"Cruelty by Breeders"

ORIGINAL: ron2

Furthermore, since fines don't often stop millers but simply raise the price of their animals, miller or byb caught breeding without a license and following ethical protocols should be banned from doing so again, by a court of law. That way, further infractions would incur criminal penalties. And seizure of all the animals and equipment. Any future infraction against the injuction would be contempt of court.

And, in my limited knowledge, I don't think a good breeder has anything to fear from the laws. It should, eventually, clean up the bad ones and make a good breeder not only more desirable but, eventually, the only option. Or, in other words, make the byb's adhere to the high standards that good breeders hold themselves to. In essence, if you can't be a good breeder, you don't get to be one at all. That's why I didn't let Shadow breed.

1. He is from a mixed, unregistered litter. None of his pups can be registered, which is important to people who will pay money.
2. The other owners' reason of wanting to mate their bitch to "settle her temperment" is never a good reason to breed.
3. Shadow's temperment is more Husky than anything and people who think they getting a neat-looking Lab are in for a surprise.
4. Most important of all, I couldn't guarantee, and neither could both other parties that expressed interest, a good home for all the pups. And I simply will not contribute another litter to the shelter population.

So, I practiced good breeding by not breeding because I didn't have all the requirements of good breeding. Why can't more people be like me?[]

Also, too, it's easy to get wrapped up in a debate over an issue like this, which is emotional for all of us. I think you have a valiant and valid cause to pursue. And much energy can be consumed trying to defend a statement or part of a position. Maybe we can work toward sensible legislation AND education. It won't happen overnight but every journey starts with one step, followed by another.

 
BRAVO !!  Both to you for being so responsible, and for seeing a reason to keep on working on it.  My only problem, admittedly, is impatience.  While we're taking that one step followed by another, animals are dying, or worse.  So can you make it a quick step? []

I have seen some rescues requirements that the are very hard to meet.  I have seen where if you don't have a fenced yard or if you work during the day and there isn't someone home all day they won't adopt. 


This is a bad thing?  Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard.  Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors.  Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.

 
I think its a VERY bad thing. 
You don't need a fenced in yard to have a safe dog. In fact, my dog could and would jump a fenced in yard, and probably get hit by a car..or worse.      I would never  let a dog alone in a back yard whether its fenced or not anyway, I think someone should be keeping an eye out for their dog. 
I work too,,,and have had dogs that sleep during the day and get exercise and playtime and family life while we are home. Tons of it.  Just like the kids while they were being raised.
But yet you wouldnt give a dog to me because I work and don't have a fenced in yard????    Shew....you'd me making a major mistake.

It won't happen overnight but every journey starts with one step, followed by another.

 
I also feel that anything that starts a dialogue about a situation like this, even if it involves disagreements, is still a good start.  News about this bill hasn't been nearly as vast as I'd have expected, but that might change as it gets closer to the governor.  It will absolutely get more media attention if the bill is signed.  We all need to be talking about this issue and if folks are opposed to this bill but consider themselves an animal lover, then they too should be fighting for a change they can live with along with the animals we care about.
 
How's this for new/different/additional legislation?  No animal can be sold or given away by anyone, at any time, without the interested purchasing  arty having attended a 2 hour class on responsible ownership?  Classes would include a primer on nutrition, health (including spay/neuter info), costs of owning a pet, etc. 
 
As for personal responsibility - I don't know if this is only in California, but I doubt it.  No newborn baby can be taken home from the hospital without a safety approved carseat right?  Now, you'd think new parents would just be responsible enough to know that they should have one, but somewhere along the line, it was found that many weren't, so now we have a law.  I think it's sad that we have to legislate things like that too, but if that's what it takes to insure that babies are protected, then that's what we do, right?

Also, too, it's easy to get wrapped up in a debate over an issue like this, which is emotional for all of us. I think you have a valiant and valid cause to pursue. And much energy can be consumed trying to defend a statement or part of a position. Maybe we can work toward sensible legislation AND education. It won't happen overnight but every journey starts with one step, followed by another.

Right on Ron! 
I really think that with all of the dog lovers on all of the dog boards...doing what we can,,,somehow we can make a difference.

Just because a rescue turns down someone doesn't necessarily mean that person isn't fit to own a dog. When we got a house, we wanted a dog because we felt a house isn't a home without a dog. At the time, it was 3 women and a baby living in the house. We wanted a dog that would be great with children yet would deter the nutjobs. After doing research, I wanted a Rottweiler yet the shelters and rescues in my area would not adopt a Rottweiler to me because I had a child under 10 living in the home. I respected their decision and knew they were doing what was best for them and the dogs so I went the other route and decided to buy one from a responsible breeder. Considering that I had experience with large working breeds in the past, I was a stay at home mother, had a nice sized home and nice sized yard the breeder felt I would be perfectly fine for one of his pups.
 
With that said, while I understand rescues point of view they do pass up otherwise good homes. Just because someone doesn't own a home, have a fenced in yard, doesn't have a 6 foot high privacy fence, works outside of the home, works too much, works too little, doesn't make enough money, isn't married, has children, doesn't have children etc.. does not automatically make them a bad home nor does that mean any breeder who doesn't have such stringent requirements as a rescue means they aren't a responsible breeder.

Right on Ron!
I really think that with all of the dog lovers on all of the dog boards...doing what we can,,,somehow we can make a difference.

 
That's the point I was wanting to make. We are, in fact, a community of dog lovers. We spend time on line, here, talking about our passion. I think we should brainstorm. Not all ideas will be useful or easily implemented. But we'll get more done trying to build something than to tear it apart.
 
Yes, some rescues may be so stringent that they won't adopt to otherwise good homes. I would possibly fail a Siberian Husky rescue interview because DW and I work away from the home. Shadow is in the yard for upto 6 hours. Like your dog, he could jump the chain link fence if he had an inkling. He's only 26 inches tall but he's fast and strong. OTOH, I could go to the shelter right now and get a Husky. I saw a female Husky mix at their mobile adoption. It might be the same one I saw some time ago. She may have been re-surrendered for not acting like a Lab, or because her humans were moving. Or she may simply look like the one I saw last year. I've seen purebred Sibes there, too. I have seen a Shiba Inu there, as well, which boggled my mind. Grayson county is a very rural county. Most of it is farm and ranch land. That being said, I've heard of a Sibe breeder in the township west of me. But I couldn't imagine someone spending the money to get a Shiba Inu, only to have it wind up in the shelter. Then, again, people are bound and determined to by the biggest truck so that they can get 10 miles to the gallon at today's prices. As Ron White, the comedian said, "You can't fix stupid." That is, though I would like to buy from a breeder, I would just as soon adopt from the shelter because that dog needs a home, too. At Sherman Animal Care and Control, adoption of any dog costs $44. That covers the adoption, first shots, and s/n at an area supporting vet. Though I might go ahead and spend $60 at our vet, since I am used to him. I donate to the shelter when I can. Cash, old sheets and towel, food I couldn't use because Shadow had an allergic reaction while eating it. I don't go to the shelter very often because it breaks my heart every time a go. A big, tough guy like me near to tears because I can't take away all the pain. That animal shelter is a kill shelter from what I've heard. After initial health and temperment check, 7 days of adoptibility. Though I think they may stretch that a bit when the shelter's not so full.
 
I, like everyone else in this discussion, would like to see things change. So, we need to keep our eyes open for opportunities to make those changes. And it won't always be easy.
 

I am saying that position statements are often behind the research... That happens in many fields.  The support of early spay neuter is recent, but it is still a paradym shift to consider the impact of loss of sex related hormones on growth and development.  These studies too are recent.  The information age has changed dramatically due to the 'Net.  Folks are researching issues and asking questions that did not even occur 5 years ago.... Personal example, stopping annual vaccines except for state required Rabies and using titres to monitor immune status.

Then we have the status quo and the killing of adoptable animals continues.

plus we have yet another law on the books to complicate the legal system.

ORIGINAL: dyan

I have seen some rescues requirements that the are very hard to meet.  I have seen where if you don't have a fenced yard or if you work during the day and there isn't someone home all day they won't adopt. 


This is a bad thing?  Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard.  Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors.  Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.

I think its a VERY bad thing. 
You don't need a fenced in yard to have a safe dog. In fact, my dog could and would jump a fenced in yard, and probably get hit by a car..or worse.      I would never  let a dog alone in a back yard whether its fenced or not anyway, I think someone should be keeping an eye out for their dog. 
I work too,,,and have had dogs that sleep during the day and get exercise and playtime and family life while we are home. Tons of it.  Just like the kids while they were being raised.
But yet you wouldnt give a dog to me because I work and don't have a fenced in yard????    Shew....you'd me making a major mistake.

 
How am I supposed to know that you aren't the one with the unfenced yard who would be over-confident of your training abilities so that you let your dog off leash in your unfenced yard?  You say your dog could and would jump a fence, and you say that you wouldn't leave the dog alone, but I'm not hearing that magic word "leash".  So if your dog is prone to jumping fences, why should I believe that you could control it without a fence?  Also, I know if my dogs are fence jumpers before I place them.  If they are, then I require a whole lot more than just a fence.
 
As for working, I never said I wouldn't place with someone that works, but if there were two equal homes and one had someone home more often, then that's the one that would get the dog.
 
Would I be making a mistake - maybe, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.  And I'd much rather have my mistake be you not getting one of my dogs, than have my mistake be you adopting from me and then letting my dog get killed, or even having to return it because I'd made a bad match.

ORIGINAL: meilani

Just because a rescue turns down someone doesn't necessarily mean that person isn't fit to own a dog. When we got a house, we wanted a dog because we felt a house isn't a home without a dog. At the time, it was 3 women and a baby living in the house. We wanted a dog that would be great with children yet would deter the nutjobs. After doing research, I wanted a Rottweiler yet the shelters and rescues in my area would not adopt a Rottweiler to me because I had a child under 10 living in the home. I respected their decision and knew they were doing what was best for them and the dogs so I went the other route and decided to buy one from a responsible breeder. Considering that I had experience with large working breeds in the past, I was a stay at home mother, had a nice sized home and nice sized yard the breeder felt I would be perfectly fine for one of his pups.

With that said, while I understand rescues point of view they do pass up otherwise good homes. Just because someone doesn't own a home, have a fenced in yard, doesn't have a 6 foot high privacy fence, works outside of the home, works too much, works too little, doesn't make enough money, isn't married, has children, doesn't have children etc.. does not automatically make them a bad home nor does that mean any breeder who doesn't have such stringent requirements as a rescue means they aren't a responsible breeder.

 
There are two prime duties for those placing animals.  One is the animal's safety, and the other is matching the animal with a home that will make a lifetime commitment to that animal.  The more problems the dog owner has to overcome, the less likely they will be able to honor that commitment.  Since responsible breeders don't breed until they have homes lined up for the puppies, they have the opportunity of making sure they are homes that are most likely to succeed.  Why then would a responsible breeder place a puppy with someone that works too much (just taking one of your examples) when it's likely that will lead to a frustrated puppy developing separation anxiety, becoming destructive, or creating havoc with the neighbors who then turn the dog owner in for disturbing the neighborhood?  A responsible breeder (and rescue) want their dogs back if things don't work out, but what they really want is for it to work so that they don't have to take the dog back.  If they wanted an extra dog, they would have kept it in the first place.
 
So sorry, but if you were turned down by rescue, and accepted by a breeder, that would be a huge red flag questioning how responsible that breeder really is.  JMO of course.

Just some thoughts here. I have no problem with responsible breeders who are willing to take back their dogs at any time--no questions asked. However, I don't think breeding or showing will be halted by the requirement of an intact animal permit.
 
I looked at the ads in the paper over the weekend and I think the regular paper had 453 ads for pets and the Penny Saver 433. Probably about 85 percent were for puppies and were for profit rather than trying to find good homes for accidental litters. This just makes me sad to think of how many of these dogs won't live normal life spans.
 
With a spay/neuter law in place I don't anticipate animal control officers stopping people walking down the street to check the average citizen's dogs. I do hope that they check on these people who are indeed making thousands of dollars breeding dogs with no health testing not to mention titles or working history of any sort.
 
When the anti-chaining law was passed, I didn't see breeders or show people advocating against it as a "freedom" of individuals. It was passed because good, responsible people don't feel that a dog should be chained all day and that the cruelty of this surpasses the concept of personal property. IMO the cruelty of millions of animals PTS every year also surpasses the concept of personal property. We do need a spay/neuter law.
 
I do feel that a responsible breeder can place dogs in homes that wouldn't be approved by a rescue. Often a rescue will just look at the answers on paper without getting to know the individual involved. Also the rescue will typically have adult dogs that may have less than stellar breeding, socialization etc.  As an example, although many Belgians live happily with children, if they haven't been raised with kids, it could be a bad idea to place a rescued dog in a home with small children. About a month after adoption my rescued Mali decided he was very happy and did a Maligator dance leaping around nipping me on several occasions before the problem was controlled. I looked like a battered housewife for a few weeks. He'd never displayed this behavior while in foster care although he was there for over four months. It wasn't a major problem in an adults only home, but I sure wouldn't want that to happen to a five year old. The same with cats. Even though a dog may not overtly react to cats a dogs of some breeds need to be raised with them rather than introduced as adults.

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: meilani

Just because a rescue turns down someone doesn't necessarily mean that person isn't fit to own a dog. When we got a house, we wanted a dog because we felt a house isn't a home without a dog. At the time, it was 3 women and a baby living in the house. We wanted a dog that would be great with children yet would deter the nutjobs. After doing research, I wanted a Rottweiler yet the shelters and rescues in my area would not adopt a Rottweiler to me because I had a child under 10 living in the home. I respected their decision and knew they were doing what was best for them and the dogs so I went the other route and decided to buy one from a responsible breeder. Considering that I had experience with large working breeds in the past, I was a stay at home mother, had a nice sized home and nice sized yard the breeder felt I would be perfectly fine for one of his pups.

With that said, while I understand rescues point of view they do pass up otherwise good homes. Just because someone doesn't own a home, have a fenced in yard, doesn't have a 6 foot high privacy fence, works outside of the home, works too much, works too little, doesn't make enough money, isn't married, has children, doesn't have children etc.. does not automatically make them a bad home nor does that mean any breeder who doesn't have such stringent requirements as a rescue means they aren't a responsible breeder.

There are two prime duties for those placing animals.  One is the animal's safety, and the other is matching the animal with a home that will make a lifetime commitment to that animal.  The more problems the dog owner has to overcome, the less likely they will be able to honor that commitment.  Since responsible breeders don't breed until they have homes lined up for the puppies, they have the opportunity of making sure they are homes that are most likely to succeed.  Why then would a responsible breeder place a puppy with someone that works too much (just taking one of your examples) when it's likely that will lead to a frustrated puppy developing separation anxiety, becoming destructive, or creating havoc with the neighbors who then turn the dog owner in for disturbing the neighborhood?  A responsible breeder (and rescue) want their dogs back if things don't work out, but what they really want is for it to work so that they don't have to take the dog back.  If they wanted an extra dog, they would have kept it in the first place.

 
You really don't have to explain rescues reasons for their requirements. You're preaching to the choir. I've volunteered at shelters in my area. I totally understand their reasons for some of their requirements and I think they go overboard with some of their requirements. I also understand that those reasons are in place because of irresponsible people and because they don't have the man power to do homechecks or even calling references. With that said, because of some of their requirements, that still doesn't change the fact they do turn down good homes.
 

So sorry, but if you were turned down by rescue, and accepted by a breeder, that would be a huge red flag questioning how responsible that breeder really is.  JMO of course.

 
A huge red flag huh? Yeah. The breeder I purchased my Rottie from OFA'd and CERF'd his dogs among other things. His dogs have conformation and herding titles. He offered a worthy health guarantee and if I can't keep my dog for any reason, I'm to return him to the breeder or face breach of contract. But other than that, I guess he could be more responsible. [8|]
 
Although the shelters and rescues refused to adopt to me because I had a 3 year old, the breeder didn't let that negate the fact that I also had experience with large working breeds(Dobermans, German Shepherd Dogs and Boxers), I wasn't working at the time so I had lots of time to raise this dog up properly and I had the space for a Rottweiler. I'm glad he was willing to take a chance, I made a point not to disappoint him and he provided my family with a great dog.
 
 

What sweet pics Meilani....great post as well!
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=wavetowel.gif]
 
As a breeder you get either "you're too snooty and ask too many questions and cause people to go to pet stores and BYB's" and now I guess you get "You place dogs with people who shouldn't have one according to a rescue (who BTW places dogs that have unknown histories and thus are completely different than a breeder who knows their dogs and ancestors behind them intimately) and aren't stringent enough in your requirements"...lol.
 
The mind boggles.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

What sweet pics Meilani....great post as well!
[sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif][sm=wavetowel.gif]

As a breeder you get either "you're too snooty and ask too many questions and cause people to go to pet stores and BYB's" and now I guess you get "You place dogs with people who shouldn't have one according to a rescue (who BTW places dogs that have unknown histories and thus are completely different than a breeder who knows their dogs and ancestors behind them intimately) and aren't stringent enough in your requirements"...lol.
 
The mind boggles.

 
I agree Gina. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. Eh. [] 

ORIGINAL: Stacita

When the anti-chaining law was passed, I didn't see breeders or show people advocating against it as a "freedom" of individuals. It was passed because good, responsible people don't feel that a dog should be chained all day and that the cruelty of this surpasses the concept of personal property. IMO the cruelty of millions of animals PTS every year also surpasses the concept of personal property. We do need a spay/neuter law. 

 
I actually did see some people post against the anti-chaining law, though I don't know if they were breeders or show people.  Their complaints were usually from a personal standpoint that their particular dog needed a chain for xxx reason.  So I think there's always going to be naysayers to any proposed law.  Thank goodness that one passed.

I do feel that a responsible breeder can place dogs in homes that wouldn't be approved by a rescue. Often a rescue will just look at the answers on paper without getting to know the individual involved. Also the rescue will typically have adult dogs that may have less than stellar breeding, socialization etc.  As an example, although many Belgians live happily with children, if they haven't been raised with kids, it could be a bad idea to place a rescued dog in a home with small children. About a month after adoption my rescued Mali decided he was very happy and did a Maligator dance leaping around nipping me on several occasions before the problem was controlled. I looked like a battered housewife for a few weeks. He'd never displayed this behavior while in foster care although he was there for over four months. It wasn't a major problem in an adults only home, but I sure wouldn't want that to happen to a five year old. The same with cats. Even though a dog may not overtly react to cats a dogs of some breeds need to be raised with them rather than introduced as adults.

 
I think that responsible breeders do take more time to get to know potential buyers than a rescue can.  Sometimes RBs buyers wait for years to get a dog, and rescue can't wait that long (unless it's a rare breed).  But if anything, it would seem to me that getting to know them that well would only supply more examples of potential problems, so if anything, RBs would be even tighter than rescue.  Plus, puppies are not trouble free, and it takes just as much commitment to a puppy as an adult rescue dog, along with the necessary consistency in training that most people have a hard time achieving. 
 
I understand what you're saying about children - and yes, a lot of rescuers have a strict policy of not placing rescue dogs in homes with small children because the dog has an unknown history, but sometimes the history is known, and the dog really likes kids - at that point, it turns around a bit and becomes a question about the safety of the dog, not only with the small kids in the household, but also with their visiting friends.  A puppy's safety would be just as much of a concern.  Remember, some rescuers do have puppies, and yet still have the policy of not placing with small children.