People's Prejudice Against Dog Breeders.

[oakway]

I blame the controlling bodies for not investigating complaints and not kicking out breeders who don't stick to their code of conduct

We all do.

I will be the first to say that the dog world has many rogues that should be disqualified from the organisation.

But there is nothing that the good breeders can do but to advise new purchasers of their chosen breed to do their homework and in many cases this advise is ignored and people get burnt.

Again their is nothing the honest ethical breeders can do but offer sympathy.

[Mojopoodle]

@Steve, by ethical I mean doing any health tests that should be done, caring for the dogs and puppies, providing quality of life and not just an existence etc.

This is far more important than being forced to build cement kennels (etc) in my opinion. Quality of life for all the dogs the breeder owns should be of utmost importance.

[Jed]

How can you determine if what you see and what you are told is as it is?

short answer, you can't.

I purchased a dog last year almost to the day. I did my research in the breed we were interested in. Found someone sort of local who bred these dogs. I visited with them. Met the parents. Saw how the dogs were kept. Went to visit the pups spoke endlessly with the "breeder" very helpful very nice people. Eventually paid our money and took our pup home. Expected papers to arrive in the post.

Papers did not arrive.

Breeder did not return calls / emails.

Pup wasn't a pure bred.

Pup had extensive health issues.

Pup was heartbreakingly pts earlier this year.

Very very few of us "pet" buyers can tell who is and who isn't doing the right thing. Or even who is who they say they are.

Did you choose this breeder because they seemed nice, and knowledgable, and the dogs looked ok?

Did you ever consider taking them through the small claims court to get your money back when the dog had health issues?

Sorry, just curious :)

Post edited because I reaised that the op had answered my original question in her original post. I am a

Edited December 3, 2012 by Jed

[Staff'n'Mutt]

Yes, but did you ring Dogs Queensland and ask if these people were current members. Did you ask to see their current membership card ?. Did you go to dog shows and speak to other breeders to ascertain that these people were regular breeders ?.

No I didn't ring to check up on them. I didn't go to shows either. In fact I still haven't been to a show and yet I have a new for us dog. I didn't check up on her breeder either but by then I'd found this forum and spent time reading. I didn't ask other breeders about Diva's breeder I was given her name by another non breeding member here and took it from there.

My point in bothering to post anything here was to point out that Joe Public doesn't go to the lengths as suggested above we do enough to feel comfortable. Some of us get burnt but I've seen people burnt with papered pedigreed dogs too.

This forum is full of all manner of people not just breeders and maybe education is needed in the wider world offline but I don't see prejudice against breeders from anyone within my circle even after our experiences.

sorry more I wanted to say but kids calling.......

ETA non breeding member, I'd left a word out.

Edited December 3, 2012 by SamiSam

[Staff'n'Mutt]

Did you choose this breeder because they seemed nice, and knowledgable, and the dogs looked ok?

Did you ever consider taking them through the small claims court to get your money back when the dog had health issues?

Sorry, just curious :)

Post edited because I reaised that the op had answered my original question in her original post. I am a

Yes to the first, they were friendly free with information happy to answer all my questions etc. Their dogs were beautiful both in condition and temperment. And important for us was that the pups be raised inside the house with frequent visits with children. All the boxes were ticked or so it seemed.

Small claims? no when I couldn't contact them I wrote them off and concentrated on our pup and doing what we could for her. When we let her go it wasn't an easy decision to make and heartbreaking for all of us. the last thing I wanted then was to chase up her breeders I had enough problems dealing with the fallout of a much loved pet not being here, from our then 3 year old kids.

[corvus]

My partner wanted a bulldog at one point. I said, go for it, but you're doing the research to make sure you get a good shot at a healthy dog. We don't have a bulldog. That should give you some indication of how motivated the average person is to research their future dogs. Sometimes it just seems like a very big job, especially for popular breeds where there are many, many breeders. My partner still goes gooey over bulldogs every time he sees one, and says to me "Why can't we have a bulldog?" "We can. You just have to be the one to research it." "Yeah... It was too hard." He adores dogs, but for him, it really is too hard. It is too confusing and time consuming and tedious. He started, but soon realised he didn't have the stamina to see it through. I'm a freaking dog scientist and don't have the stamina to see it through. I'm just not that passionate about lines and so on. I don't like calling people. I don't really like trying to talk to people at shows unless I've organised it beforehand.

[Steve]

But my question is, do you think someone can be ethical without being reg?

Well if you think part of being ethical is to only breed purebred puppies and always register their pedigrees with one group who keeps records then you are not going to think someone who doesn't do that is ethical.

I dont see that as part of being ethical past the point where registered breeders have agreed to do that via their code of conduct therefore if THEY dont do that and breach their code of ethics they are not being ethical. the assumption - hopefully is that all of these people have agreed to do this because they believe that it is part of doing what is best for the dogs and the breed.

If someone decides that they don't feel that they need to breed a purebred or they feel that if they do breed a purebred that they dont in order to do what they feel is best for the dogs and they stick to that they are being ethical according to their standards and beliefs and their ethics.

Each has a different goal, each has a different philosophy but as long as each is transparent about what they believe is ethical and they stick to that all the time - including when no one is watching - each is being ethical. I may not believe that one or both or either are on the right track and they match up with what my ethics each are being ethical according to their stated ethics.

The term ethical has been chucked around now for years to describe registered ANKC breeders to a point where its gone stupid.

Originally it meant a breeder who agreed to a particular code of ethics - but we are way past that.

Even here in this thread its pretty clear to everyone reading that what a registered breeder has actually agreed to as their code of ethics isn't really counted much.

General consensus on this forum is that if someone sells a puppy to a pet shop that means they are unethical - yet their code of ethics says they have agreed to only sell puppies to a PIAA pet shop. AAPDB allow their breeders to sell puppies to pet shops according to their code of ethics so when we send people to ethical breeders who is it that is ethical if ethical is different to everyone because it is no longer about what ethics they state they will follow .You can call someone unethical all you like because you dont think they should sell puppies to any pet shop but reality is the code they have agreed they will adhere to tells us that this is not unethical.

So herein this thread we are told that some of you have your own set of STANDARDS and stated values you feel a breeder should have and adhere to which you look for when you go to look for a puppy but what are they ? How do I know what you expect or you are talking about if you dont articulate that .How do you know when you have really found someone who matches up with those expectations if they have no accountability for these things and they may be doing all manner of things when no one is watching.When they may be presenting themselves as what is becoming popular but not really covering what you think they are.

Some who are saying if you want to know what their ethics are ring up the CC yet most have said the CC is way under what they want a breeder to have as their ethics.You cant go bellowing and claim one isnt ethical when they are within the code they have agreed to.

Time for a new word.

[tdierikx]

Very good points there Steve... and I agree wholeheartedly.

Puppy/dog buyers have different ideas about what they want from a breeder - and who is really to say that one is less ethical then the next based on a shifting goalpost set of "rules"?

Some people expect way too much from their pup's breeder, and others expect way too little.

T.

[Steve]

lets just take a look at what has become the norm for people who frequent this forum.

A breeder is perceived by some to be more ethical if they rescue but how ethical are they if they rescue and the dogs they own have a reduced quality of life ? How ethical are they if they bring in dogs in order to "look " like they are more ethical in this regard but its not something that's good for the dogs they take in ? We reward this behaviour and speak of how great a breeder is because they do this but how much pressure does that put on a person who really shouldn't be even considering this because it doesn't suit them or their dogs ? Should we judge someone less "ethical" if they choose to do what they believe is best over what they believe will score them points to those watching?

A breeder is perceived to be more ethical if they take back dogs way into the future that they have bred.

So most breeders say they will take their dogs back and most believe that they will if ever they are in that position but what if when that day does come they have as many dogs as they can handle on their property and bringing that dog home will cause all of the dogs to be in a position they shouldn't be in.

A breeder is judged to be ethical if they rescue others and take back their own until they are busted not coping with 4 dozen dogs .

Is it more ethical to really want to help but admit you are in a position not to be able to help.

[Jed]

Did you choose this breeder because they seemed nice, and knowledgable, and the dogs looked ok?

Did you ever consider taking them through the small claims court to get your money back when the dog had health issues?

Sorry, just curious :)

Post edited because I reaised that the op had answered my original question in her original post. I am a

Yes to the first, they were friendly free with information happy to answer all my questions etc. Their dogs were beautiful both in condition and temperment. And important for us was that the pups be raised inside the house with frequent visits with children. All the boxes were ticked or so it seemed.

Small claims? no when I couldn't contact them I wrote them off and concentrated on our pup and doing what we could for her. When we let her go it wasn't an easy decision to make and heartbreaking for all of us. the last thing I wanted then was to chase up her breeders I had enough problems dealing with the fallout of a much loved pet not being here, from our then 3 year old kids.

So sad. Just like a dodgy used car salesman really.

[disintegratus]

Worse I'd say, if you buy a dodgy used car, chances are it won't break your heart, just your wallet.

[LizT]

Alot is taken on face value and trust..and that in itself is not a bad thing, the world needs more trust, however often that trust can be misplaced.... people then become "once bitten twice shy"...and often become advocates or preachers of what they themselves failed to do, in an attempt to help someone not have go through what they did, however, if nothing goes wrong..and often it doesn't ...then people have no reason to make any great issue on whether someone is a Registered Breeder, or feel any need not to take people on their word, provided they are happy with what they have seen and been told.

[Steve]

Some will say that a breeder is ethical if they only ever breed a litter when they have orders for puppies .This of course means they cant dare be seen to openly advertise or ask for help if they have a couple of pups which they need a bit of nudge to let people know they have some available.

I have been witness to deals breeders made with a dealer to take away the pups they didnt want to keep themselves to be sold via a pet shop chain - why ? they told me it was because its too hard to have to comply with all of the things expected of them to sell the pup - one said she was frightened of strangers coming to her home .They both said that if they advertised the pup their fellow breeders and loonies would judge them as unethical and they didnt want to drown them at 8 weeks which is when they made a decision on which one to keep. The dealer tells me this is common in the area which they operate in. Im not even going to get near what I think of this personally but its about what some breeders will do when no one is watching to appear to be ethical and unless like me you witnessed it - how would you know? I reported that and nothing was done - no evidence the puppies ever existed.

By the way I didnt say that these people were registered it could have been any breeder - my point is how much does this expectation of what is ethical impact on the results and how some breeders play to look ethical?

[Natsu chan]

I think alot of what Steve and others are saying is coming down to people having unrealistic expectations. Realistically most people simply do not have the time, money or room to rescue, breed and rehome. There is so much pressure on all sides for breeders to "do the right thing" that doing the right thing by themselves comes last. Then there is the question of where is the right thing, what is it? It seems to change constantly to become more and more insurmountable.

I hear people say breeders dogs shouldn't be kennelled, but in the same breathe they are told they must maintain a wide gene pool. They must rescue if they breed and they must take back dogs they have bred no matter what, no matter where. Where does this leave people? To be ethical it seems means constantly being squeesed between a rock and a tight place. No wonder the numbers are dropping off. It isn't enough anymore to breed good natured, healthy, well raised dogs.

People need to stand up and say you are asking too much, we can't do everything but they are all to scared of being condemed if they do. I don't know what the answer is really.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Natsu chan

[Crisovar]

Natsu I think you are right. People also need to remember that there are no guarantees with nature sometimes despite all good intentions and despite the health testing and care taken, things go wrong. Breeders are up against it, from many directions.

[sandgrubber]

There are many sorts of 'bad' breeders. Some of them may be in it for the money, some are ignorant, some may be reformed by codes and policing. But I've noticed that some of the cases that hit the news are of a different sort.

In the years i spent living in a WA kennel zone, I came to know a couple of breeders who had low standards of dog care. I mean basic things were wrong. Poor grooming of coated breeds, filthy kennels, no regular exercise, etc. The two individuals I'm thinking of we're both ardent showies and quite knowledgable about both breed standards and dog health. At some point in their lives, i think both were excellent breeders. But their lives went downhill. Relationships, health, money, booze .... the usual stresses that cause lives to crumble. Both ended up getting rid of all but one or two dogs and got out of breeding. If either had been busted during their period of decline, they could have become ugly news stories.

It is sad that when people's lives fall apart, their animals often go down with them. Sometimes personal intervention, peer pressure, and sympathy may be more effective than the heavy hand.

[dog_fan]

I think alot of what Steve and others are saying is coming down to people having unrealistic expectations. Realistically most people simply do not have the time, money or room to rescue, breed and rehome. There is so much pressure on all sides for breeders to "do the right thing" that doing the right thing by themselves comes last. Then there is the question of where is the right thing, what is it? It seems to change constantly to become more and more insurmountable.

I hear people say breeders dogs shouldn't be kennelled, but in the same breathe they are told they must maintain a wide gene pool. They must rescue if they breed and they must take back dogs they have bred no matter what, no matter where. Where does this leave people? To be ethical it seems means constantly being squeesed between a rock and a tight place. No wonder the numbers are dropping off. It isn't enough anymore to breed good natured, healthy, well raised dogs.

People need to stand up and say you are asking too much, we can't do everything but they are all to scared of being condemed if they do. I don't know what the answer is really.

Agreed. If they don't take in all dogs that they have bred if needed then they are a puppy farmer, but if they do and they are caught they are a hoarder.

What is "the right thing" when it comes to dogs?

Is it really only what we want as humans? Do we care any more than what makes us feel warm and fuzzy? Do we really care about the dogs or only about our righteous indignation when a breeder gets it wrong?

Edited December 4, 2012 by dog_fan

[Sheridan]

Given Steve's litany of complaints, I think each person needs to make up their mind about what makes an ethical breeder for them. See if they follow the code of ethics, then decide if the individual breeders work for you. There are breeders I would never get a dog from and some I would. My 'add-ons' as I said in a previous post.

[Steve]

I think alot of what Steve and others are saying is coming down to people having unrealistic expectations. Realistically most people simply do not have the time, money or room to rescue, breed and rehome. There is so much pressure on all sides for breeders to "do the right thing" that doing the right thing by themselves comes last. Then there is the question of where is the right thing, what is it? It seems to change constantly to become more and more insurmountable.

I hear people say breeders dogs shouldn't be kennelled, but in the same breathe they are told they must maintain a wide gene pool. They must rescue if they breed and they must take back dogs they have bred no matter what, no matter where. Where does this leave people? To be ethical it seems means constantly being squeesed between a rock and a tight place. No wonder the numbers are dropping off. It isn't enough anymore to breed good natured, healthy, well raised dogs.

People need to stand up and say you are asking too much, we can't do everything but they are all to scared of being condemed if they do. I don't know what the answer is really.

Yes people do need to stand up and say you are asking too much but we also have to stop the rot and look for breeders who have integrity and who will do the right thing and whats best BY THEIR DOGS AND THE DOGS THEY BREED AND THEIR PUPPY BUYERS even when no one is watching.

[Steve]

I judge a breeder firstly on the lifestyle their dogs live on a day to day basis n not just their house dogs all their dogs, the willingness to put the health of what they are breeding before all else, their policy on taking back dogs they have breed( I believe you should be available to take back ANY dog you have breed no matter the time passed or reasons why) & whether they offer any follow up n training tips etc. If a breeder has a policy to take back all no matter what then they are a lot more careful to home their puppies in the right individual homes & are more on top of genetic health issues otherwise they would be full to the brim with returned pups n dogs wouldn't they.

Well I can see where you are coming from but it seems to me that you want a breeder to say they will take back their dogs to prove they are careful in homing them,and they are more on top of genetic health issues ? What about if by doing so they compromise the health and well being of the dog they are bringing back in or the well being of the dogs they have at their home? Why is it so difficult to simply assume a breeder loves their dogs and the puppies they breed enough to want to find the best homes they can and do what ever they can to be on top of the genetics? Why do they need to prove this by saying they will take their dogs back no matter what when no one can promise this and some will promise this to give you proof knowing that they will never do it? Wouldn't you prefer to take away the pressure for people to have to say what you want to hear to prove they are ethical and simply hear the truth ? That is no one can guarantee they can take back a dog years into the future because they dont know where they will be or their dogs will be after today.