Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Could this be the beginning of the end for puppy mills?

The Menagerie
#41

NJ’s also seeking to eradicate pet store puppies. I’m not against it as an idea, but I can see where the AKC breeders are coming from. They’re obsessive about the “Animal Rights Activists” but they’re also correct. The humane movement would quite like to bring about the end of all animal breeding. I used to think that the next radical idea would be to require every wouldbe dog buyer to adopt a shelter dog. Now I think the efforts to end both pet store puppies and - NJ is also fielding this - banning the purchase of dogs online or in any way other than face to face sales (clearly designed to stop website mills) is a de facto way of forcing people to buy shelter pit bulls. They’re whittling away at all sources of dogs except shelters and rescues. That is, if you’re an average, law-abiding middle-class person. And I feel like we’ve gone down this road with spay/neuter. All the average, law-abiding souls obediently sterilized their pets, all the batshit criminals did not, and now we have a billion unwanted pit bulls in shelters, and rescue groups holding auctions for the few traditional family breeds or mixes that come through.

The humane movement is refusing to go after the real problems because that would be hard, so they’re going after the soft targets, the people who just want a family pet. And we’re being shamed and pushed into the local shelter to adopt dogs not to get a good pet but to save a life. I love shelter dogs. I owned three and I adored them. But I didn’t adopt them to save a life or to empty the shelter, I did it because I wanted a dog and since I didn’t really need to go shooting at the manor, herd goats or guard a warehouse at night, I opted for any reasonably nice dog who caught my eye rather than a purebred. Also, I was cheap. The dogs I found were all pre-assessed to make sure they were safe before they were handed out to bumbling dimwits like myself to take home and do dumb things with. And those assessing tests, which are now derided as evil and cruel, worked. By 1999, when I adopted my last dog, maybe 5 shelter dogs had killed people in the entire history of sheltering. And 1 of those dogs was a wolf hybrid. By contrast, five shelter dogs have killed people in the past two years. This system is badly broken. Eradicating pet store puppies won’t fix it.

1 Like
#42

And how’s that working out for the AKC breeders and their breeds? Registrations have been in free-fall since the mills realized they could sell puppies without the brand, and there’s only so long you can keep a breed genetically viable by breeding 1 litter a year and swapping them between their show buddies and the 2% of the population patient enough to plan a year in advance to get a dog. I don’t know what breed you’re in, but from what I’ve been seeing there are breeds facing extinction if they try to operate only by producing puppies to order.

1 Like
#43

AKC will fight this. AKC is not about the health and well being of dogs, they are about making money. They make a lot of $$$$$ from puppy mills and backyard breeders. While a few communities may be able to enact laws such as this, getting far reaching legislation is a long way away. But I will say, that this is still a good thing. Baby steps and all that.

#44

“From what you’re seeing?” What are you seeing? Which breeds are facing extinction? And how do bad breeders help prevent this?

To be honest, I don’t think most reputable breeders really care about registration #s that much. “Puppy mill” or poorly bred purebred specimens are no help to a breed club or to good breeders.

I know a lot of reputable breeders in my breed. I don’t think their breeding plans are affected at all by breeders that mass produce puppies or produce “purebred” registerable puppies but without health testing, breeding for quality/traits and putting titles on their breeding dogs.

In rare breeds, I would expect the breed clubs to be far more protective of their quality breeding stock than in more popular breeds. Mass produced crap puppies would cause far more damage to a breed than carefully bred litters.

2 Likes
#45

What exactly is so awful about there being enough puppies produced to fulfill the current demand for pets? 6-8 month wait for a puppy? What good comes from this? Is it simply not possible to produce more then “x” number of quality representatives of a dog breed per year? Would having enough quality puppies of “x” individual dog breed to fulfill demands for fanciers somehow be detriment? Not in any way I can think of.

How come it’s ok for “rescue” groups to make money selling dogs but not the AKC? Or Joe-Breed Fancier?

Honest food for thought because this retail rescue madness is not helping anyone or anything but retail rescue itself. Vacation is right–the responsible masses obediently neuter their pets and now there’s nothing being produced except thousands upon thousands of pit bulls which no one wants.

This retail rescue thing is recent over the last 20 years [incidentally, exactly paralleling the pit bull mauling explosion over last 20 years]. I agree it is the result of an advertisement campaign, supported by animal rights groups, who’s end game is to end animal ownership completely.

The only thing a law like this will result in is shifting profits on dog sales from pet store owners to retail rescue groups, which likely is it’s only intended purpose anyway.

1 Like
#46

TRUTH.

1 Like
#47

I don’t understand a lot of what you’re trying to say. Who says “it’s ok” for rescue groups to make money but not the AKC or breed fanciers?

AKC isn’t in the business of breeding dogs anyway. They are a breed registry. And some fanciers make money, but many of them really don’t. Not sure how this is even relevant. I have no problem with a good breeder making money; I just think it’s not that easy to be a “good breeder” AND “make money.”

I personally have an issue with pet stores selling puppies and I also think many breeders are equally bad. The number of puppies IN rescues is an indicator of the “impulse buying” problem – whether the rescue charges money to “rehome” the dog or not. That’s why I don’t think it should be that easy to buy a puppy.

But then again, I care about animals. Lots of people don’t, which is why they have no qualms about dumping a puppy or dog on a rescue and hope that someone else can deal with their change of heart, lack of preparedness, lack of money, or loss of interest.

1 Like
#48

Says who? Has there been a comprehensive study on this?

For every litter of puppies a retail rescue groups gets, there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 applicants eager to take one home. Sometimes many times that number. There’s a huge demand for puppies. So no, there really aren’t that many puppies in “rescue”. Certainly not enough to temper the market demand.

People have been getting puppies and keeping dogs as useful companions for thousands of years. Why suddenly is the desire to obtain a puppy considered a sin? Ridiculous. Retail rescue groups seem run and supported by people who believe the desire to get a puppy is inherently irresponsible and the product of some moral deficiency. It’s just bizarre.

If you are looking for something to blame for the glut of abandoned pets, look no further then the minimum wage economy and the widening gap between rich and poor in the US. Not having enough time, moving to a [rental] place that doesn’t allow pets, a drop in disposable income; all major reasons expressed for adult dogs being relinquished to shelters.

Well also aggression, since the populous as a whole has been brainwashed into thinking that euthanasia is cruel and every dog that bites deserves a second chance–just not at my[-gereral] house.

eta–also behavior problems. Look no further then aforementioned “lack of time” to explain this reason for relinquishing.

Incidentally, I noticed the sideways insult you included at the end of your post–insinuating that I am an evil animal hater because? I dare express dissent to the retail rescue conglomerate. “But then again, I care about animals”. Oh gimme a break, S1969.

3 Likes
#49

You don’t have the sole role and opinion of caring about animals. Just because you use the word “but” does not mean you are right and someone else who does not agree or see things your way does not care about animals and that theiy may be correct with the better way…

Just because a rescue is called “rescue” does not mean it is the way an animal should be kept or promoted.

There are warning signs when animals being rescued are from the "rescues’ . There are warning signs when rescues only discuss their success stories, but lose the facts on animals adopted out that should been euthanized cause harm to others or huge unexpected vet bills. There was a reason bills of health became something as part of a sale… Rescues aren’t immune to this.

1 Like
#50

Just addressing the wait period…
When a good breeder plans a litter, the prospective parents are announced and applications for a pup accepted. If the breeding is well thought out there should be more applicants than pups and they go into a ‘wait file’.

Applicants may be approved or disapproved for many reasons; usually it has to do with inadequate environment or not wanting to train, do health care, etc. It should be obvious to people that a small home with manicured back yard, a toddler, 3 year old and baby on the way and 2 working parents who are looking for their first dog ‘for the kids’… might at least need an older, trained dog if any.
vs. a 3rd time owner whose last dogs lived to 13 and 17, whose dogs are part of the family and who may occasionally go to a fun dog event.
vs. a known agility competitor,
vs. a close friend who would like to seriously try this breed with mentorship from the breeder.
or, in the case of a grand show prospect, someone ‘in the fancy’ who wants a breeding prospect and will exchange stud services, etc.

It is 5 months from breeding to ‘puppy ready to go to a new home’ so: no, a wait is not unreasonable. The pups you see now are spoken for, often twice over if there are declines from one or two of the buyers.

Good breeders may network to find pups for good applicants if they have nothing available: sometimes there are pups from good dogs that the breeders are ‘out in the sticks’ and poor at marketing. Most of the time it is mature dogs or older, retired dogs.

Breeding ‘more dogs’ because there is a market isn’t really how a breeder thinks: They are trying to produce from the best possible parents and give each pup and each litter the best upbringing possible to become a great dog.
Two litters, even 3 may be possible for a determined, organized breeder.
Six or ten? Not without employed help to socialize and monitor all the facets of breeding and rearing of true family companion dogs.

Great purebred dogs are worth the wait. And waiting to neuter until the dog is 12 months or older as research has proven is a benefit to any working dog for health and longevity ought to be explained and might even be required of that new owner.

A dog with a ‘brand’ can be top of the line or bottom of the line: a mutt may be top of the line, too. But generally the breeder of a mutt may not know anything about the history of the parental families or how to assess youngsters.

-I waited 3 years for ‘the right one’; because I had very specific requirements and I only got 1/2 of the dog!

I am as happy with my dog as others may be with their rescues or Amish pups: they don’t want mine and I don’t want theirs.

2 Likes
#51

I think your issue is with “retail rescue” organizations, and I agree that many of them take advantage of people. The fact that there are so many animals in shelters or rescues is pretty obvious. People “rehome” or abandon dogs and cats all the time. I’m not sure we need a comprehensive study to know that many people are ill-prepared to own a dog and/or consider them disposable.

There’s a “huge demand for puppies” but not necessarily for dogs. I see no reason to make it easier for people to buy a cute puppy without any thought about its needs or that it will live 12+ years.

I also don’t know why you think that the “desire to get a puppy is a sin.” I don’t think it is. But impulse buying of animals should not be encouraged. Do you have the same issue with the 6 chick minimum on selling ducklings at feed stores? Because that’s why they do it – to keep people from buying a chick and sticking it in an Easter basket.

And, it was not an insult to you that “some people don’t care about animals.” It is people who dump their dogs in rescues that don’t care. And it happens all the time. Sure, there are many legitimate cases where a dog has to be rehomed. And then there are idiots who should never have gotten it in the first place.

1 Like
#52

I am not “pro-rescue.” I’m not sure why you think I am. I agree that many of them are as bad as puppy mills, pet stores, or operate as both under the guise of the word “rescue.”

1 Like
#53
1 Like
#54

Maybe we need more breeders of quality dogs rather then the current breeders trying to produce more litters out of their stock. But there’s such a push to not breed at all, under any circumstances. Few people even consider it, even fewer explore it, and those who do are subject to such a negative campaign of discouragement, I’m sure fewer still actually decide to go through with it.

#55

I just met a lady in home depot over the weekend:
Her lovely waited for Australian shepherd tore her stifle ligaments at about 16 months: of course she contacted her breeder and received the sad news that yes, as you may remember: we strongly discourage neutering before 12 months for this reason if no other. Proven bone and leg growth issues in at least medium to large dogs predisposing to injury.
To the tune of $4,000. Easily 3 or more times the cost of buying that pup.

And her good breeder actually offered to help pay for this mess.

But poor pup will never be allowed to jump for Frisbees or balls again, and agility is now out - for life.

It sickens breeders that peer pressure to ‘do the right thing’ is ruining life for pets and their owners.

And it may get tougher: if the Kennel laws go into effect breeders that raise dogs in the home, or basically not on concrete (impervious surface) and don’t have “kennel facilities” will be outside the law. Professional puppy mills will pass that one with flying colors.
We’ll see how many dog people build useless kennels that stand unused just so they can continue with their beloved breed.

1 Like
#56

Because it’s not usually a money making opportunity, so unless you’re a breed fancier, why would you?

I have said many times on this board that I think there is a market for “pet quality” puppies, but I don’t mean puppy mills. I mean dogs that are bred for pets but still with good selection and breeding practices (health testing). I think one of the most cost prohibitive parts of being a breeder is titling your dog. But some types of titles would be useful (and potentially less expensive than conformation or performance – basic obedience, CGC, therapy dog title, etc.

Not that these don’t cost money, but compared to conformation or field titles, they are not likely to be as expensive, especially in popular breeds with high registration #s (goldens, labs, etc. where obtaining conformation titles can run $20K or so.)

Many breed “fanciers” wouldn’t want a breeding program like this but many pet owners would like a puppy from this type of breeding program.

1 Like
#57

I’m seeing a lot of people saying that the genetic health of purebred dogs is bad and getting worse.
I’m seeing a huge disconnect between what scientists say is a healthy COI for animals (6% or lower), and what AKC breeders are saying (anything under 15%).
I’m seeing truly horrific longevity averages for some breeds and similarly horrific disease rates in others. Some of it is the related popular sire effect, but some of it is the simple fact that inbreeding begins to reduce health and longevity around the 5% point, and most dog breeds are way past that point.

They’re all crap puppies now. When you have 12 puppies and sterilize 10 of them for being crap, then the next generation just got a whole lot less genetically healthy. And that’s what we’ve been doing for years now. Those last 2 puppies can be farting rainbows, but it doesn’t matter how great they are – their genes can’t go too far all alone. And a lot of breeds are hitting that point because a lot of them slammed those studbooks shut in the early 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century and then after the mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century, we started sterilizing all but the ‘best’ show dogs. We drastically reduced the gene pool for all purebred dogs, and the result is not a debate, it’s just a scientific reality that’s been known for over 100 years – inbreeding reduces longevity and health. The worse the inbreeding, the worse the effect. You can carefully breed a litter using outcrossing too, you know - and by outcrossing I mean bringing in other breeds in an intelligent way. Careful breeding doesn’t have to mean only using the dogs who most closely adhere to what wins in the ring or the competition field, or even the same breed.

1 Like
#58

I think you need to get off the internet and actually meet some good breeders. “12 puppies and sterilize 10 for being crap?” WTF are you talking about? That is not at all how good breeders operate. In a well-bred litter, 10 are not usually “crap” - but that doesn’t mean all 12 are “breeding quality”. Or, at least, some may not be bred because breeders can’t keep 10 puppies This is part of why breeders co-own, which people tend to hate and consider it “controlling behavior” - but it’s to try to be able to breed more than just the ones that the breeder can personally keep.

Truly, I don’t think you have any idea how good breeding really works. I don’t know any breeders that “sterilize all but the best show dogs” and I know many people who don’t breed to top ranked dogs specifically because they tend to be overused. I also know a lot of performance breeders that don’t care about conformation titles but DO care about health clearances and have rigorous breeding programs for temperament, soundness, and ability.

My club just sponsored four AKC Hunt Tests this past weekend - 128 entries and probably only a handful were sterilized. In fact, when I saw a neutered Weimaraner it was actually really strange to NOT see testicles on a dog. But I would bet that at least half those dogs are not owned by breeders.

I don’t think you have a good idea of what is really going on in the world of purebred dogs.

I also think you underestimate the genetic health of mixed breed dogs. People tend to think that health issues are seen only in purebred dogs but this is just not true. All dogs are at risk for the same health issues, but there are probably no statistics because those people do not test/submit their dogs’ information for genetic issues.

2 Likes
#59

I’m sorry to get into the ‘inbreeding is bad’ myth, but apparently I must.

Inbreeding neither creates nor avoids problems it simply shows up what is present in the genotype. Non-breeders may think this is bad, but if a genotype is clear of hereditary illness then outcrossing will simply ‘roll the dice’ that one may bring in the hereditary time bombs with the new genes.

Inbreeding depression is real but the rate of that depression varies with populations. Cheetahs went through a bottleneck approximately 10,000 years ago. Ten… thousand. They are still on the planet. They might even have managed to keep on keeping on if they hadn’t been hunted for skins and had their range reduced to an unsupportable remnant.

‘Purebred’ dogs, as opposed to landrace, have only been closed registered for less than 120 years and often less if one accounts for questionable pedigrees before DNA testing became the norm about 20+ years ago.

When and if some breeds end up ‘all carriers of problem genes’, there is a push to outcross to bring in non-carriers and back cross to restore the breed - check Dalmations.

Laboratory strains of rodents have been inbred brother to sister since the 1940’s. At less than 90 days per generation that is over 250 generations. And they haven’t died out yet. No one consistently breeds dogs that tightly for even 5 generations.

What happened to the human population of Europe due to invasions by Mongols, Huns, pandemic illnesses like plague, influenza, etc.? Just how inbred are most human populations? Ever heard of the Eve theory?

Plants are about the only popularly seen in one’s back yard self-fertilizers possible and guess what? Many of them have been around for millennia as the same species.

The entire point of selective breeding by humans is to reduce the incidence of problem genes, increase longevity, fertility, overall health, while maintaining performance (whatever the selected performance may be). Inbreeding, even at very high co-efficients is one means a breeder can use to help ensure consistently similar and outstandingly healthy offspring that admirers, and buyers choose.

There is a lot more, but most prefer doom and gloom to facts.

1 Like
#60

I’m going to carefully dip my toe into shark-infested waters and suggest there isn’t a comprehensive study on the number of applicants per rescue puppy. Application numbers depend on location and breed type. There are not 100s of applicants eager to take mixed or pit-type puppies in my area of the Mid-Atlantic.

Some areas may have a huge demand for any and all puppies. Eventually, those puppies grow up. The demand for a 6mo pup digging up the carpet, peeing on the dining table leg, barking incessantly, and scratching people is a lot less. Not everyone loves a 14mo male who has just discovered females and suddenly has zero focus or impulse control. My local shelters are full of those, including mixed, purebred, pretty, and popular breeds for the region.

Responsible sources for puppies filter for lifelong homes who can prevent or overcome such issues so their animals aren’t contributing to the population issues. Filters like being screened for suitability (e.g., herding breeds and households with young children), agreeing to keep the dog for life or returning to original home, and a filter like having to wait.

I believe people willing to wait are purchasing on less of a whim and won’t give up on such a whim. I believe people who insist on a poor match or demand instant gratification are less likely to stick out challenges or keep their pets through moves and family changes, etc.

I don’t think this is about puppies. That phase only lasts so long. I think the issue is people not keeping their adult animals for life (or unwilling to end that life, in some cases). I don’t think breed fanciers increasing the overall population of purebreds will solve that.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $29.99 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse