"Cruelty by Breeders"

ORIGINAL: timsdat

As previously described, the one time I tried to set up an educational booth that included information about adoption, I was ostracized, and it was clear that rescue wasn't wanted in that venue.  You say you don't see animal activists at shows - why aren't the breed rescues setting up booths at dog shows, showcasing their available dogs?  I've certainly never seen that at any dog show I've been to. 

Well for one thing it is against show rules.
[font=centuryoldstyle-regular][/size][align=left]SECTION 11. Only dogs that are eligible to be[align=left]shown under The American Kennel Club rules shall be[align=left]allowed within the show precincts, except that dogs[align=left]engaged as a special attraction with American Kennel[align=left]Club approval may also be present.[align=left]There shall be no benching, nor offering for sale or[align=left]breeding, nor any displaying of unentered dogs. These[align=left]dogs shall be subject to all rules relating to health and[align=left]veterinarians. The owners or agents shall be responsible[align=left]for the care and safety of such dogs.[align=left]If, because of space consideration or other reason, a[align=left]club wishes to restrict the presence of unentered dogs[align=left]from some part or all of the show precincts, such[align=left]restriction shall be stated in the premium list.[align=left] [align=left]I do know that at a lot of the breed national specialities they have a rescue parade with all money raised going to the national rescue funds.  But there is no selling or adopting of dogs allowed at the show site.[align=left] [/size]

 
I had permission from the local kennel club that was in charge of the show.  We had no dogs there - only pictures of available dogs.  No dogs were adopted from the site, because not only didn't we have dogs there, but we don't do instant adoptions.  IMO the complaining breeders just didn't want to be reminded that there were purebred dogs that were homeless, and they didn't want the competition.

DogA.
 
It's not that people don't any regulation or standards it is that they want fair, workable, reasonable regulations and laws.  There is another problem.  You use the terms BYB and Puppy miller but what are those.  Everyones standards are different.  Now I'm not talking about the shocking videos as seen on TV.  But there is no consistent definition.  To some people anyone who breeds a dog is a puppy miller.  I did hear someone state that a BYB or miller is someone whose breeding practices or care conditions are not to my liking.  Maybe this is the most accurate definition but not one that is legally viable. 
I have also seen misuse of the law.  There are some overzealous AC officers that are working on an agenda and have gone after operations with no real evidence.  I recent one occurred at a chicken farm where just on the word of a AR organization filed charges against the operation.  Didn't go investigate it himself.  The charges where finely thrown out of court but at what cost to the farmer to defend himself.  Down here there was person that was very critical of the AC shelter operation.  It wasn't good.  But you know what happened.  The AC director kept hounding and checking this person for violations over and over that she was basically harassed out of the county. 
 
So people want good laws not something which is part of a higher agenda.
 
 
 

And why don't the better breeders care enough about the dogs to want all breeders to be as ethical as they are?

Who says that they aren't????  You?

Alot of breeders that I know are super careful about who gets a puppy, they are actively involved in rescue, not just for their own particular breed.  Heck our PH people ferried a lab mix from Michigan to Georgia just to help out.  It's routine for certain organizations to help out other organizations.  Those organizations start with the grass roots breed club members and breeders. 

I understand your need to feel the way you do.  Heck, I feel the same way to a certain extent.  I don't, however, feel the need to blanket blame solely upon breeders of repute.  There are several reasons that millers still exist, just as there are several reasons that BYBs still exist.  The main reason is that people (end users) buy their product.

What possible sense does it make to try to educate 12 puppy buyers instead of regulating 1 breeder that would sell to them?

I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I think around 40% of dog owners have more than one dog.  Educating them when they get the first one, heck do it before they get the first one.  That way the second comes from an appropriate source.  That's how it worked with my family.  But you don't want to hear about success stories, you'd rather focus on the failures. 

If you really want to get anywhere, get the feds to change the requirements of millers.  Don't let them fall under USDA.  Already AKC has mandatory visits of those breeders that register 5 (I think) or more litters per year.  But again, that doesn't matter to you.  We can't save all the dogs, but we can start educating people in a concerted effort.  Get more stringent laws concerning sales of animals in stores.  Teach people what puppy mills are.  And yes I know it was shown on 20/20.  How many decades ago was that?  Late 80's, if I'm not mistaken.  Get something done now to expose these places.

IMO the complaining breeders just didn't want to be reminded that there were purebred dogs that were homeless, and they didn't want the competition.

 
Well that was the individual club.  There are some clubs that I don't like what they are doing but it is their club.  I would wonder how many complants there were.  I have seen where some rescues get very uppidy at anyone doing breeding so that sometimes that sours anyones opinion. 
 
There are 2 Dal rescue groups around here.  One is a offshoot of the local breed club and the other is a independant group of people.  Well I worked with a person that was part of the independant group.  They sell dog cookies as a fundraiser.  Well the local Dal's club agility trial was coming up and I suggested to my co-worker that I was sure that the club would let them have a booth at the trial to sell cookies to raise money (I had even checked with the club first) but my co-workers response was that those %&#$^ people were the whole reason that we have to rescue and wanted to do nothing with them.  So much for exposure to about 300 dog loving people that always spend good money getting their pups pampering treats like that.
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

DogA.

It's not that people don't any regulation or standards it is that they want fair, workable, reasonable regulations and laws.  There is another problem.  You use the terms BYB and Puppy miller but what are those.  Everyones standards are different.  Now I'm not talking about the shocking videos as seen on TV.  But there is no consistent definition.  To some people anyone who breeds a dog is a puppy miller.  I did hear someone state that a BYB or miller is someone whose breeding practices or care conditions are not to my liking.  Maybe this is the most accurate definition but not one that is legally viable. 
I have also seen misuse of the law.  There are some overzealous AC officers that are working on an agenda and have gone after operations with no real evidence.  I recent one occurred at a chicken farm where just on the word of a AR organization filed charges against the operation.  Didn't go investigate it himself.  The charges where finely thrown out of court but at what cost to the farmer to defend himself.  Down here there was person that was very critical of the AC shelter operation.  It wasn't good.  But you know what happened.  The AC director kept hounding and checking this person for violations over and over that she was basically harassed out of the county. 

So people want good laws not something which is part of a higher agenda.

 
I doubt any law will be passed that doesn't define the parties being legislated.  I also doubt that anyone is going to consider someone breeding one dog to be a puppymiller.  I consider a mill to be any commercial kennel that is mass producing puppies for profit.  These places can vary in their care of the dogs, but none of them have the dog's best interests in mind -- what matters is the profit.
 
BYBs also are easily defined as those that are producing puppies, usually for profit, without any concern about the quality of what they are breeding.  They aren't really mills because of the limited number they produce.  But they certainly aren't eligible to be considered responsible breeders.
 
As for the chicken farmer, there is rarely any laws protecting chickens and so it's very likely that it was thrown out of court because no law was broken, even though the farmer could have still been cruel to those chickens.  Here, before it was illegal to have a dog live on a chain all it's life, it was still cruel, but unprosecutable.  Hopefully the case you speak of, though it ended up being thrown out, will prompt a law to be established that would prevent the cruelty in the future - which means this may have been a test case, and if so, I can't feel too sorry for the farmer's financial strain.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

And why don't the better breeders care enough about the dogs to want all breeders to be as ethical as they are?

Who says that they aren't????  You?

Alot of breeders that I know are super careful about who gets a puppy, they are actively involved in rescue, not just for their own particular breed.  Heck our PH people ferried a lab mix from Michigan to Georgia just to help out.  It's routine for certain organizations to help out other organizations.  Those organizations start with the grass roots breed club members and breeders. 

 
And all this has what to do with responsible breeders wanting other breeders to meet the responsible breeder's standards?  And yes, I'm saying they aren't because there seems to be nothing done about it, mainly because they'd rather have irresponsibility continue than to be affected themselves by any legislation.  They'd rather let irresponsible breeders continue than to take a chance that a slippery slope might affect their own breeding operations.  Fear of that slippery slope just continues the status quo.

I understand your need to feel the way you do.  Heck, I feel the same way to a certain extent.  I don't, however, feel the need to blanket blame solely upon breeders of repute.  There are several reasons that millers still exist, just as there are several reasons that BYBs still exist.  The main reason is that people (end users) buy their product.

 
They buy their product because education isn't doing the job.  They also buy their product because responsible breeders turn down the average buyer for being unsuitable homes, and those unsuitable homes, rather than agree with the responsible breeder, go to a breeder or pet shop that won't restrict them from having a dog.  Because of this, education is never going solve this problem.

What possible sense does it make to try to educate 12 puppy buyers instead of regulating 1 breeder that would sell to them?

I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I think around 40% of dog owners have more than one dog.  Educating them when they get the first one, heck do it before they get the first one.  That way the second comes from an appropriate source.  That's how it worked with my family.  But you don't want to hear about success stories, you'd rather focus on the failures. 
 
I'm a dog person.  I have no interest (beyond the humane factor) in cats.  All the cat education in the world isn't going to mean a thing to me.  I can scan a newspaper and the word "dog" leaps out at me, and I don't even notice the word "cat."  So how the heck do you expect people to be educated before they have an interest in the subject, and how do you catch them before they make that first impulse buy at the pet shop?  As for success stories, I love them, but they don't need fixing.  It's the failures that we need to fix.  Why is it that the failures didn't hear the same message that the successes did? 

If you really want to get anywhere, get the feds to change the requirements of millers.  Don't let them fall under USDA.  Already AKC has mandatory visits of those breeders that register 5 (I think) or more litters per year.  But again, that doesn't matter to you.  We can't save all the dogs, but we can start educating people in a concerted effort.  Get more stringent laws concerning sales of animals in stores.  Teach people what puppy mills are.  And yes I know it was shown on 20/20.  How many decades ago was that?  Late 80's, if I'm not mistaken.  Get something done now to expose these places.

 
If "I" really want to get somewhere?  See, that's one of the problems - breeders seem to always want to push the problem off on someone else to solve, but as soon as someone else comes up with a solution, then the breeders fight that solution.  You think millers should have stricter requirements and be out from under USDA "control" -- well while "I" am doing that, what do you think the millers will be doing?  What do you think Andrew Hunte will be doing?  He'll be fighting that all the way, and he has the money to accomplish what he wants, money from selling puppymilled dogs.  And though I certainly don't have the money and the power to compete with him, breeders under the auspices of the AKC and the UKC would have that power.  So when are breeders going to put a stop to puppymills - or is the registration money from puppymills just too much of a temptation for the AKC?

ORIGINAL: timsdat

IMO the complaining breeders just didn't want to be reminded that there were purebred dogs that were homeless, and they didn't want the competition.

Well that was the individual club.  There are some clubs that I don't like what they are doing but it is their club.  I would wonder how many complants there were.  I have seen where some rescues get very uppidy at anyone doing breeding so that sometimes that sours anyones opinion. 

There are 2 Dal rescue groups around here.  One is a offshoot of the local breed club and the other is a independant group of people.  Well I worked with a person that was part of the independant group.  They sell dog cookies as a fundraiser.  Well the local Dal's club agility trial was coming up and I suggested to my co-worker that I was sure that the club would let them have a booth at the trial to sell cookies to raise money (I had even checked with the club first) but my co-workers response was that those %&#$^ people were the whole reason that we have to rescue and wanted to do nothing with them.  So much for exposure to about 300 dog loving people that always spend good money getting their pups pampering treats like that.

 
Nope, sorry, it's not that easy to dismiss.  I personally made sure there wasn't any of that, and that we said nothing and did nothing that would be considered critical of breeders in any way because we wanted to present ourselves in a fashion that would get us invited back again.  My advocacy for change on this board has nothing whatsoever to do with my rescue and adoption work, with the exception that my rescue work over the years has helped to form my opinions which lead to what I advocate.  But we did nothing objectionable, except the fact that we were there.
 
As for the number of objections - I didn't keep count, but I did think it interesting that any other public function we've been at where we've put out a donation jar, the jar was at least half full, and at the dog show there was practically nothing.  We weren't there for the money, but it was just another sign of disapproval.  IMO, every dog show should have rescue booths set up for each of the breeds represented there that day.  No rescue dogs would need to be present.  I have yet to see this be done here.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

And yes I know it was shown on 20/20.  How many decades ago was that?  Late 80's, if I'm not mistaken.  Get something done now to expose these places.

 
The Dateline show was aired in 2000.  There have also been exposes on Good Morning America and the Today show.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


As to regulating all breeders, that's a very altruistic thought.  But just like eliminating dog fighting, it will never happen.  As long as there is "profit" in a product that product will continue to exist.  My opinion is that one shouldn't worry about the producer as much as the consumer. 

I totally agree. If you shut down every puppymill and BYB in the country leaving only regulated, responsible breeders you will be left with thousands and thousands of American consumers wanting dogs. The breeders will 1. not have enough dogs to fill the demand or 2. will not accept these people as suitable owners. Sure some will go to the shelters, but with so few dogs being bred, the pick'ins will be slim and the American Consumer wants what he wants! That is the culture. So what wil happen? People will see a market demand and they will rush to fill it. They will do it in their back yards, Just like they do it now and the whole thing starts all over again.

I think consumer education is key. People have an adverse reaction to abused children and abused animals. I would love to see images plastered all over the media, showing the living conditions and health problems related to irresponsible breeding. People just don't know. I'm convinced of that. I talk to people who have bought from pet stores or newspaper ads. They honestly have no clue where these dogs have come from and how they are or will suffer from irresponsible breeding. It's not like they are looking for cheap dogs and hoping they get lucky with health and temperment.

They want a dog. They get rejected by the good breeders or their is nothing available, so they go to the pet store or they check the newspaper. They don't know they are doing anything wrong! There is just not any hard hitting, graphic, in your face information. WHY?
The government did it with tobacco. They didn't have to shut down the manufactures. They had to convince the consumer.

People just don't know. I'm convinced of that. I talk to people who have bought from pet stores or newspaper ads. They honestly have no clue where these dogs have come from and how they are or will suffer from irresponsible breeding.

 
Sadly, some people do know but they just get sucked into getting a dog from a petstore.  I have a friend, she has 3 Weimeraners (okay, I'm sure that's not spelled right) the most recent one she got from the petstore.  She knows, admitted she knows, about puppy mills, but the store owner/sales clerk assured her that these puppies don't come from puppymills.  We had this conversation about one of her other dogs, also a petstore puppy.  I told her "They told you that because they want your money.  Would you trust a used carsalesman if he told you the car you were intersted in was only used by a little old lady to go to the grocery and church on Sunday?"  I could see the light go on!  But 2 years later she walks into a petstore, sees her breed and comes out with a puppy.  I told her to never go to a petstore again - she can't be trusted.  Hubby isn't allowed to go to the animal shelter by himself for the same reason. 
 
 
I wonder why the CA bill didn't make it illegal to sell animals in a petstore. 

If "I" really want to get somewhere? See, that's one of the problems - breeders seem to always want to push the problem off on someone else to solve,

Thanks but I am definitely NOT a breeder.  After I've been in the breed for another 5 or 10 years I might consider it though.  and the "YOU" was a collective "YOU" but you're playing at semantics now.  Take a survey of breeders that breed for conformation and for performance or working dogs, they'll tell you the same thing: they don't sell their dogs to millers.  In fact the majority of breeders won't sell a dog unless it's on a limited registration or a co-ownership.  But that's not fitting into your argument is it?

I actually think we both want the same thing; we want an end to the hundreds of thousands of dogs that are killed each year by the various governments.  Until you realize that our goals are the same, while you are busy ranting about breeders this and breeders that, nothing gets done. 

I learned a very long time ago that in order to get people to rally to a cause, you have to be inclusive and begin an active intelligent dialogue, lashing out at people and pointing fingers earns you no points and ends up hurting your cause more than helping.

They also buy their product because responsible breeders turn down the average buyer for being unsuitable homes,

So you think that breeders don't know the requirements for responsible ownership of the breeds that they dedicate their lives to?  My, my.  I don't even know what to say.  You really have it out for breeders, don't you?   Sorry, but my experience as far as breeders denying ownership to individuals holds up.  And if most prospective owners looked at it from the breeder standpoint they'd understand as well. 

I'm a dog person.  I have no interest (beyond the humane factor) in cats.  All the cat education in the world isn't going to mean a thing to me.  I can scan a newspaper and the word "dog" leaps out at me, and I don't even notice the word "cat."

[sm=huh.gif]

Who was talking about cats?

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Shadomoon

Vets also agree it is better to keep your male intact because it is healthier, but a female should be spayed before 7 years of age due to the risk of pyro.  I dont agree with the neutering.  Whether or not it is healthier isnt the problem, it is the fact a male can get loose and breed and we have more unwanted puppies. 

That is simply not true, unneuterred males have much higher incidents of Prostrate problems and Testicular Cancer. This is well documented in many Vet University Publications.

I think that if one looks at a broad range of studies, one finds that it is pretty darned hard to predict whether spay/neutering will be beneficial or detrimental. Spay/neutering obviously pretty much eliminates the risk of cancer in reproductive organs, and nearly eliminates the risk of pyometra. On the other hand, other types of cancers, as well as hypothyroidism and urogenital problems seem to be more prevalent in spay/neutered dogs. So, there really isn't a simple answer to whether spay/neutering is medically beneficial or not. It likely depends on the breed of dog and environmental factors. Which is an excellent reason to allow owners the right to choose which risks they think are greater in their specific situation, rather than having the risks chosen by legislation.

 
This is so true.  However, when I went to look for information about neutering on Yahoo/Google, I got 50+ saying it was bad, 10 saying it was good.  The problem is, no one knows.  Too many theories, not enough facts.  But early spay/neuter IS harmful and causing development problems in MOST breeds.  However this doesnt mean it happens to every dog.  This is why the one bill is being changed a lot since almost NO vet supports spay/neuter before 6 months of age.  Those that do need to relearn their education in their field.  I use to want to be a vet and I have vet ed. books.  All say it is harmful before 6 months of age.  But again, more theories and opinions than facts.  But this changes the topic. 

ORIGINAL: dyan


Have a question. Shadomoon mentioned the name Hutchinson....is that a veterinarian?  If so, could he be from Ohio?

 
Yes he is from Ohio and yes he is a Vet.  All around vet, specialist in reproduction, othropedics, and something else I cant remember.  He use to breed/show dogs. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes



Thanks but I am definitely NOT a breeder.  After I've been in the breed for another 5 or 10 years I might consider it though.  and the "YOU" was a collective "YOU" but you're playing at semantics now.  Take a survey of breeders that breed for conformation and for performance or working dogs, they'll tell you the same thing: they don't sell their dogs to millers.  In fact the majority of breeders won't sell a dog unless it's on a limited registration or a co-ownership.  But that's not fitting into your argument is it?

I actually think we both want the same thing; we want an end to the hundreds of thousands of dogs that are killed each year by the various governments.  Until you realize that our goals are the same, while you are busy ranting about breeders this and breeders that, nothing gets done. 

I learned a very long time ago that in order to get people to rally to a cause, you have to be inclusive and begin an active intelligent dialogue, lashing out at people and pointing fingers earns you no points and ends up hurting your cause more than helping.

They also buy their product because responsible breeders turn down the average buyer for being unsuitable homes,

So you think that breeders don't know the requirements for responsible ownership of the breeds that they dedicate their lives to?  My, my.  I don't even know what to say.  You really have it out for breeders, don't you?   Sorry, but my experience as far as breeders denying ownership to individuals holds up.  And if most prospective owners looked at it from the breeder standpoint they'd understand as well. 

 
Wow you are so right.  Major kudos here.  Pointing fingers just makes people more angry.  Major cause of road rage is placing blame before thinking.  Maybe we should take note of this in forums...  []
 
Agile - I totally agree.  Why not stop commerical breeders instead of good breeders?  Great point!
 
Denise - You are so right there.  I know a friend of mine that has a dog from a pet store.  She got her and after her she got dogs from breeders.  Of course, the breeders were taken back by her having a dog from a pet store and many denied her.  But once explained that she was ignorant and young, most were willing to work with her.  But what happens to the people that dont know that there ARE good breeders and that are ignorant enough to think that pet store animals are good?  More than 25% of people in the US think that a pet store is the best way to get a puppy.  Where is the education on that?  Never saw that on dateline.
 
DogAdvocat - To prove one more point, at all the major dog shows (Cleveland, Harrisburg, etc) there are announcements about spay/neutering, local rescues, STAR dogs, the major Golden rescue brings their dogs up and adopted dogs up, meet the breeds, seminars, etc.  Cleveland is big for having rescued dogs featured in pictures and having rescue groups there.  This makes me believe you havent attended a dog show at all because these people were never chased away, nor were they given a bad rep.  Or maybe you were a dog show but you tried to pull this "crap" about no good breeders...  That would get you kicked out...  But at a lot of shows, there are shelters/rescues featured.  Why did you get such negative reviews?
 
 

ORIGINAL: denise m

ORIGINAL: Xerxes


As to regulating all breeders, that's a very altruistic thought.  But just like eliminating dog fighting, it will never happen.  As long as there is "profit" in a product that product will continue to exist.  My opinion is that one shouldn't worry about the producer as much as the consumer. 

I totally agree. If you shut down every puppymill and BYB in the country leaving only regulated, responsible breeders you will be left with thousands and thousands of American consumers wanting dogs. The breeders will 1. not have enough dogs to fill the demand or 2. will not accept these people as suitable owners. Sure some will go to the shelters, but with so few dogs being bred, the pick'ins will be slim and the American Consumer wants what he wants! That is the culture. So what wil happen? People will see a market demand and they will rush to fill it. They will do it in their back yards, Just like they do it now and the whole thing starts all over again.

I think consumer education is key. People have an adverse reaction to abused children and abused animals. I would love to see images plastered all over the media, showing the living conditions and health problems related to irresponsible breeding. People just don't know. I'm convinced of that. I talk to people who have bought from pet stores or newspaper ads. They honestly have no clue where these dogs have come from and how they are or will suffer from irresponsible breeding. It's not like they are looking for cheap dogs and hoping they get lucky with health and temperment.

They want a dog. They get rejected by the good breeders or their is nothing available, so they go to the pet store or they check the newspaper. They don't know they are doing anything wrong! There is just not any hard hitting, graphic, in your face information. WHY?
The government did it with tobacco. They didn't have to shut down the manufactures. They had to convince the consumer.

 
Why shut down the BYBs?  There's no reason to shut them down, all that's needed is to bring them into compliance with the same procedures that responsible breeders already do.  For instance, if there were a requirement that dogs have health screenings before being bred, then BYBs would have to do it.  Yes, some may decide it's not worth the trouble and might stop breeding, but others would comply.  Though there's a lot more to being responsible than just health screenings, that would be an excellent start to increasing the number of responsibly bred dogs - would it not?
 
As for smoking - don't forget that a lot of laws have been passed against smoking.  And IMO, most of those laws, and most of the reduction in smoking has been through the efforts of the non-smoking victims of smokers - the "second hand smokers".  It's those second-hand smokers that have gotten a lot of the laws passed, and the restrictions in public places.  But, if your (generic) goal was to stop smoking for health reasons, then what do you do about the hard-core smokers who have heard all the education and still won't quit?  I know people that still break off the filters of the cigarettes before smoking them.  What is education going to do for those people?