Educated a co-worker on pet stores

OK, so how about this:

Make the legal age at which a puppy can be sold 12 weeks, rather than 8. Irresponsible breeders *might* think twice if they have to keep the puppy for an extra month.

Make it ILLEGAL for any puppy that is not going to be shown/worked (as with BC's and such, who will work to prove their breeding worthiness) to leave the breeder's without being "fixed". This could be done at about 11 weeks, which is early but not dangerous. Shelters do it earlier than this all the time. Do away with S/N contracts altogether by removing the need for them, and thus the chance of accidents.

Make it illegal for ANY shelter or rescue to adopt out a dog that is not S/N.

Make it illegal for any dog to change hands (whether by breeder, rescue, shelter) without a home visit.

Employ a government body to rigorously uphold the above. Take care of some of the unemployment problem while we're at it.

It wouldn't fix the problem completely, but it would help. And I don't CARE about supply and demand. The current state of affairs proves, if nothing else, that the system doesn't work when you allow the demand to control the supply. People are used to getting what they want, when they want it, and look at where it has got us? The DOG matters, not the person who wants it. If the person has to wait, so what? If the dog is important enough to them they will do so happily.

I think using the words "supply and demand" to refer to something as important as dogs is not only demeaning to them, but to us as well. If we are all dog lovers here, why are we discussing dogs as if they were gold or wheat...and if that is what we should be doing, why don't we put the daily price of puppies up on NASDAQ?

If this were the traffic of babies that we were discussing, or the market in human organs, every person here I would wager would be sickened. And yet, on a forum dedicated to dogs, people are trying to justify the current state of affairs as being necessary to meet demand? I find that astonishing.

Puppy mills exist and the store that distribute the puppies may be just a few miles drive away.

 
And according to some evidence, your statement might be wrong. It is not uncommon for a broker to buy a consignment of pups from a unkempt mudhole in Missouri and transport to Texas to be sold here. Which means, for the pup to be sold at 6 weeks, they had to be removed from momma at 4 to 5 weeks. And I don't care how much marijuana gets smoked, that's not good.
 
Maybe I'm missing what your great solution might be. And I don't see how my initial reply to the OP is invalidated simply because there are imperfections in our system. But one way to stop puppy mills is to quit buying their product. And that can be done through education.
 
But yes, I see your point, that wishing and trying to educate people has not eradicated the problem. But that doesn't mean that education is ineffective or the wrong way to go.
 
And some of this could result from personal viewpoints, even on my part. I have a code of ethics or moral path that is not negotiable. The standards are bigger than me. I may fall short but that doesn't stop me from trying. In that sense, if I find value in the sentiment I expressed to the OP because it's something I believe, it is something I strive for, even if I didn't have success today.
 
But a hard fact is that some people produce too many dogs. Other breeders, meaning well, cannot predict the future or how owners will act in the future. Either by direct owner action or some unforeseen act of God, the dog could be away from them and wind up in unscrupulous hands. That shouldn't stop the ethics of breeding from being followed. I also understand free economy. The supply is there because of the demand. This does not negate the ethics that should disallow the abuses or things wrong with the system.
 
To make things change, public awareness must pick it up. When I was a kid, you could get a spanking from anyone. Not so today. Society made that change, through education, later through law.

Yeah, I agree, people should do a lotta stuff, but how do you motivate that? I think educating about the horrors is good. But if people are buying animals selfishly and thoughtlessly ... or with the best of intentions, but a little short sighted, as you say, then what are better ways to motivate? That's what I'm digging for. I'd be happy to advocate on this issue, but I haven't seen something call out to me as really helpful, yet.

perhaps you need to take a look at this web site..http://stoppuppymills.org/

maybe seeing the pictures many puppy mill dogs have to endure for their whole lives will be helpful?

Sorry, just not enough dogs available in those groups to satisfy demand, may be not enough to satify the demand of responsible dog owners.

really? maybe you should tell that to the thousands of dogs who are euthanized every year because there are too many?

if there is short supply in your area, i know a few rescues who would be happy to arrange transport for the overwhelming number we have here.

ORIGINAL: Benedict

OK, so how about this:

Make the legal age at which a puppy can be sold 12 weeks, rather than 8. Irresponsible breeders *might* think twice if they have to keep the puppy for an extra month.

Make it ILLEGAL for any puppy that is not going to be shown/worked (as with BC's and such, who will work to prove their breeding worthiness) to leave the breeder's without being "fixed". This could be done at about 11 weeks, which is early but not dangerous. Shelters do it earlier than this all the time. Do away with S/N contracts altogether by removing the need for them, and thus the chance of accidents.

Make it illegal for ANY shelter or rescue to adopt out a dog that is not S/N.

Make it illegal for any dog to change hands (whether by breeder, rescue, shelter) without a home visit.

Employ a government body to rigorously uphold the above. Take care of some of the unemployment problem while we're at it.

It wouldn't fix the problem completely, but it would help. And I don't CARE about supply and demand. The current state of affairs proves, if nothing else, that the system doesn't work when you allow the demand to control the supply. People are used to getting what they want, when they want it, and look at where it has got us? The DOG matters, not the person who wants it. If the person has to wait, so what? If the dog is important enough to them they will do so happily.

I think using the words "supply and demand" to refer to something as important as dogs is not only demeaning to them, but to us as well. If we are all dog lovers here, why are we discussing dogs as if they were gold or wheat...and if that is what we should be doing, why don't we put the daily price of puppies up on NASDAQ?

If this were the traffic of babies that we were discussing, or the market in human organs, every person here I would wager would be sickened. And yet, on a forum dedicated to dogs, people are trying to justify the current state of affairs as being necessary to meet demand? I find that astonishing.

nicely said kate!

And I don't CARE about supply and demand.

ditto!

Make it ILLEGAL for any puppy that is not going to be shown/worked (as with BC's and such, who will work to prove their breeding worthiness) to leave the breeder's without being "fixed". This could be done at about 11 weeks, which is early but not dangerous. Shelters do it earlier than this all the time. Do away with S/N contracts altogether by removing the need for them, and thus the chance of accidents.

I agree with a lot of your post, but most large breeds should not be speutered this early and many breeders don't have an accurate picture of the dog's structure and working drive until they begin to mature.  If the spayed female turns out to have the best structure and the best temperament and working drive and the intact female has poor conformation and a bad temperament, the breeder has spent thousands keeping the wrong traits intact.

if there is short supply in your area, i know a few rescues who would be happy to arrange transport for the overwhelming number we have here.

This point reminds me of what we have in my area, a network of all the local shelters and rescues.  Supply and demand is essentially what they exist to balance out.  When the county AC is full, animals are moved to shelters with room or shelters where people have been wanting puppies and not getting them.  Likewise, if someone comes to a rescue looking for say a Pointer, the rescue will come to our shelter and pull a Pointer.  People get what they want where and when they want it, more animals have forever homes, less animals die.  THAT is a win-win situation.  Again, puppy mills NEVER factor into the equation.

ORIGINAL: DPU

Xerxes,

Not following your post at all.  Is your solution to improving the industry a matter of enforcing existing laws.  The scope of opportunities is huge, is that it for you?

Either get commercial breeders out from under the USDA or create more strict guidelines for those particular breeders.  DPU, have you ever been to a dog auction where they buy their "breeders" from?  Ever seen the conditions they keep the "Breeders" in? 

That's the reason that the regulations need to be changed or better enforcement of existing regulations. 

If you want to speak in economic terms, the supply of puppies cannot be considered good quality because the stock from which it is drawn is rife with problems, illnesses, disease and unsanitary conditions.  So if the quality of the product is suspect, does it matter to the end user?  Does the end user get a quality product for their investment?

Even so, wouldn't the BYB have an edge as far as market knowledge?  Knowing what the market will bear and bringing enough of that product to barely satisfy demand would increase overall worth, while keeping prices high and thus increasing profit.

Even better, having a proven supply line with proven net worth and quality of the product and ensuring strict standards are met continuously is the goal of the reputable breeder.  The reputable breeder ensures, as much as possible that the products adhere to particular guidelines and advises the end user of the end users rights and responsibilities as a user of said purchased product.  Keeping the supply low yet keeping quality high.

In other words, would you prefer to purchase an automobile that was built meeting only minimum standards, with no assurance (warranty) on quality, no customer support, and buy that product at an inflated price?  That's what it seems that the majority involved in this argument are saying.  They'd rather have a Yugo sold at a Lincoln price.

ORIGINAL: Liesje

Make it ILLEGAL for any puppy that is not going to be shown/worked (as with BC's and such, who will work to prove their breeding worthiness) to leave the breeder's without being "fixed". This could be done at about 11 weeks, which is early but not dangerous. Shelters do it earlier than this all the time. Do away with S/N contracts altogether by removing the need for them, and thus the chance of accidents.

I agree with a lot of your post, but most large breeds should not be speutered this early and many breeders don't have an accurate picture of the dog's structure and working drive until they begin to mature. If the spayed female turns out to have the best structure and the best temperament and working drive and the intact female has poor conformation and a bad temperament, the breeder has spent thousands keeping the wrong traits intact.

There is no black and white evidence saying they "should" not be speutered early. There is only evidence to indicate that it MAY cause issues. And that evidence was convincing enough for me to wait as long as I could to neuter Ben.

BUT - right now there are millions of ill-bred large breed dogs with joint problems because of bad genetics. How is that better than eliminating that problem in favour of WELL bred dogs that have the *chance* of developing joint problems because they were neutered/spayed early?

Edited to make second point.

In your example if the breeder made a bad call, she made a bad call. Lots of show-quality dogs end up neutered just because they end up in pet homes. That's eliminating desirable traits too, but I don't know anyone who thinks that every single breed worthy dog should be bred. You reintroduce those characteristics into the line from another source and start over. If both of the dogs in your example remain with the breeder then fine, a reputable breeder is more equipped than anyone else to safely contain intact dogs, so they could both remain intact. Breeding a dog should not be a right any more than owning one should, so if a breeder makes a mistake they should do what the rest of us should do. Learn from it and move on.

This point reminds me of what we have in my area, a network of all the local shelters and rescues.  Supply and demand is essentially what they exist to balance out.  When the county AC is full, animals are moved to shelters with room or shelters where people have been wanting puppies and not getting them.  Likewise, if someone comes to a rescue looking for say a Pointer, the rescue will come to our shelter and pull a Pointer.  People get what they want where and when they want it, more animals have forever homes, less animals die.  THAT is a win-win situation.  Again, puppy mills NEVER factor into the equation.

that is great!

in our area we have, unfortunately, way too much supply and not nearly enough demand. the rescues are full, the shelters are full, the HS is full... and all usually have puppies as well as adult dogs to offer. i know the rescue lady we know really well has contacts (other rescues) in other states, and she sends dogs to them some. considering that many times there are purebred puppies advertised as "free to a good home" in the paper, there seriously is no reason people should be buying puppy mill pups here... but it still happens.[&:]

I am still boggling over this thread. Do we really have here someone so incredibly involved in rescue actually saying puppy mills are just fine?

ORIGINAL: houndlove

I am still boggling over this thread. Do we really have here someone so incredibly involved in rescue actually saying puppy mills are just fine?

Apparently.

ORIGINAL: houndlove

I am still boggling over this thread. Do we really have here someone so incredibly involved in rescue actually saying puppy mills are just fine?

At least one.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: houndlove

I am still boggling over this thread. Do we really have here someone so incredibly involved in rescue actually saying puppy mills are just fine?

At least one.

 
Apparently two.

OK, so how about this:

Make the legal age at which a puppy can be sold 12 weeks, rather than 8. Irresponsible breeders *might* think twice if they have to keep the puppy for an extra month.

Make it ILLEGAL for any puppy that is not going to be shown/worked (as with BC's and such, who will work to prove their breeding worthiness) to leave the breeder's without being "fixed". This could be done at about 11 weeks, which is early but not dangerous. Shelters do it earlier than this all the time. Do away with S/N contracts altogether by removing the need for them, and thus the chance of accidents.

Make it illegal for ANY shelter or rescue to adopt out a dog that is not S/N.

Make it illegal for any dog to change hands (whether by breeder, rescue, shelter) without a home visit.

Employ a government body to rigorously uphold the above. Take care of some of the unemployment problem while we're at it.

It wouldn't fix the problem completely, but it would help. And I don't CARE about supply and demand. The current state of affairs proves, if nothing else, that the system doesn't work when you allow the demand to control the supply. People are used to getting what they want, when they want it, and look at where it has got us? The DOG matters, not the person who wants it. If the person has to wait, so what? If the dog is important enough to them they will do so happily.

I think using the words "supply and demand" to refer to something as important as dogs is not only demeaning to them, but to us as well. If we are all dog lovers here, why are we discussing dogs as if they were gold or wheat...and if that is what we should be doing, why don't we put the daily price of puppies up on NASDAQ?

If this were the traffic of babies that we were discussing, or the market in human organs, every person here I would wager would be sickened. And yet, on a forum dedicated to dogs, people are trying to justify the current state of affairs as being necessary to meet demand? I find that astonishing.

 
 
Laws, laws, and more laws.  Thanks but no thanks. 
 
Besides due you realize the cost of such an enforcement system.  You know the US is a really big country and we have much more pressing needs that dog inspectors and we really don't a unenployment problem here. 
 
And as a last comment, to properly analyze a situation you must remove all emotion when examining it otherwise any results or observations you come up with be tainted because of that emotion. 
 
By the the way demand does control supply.  That is the way things work in this country.
 
 

if there is short supply in your area, i know a few rescues who would be happy to arrange transport for the overwhelming number we have here.

 
They need small dog puppies in Broward Co Fl.  They are importing puppies there.  Can you arrange a solution to meet that need.