The Elitist Attitude.

DumDog

if you're a "reputable" breeder then does that JUST entail that you are breeding registered dogs and are willing to take back anywhere from 6 to 12 puppies/adult dogs at the drop of a hat? What if you're a reputable St. Bernard breeder who didnt predict what ever health problem? does that mean you'll also pay, oh i dont know... couple thousand dollars to cover the cost of expensive medical procedures on a "lost cause" puppy when the buyer comes back to you, or will just tsk tsk and offer them a free puppy next time? i would LOVE to meet someone who breeds large breeds and has taken back an entire litter, or at the very least four or five adults from past litters all at one time.

I would hope that a breeder is involved with their breed club and breed rescue, at least in part in case something  unfortunate like this crops up. I would hope that the dog returns to the breeder at least initially, so that they can get them checked out, "see what the damage is".  If they have already taken back other dogs from that litter for the same reason and therefore do not have room, then they should contact the breed rescue/breed club/other breeders and enlist their help!  Just one more good reason to do all the screenings and breed only from healthy stock isn't it?  I know it's no guarantee, but at least the odds are stacked in their favour if they endeavour to do it responsibly and ethically.

I also think that every breeder should be involved in rescue.  It might be fostering, it might be helping out at the locl shelter, it might be driving, it might be donations... anything.  But I think they should try to help a few rejects.  Because if you are a dog lover, and you can look into those big sad eyes and still believe firmly that your next litter has a place in this world, then you might just be right.

DPU

Liesje

But go ahead and personally insult my dog if that's how you like to get your "points" across... Besides, I'm not defending the breeder or even providing her as an example of a responsible breeder,

Oh, I thought you were rep'ing Kenya's breeder as an excellent example, sorry.  It was not intended but maybe now you can understand how the members feel when they are pounced on for thinking about breeding a family pet.  With their inflamed advised, they can't help but insult the dog.  They forget there is an innocent person at the other end of their comments.

I gave specific examples of things Kenya's breeder does that I agree with (OFAs and other health tests, placing coated dogs in good homes or service organizations, etc), but I don't think my personal opinion on how I feel about her breeding practices as a whole are relevant to this thread.  If anyone wants to know exactly how I feel, they are free to PM me, but I don't see any purpose in getting into it at length here unless someone is asking about her specifically or considering one of her dogs.  I think I am overly critical when it comes to responsible breeding, yet I'm not here to be touting one person and dragging another through the mud on a public forum.  On the GSD board, when people want specific information about breeders, it is understood that we do it in private.

Hmmm, I've yet to see anyone here insulting people's dogs.  Neither of my dogs are suitable for breeding and I'm the FIRST person to say so.  It doesn't mean I insult my own dogs. I have offered up Kenya's conformation for critique on other boards and gotten very honest results, but I am neither insulted by areas that need improvement nor do I gloat about positive comments.  I love her the way she is and that's all that matters.  People can say whatever they want about her.  No one else on this forum has ever seen her compete or put their hands on her so I'm not going to get insulted by comments based on the small tidbits of information I disclose or a few pictures of her.  You make her sound like she has so many problems, well she has one problem, she lacks confidence.  That is a serious fault for a German Shepherd, I don't need anyone else to tell me like I didn't already know.  But for all of the scenarios where this has come up and I've asked for advice, I could start TEN threads each on everything GOOD about her, I just choose not to.  She is not dog aggressive, human aggressive, no separation anxiety, no leash reactivity, no barrier aggression, no resource guarding, no barking, no jumping on people, no chewing things besides her bones, no destroying the house when I'm not around, no running away, easily able to call off prey, etc etc.  Yup she has one problem that prevents her from being a good candidate for breeding, but she is a fine pet and competitor just the same.  If you knew her entire history, it would be easier to understand why she is the way she is.  Her breeder lost a very good friend because of some dirty breeding practices (putting yet another GSD breeder on the black list...).  Yes, people who are serious about their dogs will actually lose friends over irresponsible breeding.

Chuffy

I also think that every breeder should be involved in rescue. 

Now that I understand what DumDog was meaning by this, I would like to respond.

I disagree.   While being involved in rescue is certainly commendable and I would respect and admire a "good" breeder who chose to be involved in rescue, I don't think the fact that they are a breeder obligates them in any way to be involved in rescue. As long as they are reputable, breed for health, conformation and temperament and betterment of the breed, etc., I don't think they should feel bound to be involved in rescue. They are doing their part for the breed. Many times, they are doing MORE than their part.

OTOH, I think breeders who are breeding their family pets, ignoring health tests, BYB, and so on ARE obligated to do something right for their breed to make up for how badly they're screwing it up. So, being involved in rescue would be a good thing for them to do. Better yet, they should stop breeding and stick to rescue.

DPU, you have yet to show me why I need to change my mind. You have not convinced me that I am wrong, if anything you have convinced me more, that I am right.

You have not shown how having more pets reduces or helps the shelter/foster dog, a fact you brought up I might add. You have yet to contribute anything that supports your stance. Where as other's, and I thank them, have.

You have taken the high and mighty road yet again with your extremely arrogant "I am the best (&^% rescuer in the world" and no one else can ever measure up attitude. You have tried to twist words, made snide off the cuff innuendo's about someones career in vet medicine, something I am sure you were hoping would turn the topic away from your stance, and make this about someone else. Your doing more personal attacks than anyone btw.

You have, in your own words, disowned the parent club for Great Danes, because you have dismissed their knowledge and hopes for the breed as not up to your standards or what you believe in. Never mind that they have been doing it for years, and have more combined knowledge that you do. Nope, they have to be wrong, because your right, and refuse to believe that your wrong. Gosh forbid.

You want to know what bothers me the most? That you foster, and despite my personal opinion of you, that is something I admire, I would love to do it, want to do it, but I know deep down, I would probably do more harm than good, and I am woman enough to admit it. But that fact that you foster and support indiscriminate breeding breaks my heart.

Shame on you.

DPU

Thats right so don't try and dictate your Holy Grail dog ways on me.  Not sad at all, I couldn't care less about chasing the Holy Grail dog.  I know family pets.  Just so you know, that kind of standard is maintained by my rescue organization, meticulous records on the dogs that come into the program.  A lot of dog owners do know and understand responsibility.   How you achieve being responsible may be different but in the end the dog is well taken care of.

You're the one trying to dictate your "holier than thou" ways upon me.  In case you aren't keeping up with the thread, I responded to your challenge.  I didn't challenge you.  

 As for what you call the "Holy Grail" dog, I have no clue what you are talking about.  With sighthounds, it's much more about preservation of the breeds as they've been for THOUSANDS of years.  And that includes keeping HD and other genetic problems out of the picture.

 You're too busy pointing your fingers at everyone else to learn a few things.
 

FourIsCompany

Chuffy

I also think that every breeder should be involved in rescue. 

 

Now that I understand what DumDog was meaning by this, I would like to respond.

I disagree.   While being involved in rescue is certainly commendable and I would respect and admire a "good" breeder who chose to be involved in rescue, I don't think the fact that they are a breeder obligates them in any way to be involved in rescue. As long as they are reputable, breed for health, conformation and temperament and betterment of the breed, etc., I don't think they should feel bound to be involved in rescue. They are doing their part for the breed. Many times, they are doing MORE than their part.

OTOH, I think breeders who are breeding their family pets, ignoring health tests, BYB, and so on ARE obligated to do something right for their breed to make up for how badly they're screwing it up. So, being involved in rescue would be a good thing for them to do. Better yet, they should stop breeding and stick to rescue.

I'm curious, do you think a breeder should be obligated to take back, keep or rehome the dogs they produce?  And if so, wouldn't that be considered a type of rescue, even if it is limited to their own dogs?

My personal opinion is that at a minimum, a breeder should do that, take back dogs they've produced if asked.  If every breeder (hobby, commercial, whathaveyou) was required to do this, I think there would be fewer litters per year and the overall population of homeless dogs would be reduced.  If a breeder were to have an entire litter returned, I think it should seriously consider not breeding again or reviewing their practices to figure out what in the heck went wrong and the parents of that litter should not be bred again. 

As for you DPU, whether you like the label or not, you're just as elitist as the rest of us, just in the opposite direction.  You equate standards and judgments with elitism but you've made the same evaluations yourself when stating that as long as a home pet breeder does "X, Y, or Z" then it's okay with you.  You also make judgments and decisions about adopter's worthiness when you place your fosters, some rejected applicants would likely call you an elitist rescuer.  It's not any different than what we're doing, it's judgmental, it's opinion-based.  You're the one who threw down the "elitism" label, you're wearing it too, you just don't want to admit it. 

BCMixs

I'm curious, do you think a breeder should be obligated to take back, keep or rehome the dogs they produce? 

Oh, absolutely! I don't considering that "rescue". I consider that one aspect of being a good breeder. Being responsible for the puppies they make. As I said earlier, if they don't take back their dogs, they're not a good breeder, IMO.

Chuffy

I also think that every breeder should be involved in rescue

I disagree with this.  I don't think a truly resposible breeder should be obligated to deal with the consequences of the irresponsible.  Let them do what they do best and that is improving the breed.

FourIsCompany

BCMixs

I'm curious, do you think a breeder should be obligated to take back, keep or rehome the dogs they produce? 

 

Oh, absolutely! I don't considering that "rescue". I consider that one aspect of being a good breeder. Being responsible for the puppies they make. As I said earlier, if they don't take back their dogs, they're not a good breeder, IMO.

   Just checking.  I think the term "rescue" sometimes means different things to different people.  I'd consider this rescue, even if it is just their own pups, they're keeping them from ending up in a bad situation like a shelter, so to me, it's a kind of rescue.  Also a responsible breeding practice. 

Truley

Shame on you.

My intentions is not to change your mind or to show you the err of your ways in your thinking.  My intentions is to show that your tactics to force others to do what you want does not work and may drive the person to do opposite of what you say.  The delivery of advise is just not effective.  I guess I don't know why you don't understand the simple statement that if a family decides to breed their precious pet and commits to a lifelong care of that pet, what is wrong with that and how in the world does that involve you or anyone else.  Whats makes you think it is totally indiscriminate.  I truly believe that generally, dog owners are good people, everyone of them makes mistakes and they learn from it and take responsibility.  The opposing argument is look at all those dogs in the shelter.  That happens because some don't take responsibility but I believe a majority does.  Remember, I am talking about families like myself and not those that are in it for the money, or those that crank out the pups because they like the work of breeding.

BCMixs

As for you DPU, whether you like the label or not, you're just as elitist as the rest of us, just in the opposite direction.  You equate standards and judgments with elitism but you've made the same evaluations yourself when stating that as long as a home pet breeder does "X, Y, or Z" then it's okay with you.  You also make judgments and decisions about adopter's worthiness when you place your fosters, some rejected applicants would likely call you an elitist rescuer.  It's not any different than what we're doing, it's judgmental, it's opinion-based.  You're the one who threw down the "elitism" label, you're wearing it too, you just don't want to admit it. 

I am much nicer about it and I don't connive or mislead. I don't direct words like ignorance and dumb at the person asking about breeding.  I don't sensationalize potential problems and provide false information, like in that other thread.  As a matter of fact, I don't think I have ever commented in any of the past threads.  I do have my opinions but I do respect a person's right to choose and if I have experience, I would share.  I have no experience in breeding but if I choose to do so, it will be my decision and my responsibility. 

Mod's Warning

This thread is going downhill and off topic quickly.

BACK TO TOPIC and the ping-pong of barely veiled insults needs to stop now.

DPU

My intentions is not to change your mind or to show you the err of your ways in your thinking.  My intentions is to show that your tactics to force others to do what you want does not work and may drive the person to do opposite of what you say.  The delivery of advise is just not effective. 

Why am I in error, and your not? Why are your intentions better than mine? And where on earth did I use force? I was offered the opportunity to answer a question, I did, I don't remember being nasty about it. And it is not my fault is someone is going to be childish and do something just because they were told no, you shouldn't.

 I guess I don't know why you don't understand the simple statement that if a family decides to breed their precious pet and commits to a lifelong care of that pet, what is wrong with that and how in the world does that involve you or anyone else.  Whats makes you think it is totally indiscriminate. 

Every time you say "their precious pet", I cringe, it really comes off as condescending. I have no problem with family pets, have no issue's with anyones dog, and I really do hope they commit to lifelong care, just don't expect me to support them if they breed "just because they can or want to". It would involve me, or anyone else that fosters, volunteers or contributes to shelters, who would be picking up the pieces. If they are not contributing to the bred something good, or taking out something bad, it is: "Indiscriminate"-Lacking, haphazard, random.

 I truly believe that generally, dog owners are good people, everyone of them makes mistakes and they learn from it and take responsibility.

I agree with you! Progress!

The opposing argument is look at all those dogs in the shelter.  That happens because some don't take responsibility but I believe a majority does.  Remember, I am talking about families like myself and not those that are in it for the money, or those that crank out the pups because they like the work of breeding.

Sorry, that should read most, not some, you don't wind up with almost 200 thousand dogs on petfinder in just my area alone, with just a few making bad choices.

 DPU- It's our business because the OP in the other thread asked for opinions.  We didn't hear through her neighborhood grapevine that she was thinking about breeding and go knocking down her door, seize her dog and say "No,no,no, you're not worthy!"   It's also our business because we pay the taxes that fund shelters that must deal with the problem.  It's great that there are independent rescues that also step up to the plate, but they don't cost me money, shelters do.  So from a purely financial point of view, I care that the potential exists that inexperienced and poorly planned breeding results in an impact on my personal bottom line. 

Warning and informing the OP on the health hazards of breeding PARTICULARLY in a small breed dog such as hers might be considered sensational to you, but the people here who've personally experienced it or been a part in treating it probably feel negligent if they don't at least make the OP aware that the potential exists.  It's not scare tactics, it's education.  

As for the "Holy Grail" label, I don't see how aiming for the best possible outcome can possibly be a bad thing!  I'm sure when assessing potential adopters, you're looking for the "Holy Grail" in someone who will commit to the dog 100% and be fully informed and aware of their choice in taking in a dog that you hope they will keep, love and care for until the end of it's days.  If the dog has a health issue, do you inform them or not say anything because you don't want to engage in scare tactics or sensationalism?  To settle for less is negligent and irresponsible in my opinion. 

I see no connection with that effort and me wanting to breed my family pet.

that seems pretty short sighted to me.  having one or two people produce litters from their family dog may not be a problem. the problem is when i see 10-20 dogs, healthy and potentially adoptable dogs, being PTS every week at our local shelter because of oops litters or whatever. i rarely see purebred  dogs (actually i can only recall once ever seeing a PB dog) on the PTS or adoptable pet list from our local shelter. so i would contend that the majority of our problem, at least locally, stems from people breeding their family pet or oops litters or something of that nature.

Now, how about you....how many fosters are in your house....how many have you placed?  My ratio is something like 40 dogs rescued to 0 dogs bred.  What is your ratio?

talk about an elitist attitude! i have never fostered or placed any dogs. does that make me a bad pet owner? 

Wouldn't a family who bred their precious pet  and accepted a return be considered a good breeder.

this is only 1 quality of a responsible breeder.  i am sure the other qualities have already been pointed out, but ignored.

these threads seem to pop up a few times a year... it occurs to me that you all dont realize that DPU is right and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. he has pointed it out countless times.