breeding moratorium

However, I think unfortunately that some breeds do tend to have more aggression issues

 
I'd say we agree.[]

yep....and I for one think that's awwwwsome (best Bill n Ted nasally tone there). [sm=wink2.gif]

ORIGINAL: Kodo

ORIGINAL: rolenta

Just curious, Kodo, what are the qualifications that you think are unreasonable? Each breeder has their own qualifications. As I said in my other post, some breeders wouldn't sell a puppy to me because of where I lived, but I did find a good breeder close by that did.

Here are some I have heard myself, as well as ones I've been told by other people:

You are too young. (gee, guess that means I MUST be irresponsible!)
You are too old. (Guess old people can't be good owners?)
You have kids. (That's funny, I was a kid once, and we had dogs and it was never a problem?)
You don't have kids. (Just means I have more money for the dogs!)
You don't have a good enough job. (heard by a person who made average money and could easily afford to take care of a dog)
You work too much. (gee, I work 8hr days like most people, kind of a good idea to have a job these days.)
You have too many other dogs. (and who are you to say there isn't room for one more at the inn?)
You don't have another dog to keep it company. (I know lots of "only dogs" that are very happy!)
You've never owned this breed before.(So I guess trying to learn something new is bad?)


See what I'm saying? It's like people are looking for some specific thing in their mind instead of just looking for good honest responsible people.

Here's one for you...I was turned down because *my entire* property isn't dog fenced. I do have a large outside run but most of the time my dogs are in the house or outside on leashes...I only put them in the yard when I'm not home. I certainly can't afford right now to dog proof 5 acres!

Well, I can tell you that not all good breeders have such strict policies. Tojo is health-tested, guaranteed, and has champion parents, and I got a dog despite having NO yard and being very young (18 when I started the process, 19 when I actually got him). Also, DH were both in school, working, and by the time Tojo was actually available, I was pregnant (although I'm at home full-time now). The breeder told us that she screened people carefully, but no matter how many questions you ask, the puppy still might go to a bad family. She said that in the end, you have to take a leap of faith and trust your intuition because even someone with 5 fenced acres who has no children and is home full time JUST to take care of dogs can still be abusive. I really agree with her on that.

ORIGINAL: dlg81

ORIGINAL: rolenta

If you can't get a responsible breeder to sell you a dog, then you probably shouldn't own a dog. With a few exceptions of course. Some breeders of shiba inus wouldn't sell to me because I live in an apartment.

That being said, no one's forcing the dog buyers to buy from BYBs. Demand is controlled by the consumer and supply responds accordingly. If people only ever wanted good, well-bred dogs, rest assured, there would be way more good breeders. All of those BYBs would get the hint and either start breeding responsibly, or go out of business. It really is a matter of educating the masses (and making them care).

If this happened I doubt the number of well bred dogs being produced would increase to supply for the demand.  I've read it on this message board and others that "responsible" breeders are not breeding to supply the masses with puppies or to fill demand.  They are doing it to improve the breed (any other proper cause can be inserted here).  Why would they change the number of dogs they produce to supply the masses?  The BYBs would probably go out of business and there would be less dogs produced overall.  People would either end up on waiting lists or not get dogs (which might be a good thing in the end anyway).

Well, in reality, if everybody loved dogs enough to care about their breeding practised, there would probably be more dog-lovers, and therefore, more breeders. Not that all dog-lovers breed, but a lot of them do. Also, if all breeders had three-year waiting lists, I have no doubt there would be more breeding going on. What would the harm be if all homes were responsible?

I can see where you're coming from Kodo.  I get the same stuff:
 
You're too young
You're in school (pardon me for improving my education)
You live in an apartment (This is the past, but, um...yeah?  Lotsa people do that.  Ya'll would not believe how many people WILL NOT sell to me because of this.  There are tons of people who are doin just fine in apartments, and thousands of others who are floundering trying to make payments on a house...living in a house does not = better dog owner)
You can't afford it (how do you know?)
 
But good breeders can't stop breeding.  I think they could be more FAIR in their selection process (as in, not saying "NO!" when they find out you live in an apartment), but the screening is important.

I want to be more fair when I start breeding. I know what it's like to have no one want to give you a dog (see my last post).

ORIGINAL: rolenta

ORIGINAL: Kodo

ORIGINAL: rolenta

Just curious, Kodo, what are the qualifications that you think are unreasonable? Each breeder has their own qualifications. As I said in my other post, some breeders wouldn't sell a puppy to me because of where I lived, but I did find a good breeder close by that did.

Here are some I have heard myself, as well as ones I've been told by other people:

You are too young. (gee, guess that means I MUST be irresponsible!)
You are too old. (Guess old people can't be good owners?)
You have kids. (That's funny, I was a kid once, and we had dogs and it was never a problem?)
You don't have kids. (Just means I have more money for the dogs!)
You don't have a good enough job. (heard by a person who made average money and could easily afford to take care of a dog)
You work too much. (gee, I work 8hr days like most people, kind of a good idea to have a job these days.)
You have too many other dogs. (and who are you to say there isn't room for one more at the inn?)
You don't have another dog to keep it company. (I know lots of "only dogs" that are very happy!)
You've never owned this breed before.(So I guess trying to learn something new is bad?)


See what I'm saying? It's like people are looking for some specific thing in their mind instead of just looking for good honest responsible people.

Here's one for you...I was turned down because *my entire* property isn't dog fenced. I do have a large outside run but most of the time my dogs are in the house or outside on leashes...I only put them in the yard when I'm not home. I certainly can't afford right now to dog proof 5 acres!

Well, I can tell you that not all good breeders have such strict policies. Tojo is health-tested, guaranteed, and has champion parents, and I got a dog despite having NO yard and being very young (18 when I started the process, 19 when I actually got him). Also, DH were both in school, working, and by the time Tojo was actually available, I was pregnant (although I'm at home full-time now). The breeder told us that she screened people carefully, but no matter how many questions you ask, the puppy still might go to a bad family. She said that in the end, you have to take a leap of faith and trust your intuition because even someone with 5 fenced acres who has no children and is home full time JUST to take care of dogs can still be abusive. I really agree with her on that.

ORIGINAL: dlg81

ORIGINAL: rolenta

If you can't get a responsible breeder to sell you a dog, then you probably shouldn't own a dog. With a few exceptions of course. Some breeders of shiba inus wouldn't sell to me because I live in an apartment.

That being said, no one's forcing the dog buyers to buy from BYBs. Demand is controlled by the consumer and supply responds accordingly. If people only ever wanted good, well-bred dogs, rest assured, there would be way more good breeders. All of those BYBs would get the hint and either start breeding responsibly, or go out of business. It really is a matter of educating the masses (and making them care).

If this happened I doubt the number of well bred dogs being produced would increase to supply for the demand.  I've read it on this message board and others that "responsible" breeders are not breeding to supply the masses with puppies or to fill demand.  They are doing it to improve the breed (any other proper cause can be inserted here).  Why would they change the number of dogs they produce to supply the masses?  The BYBs would probably go out of business and there would be less dogs produced overall.  People would either end up on waiting lists or not get dogs (which might be a good thing in the end anyway).

Well, in reality, if everybody loved dogs enough to care about their breeding practised, there would probably be more dog-lovers, and therefore, more breeders. Not that all dog-lovers breed, but a lot of them do. Also, if all breeders had three-year waiting lists, I have no doubt there would be more breeding going on. What would the harm be if all homes were responsible?

 
I'm not getting how more individuals caring about their dog breeding leads to more dog lovers.  Could you elaborate on that please? 
 
The idea that responsible breeders would produce more puppies because more people wanted them seems to go against most of the responsible breeder rhetoric I've heard.  They're not breeding to fill a demand for pets, they're breeding to produce better specimens of the breed.  How does it further a responsible breeder's purposes to increase breeding to put more puppies into pet homes? Would it be to free up more space for another litter?
 
 

If responsible breeders were filling all pet homes, it would be because there was a vast paradigm shift in the way most people own dogs- PET owners would have to be more responsible on average, than they currently are, more patient, and more flexible about their breed choices, in some cases.

That said, if ALL the pet homes available could be approved by a responsible breeder or rescue group, I'd see no problem with responsible breeders filling that demand- for one thing, I suspect we'd have more responsible breeders!

What pwca said.

ORIGINAL: Kodo

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I good breeder doesn't need to lower prices.  They have a full market usually along with a waiting list for the pups they have now.  Why should they charge less.  Do you want they to lose even more money.  They charge what they charge to try to offset they costs.

I know a good breeder doesn't NEED to lower prices. I'm saying that if they want to put BYBs out of the business, they SHOULD, even if it means losing money. We're talking ethics here...it is more important to make money or to put the BYBs out of business?

I know from talking to friends and coworkers....they know I used to show and they all say the same thing. "Those prices are ridiculous and I'd never pay that for a puppy."

Like it or hate it, that's the realistic mindset of the average american. Now if you want to convince that person NOT to buy from a BYB, you're going to have to say "Here's the same dog the BYB is selling, for the same price, but mine has a good pedigree and a health guarantee." That is the ONLY way you will get the majority of the market to come to the better breeders.

When I was looking for my lab (got from a good breeder for $500) there were LOTS of breeders who didn't even health test and wanted $800-$900 for their pups.  There are tons of goldendoodle and labrdoodle pups (some that are still shedding and are not health tested) for $1000 and up.

Our local Petland rarely sells and breed for under $800.  Ususally their pups are over $1000 and they move dogs like crazy.  People see those cute faces, hear they have financing, and it's all over but the shoutin.

Honestly, I really don't think that most GOOD breeders are hurting for puppy buyers.  I've seen BYBs with pups priced very cheaply that had some left over, but not good breeders.