Upcoming Paper On Puppy Mills

[mita]

Me too as this you would think is the comparison that needs to be made if you want to claim puppy farmed dogs do not make good companions compared to those raised by reputable breeders.

The UQ research has already shown that registered breeders tend to provide better socialisation of their dogs & puppies. The study concludes that puppies from that source will be less likely to have the kinds of problems that get them dumped later on.

[Sheridan]

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries.

Snipped the rest to respond to this strawman nonsense. Yes, some small breeders are neglectful as much as large breeders but so what? It isn't a justification.

Honestly, I don't know why some of the puppyfarm apologists in these threads just don't go out and set one up themselves. You don't see anything wrong with it, so what's stopping you all?

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries.

Snipped the rest to respond to this strawman nonsense. Yes, some small breeders are neglectful as much as large breeders but so what? It isn't a justification.

Honestly, I don't know why some of the puppyfarm apologists in these threads just don't go out and set one up themselves. You don't see anything wrong with it, so what's stopping you all?

ah Sheridan, I love the way you cut thru crap!

[mita]

p.s. Here's an example of the sort of kennel I want to make sure doesn't get hit by well meaning people who are against 'commercial' dog enterprises. Between breeding, training, boarding, and stud fees, these guys probably make a profit. . . . and work around the clock I'd say good on 'em. They're producing great dogs. They deserve it

http://www.topdogretrievers.com/Labrador-Retriever-puppy-ca.html

SG. it needs to be rephrased that people are against commercial dog breeding enterprises because they don't allow for THE most significant welfare need of companion dogs...socialisation. And there's evidence that commercial size operations don't & can't do it.....given their numbers & lack of commitment to it.

Just as I'd be against any kind of dog breeding enterprise, big or small, registered or unregistered, that also didn't do it.

All these are maintaining unsocialized dogs & selling their unsocialized offspring. In both big & small numbers. Big numbers create a flood of welfare problems.

This link you've given doesn't spell out any specific commitment to socialising dogs & puppies. But it makes a claim that their dogs have been picked up for pet therapy & companions for autistic children. Those claims would just need to be checked out. Who knows how this place is run?

http://www.topdogretrievers.com/About_our_Dogs.html

All that has to be applied is the socialisation test.....after clean & humane conditions and knowledge base of the breeder.

I have no idea how many dogs, Jed (who used to be on DOL) had. But after the dreadful fire at her place, her dogs were taken on the night into the care of the RSPCA Qld. Their public comment about the dogs? How beautifully socialised these dogs were. It was even evident on the news footage. Her lovely dogs, in the middle of a terrifying event, beaming in the arms of the RSPCA officers.....strangers to them.

Recently the same in NSW. A tibbie breeder's house was burned down, his wife died. I have no idea how many dogs he had, either. But he was like Jed....his dogs were beautifully socialised. They, too, were taken to the RSPCA for 2 weeks. Now in fostercare with the club, some of these dogs were independently tested for suitability as pet therapy companion dogs. They passed with flying colours. Same as for Jed's dogs, the comment was made how well they'd dealt with horrendous events.

And the base for that? Socialisation by those breeders...both of parent dogs & puppies.

Edited October 15, 2011 by mita

[sandgrubber]

I wish there were a 'socialisation test' . . . if there were, I have no doubt that good commercial establishments . . . .generally family run kennels who do training and boarding as well as breeding, and who sell trained working dogs as well as puppies . . . would outrank most small hobby breeders. Why? Because they are able to devote full time to dog care and they have spent decades (in some cases, generations) learning their skills. I lived in a kennel zone in WA for many years and got familiar with all sorts of breeders. The worst abuse I saw was from people who had a full time job, a dozen of more dogs, including breeding dogs, and didn't have family participating in dog care. The best care I've seen is from the breeders most involved in providing pups to Guide Dogs, the police, and other service organisations who graduated from hobby to business, and who involved multiple family members and associates in dog care. In the well run establishments, there is a wait list for retired breedring bitches, and I know they adjust well to new homes.

I have never observed a mega establishment with hundreds of dogs . . . I have no doubt that there are some horrors out there, and support reform measures, including shutting down those who can't or won't reform. I don't know if they can be run well . . . but if the number of hours of human attention devoted to each dog can be kept high, and the facilities available are good, I don't see, in theory, why not. I doubt that many of them are run well, because I'd guess the larger outfits end out spending much more of their resources in marketing etc. and can't keep the levels of quality staff required to do a good job.

The point to opposing the anti-puppy mill movements is not to support puppy mills. It is to protect quality breeders who are vulnerable to being harassed and denigrated solely because they have more dogs than some people think is appropriate . . .or because they dare to breed dogs when there are dogs in rescue who need to be adopted. The nastyness of the language and weakness of the logic displayed in your posts attacking me is mild compared to what the PITA crowd do. But it gives a hint at the blind intolerance found in the animal liberation movements. I've started trying US dog forums . . . and am being told that breeders, generally, now keep low profiles to avoid harrassment. When I asked "Are there any breeders on this forum" on one of the major US dog forums, I got directed to DOL breeder's forum . . .cause the US discussion has now largely been driven underground. A few quotes:

It is a somewhat hostile place for breeders these days It's really too bad that the bad breeders give all breeders a black eye. The good breeders tend to hide out because they don't want to get any backlash and that tends to perpetuate the problem because all the general public hears about are the puppy mills and crappy breeders. Just my two cents worth or in Cali, my ten cents worth. lol

Large kennels have played a very important role in founding and developing the gun dog breeds (I don't know much about other groups but this may also be true of groups other than 3). I think those kennels and those who follow them, deserve to be honoured, not denigrated. Given widespread and increasingly harsh restrictions on dog ownership, it hard for people who don't own or have access to large properties to allow their dogs to run free. I'm sure many much loved dogs go weeks on end without being able to get into a full speed run or enjoy a good swim, or even play freely with a dog of comparable size and temperament. While an establishment with a few dozen dogs is going to have a hard time allowing all of them to sleep in the house, they may be able to provide benefits that the average house dog will never enjoy. My mother used to take her dog to a large country breeder's property when she took a long holiday. The dog, a much spoiled house pet, went nuts with pleasure when she felt she was going to the country property . . . and acted depressed when she came home.

And to answer your rude question: I am one person who got into dog breeding late in life and who does not have adequate family or peer support to go beyond a few litters a year. Also, I like to have my dogs in the house, which gets messy when you have more than three or four dogs. So I'm scaling down, not scaling up . . . I haven't had a single litter for two years.

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries.

Snipped the rest to respond to this strawman nonsense. Yes, some small breeders are neglectful as much as large breeders but so what? It isn't a justification.

Honestly, I don't know why some of the puppyfarm apologists in these threads just don't go out and set one up themselves. You don't see anything wrong with it, so what's stopping you all?

ah Sheridan, I love the way you cut thru crap!

Edited October 15, 2011 by sandgrubber

[sandgrubber]

All that has to be applied is the socialisation test.....after clean & humane conditions and knowledge base of the breeder. I have no idea how many dogs, Jed (who used to be on DOL) had. But after the dreadful fire at her place, her dogs were taken on the night into the care of the RSPCA Qld. Their public comment about the dogs? How beautifully socialised these dogs were. It was even evident on the news footage. Her lovely dogs, in the middle of a terrifying event, beaming in the arms of the RSPCA officers.....strangers to them. Recently the same in NSW. A tibbie breeder's house was burned down, his wife died. I have no idea how many dogs he had, either. But he was like Jed....his dogs were beautifully socialised. They, too, were taken to the RSPCA for 2 weeks. Now in fostercare with the club, some of these dogs were independently tested for suitability as pet therapy companion dogs. They passed with flying colours. Same as for Jed's dogs, the comment was made how well they'd dealt with horrendous events. And the base for that? Socialisation by those breeders...both of parent dogs & puppies.

Personally, I'd put socialisation and skilled management above sanitation. I'm not advocating filth, but if you look at literal slum dogs, you'll find dogs do ok in dirt and eating garbage.

If the socialisation test requires having your house burned down and seeing how well your dogs do in rescue, spare us all.

Sure, there's room for skepticism of this breeder or that. The link I posted was to a kennel I spotted in looking for a possible stud dog. If you went to the Facebook page, you'll notice active communication with puppy buyers, pride taken in dogs placed in various situations . . . and if you looked at the adult dogs they are rehoming, all are described as house trained and good with children. You can't train a dog for field retrieving without establishing good rapport with the trainer . . . imparted in such a way that it will transfer to the owner. I'd be happy to be found wrong, but I think you'll have a hard time finding anyone who produces working gun dogs who doesn't also produce well socialised dogs.

You must be skeptical in all directions. If you look at DOL puppy listings, you'll find that many of those who do poorly in terms of providing evidence of health testing etc., and who own one dog and one or two bitches and sell a litter couple litters a year . . . advertise prominently that their puppies are raised in a family environment around children. A family environment is good, but it doesn't make up for careful breeding. Some who boast about family raised make the boast because there is little else to recommend their dogs. I'd much rather buy a pup from a quality commercial breeder/trainer/boarding professional than pick up a pup from a backyarder whose main claim to fame is that they keep their dogs in the house and expose them to children.

Small may or may not be good. I bought my foundation bitch as a two year old from a single lady who kept three or four dogs in her back yard and sold a couple litters a year. That girl, much as I loved her, and she wasn't bad by show standards, was always a little shy and unaccepting of cuddles, which is unusual with a Labrador, and hated water. Her descendants have been affectionate, outgoing, and happy to swim. I've seen bitches re-homed from larger breeders at six or seven, after four or five litters, who immediately took to their new families.

Although I keep my dogs as house pets, I think there's immense anthropocentric hubris in assuming that a dog must be raised indoors and kept as a pet to be happy. Working dogs often aren't pets. . . . but working labs are often fantastic companions, even when they come from environments where there is a ratio of one (full time) human to twenty or so dogs. As with classrooms, where we all know that teacher quality and classroom size are critical, I think the availability of human attention, and the experience/success level of those in attendance, are points that need to be considered in evaluating breeders/kennels.

Bottom line, I think you need to consider many aspects in evaluating a breeder. I think that in a well-rounded appraisal, you'll find that large-ish breeders who make dogs a full time occupation and cover their bases with respect to health issues, analysis of pedigrees, and allowing their dogs a decent life are a good bet. I think these folks are seriously threatened by the Animal Lib agenda.

If you follow my posts, rather than go for cheap shots, you'll find I DO believe that dogs are sentient beings and do have rights. It's complicated. Those of you who are fast to judge and sling mud . . . I hope karma is more than wishful thiniking. Maybe my karma is down for hoping you got it coming. But I don't think you stand proud.

Edited October 15, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Steve]

Any one who breeds dogs should know that taking a dog out of any environment it is used to and re homing it to a radically different life is difficult for the dog and that its more difficult for the new owner to work through the differences in how the dog lived to how its expected to live.

You see dogs who have lived on concrete or similar all their lives whether that be in pens or because thats how the breeder's back yard is set up - with no lawn who move to a new home and dont know what lawn is - where we feel its normal for a dog to go to the toot on the grass, roll in the grass etc if we want that dog to do what is now expected of them it takes a bit to get there.

You see dogs who have for the main lived with lots of other dogs in a pack and only outdoors who are like fish out of water when you take them out of that and expect them to live like royalty as an only dog living indoors.

If the intent is to be for breeders to re home their dogs after they are no longer going to keep them then any breeder regardless of how many they have has to ensure that their dogs can be placed in family homes without too much stress on the dogs or the new families.

Problem is people who treat animals so appallingly have little regard for what comes next and no interest in anything past today - most puppy farm dogs which are re homed have been siezed and the intent of the breeder has been to bump them off so they have no desire to put themselves out or to ensure the dog is being prepared for what humans today who live with dogs as pets expect of them. I think anyone who has much of a brain would know if you lock any mammal up in almost isolation ,without others of its kind to interact with and humans to teach it basic manners and behaviours more suited to living with humans then expecting it to come out and act like one that has been living in luxury with other dogs that they would have some major work to do to ever get it to be reacting the same. Many breeders kill their older dogs rather than attempt to place them into family environments and Ive spoken to 2 who feel its kinder to the dog to do that.

Thats not so much different to a dog which is living with one person as a life long companion and has only ever known one environment who never sees any other dogs. Take the dog out of that in 6 years time and expect its going to see other dogs and not be fearful etc is also unrealistic and why rescue do such a great job in assessing and re homing dogs regardless of where they come from rather than just shuffling them out as if they are all the same because they didnt come from a puppy farm.

If you take a dog from someone who has kept their dogs inside with only dogs of its own breed and put it in someone's back yard with a couple of big rough neck dopey dogs its not going to be that happy either.

is it possible even if someone was motivated to ensure a couple of hundred dogs are more likely to fit into what we class as normal family homes without these type of symptoms?Can a breeder with a couple of hundred dogs anticpate what a potential new home would be and prepare the dog better for that to happen? I dont think so but I know owners and breeders who have never given a thought to how their dog may be able to be rehomed or cared for too.

one of the major challenges we have when we attempt to help people who hit a disaster is trying to find someone who can take their animal into their home and foster it and care for it for a short period until they get on their feet because they never anticipate the need to do anything different to what they do which is good for them and their dog.

How do you expect someone who has dogs of their own to accept a large entire dog aggressive dog into their home who has never had any contact with humans past its owner for 10 years.

Should owners prepare their dogs with manners and behaviours which may be needed if they have to go into hospital or should they live their lives as it suits them and their dog without the need to worry about the what if's.

T-he study shows that adult dogs kept in rotten conditions where socialisation and preparation for life after breeding is neglected - collectively - have a harder time in coping and adjusting to normal family life. It would be good if this is acknowedged and breeders were more open to preparing their ex breeding dogs to living in family homes but puppy mill operators are bottom feeders and I doubt that ensuring their dogs are more able to one day sleep on satin pillows in people's lounge rooms in case they get siezed in a raid is ever going to be a priority and they will simply bump them off rather than lift a finger to prepare them or find a suitable placement.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Sandgrubber, no personal nastiness intended in my posts, just trying to get through all the diatribe in your posts to the salient points which is what I think Sheridan was also doing.

Your main concerns appear not to be for the dogs suffering in puppy farms but for breeders who might be targeted as well. That's what I find truly objectionable. Is it OK to stop all investigations into puppy farms and similar facilities in case a breeder is also investigate? I don't think so.

I'm not going to trawl through your masses of posts on the news forum so I can copy and paste here but I do recall you declaring that well run commercial breeding facilities were excellent and deserved to make a profit. No matter how clean, no matter how many staff employed (and don't forget these places are all about profit) - that still does not provide a dog with a home environemnt. One in which you can spot any issues.

Steve did not believe a recent case in which dogs were taken from a breeding facility (I don't know that I'd call it a puppy farm, there were a lot of dogs, some pregnant, some on heat and so on) which included bitches that were around 7 or 8 yrs of age that had been bred continuously for years. Their "insides were a mess" according to the vet. Steve thought that this was not possible. When I related that to the rescuer involved (no, not an animal liberationalist - dogs were purchased from closing down sale), they were flabbergasted, as was I. What else could be the cause of their insides being a mess? Not back to back breeding? A mysterious virus perhaps? They all had ear infections, untreated, and several other health issues including one which cost $1000s to fix.

Is it OK to euthanase breeding dogs because they can no longer breed? I don't believe so. Is it an accepted practice amongst those who breeder? For some, yes.

I remain grateful to the animal liberationalists for revealing the evil of puppy farms. For evil to flourish, good people just need to do nothing as the saying goes.

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

Agreed Steve, it isn't easy to just take an ex breeding dog and place it into a new home but if it hasn't been socialised and cared for properly then it isn't right in the first place to have the dog.

Some dogs who've lived alone can adapt - I rescued a 14 yr old in March and she's adapted well, just like the 9 yr old I rescued in 2007, both led similar lives of neglect without any other dogs and they both were very happy here. I was lucky for sure, it did require time and effort.

Noone should end up with a large undesexed dog in their pack - dogs being rehomed should ALWAYS be desexed first, no matter where they are from.

[quoll]

nothing is more rewarding than to see dogs run free in a park, paddock, beach. dogs having fun, having a life. healthy happy contented animals.

a jail is a jail, some are in bangkok, some in sydney. none are happy places.

[Purdie]

nothing is more rewarding than to see dogs run free in a park, paddock, beach. dogs having fun, having a life. healthy happy contented animals.

a jail is a jail, some are in bangkok, some in sydney. none are happy places.

And some are doing time in a glass box in a pet shop.

[Steve]

Agreed Steve, it isn't easy to just take an ex breeding dog and place it into a new home but if it hasn't been socialised and cared for properly then it isn't right in the first place to have the dog.

Some dogs who've lived alone can adapt - I rescued a 14 yr old in March and she's adapted well, just like the 9 yr old I rescued in 2007, both led similar lives of neglect without any other dogs and they both were very happy here. I was lucky for sure, it did require time and effort.

Noone should end up with a large undesexed dog in their pack - dogs being rehomed should ALWAYS be desexed first, no matter where they are from.

I wasnt talking about dogs being rehomed but rather dogs who are much loved who have lived with their owners under certain conditions which the owner wants to return to when they recover or get back on their feet. Ams can tell you a great story about an entire older bitch she looked after for one of our clients but not many people are as easy going and as dog friendly as Ams either.

My main concern is for any dog suffering especially in puppy farms because so many of them are affected at one place at one time but I dont believe its possible for us to judge who is keeping dogs like this based only on what we feel is their primary motivation. I think those who are doing it under the worst conditions are harder to find and that is what we need to address first.

There is no science to back up the notion that breeding back to back litters makes dog's insides a mess - there is far more science to say that not having litters increases the chances of an entire bitch's insides being a mess any more than the fact that I had 6 kids before I was 25 should make my insides a mess. bitches insides might become a mess for all manner of reasons including complications from pregnancy etc however, to state that breeding a bicth back to back will increase the risk of her insides being a mess is simply not supported by science.

I dont seem to be able to explain - I didnt make that up - its not my idea.People who specialise in canine reproduction and scientists have contributed to that as well as some older experienced registered breeders who mated their bitches young and back to back before it became against their codes of conduct. The fact is when animal rights use reasons to demonstrate what is worng with what puppy farmers do which is so easy to disprove it discredits them and makes the entire case against puppy farming open to being tossed off as animal loonies. If we dont stick to the facts and keep the arguments against this based on facts rather than assumptions or beat ups the whole thing is a house of cards and puppy farming is bad and horrible and it has to be stopped - it doesnt need things put in the mix which are so easy to disprove - its bad enough on its own.

[Crisovar]

I have seen bitches insides in a terrible state after ONE litter. It is the general health and fitness and care given to the bitch that really is the key to this. Most healthy fit bitches do bounce back after a litter and when given the appropriate care and nutrition can quite easily go straight back for another. I would guess that the puppy farm bitches who were in such a state were never healthy fit bitches.

IMO many people are pushing the ban puppy farm barrow without really understanding what they want stopped. Ask the question what is a puppy farm and we get different responses. Of course registered Breeders are concerned that they will be caught up in the hysteria when there are simply no definitions.

Asking people to stop and think carefully before they start blindly joining the mob is not supporting the grubs. Some of you just cannot see that no matter how many times it is written.

I was told yesterday that anyone who breeds more than 1 litter a year is a farmer, anyone who comes out ahead financially is a farmer, anyone who advertises in the press or online is a farmer, add that to the rest of the tripe and we clearly have many people who really do not have a clue pushing for banning something. A bit like BSL isn't it.

Do we want to stop the grubs? Of course we do. But first we have to define who they are!

[sandgrubber]

Oh no, no nastiness. You've been fair and balanced except for things like dismissing my words as 'Diatribe', 'masses of posts', that you must 'trawl' through . . . 'all about profit', 'crap'. . .recommendations that I start a puppy farm. I don't like the Oscar's Law crowd but I never said anyone should stop ALL investigations into puppy farms. Who are you to say what my main concern is? Did it occur to you it might be fear of mob mentality and protection of those who are likely to be wrongly accused?

Sandgrubber, no personal nastiness intended in my posts, just trying to get through all the diatribe in your posts to the salient points which is what I think Sheridan was also doing.

Your main concerns appear not to be for the dogs suffering in puppy farms but for breeders who might be targeted as well. That's what I find truly objectionable. Is it OK to stop all investigations into puppy farms and similar facilities in case a breeder is also investigate? I don't think so.

I'm not going to trawl through your masses of posts on the news forum so I can copy and paste here but I do recall you declaring that well run commercial breeding facilities were excellent and deserved to make a profit. No matter how clean, no matter how many staff employed (and don't forget these places are all about profit) - that still does not provide a dog with a home environemnt. One in which you can spot any issues.

Steve did not believe a recent case in which dogs were taken from a breeding facility (I don't know that I'd call it a puppy farm, there were a lot of dogs, some pregnant, some on heat and so on) which included bitches that were around 7 or 8 yrs of age that had been bred continuously for years. Their "insides were a mess" according to the vet. Steve thought that this was not possible. When I related that to the rescuer involved (no, not an animal liberationalist - dogs were purchased from closing down sale), they were flabbergasted, as was I. What else could be the cause of their insides being a mess? Not back to back breeding? A mysterious virus perhaps? They all had ear infections, untreated, and several other health issues including one which cost $1000s to fix.

Is it OK to euthanase breeding dogs because they can no longer breed? I don't believe so. Is it an accepted practice amongst those who breeder? For some, yes.

I remain grateful to the animal liberationalists for revealing the evil of puppy farms. For evil to flourish, good people just need to do nothing as the saying goes.

[toy*dog]

no where does it mention that sometimes it can be due to genetics that a dog is timid too. put that theory to the test for years. all my dogs get raised the same and get socialised the same but i notice if i use a friendly dog over a friendly bitch i am more than likely to get friendly puppies. and vice versa happens if i use a timid bitch over a friendly dog, 50/50 chance i can get timid pups that have all been the raised the same and socialised the same but it is their temperament and nothing you can do about it even if you do go out and socialise like crazy. been doing this for many many years. so the moral of the story is, make sure you use good temperamented dogs to get good temperamented pups.

i still think that lack of socialisation and interaction with humans goes hand in hand with lack of care breeding dogs and carefully selecting for health, harder to do with cross breeds too when whole families are unknown.. Large farms don't get to test out with humans if a dog is friendly or not because 9 times out of 10 they are in cages not interacting with humans their whole lives and this can sometimes make their bad temperament worse too and also the puppies they produce, so they are unable to test which dogs have good temperament and which dog hasn't.

Edited October 17, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

no where does it mention that sometimes it can be due to genetics that a dog is timid too. put that theory to the test for years. all my dogs get raised the same and get socialised the same but i notice if i use a friendly dog over a friendly bitch i am more than likely to get friendly puppies. and vice versa happens if i use a timid bitch over a friendly dog, 50/50 chance i can get timid pups that have all been the raised the same and socialised the same but it is their temperament and nothing you can do about it even if you do go out and socialise like crazy. been doing this for many many years. so the moral of the story is, make sure you use good temperamented dogs to get good temperamented pups.

i still think that lack of socialisation and interaction with humans goes hand in hand with lack of care breeding dogs and carefully selecting for health, harder to do with cross breeds too when whole families are unknown.. Large farms don't get to test out with humans if a dog is friendly or not because 9 times out of 10 they are in cages not interacting with humans their whole lives and this can sometimes make their bad temperament worse too and also the puppies they produce, so they are unable to test which dogs have good temperament and which dog hasn't.

Yep Professor Mike Goddard has done some good stuff re genetics and temperament - basically you get what you select for but there is no doubt that dogs become accustomed to a particular way of life and adapt to the environment .Take them out of that and expect there will be no transitional stage especially if its radically different is un realistic.

The point is however, THIS study is done on ex puppy mill dogs - that is dogs which are kept in rotten conditions without basic human socialsation and manners suitable for living inside being on the agenda.

THIS STUDY is not on commercial breeders nor does it compare the difference between commercial breeders and puppy farmers. It compares adult dogs which have come from puppy farms with dogs which have come from other places.

[toy*dog]

isn't commerical breeders and puppy farms the same thing, for me whether you choose to call them commercial enterprises - a nicer word than puppy mill or a puppy farm dont much matter, but basically for me they are both the same i.e. both breed for commercial gains or for $

Edited October 17, 2011 by toy*dog

[Steve]

isn't commerical breeders and puppy farms the same thing, for me whether you choose to call them commercial enterprises - a nicer word than puppy mill or a puppy farm dont much matter, but basically for me they are both the same i.e. both breed for commercial gains or for $

Ground hog day again.

According to the agreed upon definition of a puppy farm by RSPCA Australia and all other groups who attended the round table meeting on puppy farmers

Puppy farmer does not equal commercial breeder. .

Puppy farmers can also be people who breed for other motivations including for the show ring.

[toy*dog]

hmmmphhh well there you go.

[jacqui835]

I'm still awaiting Steve's and Sandgrubber's appearance as they have much to say on this issue but also on the fact that there's nothing wrong with "well run commercial enterprises" or "back to back breeding". Issues that I state here and now, I have always been vehemently against. None of the pages upon pages of blurb that they wrote will change my mind. It is simply not the way for a companion animal to survive and I mean survive for it is not living.

I have an ex puppy farm dog myself, it's not as if I have no experience - I may not (and will never be) a breeder but have been working with dogs and many have been damaged, for over 10 years.

The study covered: " Dogs. . . routinely housed for their entire reproductive lives in cages or runs, and provided with minimal to no positive human interaction or other forms of environmental enrichment". I would not consider such facilities "well run" . . . I would consider them cruel. I also consider it cruel to keep a single dog confined in a back yard with minimal to no positive human interaction or environmental enrichment. Neither size, nor commercial viability is the deciding factor. It's whether the dog is allowed social interaction, stimulation, adequate food and shelter, etc. Many dogs delight in social interaction with other dogs, and a large kennel that gives dogs opportunity to spend a lot of time out of doors in social groups is often a great place from a dog's perspective.

Some small scale breeders are every bit as neglectful of their dogs as "commercial" breeders. In my experience, well-cared for retired breeding dogs go right into a family setting with few adjustment problems . . . mine always slept on the bed and were allowed on the sofa, so most of the adjustment they had to do was in the form of learning new boundaries.

Large kennels are nothing new and have played a major role in the establishment of some breeds. . . Sandringham kennels was established by King Edward VII in 1879 to house 100 dogs . . . pretty big I'd say . . . but not a puppy farm . . . a large fraction of the dogs housed there had / have extensive field training and far more opportunity to do dog things than most of our dogs will ever have. Many 'commercial' Lab breeders in the US make as much money off 'starting' pups as they do breeding them . . . and quite a few hunters prefer to pay three or more thousand dollars extra to get a started pup in part because they like the effects of a dog who gets lots of gentle early training and socialisation and recognise that it's hard for a family where everyone works 9 to 5 is not the best environment for a young pup. The largest breeder I worked with when I was in Australia took all her dogs (except young pups, bitches in season, etc.) for a long tromp across fields every day, and gave them a few hours in small groups in a large grassed exposure. It was a joy to watch and the dogs were beautifully adjusted.

There is a real danger of society making rules based on size, rather than paying attention to how dogs are cared for. It won't get rid of neglect, and it will cause problems for some people who have devoted their lives to bettering a breed.

Back to back breeding is a separate issue . . . I don't have access to veterinary journals at this point in my life . . . but when I did, I could not find any evidence that it was physiologically harmful. I'd imagine someone else can find the references on this.. . .the subject is well worked on DOL and no one seems to change their positions. I have never bred more than two litters in 18 months and never had more than 5 litters from one bitch. So I can't speak from personal experience. But the reproductive specialist vets I know tell me there's not a problem. I am quite happy to poo-pooh the notion of 'poor girl' 'forced' to have puppies. My girls always got very jealous of whoever had pups. Most of them would get milk and work their way into the whelping box to be with the pups when one of the other girls had pups. (I'm down to 2 girls now, one spayed, the other not yet bred . . . so I write in past tense).

This is a very well-written post.

I suppose my concern as a pet owner would be that if tomorrow, we out-lawed all the people breeding commercially and the byb's, how many breeders would be left? And of those breeders, how many would have more than one breeding female?And then, in the case of my breed, how many would have dogs capable of their original purpose, vs the breeders who think there's no longer a place in society for true dobermans (and so aim for less protective, more social dogs)? I met 6 breeders when looking for my dobe, and I wasn't happy with one of them and ended up with a pup from a byb that I couldn't be happier with. She was retired, had kept dobes for 30+ years and our values were completely aligned. The others were all registered breeders who made no money from their hobby, but also didn't seem to have the dog's best interests at heart (given that I was repeatedly told that 6 was a good age for a doberman to reach, and wobblers was virtually a given). Now of course on these forums there are doberman breeders who think of nothing but their dogs, but I don't like the appearance of many - the thin, smaller dogs with pointy snouts (and I know from these forums and other places that I'm not alone). I would be devastated if I found out my breeder wouldn't be allowed to breed anymore. And why can't she start her own breed? She doesn't think there would be enough interest, or good homes for that matter. The dogs themselves are cheap - they're not purebred and she's not looking to make money. The hard part is selling yourself so that she will sell one to you.

I know there are plenty of people here who think so long as the genes are good there's nothing wrong with inbreeding and having dogs that are very nearly clones of their parents, and to an extent I agree (I would love a clone of my dog for my next dog), but what if you're not the sort of person who wants what everyone else wants? Today I feel that the focus of almost every registered breeder is to produce dogs that are more and more similar in temperament across all breeds. Social and friendly dobermans (when the standards calls for them to be aloof) or labs in dobe clothing (as one breeder described her dogs to me - like it was a good thing), hunters with less prey drive, border collies and kelpies with less energy... They look different, but today it seems that there is a desired uniform temperament across the breeds towards which everyone strives. German shepherds that roll over when greeting a new person for the first time and it goes on... And I am not trying to say that breeds shouldn't evolve or that any dog should be aggressive, but there is a difference between aloof, protective and aggressive...

It's just a thin line; once you start regulating to remove the bad, you risk losing the good too. Both my pets are crosses (Tonkinese first generation siamese cross burmese) and a doberman cross, but both were bred by people who did know the history of their lines, who had selected quality animals and invested lots of time and money into creating the animals they dreamed of owning. Is this not something that anyone else thinks should continue to have a place in society?

Edited October 17, 2011 by jacqui835