Rescue organizations keep puppy mills in business--open vent/rant

[supaflyskye]

[QUOTE=S1969;8218629]
Really?

OFA suggests these tests for Cattle Dogs:

Hip Dysplasia
?OFA Evaluation (min age 2 years) - OR
?OVC Evaluation (min age 2 years) - OR
?PennHIP Evaluation (min age 1 year)

Elbow Dysplasia (evaluation at two years or older)
?OFA Evaluation - OR
?OVC Evaluation

Eye Examination by a boarded ACVO Ophthalmologist - Min Age 24 months
?Results registered with OFA - OR
?Results registered with CERF

Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA) DNA Test - from an approved laboratory
?Optigen test results registered with the OFA. First Generation Offspring of tested dogs eligible for Clear By Parentage (A to A breedings). Obligate Carriers (A to C breedings) are also eligible. In addition, for Clear By Parentage, or Obligate Carriers, the sire, dam, and offspring must all be DNA profiled to verify parentage.

Congenital Deafness
?OFA evaluation based on BAER test

Primary Lens Luxation
?PRIMARY LENS LUXATION DNA test from an approved laboratory (added as a requirement effective 10/6/14)

And there were other optional tests.

And these for Russell Terriers and Parson Russell Terriers:

Eye Examination by a boarded ACVO Ophthalmologist
?Results registered with OFA - OR
?Results registered with CERF

Patellar Luxation
?OFA Evaluation

Congenital Deafness
?OFA evaluation based on BAER test

Sounds like it wouldn’t be ridiculous to consider SOME testing for the most common of these possible congenital issues.[/QUOTE]

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just saying it isn’t NEARLY as common as it is in many other breeds. I’m not disagreeing w/ you that genetic testing is ideal, certainly. But, we don’t live in an ideal world and not every bitch and stud gets health tested, not every breeder is completely responsible. There’s a reason these puppies are much cheaper, lack of genetic testing is one of them. People will continue to breed them and people will continue to buy them. As evidenced here. It does not make anyone involved evil.
And again, there is no clear evidence that OP’s puppy came from a puppy mill, lots of assumptions there, just because the Amish bred it and the parents were presumably not health tested (as I doubt the Amish do health tests), makes the Amish breeders, based on what we know, slightly less than responsible. That is all we know.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Paks;8218642]
I’d rather deal with a small BYB who is breeding for their own pleasure a useful and sound dog than one breeding for the show ring.[/QUOTE]

I have no problem AT ALL not breeding for a show ring. I was just at a show and talked to a handler whose main breed was Golden Retrievers. She said because they are so many of them, that it takes $10-$20K to put a championship title on a Golden in the Northeast. That is not necessary for many breeders.

Not conducting health testing or selection for temperament is inexcusable, though, in my opinion. It is not difficult, or prohibitively expensive.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=supaflyskye;8218647]
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, just saying it isn’t NEARLY as common as it is in many other breeds. I’m not disagreeing w/ you that genetic testing is ideal, certainly. But, we don’t live in an ideal world and not every bitch and stud gets health tested, not every breeder is completely responsible. There’s a reason these puppies are much cheaper, lack of genetic testing is one of them. People will continue to breed them and people will continue to buy them. As evidenced here. It does not make anyone involved evil.
And again, there is no clear evidence that OP’s puppy came from a puppy mill, lots of assumptions there, just because the Amish bred it and the parents were presumably not health tested (as I doubt the Amish do health tests), makes the Amish breeders, based on what we know, slightly less than responsible. That is all we know.[/QUOTE]

Well, you’re sort of arguing the same thing that I am. Although I just checked OFA and found that Cattle Dogs have a higher incidence of dysplasia than my breed (Brittany) and most good breeders consider testing for it a no-brainer.

Not testing for common congenital defects doesn’t make a person evil - it makes them a bad breeder. And people continue to breed them because people continue to buy them…not the other way around, in my opinion.

[Marshfield]

[QUOTE=S1969;8218659]
I have no problem AT ALL not breeding for a show ring. I was just at a show and talked to a handler whose main breed was Golden Retrievers. She said because they are so many of them, that it takes $10-$20K to put a championship title on a Golden in the Northeast. That is not necessary for many breeders.

Not conducting health testing or selection for temperament is inexcusable, though, in my opinion. It is not difficult, or prohibitively expensive.[/QUOTE]

I feel for folks in some of the more popular breeds. Not that we’re guaranteed that one of us will get the points, but my friend and I between us and a couple of show dogs we’ve placed have enough dogs for two points and have gone a long ways towards creating a major in VT this weekend for bitches. Statistically, if there’s a major at a show I’ve entered I’ve got about a 10% chance of taking home the points. If your breed is the Golden Retriever it’s down to 5%. This can mean a lot more shows and a lot more time and money to finish a dog of the more popular breed.

[MoonWitch]

Tucking this away for the next abortion thread and “what do with do with all the unwanted kids” arguments…

Interesting…

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=MoonWitch;8218813]
Tucking this away for the next abortion thread and “what do with do with all the unwanted kids” arguments…

Interesting…[/QUOTE]

I’m all for spay abortion for dumped cats and dogs. Does that answer your question?

[MoonWitch]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;8218848]
I’m all for spay abortion for dumped cats and dogs. Does that answer your question?[/QUOTE]

I just think some of the reasoning here has been interesting - that’s all. You and I both agree on prevention. Others, well…

I’ll go now before I get accused of hijacking thread this into an abortion debate.

Carry on!

[Sswor]

The dog snobbery that abounds on this thread is ludicrous. The laundry check list of qualifications and specifications some of you require for other people just to get a pet are ridiculous.

No wonder dealing with rescues is impossible. The people involved are super judgmental, nasty, combative, and way off in outer space.

I love the repeated insistence and full admittance from the rescue people that someone’s “attitude”–defined by refusing to take abuse, condescension, or let thinly veiled insults fly without calling them out, would alone deny them as a potential adopter. No matter that they meet all the “on paper” qualifications for actual care and responsibility of the dog, if potential adopter calls the “rescuer” out on being a total bitch, op, welp, they are DENIED.

Yeah it’s totally about the dogs.

[JBD]

Would someone please call the wambulance for Sswor?

[LauraKY]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8218863]
The dog snobbery that abounds on this thread is ludicrous. The laundry check list of qualifications and specifications some of you require for other people just to get a pet are ridiculous.

No wonder dealing with rescues is impossible. The people involved are super judgmental, nasty, combative, and way off in outer space.

I love the repeated insistence and full admittance from the rescue people that someone’s “attitude”–defined by refusing to take abuse, condescension, or let thinly veiled insults fly without calling them out, would alone deny them as a potential adopter. No matter that they meet all the “on paper” qualifications for actual care and responsibility of the dog, if potential adopter calls the “rescuer” out on being a total bitch, op, welp, they are DENIED.

Yeah it’s totally about the dogs.[/QUOTE]

What’s going on with you? You’re not usually like this.

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8218863]

I love the repeated insistence and full admittance from the rescue people that someone’s “attitude”–defined by refusing to take abuse, condescension, or let thinly veiled insults fly without calling them out, would alone deny them as a potential adopter. No matter that they meet all the “on paper” qualifications for actual care and responsibility of the dog, if potential adopter calls the “rescuer” out on being a total bitch, op, welp, they are DENIED.

.[/QUOTE]

First of all - huh? I thought you were denied because you DIDN’T meet the on paper qualifications, despite feeling that you could offer a good home. And your complaint was that the paper qualifications were too stringent, and that you were rejected based on a form you completed on line, without speaking to someone. So now you’re concerned about the reverse?

And honestly, I have no problem with a rescue rejecting someone who meets the paper qualifications, but comes across in person as ill suited to adopt. I really prefer that the rescues err on the side of caution. I say this as someone who herself would likely be rejected. I’d rather them err on the side of rejecting someone like me, than accepting those who wave red flags.

After all, if they reject me, then that only means that the pet gets someone even better, right

OP, I am sorry for you. I think you’re really hurting - you lost your beloved dog, and then were rejected by the rescue, which had to sting. You then came on here to vent, only to be presented with people who disagree with you strongly and feel that you made a poor choice.

I disagree with the choice that you made as well, but I do wish the best for you, your new puppy, and your other dog. Take care.

[BLBGP]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8218863]
The dog snobbery that abounds on this thread is ludicrous. The laundry check list of qualifications and specifications some of you require for other people just to get a pet are ridiculous.

No wonder dealing with rescues is impossible. The people involved are super judgmental, nasty, combative, and way off in outer space.

I love the repeated insistence and full admittance from the rescue people that someone’s “attitude”–defined by refusing to take abuse, condescension, or let thinly veiled insults fly without calling them out, would alone deny them as a potential adopter. No matter that they meet all the “on paper” qualifications for actual care and responsibility of the dog, if potential adopter calls the “rescuer” out on being a total bitch, op, welp, they are DENIED.

Yeah it’s totally about the dogs.[/QUOTE]

Sigh…again with the generalizations. How many rescues did you try to adopt from and denied you? You do realize they are all independent and operate under different guidelines, ethics, etc, right?

Can you tell us the names? Instead of “dealing with rescues is impossible” perhaps “dealing with Bob’s Rescue was impossible”?

Why are you still so passionate about this when you have a cuddly pup in your arms? And where are the pics???

[Horsegal984]

[QUOTE=supaflyskye;8218592]
To be fair, neither Jack Russels nor Cattle Dogs are strongly prone congenital diseases. Of course there is always the possibility, but it is not extremely common as it is in some breeds.[/QUOTE]

Ahm, Cattle Dog person here. Congenital problems are a big issue in the breed. As a breed they actually have worse hips than GSDs and Labs. The eye problems are rampant, though much less so since everybody has started testing. And since many of the eye issues don’t show up until later in life an affected animal can have many pups on the ground before anyone knows it has a problem.

I can’t directly speak to JRT’s since I’m not involved with them but congenital problems are absolutely a problem with ACDs.

By the way, I got exactly the ACD puppy I wanted. I wanted a blue male with a mask, medium to high drive with a rock solid temperament. I got EXACTLY that. But I had to wait almost 3 years, because of the breeders I would consider vs ones I wouldnt.

[Sswor]

I’m referring to the rescue people berating me for imagined transgressions here on the thread–not all of the rescue people in the world.

I suppose no one should ever adopt a cattle dog/mix from the shelter or a rescue because they come with no health guarantee.

[Laurierace]

I really should sit this thread out, but this forum tends to have a very broad definition of a puppy mill. I do not agree that rescues keep puppy mills in business but I do understand wanting a specific dog as a family member as opposed to choosing whatever the shelter has available. Many may remember how I got roasted for buying a puppy from an Amish family who had exactly one female who I saw. Somehow that translated to being a puppy mill and made me the devil. That puppy is now a year old and is a certified therapy dog who does work in nursing homes and hospice as well as being a walking business card for my boarding business. He is the type of dog any breeder would be proud to have produced in my opinion.

[supaflyskye]

[QUOTE=Horsegal984;8219519]
Ahm, Cattle Dog person here. Congenital problems are a big issue in the breed. As a breed they actually have worse hips than GSDs and Labs. The eye problems are rampant, though much less so since everybody has started testing. And since many of the eye issues don’t show up until later in life an affected animal can have many pups on the ground before anyone knows it has a problem.

I can’t directly speak to JRT’s since I’m not involved with them but congenital problems are absolutely a problem with ACDs.

By the way, I got exactly the ACD puppy I wanted. I wanted a blue male with a mask, medium to high drive with a rock solid temperament. I got EXACTLY that. But I had to wait almost 3 years, because of the breeders I would consider vs ones I wouldnt.[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry, I stand corrected. I guess I am not as familiar w/ the breed as I thought. The googling I did to research the topic was not yielding that information. All websites stated they were “a rather healthy breed.” Again, sorry.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Sswor;8219632]
I suppose no one should ever adopt a cattle dog/mix from the shelter or a rescue because they come with no health guarantee.[/QUOTE]

@Laurierace;8219635

Somehow that translated to being a puppy mill and made me the devil. That puppy is now a year old and is a certified therapy dog who does work in nursing homes and hospice as well as being a walking business card for my boarding business. He is the type of dog any breeder would be proud to have produced in my opinion.

The fact that a breeder CAN produce a good puppy without health testing isn’t a miracle. Most are probably good. But, for not very much money - a breeder can do a lot to ensure that the puppies have a BETTER chance of being healthy and free of physical defects. It’s not hard, it’s not that expensive, and it’s in the best interest of the dogs AND the owners that will buy them.

If you’re going to support a breeder - why wouldn’t you choose one that tries NOT to produce defective dogs?

If you don’t to care about the puppy’s health - then yes, at least get one out of a shelter since the odds are just as good/bad.

I’d guess that a “breeder” that gets stuck with 4 puppies from its last litter because they didn’t have any health testing or guarantees will rethink whether it should be in the breeding business. OR will consider doing a better job. Buying a puppy from one that doesn’t just reinforces the idea that it’s ok NOT TO CARE whether the puppies are healthy or defective. :no:

I guess I just don’t understand why anyone would disagree with this?

[Laurierace]

Do you really not see the gap between a less than ideal breeding situation and a puppy mill though? It is probably wider than the Grand Canyon and has more gray area than our brains have gray matter. In a perfect world every mating of any type including humans would be purposeful and responsible but the world isn’t perfect.

[Sswor]

@S1969;8219687

If you’re going to support a breeder - why wouldn’t you choose one that tries NOT to produce defective dogs?

How do you know what type of breeder I supported? How do you know that my puppy didn’t come with a health guarantee?

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Laurierace;8219727]
Do you really not see the gap between a less than ideal breeding situation and a puppy mill though? It is probably wider than the Grand Canyon and has more gray area than our brains have gray matter. In a perfect world every mating of any type including humans would be purposeful and responsible but the world isn’t perfect.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think they are all that different - there are all levels of care given to puppies. Some “puppy mills” might actually do a fairly good job of keeping 50 animals clean and disease free; some small breeders might use cages in their dirty barn for 3 dogs. Some good breeders might have 25+ animals in their care. I don’t think you can make specific generalizations based on the “title” we apply to bad breeders.

Bad breeders are bad breeders - and there are lots of ways to meet that definition. I would call a breeder that did health testing but kept dogs in dirty cages to be a bad breeder. I would call a person that didn’t do health testing but raised puppies in their home to be a bad breeder too. I think most “bad breeders” are somewhere in between, but that doesn’t make them GOOD breeders.

My personal definition of a bad breeder is a breeder that produces puppies for profit, doesn’t select breeding individuals based on specific traits, doesn’t conduct health testing, doesn’t screen puppy homes, and doesn’t follow up with their puppy homes or take puppies back. It pretty much includes all large and small scale “puppy mills.” But there are other breeders that might fall into that group as well.