"Cruelty by Breeders"

Well the first thing I'd do would be to legislate against selling live animals in parking lots.

 
A worthy ideal and one that I would like. But, again, there is the cost of enforcement. With only so many police officers and the problem of meth being more politically important than byb's in the parking lot, enforcement may lack. But I can agree, in part, that many people will do something we think is unethical as long as it's still legal. Example, gas companies can raise prices to beyond the affordability of most working people and it's legal to do so, even if it is bad business. And they are doing so for pure, unadulterated, legal greed. How do I know? A reliable source knows that pumps and refineries in south Texas are on reduced function or standing still because there's not enough storage to contain what has been made. When the gas company says we have a supply and demand shortage, they are lying. Unethical. But legal. So I get that making laws could possibly get the average citizen to fall in line. But who's going to pay for enforcement? And how? I've already got millions of people depending on me going to work every day.
 

ORIGINAL: mrv

REgarding AVMA endorsement of early spay neuter
Because a paradym shift takes time and there is considerable resistance.... case in point,,, vaccinations.  We used to believe vaccination yearly was the only way to keep pets healthy,,,, we now know different.  To error on the side of caution is not necessarily a bad thing. 

 
Do I understand you to be saying that the AVMA hasn't kept up with the times and still endorses early spay/neuter from decisions made long ago?  I'm not sure of the year, but it's only been relatively recently that they endorsed it at all.  At a guess, I'd say within the last 5 years.  This isn't something they've endorsed since the dark ages.

I hate to be doom and gloom, but in regards to drunk driving laws, drug laws, etc., are we seeing a decline in drunk drivers? NO! Are we seeing less drug use? NO! An associate of my husband is in jail for a long time for a drunk driving incident that left two innocent people dead. This man has had a long, ugly history of drunk driving, but the law waited until he actually killed somebody before he was taken off the streets! If every ethical breeder in the entire United  States stopped breeding tomorrow and started only doing rescue, do you think it could possible make a difference? NO! If I rescued every homeless Border Collie in the area here in the Panhandle, and tried to place them in suitable homes, everbody I turned away would find a person that will sell to them. In six months to a year there's another mixed litter in the pound because they didn't spay soon enough, and the wild untrained pups will be dumped in the country for me to rescue, and here we go again! Look at the number of foriegn imports! J.Q. Public will not be denied! For the most part the good people on this forum are "preaching to the choir". We all know what's right, we all have good intentions, and we are all in agreement that this homeless pet issue is out of control in many areas, but the people we need to reach just DO NOT care!

but they can be told that they have to supply the cars with pollution controls and safety devices

Bad example.  That goes to the manufacturer, not the dealer.  Thus the actual supplier, not the seller.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

but they can be told that they have to supply the cars with pollution controls and safety devices

Bad example.  That goes to the manufacturer, not the dealer.  Thus the actual supplier, not the seller.

 
You mean like the breeder????

ORIGINAL: dstull

I hate to be doom and gloom, but in regards to drunk driving laws, drug laws, etc., are we seeing a decline in drunk drivers? NO! Are we seeing less drug use? NO! An associate of my husband is in jail for a long time for a drunk driving incident that left two innocent people dead. This man has had a long, ugly history of drunk driving, but the law waited until he actually killed somebody before he was taken off the streets! If every ethical breeder in the entire United  States stopped breeding tomorrow and started only doing rescue, do you think it could possible make a difference? NO! If I rescued every homeless Border Collie in the area here in the Panhandle, and tried to place them in suitable homes, everbody I turned away would find a person that will sell to them. In six months to a year there's another mixed litter in the pound because they didn't spay soon enough, and the wild untrained pups will be dumped in the country for me to rescue, and here we go again! Look at the number of foriegn imports! J.Q. Public will not be denied! For the most part the good people on this forum are "preaching to the choir". We all know what's right, we all have good intentions, and we are all in agreement that this homeless pet issue is out of control in many areas, but the people we need to reach just DO NOT care!

 
So while you are saying that there has been no decline in drunk driving and drug usage, you also must be saying that education alone isn't working either.  Would you prefer there were no laws against those two things? 
 
I've never suggested that ONLY responsible breeders stop breeding, though I do think they should be dedicated to rescue.  Requiring all breeders to meet a minimum standard does not mean that responsible breeders will no longer be able to breed - they should have already surpassed that minumum standard.
 
And you're right, the people we need to reach don't care.  But that's why it's so important to reach them in another way - a way that will force their compliance to either breed responsibly or not breed at all.  The drunk driving and drug laws may not be stopping those things from happening, but at least it gives you, and law enforcement, a tool to stop it in your neighborhood.  Right now, the guy in my neighborhood who produces litter after litter of disposable animals because it's his legal right to do so, and will not be educated, can continue doing that forever.  The only thing that's going to stop him is a law telling him that it's not his legal right to do it, and consequences if he still refuses to comply.  That would give a tool to both me and law enforcement to stop the flow of homeless animals into the local shelter from this one man. 

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

but they can be told that they have to supply the cars with pollution controls and safety devices

Bad example.  That goes to the manufacturer, not the dealer.  Thus the actual supplier, not the seller.

You mean like the breeder????

More like the Puppy Miller.

To compare breeders to auto manufacturers you'd have to use hand-made cars.  Because most breeders, whether BYB or breeders that have show/working dogs, are a one man show.  They don't license their dogs to be sold via a second or third party.

I like how dedicated you are to your cause, but I think you're absolutely blinded by it.  If I wanted a performance dog, I would check a breed rescue-but that's not going to save the life of a shelter dog.  I wanted a PH, since there were none in rescue, and I wouldn't have been approved for a rescue anyways, I went to a breeder.  Maybe that didn't save a life directly, but it did provide me with a dog that had a predictable temperment and I knew his history, met his dam and earned a mentor and friend in the breed.  And that's bad?

Do I understand you to be saying that the AVMA hasn't kept up with the times and still endorses early spay/neuter from decisions made long ago? I'm not sure of the year, but it's only been relatively recently that they endorsed it at all. At a guess, I'd say within the last 5 years. This isn't something they've endorsed since the dark ages.

 
They endorsed it in 1994.  In terms of medical research yes that is the dark ages.
 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes
I like how dedicated you are to your cause, but I think you're absolutely blinded by it.  If I wanted a performance dog, I would check a breed rescue-but that's not going to save the life of a shelter dog.  I wanted a PH, since there were none in rescue, and I wouldn't have been approved for a rescue anyways, I went to a breeder.  Maybe that didn't save a life directly, but it did provide me with a dog that had a predictable temperment and I knew his history, met his dam and earned a mentor and friend in the breed.  And that's bad?

 
How is adopting from breed rescue not saving the life of a shelter dog?  Don't you realize that one of the places breed rescue gets their dogs is from shelters?  Each dog they adopt out makes space for another dog to be rescued from a shelter, by THAT breed rescue.
 
I'm curious about why you say you wouldn't have been approved by rescue, but were approved by a breeder.  To my way of thinking, that raises red flags about that breeder level of responsibility, and to support an irresponsible breeder just keeps the whole miserable cycle going.

ORIGINAL: ron2

"And how's that working for us?  Ready to just educate instead of having drunk driving laws?  How many people do you think give up cocaine because of education?  I don't know what the latest statistics are on the drug war, but it seems to me that we're not doing too good - and there's lots of education out there."

It worked fine for me. I've never tried cocaine. But your statement doesn't prove that education about s/n won't be as ineffective as you think drug education has been. That is, your statement is purely for debating purposes, rather than establishing an actual rate of change based on education.

"Your analogy is poor because refrigerators were in existence before the icemaking industry folded."

No, the point remains that when the demand is gone, industry is gone. Yes, there were refigerators and icehouses, together.
 
"When a rescue can have a 99% success rate in the homes they choose, why can't breeders do the same?  IMO, responsible breeders do."

I'm not sure where you get the stat of 99 % success with a rescue but I would like to see that number for both rescues and breeders, so I don't really have a disagreement there.


"Or does it mean that it will teach people to go to a responsible breeder? "

Here's hoping that it does teach that.

"Look how many people are turned down by responsible breeders or by rescue, and will then just go out and find someone that will sell/adopt them a dog."

Others and I have stated the same thing. Education could help them to not only find responsible breeders but to determine if they should actually have a dog. It could turn out that maybe they shouldn't. Many times, life has taught me that there is a difference between what I want and what I get. Other people should grow up, as well, and face the fact that they don't always get what they want, and sometimes, they shouldn't have what they want.

"And as to the latter, if we teach people to go to a responsible breeder, then how are the responsible breeders going to keep up, especially when you consider that part of being responsible is not breeding to meet a demand."

You mean people would have to wait in order to get a quality dog instead of instant gratification? That's not so bad. My mom taught me that good things are worth waiting for and anything worthwhile isn't free. And you don't always get what you want, just because you want it. She would also say," if you don't like that, well, tough. Get used to it. Now, quit crying and clean your room or I will give you something to cry about." Point being, with ethical breeding and education, yes, there might be a huge demand for dogs and no way to fill it immediately, in a theoretical future. And that wouldn't be a bad thing, IMHO. In the meantime, the shelters and rescues are, as always, overflowing. And if erson couldn't wait for a breeder, they can adopt from a shelter. If that's not good enough, they can do without. (More of my upbringing.) I'd like to have a Lamborghini Countache. And with my current savings and financial status, I can keep on wanting that for quite sometime.

 
You're right - but how do we achieve all that without legislation?  Right now society sees nothing wrong with animals being disposable.  If society did think it was wrong, there wouldn't be the shelter deaths we have now, at least not in such high numbers.  If society felt it was wrong, they would demand alternatives, and foot the bill with their tax money.  IMO education alone isn't going to get it done - if it was effective, we would have had a no-kill nation by now.  Right now irresponsible breeding is nothing more than an opinion that irresponsible breeders aren't obligated to listen to, and neither are their buyers.  What's needed is law that will make it clear that what they are doing isn't right.  Even if it's not fully enforceable (like speed limit laws), it still sets the limit.  It's been stated in this forum that only law-abiding citizens will follow the law.  But that's a good thing, because right now those law-abiding citizens are producing innumerable litters legally.  So at least that will stop.

ORIGINAL: ron2

Well the first thing I'd do would be to legislate against selling live animals in parking lots.

A worthy ideal and one that I would like. But, again, there is the cost of enforcement. With only so many police officers and the problem of meth being more politically important than byb's in the parking lot, enforcement may lack. But I can agree, in part, that many people will do something we think is unethical as long as it's still legal. Example, gas companies can raise prices to beyond the affordability of most working people and it's legal to do so, even if it is bad business. And they are doing so for pure, unadulterated, legal greed. How do I know? A reliable source knows that pumps and refineries in south Texas are on reduced function or standing still because there's not enough storage to contain what has been made. When the gas company says we have a supply and demand shortage, they are lying. Unethical. But legal. So I get that making laws could possibly get the average citizen to fall in line. But who's going to pay for enforcement? And how? I've already got millions of people depending on me going to work every day.

 
I'm not sure what your last sentence means - are you a cop?  Anyway, as I understand the bill, enforcement will be paid for out of the fines for non-compliance.  But beyond that - let's take the parking lot issue for example - if it was illegal to hand out puppies/kittens in parking lots, don't you think the business owners would put a stop to it?  I know that in my area, they put a stop to people soliciting in their parking lots.  The down side of that is that it really doesn't achieve anything except to chase the offender away - when what's needed is to identify him and get his adult animals spayed/neutered. 
 
Maybe what's needed is to create a "humane task force" that would be trained and have police powers in regards to animal situations, but could even be a volunteer group.  That's already being done here in California, though I don't know all the specifics.

You're right - but how do we achieve all that without legislation? Right now society sees nothing wrong with animals being disposable. If society did think it was wrong, there wouldn't be the shelter deaths we have now, at least not in such high numbers.

i think you answered your own question. more wide spread education and awareness concerning spay/neuter, backyard breeders, pets are not disposable, etc is needed to combat these issues.

i believe a few people (at least in one or two threads) have mentioned communities where education and awareness was expanded and it did make a difference.

I'm curious about why you say you wouldn't have been approved by rescue, but were approved by a breeder. To my way of thinking, that raises red flags about that breeder level of responsibility, and to support an irresponsible breeder just keeps the whole miserable cycle going.

 
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. 

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

You're right - but how do we achieve all that without legislation? Right now society sees nothing wrong with animals being disposable. If society did think it was wrong, there wouldn't be the shelter deaths we have now, at least not in such high numbers.

i think you answered your own question. more wide spread education and awareness concerning spay/neuter, backyard breeders, pets are not disposable, etc is needed to combat these issues.

i believe a few people (at least in one or two threads) have mentioned communities where education and awareness was expanded and it did make a difference.

 
Education DOES make a difference.  I've never downplayed education.  I've been doing it for 20+ years.  The problem is there is a hard-core group of people that will not hear the education.  To them, your education is nothing more than your opinion which differs from theirs.  For instance, exactly how much education do you think would sway a puppymiller? 
 
How many adoptable dogs have to die before you accept that education isn't enough?

For instance, exactly how much education do you think would sway a puppymiller?

maybe you should target the buyers instead. people making a profit are not likely to cease what they are doing.

it is my understanding that the proposed law in CA will not affect puppy mills anyways. am i misinformed? i keep hearing that breeders will still be able to breed so long as they buy a license.