Question For Breeders

[Dewclaws]

The op started this thread on a forum and site directed at promoting and highlighting registered pure bred breeders . Backyard breeders and irresponsible breeders dont have a presence on the Internet . The problem is that not many people who directly or indirectly are responsible for dogs on death row will admit to it being because of them .They are in denial , don't give a shit or think once they sold their mix breed pup it no longer becomes their problem . And the irresponsibly owners who dump their dog there think it was a 'rogue dog ' that couldint be trained or that it will happily be 'adopted ' by someone else . So also wiping responsibility of it from there hands .

So op comes on to this site because she thinks 'breeders' on here (because it's the only breeders she can anonymously can ask on the Internet ) will be able to answer the 'problem ' highlighted by the rspca .

The real people she really should be asking can not be directly asked because it's a collective group of irresponsible , often greedy , massive mix of people who are responsible for dogs in pounds that don't have a forum or 'community '

So 'the 'good guys ' who unfortunately have to share the description of breeder with these people cop the criticism . So it's hardly surprising they get grouchy about it .

Edited December 23, 2015 by Dewclaws

[Agility Dogs]

That's exactly my point though - it's not aimed at them, why get grouchy. Give it oxygen and it will breathe. ;) One or two comments explaining that is enough. It's now at pages of backward and forward circular argument.

[melzawelza]

There is SO much said in this thread about irresponsible pet owners, irresponsible breeders, people who don't give a shit, who callously 'dump' their dogs.

I'd ask everyone who is saying these things to start seriously thinking about whether that tired old rhetoric is accurate.

NSW stats show us that somewhere between about 2-6% of pets in the community enter the pound system every year. Most of those are reclaimed - only about 2-4% of the owned pet population need to find new homes (or are killed) through the pound system every year.

So, overwhelmingly and absolutely pet owners are doing the right thing, loving their pets, keeping them or if they can't keep them finding them a home through avenues other than the pound.

Now, further to that 2%, there's plenty of groups nowadays in existence in the US (and one or two here in Aus) who are helping with 'pound intervention' type programs - i,e programs that are aimed at keeping pets in their home.

Downtown Dog Rescue in LA found that by simply offering assistance to pet owners attending the shelter to surrender their pets, they prevented over 2,000 pets from being surrendered in their first year.

Similar programs elsewhere in the USA are seeing surrenders being reduced by at least a third when non-judgey assistance is offered.

Not to mention the huge prices charged by pounds and shelters that prevent a huge amount of pets from being reclaimed by families that love them (Team Dog got nearly 100 pets home in NSW this year through our pound intervention and pet owner support programs). In many Sydney pounds pet owners that haven't desexed or registered their pets (which are usually the pet owners who are already struggling financially) are up for at least $300 to bring their pet home on the same day it was impounded. This goes up by between $20-$45 per day depending on the pound, quickly spiralling out of reach. Almost every single pet owner we helped it was the first time the dog had ever been impounded - an accident, not an ongoing problem.

So really, if we focussed more on resources for pet owners in poverty and assistance for pet owners in crisis, we could get that number of pets needing homes easily much lower than the already low 2%.

Overwhelmingly pet owners are good, and overwhelmingly the killing that goes on in shelters is due to outdated, unhelpful and frankly unacceptable in this day and age practices.

Yes accidental litters are a problem and a huge part of the picture is desexing (and the way to achieve that is to make it free and easily accessible for those on a low income, and work with pet owners to help them see why it benefits them and their pets), but to focus solely on 'backyard breeders' and 'irresponsible pet owners' as some kind of massive problem is myopic at best.

[Steph M]

Backyard breeders and irresponsible breeders dont have a presence on the Internet.

They really do though, have you seen the websites for puppy farms or dodgy kennels? They sell themselves amazingly, respond to any and every enquiry (easy when you're not at all discerning) and post constantly.

I actually think they market themselves better than ethical reg breeders a lot of the time.

[OSoSwift]

Backyard breeders and irresponsible breeders dont have a presence on the Internet.

They really do though, have you seen the websites for puppy farms or dodgy kennels? They sell themselves amazingly, respond to any and every enquiry (easy when you're not at all discerning) and post constantly.

I actually think they market themselves better than ethical reg breeders a lot of the time.

Agreed. They are very smooth.

I would love to win lotto and set up a program where by people doing it tough, could get their dogs desexed and vaccinated for nothing. I really think that would stop a lot of pups being bred/dumped/given away to unsuitable homes. Unfortunately at this point I cannot afford to do it.

[Scottsmum]

Backyard breeders and irresponsible breeders dont have a presence on the Internet.

They really do though, have you seen the websites for puppy farms or dodgy kennels? They sell themselves amazingly, respond to any and every enquiry (easy when you're not at all discerning) and post constantly.I actually think they market themselves better than ethical reg breeders a lot of the time.

Facebook too

[Steph M]

And Gumtree etc! Can't forget that!

Also they're not bound by any code of conduct so there's no requirement for anything they post to be true at all, which makes it very easy to paint a picture of dogs romping together through grassy fields and all coming in to sleep by the fire at night etc.

[OSoSwift]

Yep and yep

[Dewclaws]

By presence I mean they don't have community forums .

There is 3.4 million dogs in australia. If 2-4 percent of that number is getting put to sleep in pounds each year that's still hell of a big problem . Many thousands of dogs . And that after time and effort are spent rehoming and rescuing dogs .

[melzawelza]

All of those in shelters aren't killed, a good percentage are rehomed.

Of course any healthy or treatable pet being killed isn't okay but there isn't an epidemic of terrible irresponsible people. 96-98% of people keep their pets out of the system each year, and a large amount of those who don't are suffering poverty, lack of access to resources or crisis. With a helping hand they'd keep their pets.

We know that achieving a live release rate of over 90% is possible through innovative and supportive programs. If shelters aren't achieving that (or at least actively working towards achieving that), the problem lies with the shelter.

Edited December 23, 2015 by melzawelza

[The Spotted Devil]

As far as shelters go I think we need to be very careful about holding them to a % of dogs that must be rehomed. The shelters are damned if they don't but I have seen enough dogs that should NEVER have left the shelter - DA and HA. Sometimes excused because they are SWF but requiring massive amounts of rehab that their owners are just not capable of - no matter how much they think they can. A number of these owners are exhausted with worry and management yet won't medicate or admit it's all too much. However some of them say they'll never get a shelter dog again.

[melzawelza]

As far as shelters go I think we need to be very careful about holding them to a % of dogs that must be rehomed. The shelters are damned if they don't but I have seen enough dogs that should NEVER have left the shelter - DA and HA. Sometimes excused because they are SWF but requiring massive amounts of rehab that their owners are just not capable of - no matter how much they think they can. A number of these owners are exhausted with worry and management yet won't medicate or admit it's all too much. However some of them say they'll never get a shelter dog again.

I agree that it's not set in stone - some shelters may be at more like 85%, some more at 95%, and in a small shelter, on an occasional month it might be much worse if they get a couple of dangerous dogs in.

But generally, that's what the 90% accounts for - that about 10% give or take of the animals are not going to be suitable for rehoming either due to untreatable medical or behavioural issues.

But, if a shelter is trying to argue that 40% of the animals in their care aren't suitable for rehoming and they're killing them, then they're not doing a good job of assessing and/or treating medical and behaviour problems.

[The Spotted Devil]

As far as shelters go I think we need to be very careful about holding them to a % of dogs that must be rehomed. The shelters are damned if they don't but I have seen enough dogs that should NEVER have left the shelter - DA and HA. Sometimes excused because they are SWF but requiring massive amounts of rehab that their owners are just not capable of - no matter how much they think they can. A number of these owners are exhausted with worry and management yet won't medicate or admit it's all too much. However some of them say they'll never get a shelter dog again.

I agree that it's not set in stone - some shelters may be at more like 85%, some more at 95%, and in a small shelter, on an occasional month it might be much worse if they get a couple of dangerous dogs in.

But generally, that's what the 90% accounts for - that about 10% give or take of the animals are not going to be suitable for rehoming either due to untreatable medical or behavioural issues.

But, if a shelter is trying to argue that 40% of the animals in their care aren't suitable for rehoming and they're killing them, then they're not doing a good job of assessing and/or treating medical and behaviour problems.

I agree to an extent but with a note of caution that this aim towards high rehoming rates is driving poor decision making - people at all levels who mean well but don't understand the consequences. This is happening now.

[melzawelza]

As far as shelters go I think we need to be very careful about holding them to a % of dogs that must be rehomed. The shelters are damned if they don't but I have seen enough dogs that should NEVER have left the shelter - DA and HA. Sometimes excused because they are SWF but requiring massive amounts of rehab that their owners are just not capable of - no matter how much they think they can. A number of these owners are exhausted with worry and management yet won't medicate or admit it's all too much. However some of them say they'll never get a shelter dog again.

I agree that it's not set in stone - some shelters may be at more like 85%, some more at 95%, and in a small shelter, on an occasional month it might be much worse if they get a couple of dangerous dogs in.

But generally, that's what the 90% accounts for - that about 10% give or take of the animals are not going to be suitable for rehoming either due to untreatable medical or behavioural issues.

But, if a shelter is trying to argue that 40% of the animals in their care aren't suitable for rehoming and they're killing them, then they're not doing a good job of assessing and/or treating medical and behaviour problems.

I agree to an extent but with a note of caution that this aim towards high rehoming rates is driving poor decision making - people at all levels who mean well but don't understand the consequences. This is happening now.

Yes, I agree that *how* those rehoming rates are achieved is critical - taking in to account length of stay, behavioural programs and many, many other factors. I just didn't go in to that in detail here because that part of it isn't relevant to the point I was making in the thread re 'irresponsible owners'. There's plenty of ways to do it without making poor decisions. It's not an either/or.

I highly recommend ASPCA Pro for anyone wanting to research these programs, and also if anyone is working in a shelter, G2Z are looking at bringing out Trish Loehr and Cindy Karsten again in 2016 to do consults at individual shelters to help them develop the supportive programs needed for increasing live release rates without negative outcomes - they are amazing and I highly recommend every shelter possible getting on board by contacting Getting 2 Zero.

Edited December 23, 2015 by melzawelza

[Christina]

Yes accidental litters are a problem and a huge part of the picture is desexing (and the way to achieve that is to make it free and easily accessible for those on a low income, and work with pet owners to help them see why it benefits them and their pets)

Not totally but partly relevant to this thread, which I agree is going around in circles now.

I get so fed up of hearing how desexing should be made free, cheaper or more easily accessible.

There are cheap desexing programmes around & many vets offer pensioner discounts & vets are not a charity, they are businesses with staff & overheads to pay & want to earn a living by doing their work.

Shopping around at vets, which can be done by phone, for prices is easy enough & prices are very variable. I have heard from $60 to $100 for a male kitten. Same operation so why I have no idea.

When a person plans to get a pet, or even adopts one without planning, like a starving stray, no matter how low their income if they cannot put $10 or even $5 a week away for a short time to pay this once in a lifetime cost then they should not be getting or keeping a pet of any kind.

Keeping the pet indoors & not letting it roam until desexed is not rocket science either.

That small amount each week may mean not buying a lottery ticket, cigarettes, a snack or drink when out or altering the menu to spend $5 less, short term.

[brightstar123]

Shopping around at vets, which can be done by phone, for prices is easy enough & prices are very variable. I have heard from $60 to $100 for a male kitten. Same operation so why I have no idea.

Sometimes the price for desexing can vary based on which anaesthetic and pain relief drugs the clinic uses. I have visited clinics that charge very little for desexing but also offer very little in the way of pain relief and may also reduce costs by using older anaesthetic drugs with a narrower safety margin, no IV catheter, cheaper surgical materials etc. Of course many clinics just price their surgeries based on the usual factors eg competition, operating costs etc.

[sandgrubber]

Tired of it or not, emphasis on desexing and subsidized desexing works. In most of the US (apart from the South) it is getting hard to find dogs for adoption, that is unless you want a bull breed cross. Strays are being imported from Mexico and the US South to fill the need for adoptable shelter dogs. Private 'shelters' cherry pick dogs that are turned in for adoption, and their rates of rehoming are very high -- sometimes their prices are pretty high as well. In large part this is due to heavy emphasis on desexing and widespread availability and advertisement of free or heavily subsidized spay/neuter clinics. Our local clinic charges $US60 for a dog or bitch, regardless of your income. For low income people, it's free. They also have free clinics to spay and neuter feral cats.

[Sheridan]

Hi,

I have a general question that I cant seem to find anywhere on the internet.

I've been reading up a lot lately about responsible breeding and one question i cant find the answer to is how a breeder can determine that the market requires dogs of their breed.

so as the RSPCA page shows "1. Conscientiously attempt to match the demand of animals with the supply - in this way they proactively avoid creating an oversupply of animals."

how do you work out that its ok to breed your dog, I'm not talking about quality of breed here, only the requirement of the breeds demand.

for example, how does a Maltese breeder know they world needs more Maltese puppies.

Or does it not matter and the breed will take place when the bitch is ready to breed?

Conversations can get pretty heated about dog breeding when someone who doesn't know about it asks questions so sorry if this question offends, I was just wondering.

thanks for your time.

Why are you asking?

[Jed]

There is SO much said in this thread about irresponsible pet owners, irresponsible breeders, people who don't give a shit, who callously 'dump' their dogs.

I'd ask everyone who is saying these things to start seriously thinking about whether that tired old rhetoric is accurate.

NSW stats show us that somewhere between about 2-6% of pets in the community enter the pound system every year. Most of those are reclaimed - only about 2-4% of the owned pet population need to find new homes (or are killed) through the pound system every year.

So, overwhelmingly and absolutely pet owners are doing the right thing, loving their pets, keeping them or if they can't keep them finding them a home through avenues other than the pound.

Now, further to that 2%, there's plenty of groups nowadays in existence in the US (and one or two here in Aus) who are helping with 'pound intervention' type programs - i,e programs that are aimed at keeping pets in their home.

Downtown Dog Rescue in LA found that by simply offering assistance to pet owners attending the shelter to surrender their pets, they prevented over 2,000 pets from being surrendered in their first year.

Similar programs elsewhere in the USA are seeing surrenders being reduced by at least a third when non-judgey assistance is offered.

Not to mention the huge prices charged by pounds and shelters that prevent a huge amount of pets from being reclaimed by families that love them (Team Dog got nearly 100 pets home in NSW this year through our pound intervention and pet owner support programs). In many Sydney pounds pet owners that haven't desexed or registered their pets (which are usually the pet owners who are already struggling financially) are up for at least $300 to bring their pet home on the same day it was impounded. This goes up by between $20-$45 per day depending on the pound, quickly spiralling out of reach. Almost every single pet owner we helped it was the first time the dog had ever been impounded - an accident, not an ongoing problem.

So really, if we focussed more on resources for pet owners in poverty and assistance for pet owners in crisis, we could get that number of pets needing homes easily much lower than the already low 2%.

Overwhelmingly pet owners are good, and overwhelmingly the killing that goes on in shelters is due to outdated, unhelpful and frankly unacceptable in this day and age practices.

Yes accidental litters are a problem and a huge part of the picture is desexing (and the way to achieve that is to make it free and easily accessible for those on a low income, and work with pet owners to help them see why it benefits them and their pets), but to focus solely on 'backyard breeders' and 'irresponsible pet owners' as some kind of massive problem is myopic at best.

What an excellent- and correct post.

Pound and rescue fees are far too high.

People often surrender their dogs because they cannot afford whatever.

[moosmum]

There is SO much said in this thread about irresponsible pet owners, irresponsible breeders, people who don't give a shit, who callously 'dump' their dogs.

I'd ask everyone who is saying these things to start seriously thinking about whether that tired old rhetoric is accurate.

NSW stats show us that somewhere between about 2-6% of pets in the community enter the pound system every year. Most of those are reclaimed - only about 2-4% of the owned pet population need to find new homes (or are killed) through the pound system every year.

So, overwhelmingly and absolutely pet owners are doing the right thing, loving their pets, keeping them or if they can't keep them finding them a home through avenues other than the pound.

Now, further to that 2%, there's plenty of groups nowadays in existence in the US (and one or two here in Aus) who are helping with 'pound intervention' type programs - i,e programs that are aimed at keeping pets in their home.

Downtown Dog Rescue in LA found that by simply offering assistance to pet owners attending the shelter to surrender their pets, they prevented over 2,000 pets from being surrendered in their first year.

Similar programs elsewhere in the USA are seeing surrenders being reduced by at least a third when non-judgey assistance is offered.

Not to mention the huge prices charged by pounds and shelters that prevent a huge amount of pets from being reclaimed by families that love them (Team Dog got nearly 100 pets home in NSW this year through our pound intervention and pet owner support programs). In many Sydney pounds pet owners that haven't desexed or registered their pets (which are usually the pet owners who are already struggling financially) are up for at least $300 to bring their pet home on the same day it was impounded. This goes up by between $20-$45 per day depending on the pound, quickly spiralling out of reach. Almost every single pet owner we helped it was the first time the dog had ever been impounded - an accident, not an ongoing problem.

So really, if we focussed more on resources for pet owners in poverty and assistance for pet owners in crisis, we could get that number of pets needing homes easily much lower than the already low 2%.

Overwhelmingly pet owners are good, and overwhelmingly the killing that goes on in shelters is due to outdated, unhelpful and frankly unacceptable in this day and age practices.

Yes accidental litters are a problem and a huge part of the picture is desexing (and the way to achieve that is to make it free and easily accessible for those on a low income, and work with pet owners to help them see why it benefits them and their pets), but to focus solely on 'backyard breeders' and 'irresponsible pet owners' as some kind of massive problem is myopic at best.

What an excellent- and correct post.

Pound and rescue fees are far too high.

People often surrender their dogs because they cannot afford whatever.

Agree.

My experience has been its often the same people filling pounds from one year to the next. The best of people WILL make mistakes, most are willing to learn from them.

Repeat offenders haven't the sense to accept responsibility for themselves. I think few people CHOOSE to be A-holes.

Edited December 27, 2015 by moosmum