Spin Off from Rescues thread - it's not the breeders

[corgif]

OK, this is a hot button of mine…The problem of pet over-population is less due to breeders than it is to irresponsible OWNERS who do not spay/neuter or keep their intact dogs safely confined.

The breeders I am familiar with all have a waiting list. With all the veterinary bills, health testing, etc., they do not make money on their puppies either. I am tired of seeing breeders blamed for this. Yes, there are unscrupulous breeders out there (and yes I think it is the unscrupulous breeders/puppy mill breeders who should be banned and regulated) , but the bigger problem is irresponsible owners, and that’s who the focus should be on.

For everyone who wants to ban the dog breeders, do we also want to ban horse breeders? Why should we breed hunters, jumpers, racehorses, or saddle horses when there are so many horses out there who need rescuing? Oh, because we breed our horses for certain abilities, traits, or a specific sport? Well then, let’s ban those sports as well since they must “cause” the problem, right? :no: It’s the same with pure bred dog breeders (the good ones). Why punish the ones who are doing it right? Since we’re on the banning bandwagon, let’s ban parents from procreating and require them to adopt instead. There are lots of children out there who need homes, and the world is getting over-populated.

Sure, we can ban the breeders, but that won’t solve the problem, because it’s not the problem.

[LauraKY]

I assume you’re talking about responsible breeders? Not the ones who breed what they’ve got to what they’ve got and then sell them on craiglist for $50 to $150? Or the puppy mill breeders?

I don’t know anyone other the the real kooks who want to ban breeding completely. We (I) just want to run the bad ones out of the business. You know the ones who aren’t doing health checks or necessary veterinary care and don’t give a flying hoot where their dogs go or what happens to them afterwards. Those breeders. They’re the bad guys.

[Countrywood]

Virtually nobody talks about banning breeders, they talk about licensing breeders and enacting legislation about responsible breeding policies.

Which would benefit the responsible breeders most of all.

[Anne_FS]

No, it’s about banning breeders. Usually the licensing costs are made so expensive that the small, good breeders can’t afford it.

As for only “the real kooks” wanting to ban breeding, I don’t believe it. I follow several legislative lists and almost always the licensing/breeding regulations on the initial pass try to limit all breeding, with no exceptions for say, military or police or guide dogs. In addition, mandatory spay/neuter is banning all breeding.

[Countrywood]

Spaying and nuetering and unregulated breeding both contribute to the overpopulation of pets. And then irresponsible ownersip is another side of the problem.

I fail to see on what basis a resonsible breeder believes they would be “punished” by legislation that limits the irresponsible and over breeding or bad breeding practices going on.

Imo, if a breeder has a waiting list pre birth for a litter with deposits, there is proven demand and that breeder is responsible. If a breeder lets dogs have litters, then advertises them for sale , they are not responsible because they have no idea if there is demand for the puppies or not. It also feeds into the puppies as commodities idea, endless litters arriving year around in case a person decides they need to get a puppy now…instead of reserving one and waiting a few months and showing a commitment to the process.

[khall]

I don’t have a problem with responsible breeders, but define responsible breeder. Hard to find. I know of a labradoodle breeder, all of her puppies are sold/have a deposit on them every litter, but this person has 16-17 litters a year! That is insane! $2500 a puppy, not a typical puppy mill in that the dogs are well cared for but still a puppy mill IMO, cashing in on the designer dog craze.

Ga actually has pretty tough breeding laws for dogs, yet there are still many unlicensed and unregulated breeders especially of the designer dogs (recent hoarding situation in Bibb county of designer breeder) and pit bulls. Very hard to police this issue.

[Marshfield]

[QUOTE=Countrywood;8321329]
Virtually nobody talks about banning breeders, they talk about licensing breeders and enacting legislation about responsible breeding policies.

Which would benefit the responsible breeders most of all.[/QUOTE]

No, it really wouldn’t benefit those of us breeding health tested and titled dogs. I have a wait list vastly longer than I can fill. I haven’t even figured out yet what I am doing for breedings in 2016 and I still have homes waiting for puppies to be born then. Licensing and legislation would just add to my expenses and take up more time. And the irresponsible breeders will just continue to ignore existing legislation as they have for years.

[Countrywood]

You assume the irresponsible breeders will not be affected with no proof to support what you say. And if it impacts your expenses then pass it along to the buyer. If it takes up more time than it does, nearly every other profession has time consuming licensing to deal with. (my profession does)

You seem limited to a view that concerns only with your own interests.

[Countrywood]

Hard to find. I know of a labradoodle breeder, all of her puppies are sold/have a deposit on them every litter, but this person has 16-17 litters a year! That is insane! $2500 a puppy, not a typical puppy mill in that the dogs are well cared for but still a puppy mill IMO, cashing in on the designer dog craze.

This is the problem with breeders in general, including the so called responsible ones as above…they breed and breed and breed till the market is saturated and then what follows is over saturation as homes dry up . The breeders CREATE THAT , but they don’t seem to realize it. Over saturation from breeding unless carefully limited is as true for horses as it is for dogs.

If litters are produced every year year after year, even with waiting lists for the puppies, over time, the # of homes will dry up. BECAUSE DOGS LIVE 10-14 years !! So unless a dog dies young, an owner is not replacing it any time soon, and certainly not buying a new puppy every year. The owner will wait 10-14 years to buy their next puppy (if they replace the dog )

Look at the history of many dog and horse breeds. The Arabian horse is a prime example… at one point imported, expensive and rare , they were over bred and now no longer popular except for a small group of aficionados, with herds of Arabians starving and neglected and even sound ones sold cheap or cant even give them away.

The history of many breeds except the very rare show a similar pattern. They start out in high demand , are over bred to a saturation point, then cross bred, eventually an over supply.

A truly responsible breeder would care about the long term and self limit; perhaps breed every 3 years instead of every year for example. I am aware a small group of breeders do self limit and also offer to take adult dogs back if owners can;t keep them which is fabulous.

It’s hard to reconcile how people can claim to be responsible and yet have zero insight into how their own actions can contribute to a problem.

[RPM]

Can you give some concrete examples of people who claim to be responsible and yet have zero insight into how their own actions contribute to a problem? And specify the problem, please.

How would you go about legislating against “irresponsible” dog breeders? First of all, what guidelines would you publish that would identify some breeders as responsible and others as irresponsible? What standards would you set that a breeder must meet in order to qualify as responsible? For instance, you might say that breeders of “teacup” poodles do not meet the responsible-breeder standard, because their dogs do not meet any recognized breed standard for poodles (standard, miniature, toy). But then those teacup breeders might turn around and establish their own breed standards and set up their own registry, sort of along the lines of the Spotted Saddle Horse people who breed for color and gait and have no breed standards for conformation, temperament, or specifically what kind of lateral gait.

What would you do to regulate the AKC so that it could no longer register any and every puppy on the registration form it sends out to people applicants?

Would you try to legislate standards for, say, breeders of deformed German Shepherds, and say that these German Shepherds could no longer be bred, but only GSDs who stand upright?

What would you do about the Jack Russell/Parson Russell/Russell Terrier fanciers and breeders? Which breed standard would you keep and which would you like to see thrown out?

Just wondering …

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Countrywood;8321433/]
If litters are produced every year year after year, even with waiting lists for the puppies, over time, the # of homes will dry up. BECAUSE DOGS LIVE 10-14 years !! So unless a dog dies young, an owner is not replacing it any time soon, and certainly not buying a new puppy every year. The owner will wait 10-14 years to buy their next puppy (if they replace the dog ) [/QUOTE]

Been gone all day and have to get up early for a dog event…but I disagree with this idea. People who own purebred dogs because they love the breed tend to own several (or many). I actually can’t think of anyone off the top of my head that owns my breed (and hunts, hunt tests, or shows) that only own one. In fact, I just got my puppy in part because my next older dog is almost 6 and I don’t want too many years in between them…my dogs now are <1, 5, 9 and 14.

“Breed fanciers” as AKC calls them are a different type of owner. They are not typically “pet” owners that own a pet dog and then get another one when it dies.

So…lots more in your posts but in general I don’t think you have any evidence to support these theories that all breeders contribute to the oversaturation of the market. The market for a specific breed of well-bred dog is not the same as the pet dog market.

[Houndhill]

[QUOTE=Houndhill;8321808]
Respectfully, I must disagree with you.

In Scandinavia, they have no overpopulation of dogs at all, yet it is considered unethical to spay or neuter except for medical or behavioral reasons.

I am a breeder, who would never pass the standards kennels must pass. I whelp litters in my bedroom. Not an impervial surface that can be hosed down.

I feel it is in the best interest of my giant sighthound breed to keep them intact, be they companions only, or shown, because of health risks of cancers, joint injuries, etc. I do not require puppies that I have bred to be s/n unless it is medically advisable.

I have had Irish Wolfhounds 45 years, and have dedicated my life to them. Who in this breeder licensing scheme would be telling me how I should keep my hounds?[/QUOTE]
U

[Countrywood]

The problems of over saturation is in the pet market and the breeders who sell to that are the subject of my comments

[scierra]

Well there are breeders and “greeders”. The former breed to better their chosen breed and are responsible for what they bring into the world. The later, breed to line their pockets and take no responsibility for what they bring into the world.

[MistyBlue]

[QUOTE=Countrywood;8321861]
The problems of over saturation is in the pet market and the breeders who sell to that are the subject of my comments[/QUOTE]

So you don’t want anyone to sell to the pet market? Only to working or showing dog markets? So, eliminate pets?
Are pet owners not allowed to have well bred pets then?
I know quite a few people with multiple dogs that aren’t showing them and they’re definitely not breeds who have jobs other than as companions. Are they now only allowed to have 1 or maybe 2 at a time due to the whims of someone else?
So what would be done for companion breeds? Poms, Maltese, Tzus, Chis, etc?

[khall]

What about the designer dog craze? Are they responsible breeders? Is having 16-17 litters a year being a responsible breeder? IMO No, but people will buy them (have a friend that bought 2 labradoodles) for whatever reason.

Puppy mills with bad care and sick dogs is another whole different issue. Recently Pet Land has been in the news here in GA selling sick puppies, puppy mill puppies with genetic issues and other problems. I just wished people would educate themselves before adopting or buying, understand what they are getting into regardless of the dog.

[RPM]

Houndhill, are you talking about all Scandinavia, or each country individually? I just read this in a 2011 online article:

The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act makes it clear that surgical procedures are not to be used to adapt animals to the needs of humans, unless strictly necessary.

“It’s not the dog’s need, given there are no medical considerations,” says Torunn Knævelsrud, head of Section for Animal Welfare and Fish Health at the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA).

According to the NFSA it’s essential for vets to make decisions regarding the necessity of a neutering or spaying on a case-by-case basis.

“Neutering can never be a substitute for proper training of a dog,” says Knævelsrud.

“The likelihood of diseases has to be weighed against the disadvantage of neutering,” she adds.

“As we see it the risk of healthy female dogs getting afflicted, with for instance a septic uterus or with mammary gland tumours, is not weighty enough to merit permitting spaying.”

I haven’t seen anything yet about Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or Iceland. And according to this article, in Norway as of 2011 it was illegal to spay or neuter, not just unethical.

[IdahoRider]

@corgif;8321273

The problem of pet over-population is less due to breeders than it is to irresponsible OWNERS who do not spay/neuter or keep their intact dogs safely confined.

But those people who indiscriminately breed their animals (for whatever reason-greed, ignorance, laziness) ARE breeders. And I say that as someone who has purchased my last three dogs from breeders.

I can’t tell you how often I hear people say that they aren’t breeders, they just want a couple of litters out of their nice pet. Or they didn’t know how hard it would be to keep their intact male away from their intact female. It was an accident! They aren’t breeders. Or how they just want to give pet owners the opportunity to buy a pet dog at a reasonable price, not like those competition people who are breeders.

If you produce a litter, you’re a breeder. Whether you are a good breeder who is a responsible steward of your breed is something else entirely. But you’re still a breeder.
Sheilah

[RPM]

Houndhill, are you talking about all Scandinavia, or each country individually? I just read this in a 2011 online article:

The Norwegian Animal Welfare Act makes it clear that surgical procedures are not to be used to adapt animals to the needs of humans, unless strictly necessary.

“It’s not the dog’s need, given there are no medical considerations,” says Torunn Knævelsrud, head of Section for Animal Welfare and Fish Health at the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA).

According to the NFSA it’s essential for vets to make decisions regarding the necessity of a neutering or spaying on a case-by-case basis.

“Neutering can never be a substitute for proper training of a dog,” says Knævelsrud.

“The likelihood of diseases has to be weighed against the disadvantage of neutering,” she adds.

“As we see it the risk of healthy female dogs getting afflicted, with for instance a septic uterus or with mammary gland tumours, is not weighty enough to merit permitting spaying.”

I haven’t seen anything yet about Sweden, Denmark, Finland, or Iceland. But this 2011 article goes on to quote a Norwegian veterinarian who went to vet school in the US. She sees a lot of bite wounds in dogs in her practice in Norway, more than she saw in the US, and she thinks the reason is the stress of being an intact male dog surrounded by other intact males as well as females in heat. She also cites other health problems in unspayed female dogs. According to the article, most of Norway’s veterinarians want the law changed to allow spaying and neutering. The article is here:

http://sciencenordic.com/should-dogs-be-neutered

[jetsmom]

I’d like to see laws passed that any dog picked up as a stray by animal control is automatically chipped, vaccinated and spayed/neutered before being returned to owner or adopted out to anyone. If owner claims it, then they must pay for all NJ of the above to get it back. I don’t care why it was loose/ stray. If it is intact, it could have been bred and produced unwanted puppies. And if it was loose, even if it was an “accident” then they have proven they cannot guarantee the dog will not get out unsupervised and breed.

I’d also like to see money paid in registration fees to have enforcement for litter licenses and permits to have litters. Our FL is full of ads from backyard breeders that breed numerous breeds and litters per yr. We kill over 25000 pets a year at our animal services shelter. We have a law r3quiring litter licenses and breeding permits but no money for enforcement.