Educated a co-worker on pet stores

timsdat, funny you should post that link! I was struck when I first read the LAAS site, to see Boks responding to criticisms in his blog, and in a FAQ or rumors.

 
I have seen his blogs.  You have a real complicated situation in LA considering Shelter workers have been harrassed and several directors have basically been run out of town in the last few years.
 
 
One thing I really don't like about Ed is that he is such a good politician about talking out of both sides of his mouth.  One minute he will say that there is such a overpopulation problem and so many animals are put down then he states how good their adoption rate is and how they are finding homes for so many animals.  He is playing to 2 special interest groups and so you don't know what the real truth is.
 
 

timsdat, DPU,

I'm having a hard time following your conversation. (Are you accountants? []) Would you help me?

Are you saying current demand for dogs is 8 mil per year? Your breakdown is where they are coming from?

4 mil is unintended mixed breed dogs (from breeders, or from all sources?)
4 mil is intentional breeding by bybs, reputable breeders, and commercial mills

Are you saying that s/n laws would eliminate the 4 mil unintended dogs, so that will not be a future supply?

And then the question is, if the demand is still 8 mil, 4 mil still coming from the breeders, where does the other 4 mil come from?

And, the conclusion is that the commercial breeders (which I'm guessing is the same thing as a puppy mill) are the only ones in a position to make up the difference.

Am I catching that, right?

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

So let me get this straight, some of you on this board support and promote the purchase of pets from pet stores?

Some of you think that those who seek to breed in a responsible manner, should not?

Some of you think that those who desire a certain amount of predictability (in temperment, size, possible health risks) in a dog shouldn't have that made available to them?

And lastly, some of you even stoop to suggest that because a person wishes for the predictability of a purebred, for whatever reason, said person is an elitist?

I'm glad I'm not narrow minded.

I can't answer your questions at this time because that is what we are discussing and some of us are open to learning.  When new unemotional information comes in that helps to forumulate a position and the action of where to get our next puppy. 

You questions and statements indicate to me a very narrow view of the industry and contlributes nothing to how Breeders as one can operate better to accomodate the economic landscape. 

For example, I never thought Commercial Breeders could ever be a generally acceptable supplier.  But then after reading that some follow the standard breeding practices of the reputable breeder and some supply their dogs to Pet shops.  They are large, they are a business, they are regulated more, they are a breeder type that the consumer can control and dictate in the free market.  They'll accomodate the general publics demand for dogs or control the supply to screen those that should not have a dog.  I don't see any other breeder type capable of this and wanting to do this.

I think Ixas_girl described our discussion nicely in these two posts.  Please contribute.

OK, I don't hear DPU "defending" or promoting puppy mills , I hear him analyzing the industry. He can be pro rescue, yet still push discussion about the function of puppy mills. As much as we don't like it, puppy mills obviously serve a purpose, or they'd cease to exist.

Rather than take up the easier task of simply complaining about puppy mills, I thought DPU was offering a way to talk about actually solving the problem. What's bad about that?

Yeah, when the point is simply to argue, I always miss the point . But in order to do problem solving, (or simply something other than complaining and arguing) the pieces of the puzzle must be laid out and named. The naming of the pieces is where the arguing is happening, so moving forward to problem solving can't happen.

It seems there's a history to this conversation, that I, for one am not privy to. But here we are in this conversation, now. And, it seems reasonable to analyze the niche that each type of breeder serves, in order to understand the whole market.

For example, why do so many people want to buy "purebreds", instead of the sweet mutts down at the shelter? Hmmm. Could it have something to do with status? There are status dogs that go through the rigorous breeding/homing process. For most people who are unwilling or unable ($1200+ for a mini-schnau!) to go through that process, but still desire a status animal, "other breeders" is where they go, not the shelter. Am I understanding this correctly?

So, the elitism of sectors of the dog world can be argued to have an affect on people's purchasing behaviors, yes? This is not judgment on my part, it's examination. I haven't said that papered purebred breeders are bad are wrong, I'm simply puzzling out pieces of the industry. What's bad about that?

Xerxes, nice post.  
 
I guess what I STILL don't get is why you'd go to a commercial breeder.  If you just want a good companion, then why not a shelter dog?  If you're wanting a companion with certain traits or one to show or work, then wouldn't you want to go to a breeder that actually CARES about the dogs they produce, instead of mass producing them, no matter how 'good' their credentials are?  It is not the breeder's job to be supplying all people with puppies.  It is their job to be ensuring to the best of their abilities that their pups go to good, permanent homes.  If that means turning people down, then so be it.
 
I have four dogs- one from a BYB, which I got when I was eleven and really didn't have a clue.  The others are from two different good breeders.  My family was just a bunch of JQPs, if you want to call us that.  We had NO problem buying dogs from breeders.  Yes, the required house checks, yes they interviewed us, yes we waited for a while, yes we STILL talk to the breeders and the STILL want to know how the pups are doing, but honestly, if you're not going to put in that much work assuring the dog is right for you, why should you even have a dog?  The breeders do what they do and turn down people because they want the dogs' to have the best homes possible.  Not because they are elitists.  Not because they take pleasure in denying dogs to people. 
 
I see a lot of particularly rude comments here.  No, my purebreds aren't status symbols, not even the show dog, not even the BYB impulse buy one.  People rush out and buy purebreds not for the status but for a ton of different reasons.  They saw one on tv they liked, they like the look of this one, they know a good dog like this one, etc.  They want one without research and want one NOW.  Where's the best place to buy one?  Certainly not a breeder that will screen- they might turn you down and will take a long time to get a pup from.  Okay, so that leaves the BYBs and the petstores.  They ask no questions.  Instant transaction and you have your pet.  This has NOTHING to do with reputable breeders. 
 
And insinuating that rescues screen because they are selfless and breeders do for different reasons is bogus!  I'm sorry, but it is.  Both good rescues and reputable breeders screen to assure the dog a good home.  That's it.  It is their responsiblity as a reputable rescue OR breeder to do everything they can to make sure the dog is not returned to the shelter system. 
 
And as to an organization of all breeders, I can't see that happening.  Reputable breeders do not want and do not deserve to be constantly grouped in with mills.  They should not lower their standards so that they can be 'united' with all other breeders. 
 
To the OP, good job for educating!

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

I'm having a hard time following your conversation. (Are you accountants? []) Would you help me?

My background is corporate accounting and designing and creating accounting systems.  I am presently employed at a university doing the finance function of pre and post grant awards.

Are you saying current demand for dogs is 8 mil per year? Your breakdown is where they are coming from?

The current number of dogs in US households are anywhere between 45M, 65M, and as Timsdat says 75M.  Who knows so his number is fine with me for discussion purposes.  In order to maintain that 75M count each year approximately 8M puppies have to be added.  The demand is households want of 8M puppies and suppliers meet the demand.  I digress but supply side (reagonomics) says create supply and demand is secondary and demand will follow supply.  I thought this is what is going on but that does not seem to be the case.   

It is important to know the breakdown of who is supplying the pups, why, and how.  To know their size means they have more influence over the others, that is if they wish to compete which I think the reputable breeder does not do but complain about the others, as you stated.

4 mil is unintended mixed breed dogs (from breeders, or from all sources?)
4 mil is intentional breeding by bybs, reputable breeders, and commercial mills

I like the word Inintended and the Unintented come from the owner homes and not from any breeder.  Obviously if the breeder controls s/n on the dogs they sell, there would be no Inintended.

Are you saying that s/n laws would eliminate the 4 mil unintended dogs, so that will not be a future supply?

Since the 4M is part of the 8M demand, the demand for 4M does not change.  As Sera_J pointed out, demand can be diminished by controlling supply.

And then the question is, if the demand is still 8 mil, 4 mil still coming from the breeders, where does the other 4 mil come from?

From the breeders or a new source.

And, the conclusion is that the commercial breeders (which I'm guessing is the same thing as a puppy mill) are the only ones in a position to make up the difference.

They would be in the best position to accomodate and handle an increase in demand.  But for sure, some other type suppliers would emerge.

They are large, they are a business, they are regulated more,

They fall under USDA standards and they are NOT inspected often, and when they are inspected, they are given 2 weeks notice prior to inspection. 

Illegal drugs are regulated more heavily than Commercial dog breeders, yet we still have a drug problem in the US.  Handguns are illegal in Washngton DC, yet at least one person is murdered daily in that City.  Regulations mean nothing without proper enforcement.

For every puppy bought in a pet store, at least one other died from either suffocation, exposure, malnutrition, worms, general illnesses or a myriad of causes.

Silly me, I thought we were on the side of the dogs.

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?

timsdat, DPU,

I'm having a hard time following your conversation. (Are you accountants? ) Would you help me?

Are you saying current demand for dogs is 8 mil per year? Your breakdown is where they are coming from?

4 mil is unintended mixed breed dogs (from breeders, or from all sources?)
4 mil is intentional breeding by bybs, reputable breeders, and commercial mills

Are you saying that s/n laws would eliminate the 4 mil unintended dogs, so that will not be a future supply?

And then the question is, if the demand is still 8 mil, 4 mil still coming from the breeders, where does the other 4 mil come from?


And, the conclusion is that the commercial breeders (which I'm guessing is the same thing as a puppy mill) are the only ones in a position to make up the difference.

Am I catching that, right?

 
Sort of like that only the situation is more complicated.
 
First these numbers are merely my estimates based on the available facts that I have at hand.  No where should they be used as absolute numbers.
 
To deal with the 8 mil a year born.  This is based on the survey that shows there are about 75 mil dogs currently owned and taking into account that a dog lives about 11 years on average and since the total number of owned dogs is growing about 1 mil a year this is the best guess at births.
 
When trying to figure out the mix in where the dogs come from that is really a wag based on the following factors.  The number of dogs sold was about 500,000.  Saw that somewhere receintly but can't find the source again. 
The AKC stats on registrations which is published who is the biggest player in the non pet store sales of purebreds. 
The number of mixed breeds born is purely a conjecture based in the mix of shelter dog intake assuming that that also represents the general population.
 
S/N laws would cast a much wider net than to just eliminate the 4 mil mixed breeds.  You have to consider the following factors,  There is a certain segment of the population that will ignore law and allow their dogs to indescrimately breed anyway.  These laws will also have the un-intended (or maybe not) consiquence of forcing responsible people to stop breeding.  When the Ca law was being proposed I noticed that if there was just a 10-15% in compliance with the law there would be a true shortage of dogs in Ca.  Even the number of total dogs put down wouldn't make up for the demand.  It would be even worse since a percentage of those dogs have problems being unadoptable due to health or temperment issues.  As years go by the shortage would get worse as reducing the number of dogs bred results in more cumulative loses each year. 
 
As to where the other 4 mil would come from if mixes were eliminated.  What I see as happening is this.  The price of the dog will increase.  More and more puppies will come into this country from off-shore.  There will be a real black market underground developing as the demand will still be there.
 
Right now there are regional inbalances in the pet supply most noticably the northeast where the ship pup in.  There is also a oversupply of the BBD (big black dog) with many people desiring smaller dogs and puppies.  Another problem to throw into the mix is the number of dogs in shelters with behavioral issues.  Most people just want a well behaved dog not a behavioral modification project.  That is a real problem. 
 
One thing to remember is that the while the number of dogs in total is increasing the number ending up in shelters and being euth is falling each year and has for about the last 20 years.
 
Again these are just my observations and estimates.  I really don't have enough numbers to make stronger projections.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I honestly don't see the big deal about getting a dog from a reputable breeder. I really haven't met any that are unreasonably picky yet (Picky? Yes. Unreasonably so? No. THe pickiest are those with super-intensive dogs or who can afford to be, because the demand is so high.) I'm a single woman, living in an apartment (no yard), with a disability (I don't have trouble exerciing a dog but I do face a lot of prejudice because of it.) At the time I got Mal, I was working part time and going to school part time. (Gone 6 hours a day and not made of money for vet bills.)

I had NO trouble getting approved by Mal's breeder, or Bou's andIndy's breeders in the past. When I got Bou, I was working 10 hour shifts, four days a week- his breeder wanted to know that I'd made provision for him going outside when he needed to (I had a roommate) and exercising him. I've just been offered another puppy by a very reputable Aussie breeder that I'm turning down because the timing just isn't right. If *I* have no trouble, I don't see why anyone responsible would.

I never thought Commercial Breeders could ever be a generally acceptable supplier. But then after reading that some follow the standard breeding practices of the reputable breeder and some supply their dogs to Pet shops.

 
I think that is really stretching it.
 
While many pets come from shops that are generally healthy the pet store would never be my source for a dog.  I wouldn't really say that commercial breeders come anywhere close to the standards and practices that people would expect of what is considered a reputable breeder.  I usually can tell right off if a sheltie has come from what I would consider a breeder I would do business with, a BYB, or a commercial breeder.  If you know the standard for my breed it is easy to tell.
 
Now before I get flamed about generally dogs being healthy from the pet store here is why I say that.  In Florida there is a lemon law.  If a purchased puppy is un-healthy the owner is reinbursed up to the cost of the pet for vet care.  Now if all the pet shops where having to do this they would be quickly out of business do to lack of profit.  You can't say that the owners don't know about the law as it is required to give the new owner a copy of the law at the time of sale.
 
 

dpu,

i am not sure if you watch animal cops on animal planet. the HS in houston, tx shut down a puppy mill on one episode. there was nothing clean or clinical about it. a family had set up several small pens. they were breeding several different breeds of dogs. the dogs had little to no shelter, no clean water, many were malnourished, several had atrophied muscles because the pens were so small they couldnt move, all the dogs were covered with fleas, many eventually tested HW positive, andd the long haired dogs were matted to the point that they had to be sedated to remove the hair. the puppies had it good though. it was summer time and they were being kept in a very small shed with very little ventilation and no ac. a few had already died from the heat.

at the sacrifice of a several breeding pairs and the weaker puppies, they were able to sell thousands of dogs to local pet stores and to anyone who drove up with cash in hand.

i am glad they were able to fill a void, and i am sure they were living up to usda standards. they were commercial breeders afterall. [8D]

Yes Timsdat and thank you.  I think what you provided is a good feel for the numbers.  Anyone is free provide their own but as we all know true number are not available.

One thing I do ask is that you differentiate between the important and the unimportant.  I often get confused when you qualify.  Whether the qualification is significant enough to negate.  For example, S/N requirement at the POS would be the ideal to eliminate the Unintended but it is a fact there will be exemption and noncompliance.  Unless the exempt skews the stat, it should not be mentioned.  Just my opinion to keep things simple and moving forward.

cyclefiend2000,
 
Very sad description and I am sure that is not sole story.  That is what this discussion is about, how do you change the industry to eliminate this.  Any ideas?  If you suggest more police enforcement, wouldn't your tax dollars be spent better by hiring true Leaders.  A novel idea but the industry and the breeding professional clearly lack strong leaders.

I don't think the numbers really work in this case.  This isn't a simple supply and demand.  The unintentional breedings are not due to a demand.  They are accidents.  If you took them away I think the demand for dogs would drop considerably because first fewer people would want to spend the money for a dog from a breeder instead of the free mix in the paper or left in the box and 2nd alot of people get dogs for the idea of rescuing one from a shelter or bad life.  If there were no accidents there would be alot fewer people who consider getting a dog.  More of those people who do consider getting a dog would also probably spend time researching instead of impulse buying causing less turnover(fewer dogs being sent off to other homes so they can get another because they didn't like that one).  Not that everyone who wants a free dog turns out to be a bad owner or that everyone who spends lots of money on a purebred cares about them but overall when you can get something for less than $100 you tend not to consider the purchase as thoroughly as if it costs several $100-$1000+.  It would probably weed out alot of people who aren't serious about taking care of a dog.  If you took away unintentional breedings I think the supply/demand portion of it would actually balance out quite nicely in the end.

Any ideas?

the same ideas that have been expressed by many people on this very thread... educate people about the horrors of puppy mills and encourage people not to buy from pet stores. that seems to be the only way to me. it is economics, surely an accountant would understand that.

my biggest question throughout this thread was....

how can someone involved in rescue support puppy mills as a viable option for potential dog owners? we (as responsible dog owners) should be part of the solution, not part of the problem.