Oprah on Puppymills

I think a better service to the public would be for Oprah to do a follow up show that gives very detailed information for John Q (Non Dog Obsessed-like us! LOL!) Public on how to pick a good/reputable breeder and improve chances of getting a healthy sound dog.  (Of course, there's no 100% guarantee, dogs do get sick and develop diseases)

I found my way through that process and got extremely lucky in my search for an Airedale, but I had to learn as I went along.  I think it would help if the "reputable breeders" helped in that process rather than screaming about their property rights and appearing to side with the millers who most people can agree are not how dogs should be produced.

HoundMusic

As far as how I keep my own dogs ... ok, ok. I'll admit it. You can see for yourself how terribly maintained/neglected they are ...

 

Your dogs don't look neglected at all. So why do you think it's OK for other dogs to be neglected? Would you want your dogs to be at one of those places?

timsdat

kelliope

I'm sorry - what is wrong with that?  Is there anything incorrect in the statement?  They are simply stating it's a difference in beliefs.  They aren't calling names, aren't being anything other than apparently factual.

 

The implication is that they are wrong.  Let me ask you.  Do you believe that the way the Amish treat their animals is wrong?  That they should be forced to stop using animals (in general) in the way that they do?

 

 

I don't believe, I know the way that many of them treat animals is wrong.  The puppies are not used as some sort of religious expression, they are a cash crop.  The lifestyle that the Amish have chosen to take part in does not yield huge money making opportunities, therefore puppies are an easy buck.  

The way they treat their horses is often abhorrent.  They buy ex-harness racers and run them into the ground.  You should see the legs on some of the horses they run through the sales after they've used them for a while.  You be hard pressed to find a decent looking leg in a whole run of harness horses.  The horses they're using to pull their buggies are often underweight, and I have seen lame horses being used to pull (they are all trotting and lameness is very easy to spot at the trot).  Rescues that take in former Amish horses rarely find a healthy one.  They are often skinny at the very least and suffer from skin conditions and hellish worm infestation.  Sadly, some of the Amish boys who work at the various sales (pony, saddle horse, harness, and draft sales) seem to delight in harassing the horses--larger boys jumping on miniature horses not physically able to support their weight for fun while people are bidding on them, etc.

When the horses have lost their usefulness, either through age or injury, rather than being put down they are "junked" like cars at the kill auctions.  They run horses through the kill auctions with broken legs.  I have literally seen horses with freshly missing eyeballs (gore hanging out of the eye and all), horses barely able to walk, and saw one horse with what I can only guess was a fractured skull (a huge section of one side of the skull was crushed in).

BlackLabbie

Your dogs don't look neglected at all. So why do you think it's OK for other dogs to be neglected? Would you want your dogs to be at one of those places?

     Where did I EVER say I was ok with dogs being abused/neglected? Or that I thought the conditions of those breeders on the show were really wonderful? I can recall saying numerous times they were taking the *worst* and touting them as the source for all pet store dogs (their quote of 99%), to tarnish the commercial breeding industry ... When in fact most of these places are actually licensed, state of the art facilities & regardless of whether or not anyone here believes profit should be made from breeding dogs, the show was, on the whole, full of misstatements and propoganda. Not because I thought those particular kennels were just peachy. Because I believe the commercial breeders have a right to breed without extra legislation does not mean I condone maltreatment of animals.

HoundMusic

Where did I EVER say I was ok with dogs being abused/neglected?

Hound, Apparently you have forgotten the gospel according to AR.  If you breed and make a profit you are a puppy mill, if you breed too many animals you are a puppy mill, if you don't sell directly to the public you are a puppy mill,  if you are Amish you are a puppy mill, if you don't do the health tests that someone (who probably has never bred a litter in their life) thinks is appropriate then you are a puppy mill, and o yes, if I don't like the way you are doing things then you are a puppy mill.  Now we all know that all dogs in pet stores are from puppy mills hence all commercial breeders are puppy mills since commercial breeders are the only ones that can sell to pet stores.

And I forgot since we have all these places defined that are puppy mills, we know how those dogs are cared for and what conditions they live in since we have seen pictures of puppy mills.

I see that the AR's have done a very good job with the propaganda.  Just wait until you see the next round, that all breeders are evil (O I forgot they have already started that one).

Also, let me take a camera into your house,  I am good enough with video tricks I can make anything look anyway I want and besides I have a good friend that is a reporter and excelled in creative fiction and spin and with my photos and her good story you will be branded a puppy mill for life and I probably could get AC to take your dogs away.

 

 

 

I'm curious what actions you're (Hound Music and Steve) actively involved in to educate the public about what a reputable breeder is and how it's separate from what AR has characterized as a puppy mill in order to stem this tide of AR terrorism that threatens your livelihood (or hobby, whatever the case may be).  It seems to me you're in for a pretty tough fight.  The bad puppy mill operations are getting lots of bad press and yes, commercial breeding of dogs is coming under harsher scrutiny and bleeding hearts like myself are willing to #1, put our money where our hearts are and NOT buy ANYTHING from stores that sell dogs and cats and #2, give money to organizations who are pushing to end the retail sale of dogs (won't hijack the thread with the reasons I think buying a dog on a credit card w/o any evaluation is wrong) and #3 actively lobby to get laws changed to make it harder to be a large scale breeder of dogs (as in 500+ dogs).

There seems to me from my minor investigation into the topic that there are large numbers on 2 of the sides of this issue: the AR/bleeding heart/general public who think mills are bad (or are being convinced it's bad by PETA and the media) and the side of the large scale commercial breeders who are more and more generally being viewed poorly not only because of abuses and neglectful conditions but also because alot of us view the FARMING of companion animals for PROFIT to not be a good thing.

How are you working to establish yourself as separate from these two camps and to educate the public about what humane, responsible breeding IS or SHOULD BE?

BCMixs

There seems to me from my minor investigation into the topic that there are large numbers on 2 of the sides of this issue: the AR/bleeding heart/general public who think mills are bad (or are being convinced it's bad by PETA and the media) and the side of the large scale commercial breeders who are more and more generally being viewed poorly not only because of abuses and neglectful conditions but also because alot of us view the FARMING of companion animals for PROFIT to not be a good thing.

How are you working to establish yourself as separate from these two camps and to educate the public about what humane, responsible breeding IS or SHOULD BE?

     Timsdat: Wanted to say you are so dead on with your post - I would have been ROFL with your wonderful satire, except, it's no so humorous when you know it to be 100% truth ... so sad it's come to this point :(

     Anyway, to answer the above question - I don't feel any desire to seperate my breeding practices (or include, for that matter) with any specific classification of breeders. Albeit, I do consider myself to be a hobby breeder since, quite literally, the breeding/raising of Beagles IS a hobby for me. As with any hobbyist, I tend to take it too seriously at times & am obsessive about bloodlines, whos who, field ability, conformation, etc. My breeding practices, hounds speak for themselves & I offer no apologies to the fact that not only are my dogs well bred, exceptionally well cared for ... I do make a signifigant profit on my litters Oh, horror of all horrors! What a puppy farmer I must be!  Now, did I get into breeding to make a profit? Nope. Actually, back then I'd bought into the line that if you do it right, you can't make money, you may be lucky to break even. So you see, I will not condemn a commercial breeder because I had my eyes opened wide and I know in my heart what type of breeder I am, as do my puppy buyers & everyone else I know personally. I think even my anti breeder Vet has had her AR jargon silenced by my actions as a breeder. The commercial breeders have a right to breed as a business; their dogs are, for the most part, well cared for, their pups healthy. 

     I can't promote "breeding as it should be", when there is no set way to breed responsibly. Responsible breeders kennel their dogs or home raise them. Whelp litters in the bedroom or in a whelping shed. They can hunt with their dogs and never have their stock screened for a single health issue, but nonetheless they are good breeders for the contribution they make to the working ability of the breed. A good breeder may have top winning show dogs or one or two dogs they show on the weekend. They may breed to supply pups for pet homes. One might breed 5 or 10 litters a year, another might breed one litter every 5 years. One might feed Wellness another Dog Chow. They might belong to breed clubs or have no interest in ever joining one. This only makes for different types of breeders, and one group is not inherently more responsible than the next.

sillysally

timsdat

kelliope

I'm sorry - what is wrong with that?  Is there anything incorrect in the statement?  They are simply stating it's a difference in beliefs.  They aren't calling names, aren't being anything other than apparently factual.

 

The implication is that they are wrong.  Let me ask you.  Do you believe that the way the Amish treat their animals is wrong?  That they should be forced to stop using animals (in general) in the way that they do?

 

 

I don't believe, I know the way that many of them treat animals is wrong.  The puppies are not used as some sort of religious expression, they are a cash crop.  The lifestyle that the Amish have chosen to take part in does not yield huge money making opportunities, therefore puppies are an easy buck.  

The way they treat their horses is often abhorrent.  They buy ex-harness racers and run them into the ground.  You should see the legs on some of the horses they run through the sales after they've used them for a while.  You be hard pressed to find a decent looking leg in a whole run of harness horses.  The horses they're using to pull their buggies are often underweight, and I have seen lame horses being used to pull (they are all trotting and lameness is very easy to spot at the trot).  Rescues that take in former Amish horses rarely find a healthy one.  They are often skinny at the very least and suffer from skin conditions and hellish worm infestation.  Sadly, some of the Amish boys who work at the various sales (pony, saddle horse, harness, and draft sales) seem to delight in harassing the horses--larger boys jumping on miniature horses not physically able to support their weight for fun while people are bidding on them, etc.

When the horses have lost their usefulness, either through age or injury, rather than being put down they are "junked" like cars at the kill auctions.  They run horses through the kill auctions with broken legs.  I have literally seen horses with freshly missing eyeballs (gore hanging out of the eye and all), horses barely able to walk, and saw one horse with what I can only guess was a fractured skull (a huge section of one side of the skull was crushed in).

Well, my God.  If this is true then I would have to say that yes, I am against the way the Amish treat their animals.  Who in their right minds wouldn't be.  I will say a prayer for the animals that have to suffer this way.  The noble horse, the loyal dog treated so horribly.  God it just breaks my heart.

HoundMusic: I don't consider you a farmer because you make a profit, and I think it's great that you do.  I do think that operations with hundreds of dogs (well-treated or not) are "farms" or "mills", if you will, and the ability to screen for things like health and behavioral problems and to properly socialize the pups prior to their sale diminishes as the numbers increase.  I also think that it does not serve a breed (any breed) at all to breed without screening for health or behavioral problems that are known to exist in that breed (ie, hip dysplasia, eye problems, etc. fearfulness, aggression, etc.)  even if a sire and a dam's working ability is proven, unless you plan to cull the pups whose working ability is not evident early on (at the age they would be sold) and I think that topic is highly debateable.  Otherwise, where do the "pet quality" dogs end up?  In homes where people are going to either a) have to have the fortitude and the $$$ to deal with problems if they appear, b) dispose of the animal at the local shelter or to a breed rescue or c) euthanize the animals when things like hips and livers begin to fail because the dam and sire should not have been bred in the first place and passed on heriditary problems but no one knew because they weren't screened.  That type of blind breeding does not serve the animals or the public IMHO and only contributes to a problem of hard to place dogs.

Much as it may appear that I am anti-breeding, I'm actually not.  I loved a well-bred Airedale for 10 years and learned alot (fortunately) about how it should be done with my first experience.  I think there's a place for breeding.  But I think that if breeders who are conscientious don't join forces and do something to educate the public about what makes for a well-bred, sound dog and how to find those dogs, they are going to lose the battle as horrible conditions are publicized and the horrified public calls for change and laws are quickly constructed by officials looking to appease the squeaky wheels.  If even you can't define what makes a reputable, responsible breeder, how do you expect officials to pass laws that make sense, that can address abuses that even you admit are deplorable, while preserving your right to continue breeding?  And I'm not just asking about laws that would address basic care and welfare issues, I'm also asking about laws that would address oversight and inspection issues (10 breeding bitches or 100?), and lemon laws for buyers who get a dog that 2 years later develops devastating diseases that are clearly congenital and could be prevented by breeding only screened dogs.

The commercial breeders have a right to breed as a business; their dogs are, for the most part, well cared for, their pups healthy

This statement is false unless you can prove that "for the most part"  the dogs are well cared for. What the majority of pet store puppies are appearing to be in any news event, documentary, or animal planet/ animal control/police documentaries show are quite the opposite of well cared for.  Legal punishment is most often the result for these rotten "breeders" and neglectful abusing groups of people.  All animals under a breeders care should most certainly be "well cared for", and be indoors during weather extremes or sour weather, they should be exercised, well nourished, clean, warm and dry.  The pictures in the filming did not confabulate the mud and the crap that these dogs were suffering, the weather extremes etc. Disease processes are existant with these poorly run "puppy Mills"  and is not  a jump in logic to see (and on this film documented ) for a dog putting out litter after litter in these horrid environments.

Yes, there certainly are good breeders out there, excellent breeders that care for their breeding dogs as they should- with all the healthcare, nutrition, attention and concerns that you would give your own animals. Including genetic knowledge and thorough bloodline histories on all pups bred.  These people who are doing it right need to step up to the plate and exclaim the right way to do this breeding, and condemn those that are making enough material to have it plastered all over the web, and on documentaries everywhere.  The strength in that kind of support would serve those who breed with excellent care and concern well.

BCMixs

  If even you can't define what makes a reputable, responsible breeder, how do you expect officials to pass laws that make sense, that can address abuses that even you admit are deplorable, while preserving your right to continue breeding?  And I'm not just asking about laws that would address basic care and welfare issues, I'm also asking about laws that would address oversight and inspection issues (10 breeding bitches or 100?), and lemon laws for buyers who get a dog that 2 years later develops devastating diseases that are clearly congenital and could be prevented by breeding only screened dogs.

 

 That is the thing - not everyone believes there should be restrictive new laws passed to regulate breeders. Divide and conquer is what AR wants and really what they have been getting for years now. Calling a breeder a "puppy mill" has become the ultimate insult if you don't agree with what another breeder is doing (much like anyone with multiple dogs must be a collector). There are already laws in place that address neglect and mistreatment. Why do you feel that a breeder should have to pay for a puppy years later because it develops a health problem that unforeseeable when the puppy was sold? Very few genetic issues can be "prevented by breeding only screened dogs".

AgileGSD

That is the thing - not everyone believes there should be restrictive new laws passed to regulate breeders. Divide and conquer is what AR wants and really what they have been getting for years now. Calling a breeder a "puppy mill" has become the ultimate insult if you don't agree with what another breeder is doing (much like anyone with multiple dogs must be a collector). There are already laws in place that address neglect and mistreatment. Why do you feel that a breeder should have to pay for a puppy years later because it develops a health problem that unforeseeable when the puppy was sold? Very few genetic issues can be "prevented by breeding only screened dogs".

Divide and conquer seems to be working, so my question was what can breeders do to get their message out to the public?  The breeders I got my Rush from were educating buyer by buyer but they're not going to reach an impulsive pet store buyer and they don't sell to pet stores and expect the public to know how to tell which Airedale in the window was from good lines and good healthy stock and which one was from a filthy wire case baking in the sun in Kansas.  Whatever your thoughts may be on the AKC, they could do a great service to their breeders if they put those registration fees toward public service announcement, addressing the issue of puppy mills, telling the public what they are doing about mills that carry their registration, and educating the public in how to buy a puppy from a breeder and what to look for from that breeder. 

There's a notion in the law called "due diligence".  If a breeder can show that there are certain issues within their breed and that the dam and sire were screened for those conditions prior to breeding, that can reduce the amount of responsibility the breeder is held accountable for because they are shown to have acted in good faith.  Breeding dogs w/o veterinary care and w/o those screenings increases the chances for problems to develop and is much like an automobile manufacturer claiming it should be allowed to manufacture cars however it chooses to because this is America and it's their right and the fact that the auto is defective or dangerous as a result of their processes should be ignored.  And IMHO, a GOOD breeder is one that is committed to that dog 100% for it's life.  My dog's breeder had a pledge in their contract that required us to contact them before relinquishing him and they would take him back.  When we had to move to Australia for 6 months, they took him back and boarded him happily for us because they didn't want to see us have to give him up and because they cared where he was for that 6 months.  That's the kind of breeder I support, not a breeder who breeds on every cycle, sells to pet stores where they have no idea where those pups are going (to research if not sold?) and who recklessly breeds with no idea what issues that dog is passing on, be it medical or behavioral.

Again, IMHO, breeders who claim it's their right to breed however and whenever they choose and sell the pups to whomever they want to are going to get squashed in this flood of public opinion if they don't do something to educate the public.  It's the Internet and things are very different now, any breeder can put up a website with UTube videos and tutorials on how to buy a puppy and NOT end up perpetuating the puppy mill industry but if they remain silent or base their arguments on personal rights, they are bound to lose.  The polygamists are claiming religious and personal rights to exercise their religion as they see fit, how's that working out for them???  Can't legislate morality?  Wanna bet!  And the morality that gets legislated to is that of the vocal minority.  Get in the fight and do something to address the situation rather than sitting back and saying "I should be allowed to breed anyway I want to" and getting lumped in with those committing horrific abuses of these dogs.

BCMixs

There's a notion in the law called "due diligence".  If a breeder can show that there are certain issues within their breed and that the dam and sire were screened for those conditions prior to breeding, that can reduce the amount of responsibility the breeder is held accountable for because they are shown to have acted in good faith.  Breeding dogs w/o veterinary care and w/o those screenings increases the chances for problems to develop and is much like an automobile manufacturer claiming it should be allowed to manufacture cars however it chooses to because this is America and it's their right and the fact that the auto is defective or dangerous as a result of their processes should be ignored.  And IMHO, a GOOD breeder is one that is committed to that dog 100% for it's life. 

 There is a difference between being committed to dogs you produce and being financially responsible for them if they develop a health problem. The only way for a breeder to know any given breeding won't produce X problem is if there is DNA testing for it, which there is for PRA and several other problems in some breeds. The majority of problems have no DNA testing at this point, so the parents being free of X problem may or may not mean the puppies will be free of it. And some issues don't even have screening at all - epilepsy is one of the biggest issues in my breed and there is no test for it at all. Dogs aren't at all like buying cars - being living creatures an array of things which have nothing to do with the breeder or is out of the breeder's hands can contribute to their health and temperament. There are far more variables with dog breeding than there is with car manufacturer, so much that the comparison really isn't valid. If a dog buyer want a more "sure thing" there are options for them. They can buy an adult dog which already has been heath tested, has an established temperament and has been trained. Puppies are not a sure thing in any way - no way of knowing for sure what size they'll be, for sure what their adult temperament will be or for sure what their health at maturity will be.

 Puppy "lemon laws" don't just affect neglectful breeders, they affect all breeders. Depending on the extent which a breeder is held responsible for medical costs, they could effectively stop many good hobby breeders. No dog is genetically normal, no dog will only ever produce genetically normal puppies. Like humans, all dogs carry multiple genes which can cause health issues. While screening and selecting breeding dogs carefully can help lower the number of affected dogs produced (although some diseases such as HD still regularly some breeds despite breeders best efforts), without know carriers and non carriers as well as affected it can not totally control problem within a breed. There are also breeds where the majority of dogs are affected with a certain health problem - what then? If you look at OFA stats, some breeds have 50%+ affecteds out of dogs checked. You can't cut that large of a number of dogs from the gene pool without it causing even more major issues. The same is true of some eye issues - 60 - 70% of all collies are affected to some degree with collie eye. And what about health issues such as retained testicles that a buyer can be told about up front? IME These sort of things are stuff that non-breeders pushing for restrictive breeding laws never even think about.

Yes, all those things are true.  However, if you educate a potential buyer directly about the incidences of epilepsy in your breed, provide veterinary records on dam and sire showing neither have been affected by it up to the date of breeding, and have the buyer acknowledge that they know it could be a possibility despite your diligence and accept that responsibility, you show yourself to be a more responsible and conscientious breeder.  I'm not arguing that a breeder must take back, vet and care for every dog it breeds but by requiring it's return in their contract, they can make the euthanization decision and can also prevent the pup from being dumped at a shelter.  By spaying or neutering prior to sale to pet buyers or requiring it before papers are released, they reduce the chances the dog will be back yard bred or bought by millers and bred into oblivion.  While both of those things take time and effort, I don't believe they are unduly restrictive financially.  And with people paying $1200 for mixes, I think it could be built into a breeder's cost rather easily.

BCMixs

Divide and conquer seems to be working, so my question was what can breeders do to get their message out to the public?  The breeders I got my Rush from were educating buyer by buyer but they're not going to reach an impulsive pet store buyer and they don't sell to pet stores and expect the public to know how to tell which Airedale in the window was from good lines and good healthy stock and which one was from a filthy wire case baking in the sun in Kansas.  Whatever your thoughts may be on the AKC, they could do a great service to their breeders if they put those registration fees toward public service announcement, addressing the issue of puppy mills, telling the public what they are doing about mills that carry their registration, and educating the public in how to buy a puppy from a breeder and what to look for from that breeder.

     It's because of the fact that divide & conquer IS working so well that I refuse to use the label of puppy mill anymore, or completely seperate myself from the commercial breeders. I simply am a different type of breeder than one who raises their dogs professionally, and I provide a different service than they do. My puppy buyers tend to be more educated pet people/Beagle people or those who are looking for something specific - usually conformation in an adept hunting hound. My pups are not for everyone. There is quite a bit of $ and time invested in them, so the price of my pups goes up. Some people don't care about conformation or hunting and just want a nice pet at an affordable price ... they are usually the ones that go to the commercial breeders or even BYBs. Obviously, everyone knows not to buy from a dirty, run down kennel. When they do, it's not because they don't know any better, they are buying with their heart & not their head.
     FYI, the AKC does quite a bit of advertising it's own orginization or sending me adverts for vaccum cleaners or pet health insurance or whatever other product they are endorsing of late. They are trying so hard to play on both sides of the fence - they want to be an exclusive show/hobby breeder registry yet their bread is buttered by the professional breeders. Notice they removed the "do not buy from a pet store" or somethign towards that end from their responsible breeder checklist ... a few years ago they dumbed it down after the commercial breeders came across it and opened their mouths. A rep from AKC was posting/lurking on a commercial breeder forum & immediately informed the forum it had been removed This was back about 3-4 years ago, when the AKC first noticed that another registry had pulled the proverbial rug out from under them & their indivigual registrations were plummeting. They also closed their studbooks to other registrys soon after, but that's another story entirely ... At least APRI puts their money where their mouth is and donates thousands of dollars to the commercial breeding industry - they are the reason most AR legislation has been knocked down.

BCMixs

Again, IMHO, breeders who claim it's their right to breed however and whenever they choose and sell the pups to whomever they want to are going to get squashed in this flood of public opinion if they don't do something to educate the public.  It's the Internet and things are very different now, any breeder can put up a website with UTube videos and tutorials on how to buy a puppy and NOT end up perpetuating the puppy mill industry but if they remain silent or base their arguments on personal rights, they are bound to lose.

   

    
     If you think the public knows what a commercial breeder is, think again. They can no longer differentiate a professional breeder with a state of the art kenel from a run down breeding operation. To them, having more than one litter a year is overbreeding, even if you're not using the same bitch @@ Let me give an example. On average, I breed two litters a year, although some years I've had as little as one litter, and this year I may have three. I have, at the moment, 10 dogs. Five are breeding stock. Two are neutered males, one is a bitch pup I may or may not keep, and the other two are hopefuls that did not turn out and at least one is going to be re homed soon. People see 10 dogs and the puppy mill label starts to slip off the tip of their tongues. The area I live in has more of a small town feel, so we know most of the long time residents. I constantly hear the internet rhetoric questions (from "animal lovers";), have people prying to get a feel for my breeding practices - crap, I've even had people come to my home to ask the AR questions - they were very obviously not buyers, they were trying to get a feel for my property, etc. THAT IS WITH 10 DOGS!!! People hear breeder nowadays and the word practically becomes interchangable with puppy mill.
     We can put up all the tutorials we want - first of all, it's not my or any other breeder's obligation to do so. But say we did. This goes right over the head of John Q Public who has been conditioned with the "when you buy a shelter dog dies" mentality. Breeders are bad, adoption is good. I know educated, dog savvy people who revert to that "breeder = automatic puppy mill until proven otherwise" mentality. Don't believe me? Start telling people you're a breeder. They don't care if your dogs are champions, health tested, they don't care if you study the Standard and go over stud ads until you're eyes bleed. They don't care if you sacrifice your social life so you can spend the time with a litter of pups, doesn't mean anything to them that your knees and back are arthritic from the constant cleaning and physical work breeding involves. Even though it's quite audible to the breeder, they don't hear the breaking of our hearts when we must cull the bitch pup from impeccable breeding that we went out of the country to purchase ... They think we are calloused and have $$ for eyes but what they don't realize is our skin is thickened from years of emotional rollercoasters one must ride and never get off until the day they stop breeding. Many of us, myself included, have been berated by family members who were of the animal rights persuasion. It comes to a point when we don't even have anything left but the dogs, our breeding program, and people want to take that from us as well.
     Everything we do in the eyes of the public is wrong. If we have too many dogs, we're hoarders or puppy mills. When we sell retired stock or cull a dog to keep down our numbers, we are sick, heartless, and money hungry - we don't really love dogs, otherwise we'd never re home them! If we raise our dogs in the home, and our house looks like dogs live there, we are a puppy mill. When we kennel our dogs and do it for sanitary reasons - what is wrong with us? If we loved the dogs we'd never leave the poor widdle fur babies outside. When we scrimp and save and wear clothers from bargain basement stores to buy the dogs a better food, we are letting the dogs take over our lives. If we buy a cheaper food we are a puppy mill who won't feed their dogs right. These are not things I have not personally heard & John Q will accuse you of being a puppy mill without knowing a damn thing about your breeding program save for the number of dogs you own. I can spout this supposed responsible rhethoric until I'm blue in the face - in fact, crap, I do it already & a lot of good it's done. Breeders do it all the time, trying to counteract the ARs and show themselves as responsible, yet you say one thing someone doesn't like, and that's it. You're a puppy mill.

 

BCMixs

The polygamists are claiming religious and personal rights to exercise their religion as they see fit, how's that working out for them???  Can't legislate morality?  Wanna bet!  And the morality that gets legislated to is that of the vocal minority.

     When you force a human child to marry a 50 year old man or her first cousin, you are breaking the law. The polygamists were allowed to carry on with their lives, but when they broke the law, the line was drawn.