions which go along with that. The reality is that the only thing that a registered purebred breeder HAS to do and CAN do which is any different to any other person who allows two dogs to mate is that they can register the birth details on one particular registry unless they breed a select few breeds which have to be scored or screened for specific things before the puppies can be registered.

However, even if I have to score or screen thats no guarantee I only use dogs with low scores or that I will breed unaffected puppies. Except in Victoria if I know the status of my dog's DNA I can still breed carriers or affected dogs to anything I want.

Any argument we want to put forward and tell people about why buying a registered purebred puppy is better can be squashed except that they are more predictible and there is a greater chance of knowing the ancestry of the parents.

None of what Im about to say relates to any breeder who doesnt treat their animals as they should be treated.

Lets look at the things that most people on this forum have come to expect from purebred breeders.

Where tests are available for a known recessive issue in the breed breeders can test for that - but even though its not politically correct here to say so - if I were breeding first cross dogs I could test for the same things if the issues are known in the 2 breeds Im breeding or not need to test if the issue is only known in one of the breeds. Is it more likely that a purebred breeder will test for these known recessive disorders which have tests available ? Probably but I promise you there are in my opinion, only a minority of breeders who do test even when they can. Even if they do test for the things which they are able to test for there is no guarantee that the dog wont get something which hasnt been able to be tested for or for things which show up even if the parents are tested and selected to try to avoid it such as HD. Some breeders know their parent dogs have produced puppies with problems but still continue to use them to breed with regardless of whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred dogs.

Then there is much talk about how registered purebred breeders are better than any other if they test their dogs against the standard and other dogs of their breed by showing their dogs.This has become more of an issue than it was 30 years ago because registered purebred breeders who show their dogs now worry about who will take their dogs and breed them and they have become restrictive on who can take a pup with papers suitable for breeding - unless the buyer is going to be led by them, sign all manner of restrictive contracts and do what the breeders tell them to do its become almost impossible to buy a good puppy which the breeder would feel is good for breeding.So now anyone who wants to buy a papered dog which they may want tohave a litter with has to go to someone who doesnt really understand the importance of the whole selection for breeding stuff.

If I wanted to buy a purebred puppy 30 years ago and I told the breeder I might want to breed a litter or two later on the breeder sold me a pup which wouldn't do the breed any harm if I used it for breeding and offered to give a hand finding a stud dog if I did decide to do that when the time came.

It didnt matter that much if they didnt show the dog because it had good stuff behind it and it was one which had as much chance of winning as any the breeder kept to show. You may not get litter pick but you got a good representative of the breed which wasnt likely to have too much risk for genetic diseases. I might even buy my own male but I could tell the breeder what I had and that I might want to breed so they would sell me a male which I could put with my bitch and not do the breed any harm.

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

Now they are low life puppy farmers -after all isnt it now a medal of honour to only breed a litter every couple of years and only for yourself? 30 years ago these people were seen as those who were less serious about the hobby and not regarded as being more knowledgeable or more elevated in status than someone who really put their lives and resources into the betterment of the breed by owning and breeding more not less dogs.

Yet here, as soon as the discussion started, the assumption is that anyone who agreed with the basis of the article were wanting to stand shoulder to shoulder and support people who were treating animals poorly.

Thats not what I got out of it at all. I saw it saying stop bagging each other out and rather than follow on like sheep re assess what you have come to believe are characteristics of a person who breeds dogs well just because they happen to be in one group or another which has been promoted as being something it probably isnt.

Like it or not there are far more people judging registered purebred breeders as being the cause of all things negative in the dog world and while here on this forum it feels like there is much support for the ANKC show breeder - in the big scheme of things they are going down and when we bag each other out, introduce a 2 tiered system of membership within a CC and agree with the things we are being told is what is good for breeding dogs , changing regs and laws to fit in with animal rights and completely disregarding the science or facts rather than what is best for the species we will find that its too far gone to save. We dont have to constantly make the other group look bad to prove we are better.

And :D again!

I did not breed in my younger days because I thought there were people more qualified and dedicated than myself. I only wanted a good dog as a companion and nothing to detract from that relationship.I could not be a show person.Wrong temperament.I thought I would have to show to be any good as a breeder.

I came to regret that decision when the breed of my choice took a different direction to my own ideals. What I wanted in my dogs could no longer be found.

Who is to say my ideals are wrong? When fads in the ring lead to unforseen problems down the track,the gene pool is too small to correct them easily or maybe at all the way things stand.

Even uniformity of type can be taken too far.With too narrow a gene pool you might as well just clone.

Exactly - take a look at how people like padgett advise for us to go about correcting genetic issues when they crop up and how much better and easier it is to do that if we have more dogs in our own yard to choose form and either take out or keep in our breeding programs - a breeder having more than average numbers of dogs is a good thing. A breeder who breeds often rather than spasmodically IS potentially doing much more for a breed and the dogs into the future. Yet anyone who does this regardless of whether they show or not is branded and castigated. Its assumed they cant look after them, that they keep them in rotten conditions and that they have only making money as their motivation for what they do.

The yell for testing is deafening - and definitely there are some things which are in high incidence and for which tests are available which should be tested for but the propoganda has bought people who are looking at buying a puppy to us in the belief that we are somehow demi gods who can prevent or take responsibility for everything known to man - th eminute anything shows up we are likely to be flogged all over town and predominately by other breeders. The whole concept that no amount of ANYTHING especially in polygenic disorders will prevent any one of us from breeding a pup which might show a problem seems to be forgotten. We are pressured into taking responsibility for things we have no control over , covering irresponsible owners , not advertising in "those places" having our dogs sleep on satin pillow cases,and keeping them even if its better for them to be placed in family homes when we no longer need them for breeding.

We have laws and regs introduced which contradict the known science of the husbandry and reproductive cycles of the species - which no one really knows where it came from but its sucked in our CCs in their quest for good PR and even our law makers.

We are spoken of worse than crimminals because we line breed yet thats what purebred breeding is. Every other purebred domestic animal breeder is able to make their own decisions on what mates to choose in a breeding except dog breeders! Popular sires are cursed yet its O.K. to put a ram over 500 ewes even if every one of them is his daughter. They have gotten to us too. We judge each other in the belief that what they have fed us is true - younger or newer breeders bang their drum based on animal rights propoganda rather than facts and science and older breeders know its crap and give up and walk away.

Its time to stop.

[Aphra]

Back yard breeders who started out with good dogs and a bit of advice from their breeders, helped to keep the gene pool more open and actually did less damage to the breed than those who over used popular sires. No one really cared if you were breeding the litter to buy a new lounge suit because you had good dogs to start and you werent doing any harm to the breed.

Breeders who had big kennels with kennel maids were held in high regard - no one questioned whether they had more than average numbers of puppies to make money,no one assumed that because they had more than average they were kept in poor conditions or not loved or treated well. People assumed that because they had more dogs to choose from and work with that they would have more and better options and choices for which dogs to use in their breeding programs and any profit they may make from selling their puppies meant they could maintain their kennels and their animals.

A couple of weeks ago I went to a professional training session which had nothing to do with dogs, but everything to do with creative thinking. And one of the things the teacher said which really stuck in my mind was the importance of questioning our assumptions; putting the things we think we know to the test to see if they are valid opinions or just something we think we know because we just know, or learned a long time ago, or was told by someone or whatever. So I decided it was an interesting approach to thinking (bear with me, I have a point) and I would make use of it.

Because rescue is one of the things I do, and one of the things which takes up huge amounts of my time, I bent my new thinking tool onto rescue and dogs in general.

And one of the questions I asked myself was about the breeders good (mostly) vs puppy farmers/backyard breeders (bad) issue. Well, I still think puppy farms are not a good thing in general but I'm no longer willing to condemn and since I know some good breeders I'm still thinking that ethical breeders are probably a good thing, although possibly their own worst enemies. However, I started to think about the reason why puppy farmers are making so much money and why it's seen as such a bad thing for good breeders to make a profit.

So one of the questions I'm asking myself is related to Steve's point above. Why is it such a desirable thing for good breeders to breed less and less and have fewer and fewer dogs? Why shouldn't good breeders breed pretty, well-tempered, healthy dogs with the intention that most of them will be family pets? That doesn't mean that they're not also working to improve the breed, it might even make it easier since they don't have to wait years between litters to see what they're getting.

Puppy farmers make profits because people want pets. I'm sure most people would prefer healthy, well-tempered pets, which breeders are in a position to offer them. And although I can admire the persistance of people willing to wait two years for their desired breeder to produce a litter; I don't blame people who would like to live with a dog sometime before that and go elsewhere to find one, I'm not that patient either. Is the measure of a good owner really someone heroic enough to swim oceans, slay dragons, rescue maidens and generally go to heroic measures to prove their worth to own a dog (I'm looking at some rescue groups I know as well saying this)? Or could being generally responsible, fond of dogs, mostly sane and somewhat financially beforehand enough?

Is conformation showing the only way to judge the rightness of dogs? Working dogs keep working happily without being shown; surely a line of sane, happy, pets is as desirable as a line of title show dogs?

I don't really know the answers but I keep thinking that there is a real disconnect between the reality (people happily paying big sums of money for sad puppy shop puppies) on the one hand and breeders being sidelined because the concept of what constitutes ethical is being so narrowly and tightly defined.

I don't think this is an animal rights agenda (apologies to the more paranoid out there :D, I suspect it's all part our Western culture's increasing discomfort with laissez-faire approaches and an increasing desire to define, control and regulate just about everything. The reasons for that will be the subject of my next lecture for those of you still awake.