New AB1634 website

ORIGINAL: timsdat

It's funny in there how they can confuse income with profits concerning registration.  I guess there is no cost to the AKC associated with registration.  They haven't looked at the complete bottom line.  Look at the full financial statements.  Funny they don't mention how much money the H$U$ has and how much is spent in animal shelters. 

 
Have you seen the full financial statements from the AKC?  I haven't, but I know that often those kinds of things segment their expenses into categories like "programs" which really tells you nothing.  As for the HSUS, why would something about the AKC include info about HSUS? 

The AKC can't deny registrations from a commercial breeder if that breeder is following the establisted standards.  That is law suit territory about something called restraint of trade.

 
All they need to do is change the established standards.  It's their ballpark, and they can do what they want.  The question is, why don't they want to?

The puppy protection act was so badly written it needed to be stopped.

 
That's an opinion that I don't share, but why stop it - why not amend it or propose something in its stead? 

Concerning the border collie.  It's not the AKC's call or capability to define the breed standards.  That comes from the border collie club and is full of the usual political infighting of which there has been between competing clubs.

 
That's true, but isn't it sad that they care more about the registrations than they do about the quality of the dogs?  I know they keep saying they aren't about quality - but isn't that unethical in itself?  I have AKC dogs that don't even begin to approach the standard for their breed.  Maybe all this has just gotten too big for the AKC.  When they started, it probably was about quality, as they knew it at the time.  But the puppymillers and the BYBs have pulled them down, and when they embrace people like Andrew Hunte, then maybe it's time to totally revamp or quit.  Wouldn't that be the ethical thing to do?

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

looks like a web site made up by lawyers and politicians to me... i would view their statements with a grain of salt.

Oh no,  the  NAIA has infiltrated  that site too.  [sm=banghead002.gif]

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

i guess irony is lost on the weak minded?

Maybe, but rudeness isn't.

LOL

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

i didnt bother to read the rhetoric posted on the website in question. what is the use? anyone can put a spin on information or use information out of context to make their belief seem like the correct one.

Sounds  the old saying " Don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind "  []

Sounds  the old saying " Don't confuse me with facts, I have already made up my mind "

seems like there are a lot of people in that boat []

Have you seen the full financial statements from the AKC?

 
I have seen a lot more than just one number and have seen the bottom line number.  Trust me they don't have nearly as much money as you think.  I will be willing to bet that they OEM bottom line number is less that the bigger contributions to the H$U$.
 

All they need to do is change the established standards.  It's their ballpark, and they can do what they want.  The question is, why don't they want to?

And be mired in years of lawsuits.  When they instituted the inspection program commercial breeders left in droves.  That is where the for profit registries came from.   They don't have right to tell someone how to run their breeding program.
 

That's an opinion that I don't share, but why stop it - why not amend it or propose something in its stead?

 
They did and it was ignored.  In 2006 when they proposed that a AKC inspection would satisfy a PAWS act inspection all the AR organizations pulled out of support of the bill.
 

I have AKC dogs that don't even begin to approach the standard for their breed. 

 
Yes all breeding is not perfect.  After all they are living animals.  The AKC doesn't have the manpower or resources to inspect every breeder every few months and if breeders didn't like the intrusion they would just go to another registry.  Now if you want to propose to give them government funds to do so I'm sure that they would like that. 
 
Also do you know how many pet stores will switch paperwork on you.  That is why we need to small home based hobby breeder around.  It's the best chance for the consumer to make an informed decision.  They can see where and how the pups are raised and meet at least one of the parents.  Passing onerous and intrusive laws will just drive them away from breeding.  There is a law being proposed in DC that will make it virtually impossible for a home based breeder to comply with to get a intact dog permit. 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

I have AKC dogs that don't even begin to approach the standard for their breed.

Well...**Content Removed**  No dog meets standard because standard is viewed differently by each breeder.  Your AKC dogs, does not make them quality.  Hanging around puppymills and byb will make one think that though!  Most likely your dogs are pets and...  were sold due to the fact they didnt meet standard for the breeder.  If they were sold as intact, that is YOUR fault for buying them.  So...  AKC isnt the blame, nor are the breeders.

OT: I thought you stated you had all rescues in another forum, or all mutts...  Someone said you had all mutts...  I am lost.  What do you have?  Do you have 10 dogs like was once said or do you have less or more?  Are your dogs from GOOD breeders? 

Again confused by contradiction.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

Have you seen the full financial statements from the AKC?

I have seen a lot more than just one number and have seen the bottom line number.  Trust me they don't have nearly as much money as you think.  I will be willing to bet that they OEM bottom line number is less that the bigger contributions to the H$U$. 

 
Did that bottom line number include their intent to buy a hotel several years back?

All they need to do is change the established standards.  It's their ballpark, and they can do what they want.  The question is, why don't they want to?

And be mired in years of lawsuits.  When they instituted the inspection program commercial breeders left in droves.  That is where the for profit registries came from.   They don't have right to tell someone how to run their breeding program. 
 
Seems to me that commercial breeders leaving in droves is a good thing.  And apparently they did have the right to tell them how to run their breeding program or they wouldn't have instituted the inspection program you speak of, right?

That's an opinion that I don't share, but why stop it - why not amend it or propose something in its stead?

They did and it was ignored.  In 2006 when they proposed that a AKC inspection would satisfy a PAWS act inspection all the AR organizations pulled out of support of the bill.
 
Can you blame them when the AKC is in bed with puppymillers?  Isn't that like getting the fox to guard the chicken coop?

I have AKC dogs that don't even begin to approach the standard for their breed. 

Yes all breeding is not perfect.  After all they are living animals.  The AKC doesn't have the manpower or resources to inspect every breeder every few months and if breeders didn't like the intrusion they would just go to another registry.  Now if you want to propose to give them government funds to do so I'm sure that they would like that. 
 
Government can't even fund itself to do proper inspections, and again there's that fox/henhouse thing.  I wonder though, why do you think government should pay to police breeders?  Why aren't the breeders paying for it themselves?  I'd prefer that there be an independent audit and inspection, but why does government have to pay so breeders can play?

Also do you know how many pet stores will switch paperwork on you.  That is why we need to small home based hobby breeder around.  It's the best chance for the consumer to make an informed decision.  They can see where and how the pups are raised and meet at least one of the parents.  Passing onerous and intrusive laws will just drive them away from breeding.  There is a law being proposed in DC that will make it virtually impossible for a home based breeder to comply with to get a intact dog permit. 

 
I don't have a problem with the small home based hobby breeder, as long as they do what a responsible breeder should do, and without regulations, I doubt that will happen.  Self-proclaimed responsible breeders don't even agree with each other.  The whole system is flawed, and if breeders don't want government interference, I think they should do more to fix the system themselves.  And I'd start with revamping the AKC to be what the general public still hopes it is.  Like it or not, the public either thinks its a mark of quality, or they are so disgusted with the quality of the AKC dogs they've had in the past that they abhor the whole concept of an AKC dog.
 
The AKC sends mixed messages.
 
By the way, those small home based hobby breeders are just as likely to tell you that they don't have the father because they payed for stud service.  They may be able to show you a picture of him, but then how do you know that's really the father?  It's common for dedicated responsible breeders to not own the sire.

ORIGINAL: Shadomoon

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

I have AKC dogs that don't even begin to approach the standard for their breed.

Well...**Previous edit** No dog meets standard because standard is viewed differently by each breeder.  Your AKC dogs, does not make them quality.  Hanging around puppymills and byb will make one think that though!  Most likely your dogs are pets and...  were sold due to the fact they didnt meet standard for the breeder.  If they were sold as intact, that is YOUR fault for buying them.  So...  AKC isnt the blame, nor are the breeders.

OT: I thought you stated you had all rescues in another forum, or all mutts...  Someone said you had all mutts...  I am lost.  What do you have?  Do you have 10 dogs like was once said or do you have less or more?  Are your dogs from GOOD breeders? 

Again confused by contradiction.

No my dogs aren't from good breeders, because good breeders would have never let them get into the hands of rescue.  I rescue.  I didn't buy them intact, but they sure came that way.  Everyone of my dogs has been rescued with the exception of the very first one which I was stupid enough to buy from a pet store over 40 years ago.  When I talk about my dogs, I'm talking about the dogs I've rescued, and the ones I've adopted myself.  I've been doing rescue for the last 20+ years and have had many many more than 10 dogs over that time.  Some have been mutts, but a majority have been purebred, many with papers, because I do breed rescue.

As for quality, if you could see some of my dogs, quality was never an issue.  The breeder didn't give a rat's behind about the standard.  That's why I've had purebred AKC papered poodles that look like they have a body of a dachshund and the head and hair of a poodle. **Content Removed** Yes, my experience is with BYBs and puppymills, and I look forward to the day when I actually find a breeder that's responsible enough to meet the criteria I posted in a prior post.

**Content Removed**

I look forward to the day when I actually find a breeder that's responsible enough to meet the criteria I posted in a prior post.

 
Well what do you think should be done?  What are your suggestions?  I have seen where people has suggested that we go to a No Birth Nation.  Would that clear up all the problems?
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I look forward to the day when I actually find a breeder that's responsible enough to meet the criteria I posted in a prior post.

Well what do you think should be done?  What are your suggestions?  I have seen where people has suggested that we go to a No Birth Nation.  Would that clear up all the problems?

 
Take note from China with their human overpopulation.  Only keep the males.   Leave the females in parks, shelters, or just kill them. 
 
We think we have overpopulation problems with pets...  There are hundreds of places with the same problem and they dont have any restrictions like this.  Of course, this could be that some of these overpopulations are due to other animals and people.
 
One other minor note.  We have overpopulation of deer in the US.  Should we stop them from breeding?  Isnt that what hunting is for?  But has it helped?  Not at all.
 
 

Shadomoon- come on is that helpful.

Anyway I am going to put on my Carnack hat, Yes I'm that old. 

Here is what I see happening if this law passes.

In a few years there still will be an unacceptable number of animals in the shelters and shelter budgets will continue to rise. People won't be any more responsible about the care of their dogs they still will be dumped into shelters at the same or greater rate as today as the population rises and demographics change. 

So guess what we need to remove some of the expemptions.   Now you have fewer people that really know what they are doing and trying to breed quality dogs.

That doesn't stop JQ public.  They still see a dog as a disposable product so the shelters will continue to fill.  Budgets have continued to rise since a AC budget is very much based on population, service area and the way the community treats their pets.  Demand for puppies will continue.  Well they have lots of them off-shore so lets fill that demand. 

In a few years since the shelter numbers are still too high we need to take away more of the exemptions.  This cycle will continue and continue and continue.

Guess where you are at now.  No Birth Nation,  at least anyone that doesn't want to break the law. 

There will still be dogs around.  But they are so expensive only the people have have considerable income can afford them.  Any Mixes from a shelter cost more than the pets shops now and purebreds can only be obtained from overseas,  probably not Europe as I think that they will beat us here.  They will be from 3rd world countries where you don't know how they are bred and kept.

Bully breed lovers - your favorite dogs have been out of existance or quite a while since a high profile attack on a hollywood celebrity and since they discovered the ability to really determine the mix of a dog using DNA.  They also found a gene that shows a marker for the possibility of aggression so any dogs that have that,  bye - bye.  That took out another couple of dozen breeds.

Hopefully I won't be around by then as I wouldn't want to live my life without my pups.

 
Note:  Thanks to Walt Hutchens "Furture of Dogs" article from where I drew my thoughts and some of my ideas from.
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I look forward to the day when I actually find a breeder that's responsible enough to meet the criteria I posted in a prior post.

Well what do you think should be done?  What are your suggestions?  I have seen where people has suggested that we go to a No Birth Nation.  Would that clear up all the problems?

 
I don't think we need a "no birth nation".  I just think we need to regulate the breeding industry that we already have, eliminating puppymills and irresponsible breeders.  If all breeders were required to do what responsible breeders already do, then it would eliminate a good portion and the balance would clean up their act.  I'd like to see a licensing program like contractors have, where a test was taken in order to be licensed and the license number was required in all advertising.  I'd also like to see mandatory microchipping that would track back to the breeder when a dog ended up in a shelter, and the breeder would be forced to pay for it's upkeep or risk losing their license.

So breeders are responsible for the life of the dogs (which I do believe) but owners are left off the hook if the dog ends up in the shelter.  Since I know of dogs that have been purchased by folks who started out trying to buy a dog, got turned down and got a bit more savy each time they approached someone (references even).  Eventually they managed to get through multiple layers of screening.  Then were bad owners either intentionally or unintentionally and only the breeder is responsible.... Sorry I support personal responsiibility in a more equitable manner.
 
BTW  the majority of breeders I know will take their dogs back if the shelters contact them.  However, some don't even with tatoos and microchips, at one time  (in recent past)  a large municiple  shelter essentially in my backyard wouldnt even check for microchips because they "discourage" compliance with licensing. 

ORIGINAL: Shadomoon

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I look forward to the day when I actually find a breeder that's responsible enough to meet the criteria I posted in a prior post.

Well what do you think should be done?  What are your suggestions?  I have seen where people has suggested that we go to a No Birth Nation.  Would that clear up all the problems?

Take note from China with their human overpopulation.  Only keep the males.   Leave the females in parks, shelters, or just kill them. 

I hope your statement is some kind of a joke that I don't get.....[sm=asking03.gif]