# Can there be a meeting of the minds?



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Is there anything we can all agree on - a base that we can all build on?

Can we agree that shelter dogs shouldn't have to die while waiting for education to work, and therefore something more is needed?

If not, then please propose a base that we can start with a meeting of the minds on, and build from there. 

I know a wonderful rescue that was built from a discussion board, and many lives have been saved, so I believe that it's possible for board members to agree on a problem and work towards solving it. 

Let's get creative !!! Where should we start? What is our bottom line?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I thought we could actually agree that there are too many dogs and not enough homes, but we've gotten some argument about that, so, no, I doubt it.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

RonE said:


> I thought we could actually agree that there are too many dogs and not enough homes, but we've gotten some argument about that, so, no, I doubt it.


Only one person argued that, and the logic sounds similar to the people that claim we never went to the moon and there was no Holocaust.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

Did they actually land on the moon?


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

I disagree with everything you said.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

There are many shelters that take care of the unbelievable number of unwanted animals out there. The battle that those who care are fighting is a loosing one currently.

If the millers and corporate breeders who mass produce puppies in terrible conditions, and sell them without doing any health testing can be shut down then the battle can begun to be won.


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men to nothing. Don't stop fighting.


----------



## Snowshoe (Nov 17, 2006)

I really hope that some compromise can be reached with all of this. 

For one thing, no one can ignore the pet over population problem. By "over population" I mean the unwanted pets in shelters. Not the ones that already have home. 

That may be obvious to some, but in other people's minds buying any kind of dog equals taking a home away from a shelter dog. 

In my mind all dogs should have homes, regardless of whether they were born to a mutt or to a pure bred. 

So yes, let's do something about the dogs in shelters. 

Everyone should volunteer at least one day every couple of months. Many shelters understand that most of us are under time constraints and will let you work something out. 

Everyone with a house who loves animals and has the room should try to foster at least one dog every couple of years. That would really help keep the number of dogs out of shelters. 

Everyone who doesn't want to adopt should only get from rescues and reputable breeders. Both *most of the time* carefully scan and screen potentially dog and puppy buyers. 

Those people that don't have the proper time, resources, etc. are quickly weeded out. 

What does that mean for "Joe Blow?" 

It means that not everyone that wants a dog will be able to have a dog. Sorry folks, but that's the way this will end up working. 

Facing facts, owning a dog is not a God given right, as so many of these terrible pet owners seem to think. It can be taken away. If these terrible people were not allowed to buy in the first place, we'd have no need for shelters. 

That's right, it's EVERYONE's fault: the producer of these poor quality, sick puppies and the people that purchase them, whatever their reasons. 

If dogs were at a premium rather then an over flow, there would be no need for shelters. People would save their money for years, and end up on a waiting list for a shelter or a great breeder. 

So, how do we do that? Pass heavier legislation for commercial dog producers, pet brokers, and petstores. That's a good start to end this debate. Let's sucker punch the puppymills right were it counts, and stop buying from petstores! 

The government will be slow to catch up, but if people take a stand and boycott, it cannot be ignored.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just wish people would stop insinuating that I don't care about the health of dogs or I abuse my dogs because of my decisions for them. To me that is just plain rude.

And I agree with Snowshoe.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Orange County Ca said:


> I disagree with everything you said.


Then how about trying to find something we can agree on?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Snowshoe said:


> I really hope that some compromise can be reached with all of this.
> 
> For one thing, no one can ignore the pet over population problem. By "over population" I mean the unwanted pets in shelters. Not the ones that already have home.
> 
> ...


Ok, it sounds like a meeting of the minds might be about puppymills. Is there anyone that doesn't think that puppymills are a big part of the problem?

Assuming that gets no answers, I personally don't think that the answer is education. My first puppymill rescue was in 1986, and I've seen little change since that. It seemed that for awhile, people were getting the message and there was a shift to Petco type stores where they sponsored mobile adoptions by giving space to rescue groups instead of selling puppymilled dogs/cats. But lately, I've seen more Petland type franchises opening up as well as internet sales of dogs. So I actually feel like we're going backwards, especially after the government grant that was recently given to the Hunte Corporation to aid puppymillers, and the AKC's involvement with PMs as well. I think the pet stores are also getting smarter and are using our educational information against us. For instance it's not uncommon to have pet store staff say that the dogs don't come from puppymills, they come from breeders. Patrons don't seem to realize that it's the same thing - puppymills ARE breeders. They will also lie and say the puppy came from a responsible breeder that was visited by the store manager who saw that the dogs were treated well. This also is impossible since responsible breeders would never sell through pet stores.

So IMO, I think the best way to stop them is through legislation that would make it more and more difficult to profit from puppies. The problem is, just like the current s/n legislation, any attempt to target puppymillers brings out all the breeders, ready to fight against any legislation that would affect ANY breeder.

So what else can be done?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Doesn't look like there's going to be any meeting of the minds tonight.

Everybody adjourn to your respective corners and we'll see about another round tomorrow. For the moment, this thread is closed.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Everyone's goal is to keep Grandpaw RonE happy. I do like grumpy Grandpaw RonE's rule, but not as much as poignant Grandpaw RonE telling the tall tales of how Esther will soon take over the world. So play nice so we all can enjoy Grandpaw RonE, and the good in us all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Thank you !! I hope everyone can squelch their grumpiness. There must be a common ground where we can all meet. I'd think it was *love of dogs* because we're all here, but I sense that means different things to different people. So what I'm looking for is not so much about what dogs can do for us, but what can we do for the dogs? Doesn't it seem that if we truly do love dogs, that we would want the best for them? 

Is there a change in the world that you would like to see made for the dogs? Not just your dog, your breed, but with the whole species? If so, do you have some suggestions how that might be made to happen?

Are there some bottom line things you'd like to see fixed in the dog world? Is there something we can all agree on, and maybe find a way to work towards?

Is there a better question you would like asked that might bring about a meeting of the minds?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I have basically come up with this: Whatever you do, someone will find fault with it. This goes for dogs too. 

So I can agree to disagree with many people and do what is right by me and my ethics and move on.


----------



## andromelas (May 8, 2007)

how about dogs dont care about politics, they want to eat and poop and play and make somebody happy. 


there is petfinder.com there are over 100,000 dogs and 90,000
cats available for adoption. 
If you cant find a dog you want on there you arent looking hard enough. 

the city of chicago euthanizes over 500 dogs and cats a week. 
the cost for this and the disposal is staggering, and its like this all over the country. 
you have better things to spend your tax dollars on. no matter what your politics. 

this is the tip of the iceberg. 

rescue a dog. save your city, town etc some money, 

spay or neuter your dog, save yourself and the taxpayers more money.

give your dog a hug and a biscuit for being a good friend and a tax saving.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

andromelas said:


> how about dogs dont care about politics, they want to eat and poop and play and make somebody happy.
> 
> 
> there is petfinder.com there are over 100,000 dogs and 90,000
> ...


That's all good advice, but how do we educate the public to follow that advice? When a dog or cat is dying every 9 seconds in U.S. shelters, how can we even educate fast enough to save them? And what of those that refuse to listen and insist on making more of what we already have too much of?

Another question I thought of that might bring about a consensus -- what, in your opinion (board members) is the worst crime that people perpetrate against dogs that is not illegal?


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

OK well I am going to be the pariah on the list as a breeder..... not often but still a breeder..... 

and here is what I think..... 

I think it is a misnomer to assume that people who want a purebred dog will rescue.... so that is that .... 

I also find it highly offensive when I see the purebred dog that I love dying at age six.... yet people immediately condemn me for working to improve that. They are just as valuable as mixed breeds and deserve to have someone advocating for them as well...... 

However, personally I think that we should have an identification law....and I realize that will only impact responsible breeders but I would like to see an identification law..... so if you want to register your pups through a registering body... AKC UKC.... whatever... you should have to identify your pups with a chip or tatoo..... that goes back to the breeder.... most reputable breeders do this anyway.... and it might just make a dent in some of the puppymill pups that they sell as AKC registered..... its not a big deal..... then make the breeder take back his puppy or pay a fee to have the puppy cared for at the shelter until its picked up or adopted or whatever. 

I don't have the logistics worked out in my head.... but its just a thought at 7 20 in the morning . 

We also have to make it so that people who want purebred dogs can find reputable breeders ..... so many people think that when you want a puppy you go to the petstore or the newspaper which is where the backyard breeder advertises. I always recommend people go to the shelter first.... . I spend alot of time convincing them they don't want one of my puppies..... but if we are going to target the puppymills then responsible breeders need to be out there and available to people and we don't do a good job of that. 

s


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

Shalva,
The identification law you mentioned sounds like such a great idea! I know my dogs have a chip but I often wonder if they get out will someone check for one? I just train dogs at a two local shelters so when I go in this week I am going to see if they check for chips. That idea would also might work in prosecuting owners if they abuse an animal or dump it off at an area pound. I also think that if manditory people that do tattooing would give a great discount for something like this. With the tattooing shelters and vets would not have to purchase a gun to check the numbers. This idea has me so excited! It would take time but you have come up with the best idea!

I also speak at area schools with my dogs who are purebreds but rescues and the kids just love them. So I think the more people that get out there and show how great a rescue can be the better.


----------



## peace36 (Jan 29, 2007)

Snowshoe said:


> Everyone who doesn't want to adopt should only get from rescues and reputable breeders. Both *most of the time* carefully scan and screen potentially dog and puppy buyers.
> 
> Those people that don't have the proper time, resources, etc. are quickly weeded out.
> 
> ...



The "Joe Blows" will keep the problem going. If they are found unfit to adopt which a great many people are they will be the ones to keep pet shops and puppy mills going.


----------



## Dorygirl (Mar 16, 2007)

Snowshoe, your words remind me of the same points made when talking about parents/children. 
People say you need a license to drive a car or to go fishing, but any idiot can have a child.
Our society has yet to figure out how to help neglected and abused children. I'm afraid the plight of dogs and cats is further down the list.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> That's all good advice, but how do we educate the public to follow that advice? When a dog or cat is dying every 9 seconds in U.S. shelters, how can we even educate fast enough to save them? And what of those that refuse to listen and insist on making more of what we already have too much of?
> 
> Another question I thought of that might bring about a consensus -- what, in your opinion (board members) is the worst crime that people perpetrate against dogs that is not illegal?


You can't educate people, by the time they are adults, to have compassion for animals. They either have it or they don't by then, in my opinion. The only way you can influence those type people is to pass laws and enforce them. We have done that for years with Rabies, and even then, there are small segments of our society that don't believe in even that ( until their kids get bitten by an unvaccinated dog) .. 

When I go to the dog park and see a dog that is not neuterred, ( and many times acting aggressively), I say something to the owner about it, and I am not the only one at the park that does that. I find that the neuter problem is more extensive, than the spay problem, but I also talk to people with unspayed females. Of course, most times, that female will wind up having a litter which the owner will load into a cardboard box when they are 5-6 weeks old and have a give away at the local mall parking lot, or leave at the local pound doorstep in the middle of the night. I guess that is not too surprising, since people some times do a similar thing with unwanted newborns , by leaving them outside hospitals.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Shalva said:


> OK well I am going to be the pariah on the list as a breeder..... not often but still a breeder.....
> 
> and here is what I think.....
> 
> ...


Wow, I never would have dreamed that the first person I'd have a meeting of the minds with today, would be a breeder, pariah or not. 

Your ideas are great, and I've advocated them for a long time. So how do we make it happen? As a breeder, are you able to have any effect on the breeding community to get an ID program going? My thought would be that it would be easiest to accomplish this through licensing. How do we MAKE a breeder take back, or fund care for, his/her dogs if they end up in a shelter? My thought would be that a breeder who refuses to do so would lose his/her license to breed. If the license requires microchipping, and the license requires breeders to be responsible for what they breed, then I think a penalty has to be required - like losing that license. This may not be a big problem for some breeders, like puppymillers, because they will just reclaim the dog and then kill it - but it certainly will increase the cost of doing business, and I think that's a good thing.

I've always felt that if all breeders were forced to do what responsible breeders are already doing, it would drive move of them out of business, and it would support and endorse those that are doing it right. It also wouldn't harshly effect those who are doing it right already. But the problem I see is that since most of the breeders out there are not responsible, then how do we keep that majority from fighting the potential laws that would require them to be responsible? How do we convince the responsible breeders that such laws are to make all breeders emulate their level of quality breeding, and not let them fall for the paranoid thought that such laws are an AR plot to shut them all down? 

As for responsible breeders being "out there" and available to people, I agree, because now the public almost has to have as much training and knowledge as the responsible breeder his/herself in order to recognize a responsible breeder. I think there needs to be some sort of "good housekeeping seal of breeders." Ideally an entity like the AKC could do that, especially since so many people think that AKC means a seal of approval and quality. But if not them, what about a new organization? It's funding would probably have to be through some other source besides the breeders themselves to prevent any sort of ethics problems. But it would also have to be something both the public and the breeders would respect. Maybe even a "consumer's report" of the breeding world. This too would influence breeders to raise their standards in order to qualify for their seal of approval, 5 stars, or whatever.

The one thing I am concerned about though in regards to responsible breeders (RBs) becoming more high profile is that they will be trying to meet a demand. Breeding more in order to supply the public with the puppies it wants is not what responsible breeding is all about. And yet if you aren't giving the public what it wants, how do you prevent them from going to an irresponsible breeder that will?

I really think your ideas are good ones, and I hope we can smooth the edges and build from there. I also wanted to express my sympathies if the part about your 6 year old dog dying was more than just an example. But this is one of the things I've struggled with - bad breeding doesn't necessarily mean a shorter life, or even health problems. The odds are stacked against a badly bred, and/or puppymilled dog, but what of the ones that lead long, disease free lives? One of my puppymill dogs just died at the age of 20. Of course I've had others just like her die at 8. But if health and longevity are the goal, will all your breed improvements make one of your puppies live longer than my 20 year old? I'm really struggling with this. I abhor puppymills so much, but to watch her keep on ticking, long past expectations.......... <shrug>. Who knows though, maybe if SHE had been responsibly bred, she would have lasted to 25? That's that glass half full vs. half empty thing, I think. 



Jen D said:


> Shalva,
> The identification law you mentioned sounds like such a great idea! I know my dogs have a chip but I often wonder if they get out will someone check for one? I just train dogs at a two local shelters so when I go in this week I am going to see if they check for chips. That idea would also might work in prosecuting owners if they abuse an animal or dump it off at an area pound. I also think that if manditory people that do tattooing would give a great discount for something like this. With the tattooing shelters and vets would not have to purchase a gun to check the numbers. This idea has me so excited! It would take time but you have come up with the best idea!
> 
> I also speak at area schools with my dogs who are purebreds but rescues and the kids just love them. So I think the more people that get out there and show how great a rescue can be the better.


My dogs are both tattooed and chipped. Often rescue volunteers are certified to offer tattooing through the tattoo registries. It's unlikely that they can discount the fees much because the fees are already very low, and the tattoo-ist gets very little, usually enough to cover mileage and equipment, and the registry really needs the nominal fee they get in order to stay in business and be there when they are needed for rehoming lost animals. It IS a problem, like you say, when the public finds a lost dog, and they don't know if the dog is chipped, and they don't know how to find out. Tattooing can cause the same problems if the dog has lost it's tatoo tag and the public doesn't know what the numbers mean or where to call to report the dog lost. Ideally they would turn the dog into the shelter, but as long as dogs are dying there, a segment of the population would rather do anything but condemn the dog by turning it in, even if it meant that it never got home again. I don't know the answer to this problem, and I just pray that if mine ever get out, they are found by someone who knows what to do.

Your idea of rescue going to the schools is a good one, because the earlier we can reach the kids, the less chance they will be able to say that they didn't know rescue existed, and didn't know the problems inherent with pet shop puppies. This may make their first dog purchase or adoption be a more well thought out one.



peace36 said:


> The "Joe Blows" will keep the problem going. If they are found unfit to adopt which a great many people are they will be the ones to keep pet shops and puppy mills going.


Might this be a good reason why we need to legislate the way to more responsible choices of a source for animals? If pet shops and puppymills were legislated out of the business of selling puppies, what would Joe Blow do then? IMO, he'd probably end up dealing with backyard breeders (BYBs) but wouldn't that be a little bit of an improvement? What is the solution in your opinion?



Dorygirl said:


> Snowshoe, your words remind me of the same points made when talking about parents/children.
> People say you need a license to drive a car or to go fishing, but any idiot can have a child.
> Our society has yet to figure out how to help neglected and abused children. I'm afraid the plight of dogs and cats is further down the list.


I always liked Jane Goodall's theory of starting at the roots. If we focus on improving life for cats and dogs, isn't it reasonable to believe there will be more compassion for human victims of abuse too? Studies show that those who abuse animals are usually abusing their children and spouses too. Doesn't it make sense to assume that this works the other way around as well?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Captbob said:


> You can't educate people, by the time they are adults, to have compassion for animals. They either have it or they don't by then, in my opinion. The only way you can influence those type people is to pass laws and enforce them. We have done that for years with Rabies, and even then, there are small segments of our society that don't believe in even that ( until their kids get bitten by an unvaccinated dog) ..
> .


I've always wished I knew where empathy comes from, and how we can instill it in our children. Why does one child in a family have it, and another child in the same family lack it? If we could find a way to "inject" it into our children at an early age, it would not only make things better for the animals, but also the child's interactions with other children. But even if we found a way, how do we get past parents who would complain that empathy and compassion were weaknesses? The yahoo that's slapping his wife around and terrorizing the neighbors is unlikely to want his child turned into one of those @#$% do-gooders. So does having freedom in America mean that those yahoos get to set the rules and continue the victimization?

Or do I just need more sleep?


----------



## DogueEdaddy (Mar 24, 2007)

Thanks folks. I really appreciate the changed tone and quality of this thread as compared with the others on this subject. I doubt if we can come up with a "magic bullet" solution to the problem at hand, but lets keep trying.

I do like the tattoo idea. I had my Boxer tattooed and it was relatively inexpensive. In my state (PA), you have to tattoo in order to get a cheap lifetime license (even cheaper if S/N). It is more recognizable and positive. I think if it was tied to breeders and sellers of puppies that it might go a long way to identify the responsible vs irresponsible. It could be made a requirement of selling any puppy. Of course the millers would scream, but I think the responsible breeders and owners could drown out their screams. Of course this is only my opinion, but in any event, lets keep the positive dialog coming.

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

I have flat coated retrievers and the average lifespan of a flat coated retriever is 6 due to a very high incidence of cancer caused by a genetic bottleneck at wwII..... unfortunately it is not an example, it is a fact and keep in mind with that being an average.... that means many are dying at 1 or 2 of cancer..... we get them all from lymphosarcomas. hemangiosarcomas, osteosarcomas hystiocytosis..... etc etc...... we get them all so it makes me mad when people don't value all dogs..... I work very hard to try and improve the health of this breed in the same way that you work very hard to save the shelter pups.... so thanks for your comments.... I hate seeing puppies at a year old dying of cancer ..... 

i think the best way to advocate for an identification process would be to go through the national breed clubs..... the flat coated retriever society really frowns upon breeders that don't take puppies back..... and has sent letters of warning to those whose pups end up in rescue..... I know that our national rescue chair has been advocating for years to have all puppies sent with permanent identification.... the Canadian Kennel club has been doing it for years..... (speaking of which I need to get a tattoo series paperwork done) I think the more national breed clubs that can institute a change like this, it could push the AKC .... as far as taking pups back.... well of course you can't mandate..... I dont know how you could..... but in the same way that the akc fines and mandates other things... I dont see why they couldn't mandate this. 

finally.... your concern about breeders breeding more to meet demand..... is a legitimate problem.... not that I think responsible breeders will breed more to meet demand.... as that is what makes us responsible.... however, the question is goign to be demand... wtih the average reputable breeder breeding a bitch two or three times over their lifetime.... I have often wondered if responsible breeders who breed when we want to keep a pup could keep up with the demand. My last litter was almost 3 years ago..... most of my friends only breed every 3 or 4 years..... I am having two litters this summer just because the timing is right but then I probably won't breed again for 3 or 4 years..... most of the people by the time they get a puppy in their hands will have been on my waiting list for close to 11 mos. is the average American going to wait 11 mos. for a puppy???? 

Maybe this is the sociologist in me, but I see this as a cultural problem..... we view having dogs as a right, we dont watn to wait for anything..... 

to me the problem is impulsive..... and in this capitalist society its all about making money..... so with people unwilling to wait.... .being impulsive.... getting rid of the byb's and the puppymills is only half the problem..... getting people to understand that good things come to those who wait is a big issue here. 
s


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shalva said:


> Maybe this is the sociologist in me, but I see this as a cultural problem..... we view having dogs as a right, we dont watn to wait for anything.....
> 
> to me the problem is impulsive..... and in this capitalist society its all about making money..... so with people unwilling to wait.... .being impulsive.... getting rid of the byb's and the puppymills is only half the problem..... getting people to understand that good things come to those who wait is a big issue here.
> s


Bingo. 

(apparently this message is too short)


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

That's a huge part of it. We view owning animals as a part of a rights but that isn't true. Having a maid clean up your house isn't a right, it's not something all people can afford and should have. Same for dogs, they take a lot of money and time to take care of and not everyone should have them. They aren't something you deserve to have or something that you can own. If you have a dog it's part of your family and a huge part of your life and the fact that some people think it's okay to use them for money or that it's okay to buy one and then use it for something as sickening as fighting or as a punching bag for when you get mad is inhumane and just shows how heartless some people can be.


----------



## Snowshoe (Nov 17, 2006)

My concern with sending puppies back to puppy mills is what the millers would do to them once they got them back. 

What would prevent these poor, unwanted puppies from having "accidents" and being killed by the millers to make room for younger puppies? 

The government won't go for that, I doubt. So many of these puppy farms were started BY the government to keep starving farmers afloat. 

The only way to stop the puppy mills is to stop buying puppies from them. OR, they should inact some law that puppies have to pass x amount of health certifications and clearances from a vet not affiliated with the petstore in any way before they sell them. 

I agree that all puppy store puppies should be neutered before they are sold, just like they have to do in a shelter situation. 

I don't think that its ideal for their health, but it would stop the over population problem. 

I'd really like to figure out a way to keep track of what puppies came from what places... maybe a tatoo at birth, like Shalva suggested. That way, we'd k now if the majority of the dogs in the pounds came from accidental breedings, a puppy mill, a back yard breeder, or ethical breeders. 

Once we could find where these dogs came from, then we could work on a better solution, rather then just putting band aids everywhere. 

Once we start to fix that problem, then we can work on why people are getting rid of their dogs- are they uneducated about the breed and unable to handle it once it is grown? Are they experiencing the loss of a home, marriage, or job and are then unable to care for the dog? Does the dog have a health or behavior problem that the owner can't afford? 

There, in my opinion, is where education comes in. Leaflets, flyers, a mandatory assembly day for grade school kids that talks about pet responsibility, for example. 

However, who is going to pay for all of this? The government? I doubt that. Tax payers? Most of us feel like our taxes are high enough. 

Also, I just don't get why the gov't is putting the smack down on citizens, rather then businesses in regards to spaying and neutering pets. 

If the businesses would spay and neuter before selling, then no one would have to worry about this. It would force the people who wanted an unspayed dog to go to a breeder (hopefully a good one). 

If a person sells puppies out of their home, and if they make a monitary profit that is over x amount per year, wouldn't the governemtn have to know about them for tax purposes? 

In that way, couldn't they track who was breeding with out limiting tax payers rights?


----------



## sobreeze (Oct 31, 2006)

I have been gone on a trip . I realy missed you all . Not sure what you all are fighting about most of you all do rescue work like me or are resonsible breeders . To educate will take many many years to pass laws will only work for some the ones that obey the laws every day not the ones that drive after lic. was revolked or run stop lights when no one is looking . I think I am doing the most I can do to help . I foster for rescues work with rescue on vet day I even will be vac. for a rescue that dont have a lot of money. So I will order there shots and give to there dogs to help them out . I will continue to foster a few dogs at a time . And I feel good for every one that is helped and given a home and not put to sleep in a dark lonely room with no one to love them . So helping one dog at a time is better than sitting there and saying i wish i could help homeless pets . But my house is too small , I already have a dog , I cant aford it , I have kids , I dont have kids , My husband dont want too , My wife dont want too you can one dog at a time in many different ways . 
And as for breeders if you are a responsible breeder and work or show your dogs or any animal you breed and if you goal is to better that breed we do need you and you have every right to show off what you have done . 
But now puppie mills are different than good breeders a puppy miller breeds there females every heat no skips the end result is money how much can this one dog make for me even if she is not breeding quality . I know I have 2 rescued boston terriers that were puppy mill puppy makers . One Izzy we got out and I adopted her at 2 1/2 years old only 2 litters of pups none lived . But Magnalyn 7 year old bostom puppy mill puppy maker had pups every year but lost her last litter . If you look at her she is not very good quality boston and the years have been hard on her . Her body is broken down from having so many babies and she is always scared. My biggest hope for her is she can be happy and not so scared maybe someday . And as for all this talk this is good for in this country our USA we are given the right to freedom to say what we think it was fought over an won . So I think we should play nice but always say what we think. I may not always agree with what you think but will defend your right to say it . Keep up this talk that how things get worked out and if one dog or animal gets saved because of this its working . Just my thoughts agree or not.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

sobreeze said:


> I have been gone on a trip . I realy missed you all . Not sure what you all are fighting about most of you all do rescue work like me or are resonsible breeders . To educate will take many many years to pass laws will only work for some the ones that obey the laws every day not the ones that drive after lic. was revolked or run stop lights when no one is looking . I think I am doing the most I can do to help . I foster for rescues work with rescue on vet day I even will be vac. for a rescue that dont have a lot of money. So I will order there shots and give to there dogs to help them out . I will continue to foster a few dogs at a time . And I feel good for every one that is helped and given a home and not put to sleep in a dark lonely room with no one to love them . So helping one dog at a time is better than sitting there and saying i wish i could help homeless pets . But my house is too small , I already have a dog , I cant aford it , I have kids , I dont have kids , My husband dont want too , My wife dont want too you can one dog at a time in many different ways .
> And as for breeders if you are a responsible breeder and work or show your dogs or any animal you breed and if you goal is to better that breed we do need you and you have every right to show off what you have done .
> But now puppie mills are different than good breeders a puppy miller breeds there females every heat no skips the end result is money how much can this one dog make for me even if she is not breeding quality . I know I have 2 rescued boston terriers that were puppy mill puppy makers . One Izzy we got out and I adopted her at 2 1/2 years old only 2 litters of pups none lived . But Magnalyn 7 year old bostom puppy mill puppy maker had pups every year but lost her last litter . If you look at her she is not very good quality boston and the years have been hard on her . Her body is broken down from having so many babies and she is always scared. My biggest hope for her is she can be happy and not so scared maybe someday . And as for all this talk this is good for in this country our USA we are given the right to freedom to say what we think it was fought over an won . So I think we should play nice but always say what we think. I may not always agree with what you think but will defend your right to say it . Keep up this talk that how things get worked out and if one dog or animal gets saved because of this its working . Just my thoughts agree or not.


if you had read the thread you would see that nobody is arguing at all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Shalva said:


> I have flat coated retrievers and the average lifespan of a flat coated retriever is 6 due to a very high incidence of cancer caused by a genetic bottleneck at wwII..... unfortunately it is not an example, it is a fact and keep in mind with that being an average.... that means many are dying at 1 or 2 of cancer..... we get them all from lymphosarcomas. hemangiosarcomas, osteosarcomas hystiocytosis..... etc etc...... we get them all so it makes me mad when people don't value all dogs..... I work very hard to try and improve the health of this breed in the same way that you work very hard to save the shelter pups.... so thanks for your comments.... I hate seeing puppies at a year old dying of cancer .....


I had no idea that flat coated retrievers had such problems. I have to ask, with all due respect, why is this breed being preserved at all? Please don't take offense, as none is intended, but with that much suffering, and assumably, the amount of time needed to effect changes in a breed's genetics, why not look at it as a lost cause and look to improve a healthier retriever breed? 



Shalva said:


> i think the best way to advocate for an identification process would be to go through the national breed clubs..... the flat coated retriever society really frowns upon breeders that don't take puppies back..... and has sent letters of warning to those whose pups end up in rescue..... I know that our national rescue chair has been advocating for years to have all puppies sent with permanent identification.... the Canadian Kennel club has been doing it for years..... (speaking of which I need to get a tattoo series paperwork done) I think the more national breed clubs that can institute a change like this, it could push the AKC .... as far as taking pups back.... well of course you can't mandate..... I dont know how you could..... but in the same way that the akc fines and mandates other things... I dont see why they couldn't mandate this.


That makes sense. Though I do worry about all the breeders that balk at the AKC adding rules, because of their tendency to run to other more disreputable fly-by-night registries. If this ever does happen, I hope they will use a recognizable tattoo registry so that the tattoos can be easily read. It's not too helpful when we get a dog that has a tattoo that only the breeder recognizes, like a litter number, or whatever it is. My dogs are registered with Tattoo-A-Pet, and their numbers are easily identifiable for anyone knowing anything about tattoo registries. It may still be difficult for John Q Public to figure out if the accompanying tag is lost, but most in the "dog world" recognize it, I think.



Shalva said:


> finally.... your concern about breeders breeding more to meet demand..... is a legitimate problem.... not that I think responsible breeders will breed more to meet demand.... as that is what makes us responsible.... however, the question is goign to be demand... wtih the average reputable breeder breeding a bitch two or three times over their lifetime.... I have often wondered if responsible breeders who breed when we want to keep a pup could keep up with the demand. My last litter was almost 3 years ago..... most of my friends only breed every 3 or 4 years..... I am having two litters this summer just because the timing is right but then I probably won't breed again for 3 or 4 years..... most of the people by the time they get a puppy in their hands will have been on my waiting list for close to 11 mos. is the average American going to wait 11 mos. for a puppy????


John Q Public won't wait that long happily, at least not at first, but just like meeting a demand isn't responsible, I don't think it's up to those of us that care about the welfare of dogs to solve John Q's lack of patience. I see "responsible breeding" as a black & white issue. You either are, or you aren't, and I'd like to see all breeders in the "are" category, which means that John Q is going to have to learn to wait. IMO, it can only better the quality of homes available, because of the education that a responsible breeder (hopefully the only choice available) would be disseminating by refusing to sell to those that wouldn't give the proper care for the lifetime of the dog. Just think if John Q knew that the only way he was going to get a dog is if he had all his ducks in a row for the future of that dog when he got it - he had the trainer booked, the vet visits booked......actually what comes to mind is those parents that already have their children enrolled in a prestigious preschool before the child is even born. I'd like to see dogs valued that much. I'd like to see forethought instead of impulse. If that were to happen, I think far less dogs would end up in pounds, and the rare one that did because the owner was incapable of caring for it, would have a waiting list of potential adopters. Wow, talk about pipe dreams. It's just that I look in my dog's eyes and he is sooooo worth it.



Shalva said:


> Maybe this is the sociologist in me, but I see this as a cultural problem..... we view having dogs as a right, we dont watn to wait for anything.....
> 
> to me the problem is impulsive..... and in this capitalist society its all about making money..... so with people unwilling to wait.... .being impulsive.... getting rid of the byb's and the puppymills is only half the problem..... getting people to understand that good things come to those who wait is a big issue here.
> s


But if we got rid of the puppymills and BYBs, the public wouldn't have any choice about waiting. The source of dogs (responsible breeders) would mandate they wait, simply by being responsible breeders. I do think though, and would like to throw this into the mix, that if more breeders were forced to raise their standards or get out of breeding, then even if they weren't trying to meet a demand, there would be more dogs available. If there are 10 breeders, and only 2 qualify as being responsible, but the rest are mandated to qualify, I think that 3 of them might become responsible and 5 might give up breeding altogether. So instead of 2 breeders producing quality dogs, you now have 5, which will increase the production of quality dogs. Does that make sense? So maybe people will only have to wait 6 months?


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

The flat coat is the only true all purpose retriever out there right now..... goldens and labs have divided into show and field lines..... Tollers are fairly new but smaller..... than flat coats..... and I have seen many tollers with sharp personalities, not all but many are aloof and more one person dogs.... 

Flat coats are an all purpose hunting retriever designed to go out to hunt and bring home dinner during the day and be a family pet at night .... temperment wise they are very different from the other retrievers. They are higher energy and funny as funny can be.... not nearly as sedate as goldens and labs... not as aloof as chessies and curlies and different than tollers. So for a retriever they are a great dog.... 

I think it is sad whenever we lose any breed..... and I realize to a rescue person that breeds don't matter.... but I find it sad whenever an animal becomes extinct which is what nearly happened to the flat coat at world war II..... 

There is alot of time and energy and heartbreak involved but we are making headway.... and there are major research studies going on to determine the cancer issue. be aware that outside of cancer.... flat coats do not have the orthopedic issues that many other breeds have.... they do not have elbow problems allergies, hotspots are rare..... so while cancer is a huge problem... we are free of other health issues.... so it balances out..... 

does cancer cause suffering.... absolutely
does hip dysplasia cause suffering without a doubt..... but do we say lets get rid of labs and call it a lost cause because they get hip dysplasia.... no we don't 

this is a mixed bag that you are talking about..... 

stopping byb's who don't do health clearances and puppymills who don't give two hoots about their dogs..... but many rescuers also condemn the breeders who are working hard to preserve, maintain and improve the health of purebred dogs.... 

so lets just say you do manage to stop Puppymills and BYB's who is left....???? the responsible breeder..... and it is going to be left to us to try and improve the health of the breeds we love. 

I can't imagine not having flat coats in my life.... the short time I have with them is better than never being with them at all..... I have not had cancer in my dogs..... I work hard to make sure I am breeding to healthy lines.... and like I said we are making headway..... so what can you do.... give up and lose a great all purpose working dog..... or take the heartache and do what you can do to try and help the breed you love???? 
not a hard decision to make. 
s


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

Mabe it is luck but I have not met to many mean people that own dogs! I think that most are not educated enough to know what to do when they get a pup as far as training.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

I find it rude to ask someone why should thier beloved breed be around. Why shouldn't it exist? There is no reason for it not to. Are there health problems? Yes, there are in EVERY breed and EVERY mix. The responsible breeders try to work to breed for and consider health issues when they ponder on who to breed to. They do DNA testing and OFA, etc etc. My breed club has worked to develop 3 DNA tests for different genetic diseases in my breed and we are working with researchers on 2 more. Just because you don't see the need or reason for a specific breed of dog does not mean everyone or even many agree with you. the breed wouldn't exist anymore if there was no one that loved that breed. You come across as self righteous and downright rude to purebred dog breeders.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Shalva said:


> The flat coat is the only true all purpose retriever out there right now..... goldens and labs have divided into show and field lines..... Tollers are fairly new but smaller..... than flat coats..... and I have seen many tollers with sharp personalities, not all but many are aloof and more one person dogs....
> 
> Flat coats are an all purpose hunting retriever designed to go out to hunt and bring home dinner during the day and be a family pet at night .... temperment wise they are very different from the other retrievers. They are higher energy and funny as funny can be.... not nearly as sedate as goldens and labs... not as aloof as chessies and curlies and different than tollers. So for a retriever they are a great dog....
> 
> ...


Thank you for the explanation, and for not taking offense. I don't know your breed, nor the fine nuances between it and similar breeds. As for rescue, I think a generalization could be made that isn't much different than the generalizations made about breeders. Yes, some rescuers are anti-breeding as long as dogs are dying for lack of homes. But many are also breed specific where their energies are just as dedicated to a breed as yours are. For some of us though, we'd like to see the continuation of the breed we love, but we put the individual dog's survival before the survival of the breed. A breed is a non-entity, it's really just a description, but a dog, even though a member of that breed, is a sentient creature that suffers or thrives depending on our decisions about it. So even though some rescuers could be total fans of a breed, completely enamored by it, if they were told that they could control whether the dog in front of them died, or the breed came to an end, they would choose the dog in front of them to live. 

I wonder how many people would feel that same way, that the individual dog is more important than the breed, if the choice was between their own beloved dog and a given breed?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Who exactly is it that you are talking to? 
I don't think anyone has anything against specific dog breeds. I just think that sometimes a love for a certain breed blinds people from seeing what is better for that breed. I love poodles but I don't see the need for 3 different sizes of them. One would be fine for me and even though I love the mini and toys I think they have more health problems then the standard because of joint problems and such. If it came down to what was better for the breed and what I wanted I would pick to do what is best for the breed. That's my opinion.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> I find it rude to ask someone why should thier beloved breed be around. Why shouldn't it exist? There is no reason for it not to. Are there health problems? Yes, there are in EVERY breed and EVERY mix. The responsible breeders try to work to breed for and consider health issues when they ponder on who to breed to. They do DNA testing and OFA, etc etc. My breed club has worked to develop 3 DNA tests for different genetic diseases in my breed and we are working with researchers on 2 more. Just because you don't see the need or reason for a specific breed of dog does not mean everyone or even many agree with you. the breed wouldn't exist anymore if there was no one that loved that breed. You come across as self righteous and downright rude to purebred dog breeders.


What's rude is to attempt to turn a civil discussion into a war. Why do you do that? I respectfully asked the theory behind preserving a breed that carried such an agonizing disease. If no one ever asked, how could they be educated on the subject? The answer was also respectful, and I more clearly understand because of that answer. But you'd like to stop that kind of exchange?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Who exactly is it that you are talking to?
> I don't think anyone has anything against specific dog breeds. I just think that sometimes a love for a certain breed blinds people from seeing what is better for that breed. I love poodles but I don't see the need for 3 different sizes of them. One would be fine for me and even though I love the mini and toys I think they have more health problems then the standard because of joint problems and such. If it came down to what was better for the breed and what I wanted I would pick to do what is best for the breed. That's my opinion.


Actually, smaller breeds have less problems in some joints, more in others. You'll rarely find HD in a toy but you'll be more likely to find luxating patellas. It's a trade off sort of thing.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Who exactly is it that you are talking to?
> I don't think anyone has anything against specific dog breeds. I just think that sometimes a love for a certain breed blinds people from seeing what is better for that breed. I love poodles but I don't see the need for 3 different sizes of them. One would be fine for me and even though I love the mini and toys I think they have more health problems then the standard because of joint problems and such. If it came down to what was better for the breed and what I wanted I would pick to do what is best for the breed. That's my opinion.


Are you saying that you would prefer there to be only one size of poodle - the Standard? What of those people who can't physically handle a large dog? 

Also, one thing you might consider is that if you are only seeing shelter and rescue dogs, the odds are you're seeing dogs bred by puppymills and BYBs. You're right that there are a lot of health problems in poodles, especially small ones, but if you think about it, there aren't as many standard poodles out there, mainly because they aren't puppymilled as much. So if the majority of poodles of all sizes are bred badly, then the majority of poodles you'll see are going to be bad quality poodles, and if the majority of those badly bred poodles are toys and minis, then you're going to think that standards are healthier. Think what would happen to the minis and toys if the only one breeding them were responsible breeders? Think of how different they would be if they were bred to standard and the breeders were attempting to breed those health problems out of the breed. Luxating patella is a big problem - what if breeders were only breeding parents that were clear of that problem, and had been for several generations. Puppymillers don't care about such things, and likely don't even know about it.

I just don't think one can judge a breed, especially a popular one, by the specimens of that breed that are usually seen. I tend to believe that the breeds that need to end are the ones that have physical problems that are caused by the standard - like some of the brachycephalic dogs. But I can't get behind the suggestion that a breed should go extinct because of the puppymilled examples of that breed. Let's have the extinction of puppymilling, not the extinction of the breed.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> What's rude is to attempt to turn a civil discussion into a war. Why do you do that? I respectfully asked the theory behind preserving a breed that carried such an agonizing disease. If no one ever asked, how could they be educated on the subject? The answer was also respectful, and I more clearly understand because of that answer. But you'd like to stop that kind of exchange?


He does it because he enjoys it, "In my opinion"........


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

As I said I love minis and toys and I would rather see them around then go exstinct but if it came down to what was better for the breed that is what I would chose. If bad breeders keep breeding them to the point that more toys then not are unable to walk properly at the age of 2 because of hip problems then I would rather see the breeding for them stop all together then risk the health and happiness of one of my favorite breeds. If we could stop BYB and puppymills then I would more then happy and would support good breeding of toy and mini poodles. I just don't want to see the breed ruined because of it's popularity and that is what I'm seeing. I know there are good poodle breeders out there, I just wish there were more of them. Now people are using the poodle as one of there main ingrediants for desinger dogs and that's more then a little annoying to me. 

I agree that breeding of brachycephalic dogs needs to stop though. Flat faced cats aren't much better off. My friends Persian can't eat unless the bowl is filled to the top and it's more commen for them to have teeth problems wich this one does have. It has trouble breathing and in the summer it's even worse. I feel so bad for it every time I see it. It's so horrible.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well as I've said hip problems are not a main worry in the toys, they'd be more likely to be found in the standard poodles. If it were knee problems, it'd be different. Every breed has their set of genetic problems. Every cross can also be affected by these problems as well. 

Imo, you should never stop supporting responsible breeders of a breed simply because the BYB and mills produce unhealthy dogs. The responsible breeders are trying to fix that. If they weren't breeding then the only toy poodles that were being produced would be from BYB and mills and more toy poodles would have health problems. 

Yes it would be nice to stop the bad breeders, but not supporting the good breeders and wishing the breed extinct will do nothing to help the breed.



DogAdvocat said:


> I just don't think one can judge a breed, especially a popular one, by the specimens of that breed that are usually seen. I tend to believe that the breeds that need to end are the ones that have physical problems that are caused by the standard - like some of the brachycephalic dogs. But I can't get behind the suggestion that a breed should go extinct because of the puppymilled examples of that breed. *Let's have the extinction of puppymilling, not the extinction of the breed.*


I think you and I just found some common ground.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> What's rude is to attempt to turn a civil discussion into a war. Why do you do that? I respectfully asked the theory behind preserving a breed that carried such an agonizing disease. If no one ever asked, how could they be educated on the subject? The answer was also respectful, and I more clearly understand because of that answer. But you'd like to stop that kind of exchange?


I wasn't rude. I was simply stating that I feel it is rude that you would consider telling someone that thier breed shoudn't exist. You certainly could have asked the question without having to infer that. 

And there is also someone else posting on this thread that keeps saying they dont understand why certain breeds exist and therefore should not be bred. That is plain rude and disrespectful to those that cherish those breeds. I dont' tell you your mutt is ugly and it should be euthanized? Do I? But that is what she is saying imho. She might not have meant it as harsh as that, but that is how it is coming off to me. 

I was no where even close to rude. There was no rudeness in my post or namecalling.



xoxluvablexox said:


> Who exactly is it that you are talking to?
> I don't think anyone has anything against specific dog breeds. I just think that sometimes a love for a certain breed blinds people from seeing what is better for that breed. I love poodles but I don't see the need for 3 different sizes of them. One would be fine for me and even though I love the mini and toys I think they have more health problems then the standard because of joint problems and such. If it came down to what was better for the breed and what I wanted I would pick to do what is best for the breed. That's my opinion.



Because YOU can't see a 'need' for a breed, it shouldn't exist? Your opinion is surely pretty closed minded. I choose to do what is best for my breed over an individual dog also. That is what good breeders do. But it is not one individual's place to decide which specific breeds should exist. I certainly am not enamored by certain breeds. Does that mean I think they shouldn't be bred? No, not everyone loves my breed. That is why there are so many breeds. Something for everyone. Some don't like Standard Poodles, some want a smaller dog. Some don't like Toy poodles, they want a bigger dog. To each his own and it is rude to question someone else's likes or dislikes.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> I wasn't rude. I was simply stating that I feel it is rude that you would consider telling someone that thier breed shoudn't exist. You certainly could have asked the question without having to infer that.
> 
> And there is also someone else posting on this thread that keeps saying they dont understand why certain breeds exist and therefore should not be bred. That is plain rude and disrespectful to those that cherish those breeds. I dont' tell you your mutt is ugly and it should be euthanized? Do I? But that is what she is saying imho. She might not have meant it as harsh as that, but that is how it is coming off to me.
> 
> I was no where even close to rude. There was no rudeness in my post or namecalling.


she did not say that my breed shouldn't exist and if I am the one that was being asked and I was not offended then why should you be. She asked a legitimate question, one that I have asked myself ...... about what we are working for. She did not say that the dogs should be euthanized..... 

I think her question was appropriate and respectful and I answered in an appropriate and respectful manner and as it was MY question to be offended about or not offended about and I was not offended.... then there is no problem..... 

I also found your response to be rude..... and as a breeder and lover of the breed if we need to be able to answer the hard questions....... 

S


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Shalva said:


> she did not say that my breed shouldn't exist and if I am the one that was being asked and I was not offended then why should you be. She asked a legitimate question, one that I have asked myself ...... about what we are working for. She did not say that the dogs should be euthanized.....
> 
> I think her question was appropriate and respectful and I answered in an appropriate and respectful manner and as it was MY question to be offended about or not offended about and I was not offended.... then there is no problem.....
> 
> ...



I was not rude at all. if your perception is that it was not rude, so be it, your opinion. I see it otherwise. 

There is nothing wrong with asking you about the health problems in your breed, it was the way they did it. Why should your breed continue? I found that presumptuous and rude. They certainly could have asked more politely.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

You are calling me close minded for questioning why people insist on creating more breeds when there are already more then enough. I consider you close minded for not exsepting that I have my own opinion and I'm entitled to saying whatever I want. So if I say that I don't think people should continue to create more breeds when we already have a ton of different breeds and people can't take care of the ones we already have then that doesn't make me close minded. I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

IMO we dont need more breeds unless they have a real purpose. Being a companion is not good enough to be the reason for the new breed, we already have many breeds that are bred just as companions.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

One thing is clear. Nobody thinks they themselves are rude or closed-minded. I'm pretty sure nobody is going to think they are rude and/or closed-minded just because somebody else says they are.

So lets stop saying that.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> IMO we dont need more breeds unless they have a real purpose. Being a companion is not good enough to be the reason for the new breed, we already have many breeds that are bred just as companions.


Exactly! That's all I'm trying to say. NOT that they should stop breeding all breeds or even the less popular breeds that not many people know about. Just that they should stop breeding the dogs that aren't recognized to have a well put together standard for the breed and don't have a purpose. Some of the dogs on the FSS list for AKC don't even have what the breed standard is. I just think it's adding more breeds that aren't needed.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

I just looked at the FSS list on the AKC website....Do we REALLY need a "Russell Terrier".....what they dont like Parson? And now they have a "Grand Basset Griffon Vendeen"? I guess the Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen is just too small for them. Geez, do we really need them? I dont think so, but people do whatever they want, they think their breed is better and maybe it is, I dont know.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> You are calling me close minded for questioning why people insist on creating more breeds when there are already more then enough. I consider you close minded for not exsepting that I have my own opinion and I'm entitled to saying whatever I want. So if I say that I don't think people should continue to create more breeds when we already have a ton of different breeds and people can't take care of the ones we already have then that doesn't make me close minded. I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.


You where talking about existing breeds. You said that you didn't know why toy or Mini Poodles existed or should they exist. That is quite different than saying there is no need for new breeds. 

I agree that there is no need for new breeds, but I would not be so presumptuous to tell someone that thier beloved breed has no reason to exist. 

And the AKC FSS breeds certainly do have breed standards and national breed clubs. Those are just 2 of the requirements to use the FSS service.



sillylilykitty said:


> I just looked at the FSS list on the AKC website....Do we REALLY need a "Russell Terrier".....what they dont like Parson? And now they have a "Grand Basset Griffon Vendeen"? I guess the Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen is just too small for them. Geez, do we really need them? I dont think so, but people do whatever they want, they think their breed is better and maybe it is, I dont know.



I don't mean to sound rude, but is it up to you to decide which breeds should and should not exist? Both of those breeds are not new breeds at all, but where developed years ago. The GBGV is used for differing hunting terrain that it's smaller cousin the PBGV. 

There are hundreds of dog breeds all over the world. Each having a very specific purpose. There are all kinds of differing terrain and type of hunting all the different sporting breeds do. There are many terrier breeds, some seem similar but there are specific reasons for thier existance, there is differing terrain all over the UK, there where breeds developed for each of those terrains.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Okay. Then those breeds can stay over in their countries. We don't need them over here when we already have dogs that look similiar and can constently be found in a need of a home.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I still don't get the problem with the AKC FSS list, but that's just me. Those breeds are all old. Some are older than already accepted breeds. they're just as real and AKC recognition isn't going to change that.

This train of thought just flat out confuses me.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

They're old in there own countries were they have been used for years. AKC is an American dog registry. AKC-AMERICAN kennel club. Let those dogs stay over there in peace away from becomming an obsession over here. We already have American styled dogs that look like them over here that are overbred and beccoming way too over populated. In my opinion it's probably better for those breeds to stay out of the lime light and be unpopular over here. Gods know what happens to the popular dogs here, they end up crowding around the local shelters.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

But many of these breeds are already registerable in the UKC- also an AMERICAN registry. They hold conformation shows there too. So the breeds are already here... That's a requirement to get FSS. there has to be an interest in the breed over here and a dedicated breed club.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Yeah but they're are still not very well known. I had no idea about the FSS breeds untill I found them on the AKC website. UKC isn't as well known as AKC so the breeds still aren't that popular. If I even mentioned Azawakh people would probably just give me a funny look and walk away. Not many people know what that is and like I said, that's probably not a bad thing.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

One of the most popular breeds around is the American Pit Bull Terrier. they're UKC recognized and not AKC recognized. Also the rat terrier among other very popular breeds.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

The pit bull isn't a breed. It's a mix...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Pit bull is a generic term encompassing a lot of breeds- including the American Pit Bull Terrier which IS a UKC recognized breed. 

http://www.pitbullsoforegon.com/ They have UKC Ch Pit Bulls

http://www.apbtconformation.com/ukcstandard.htm ---- breed standard


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

The rat terrior is on the FSS list wich means AKC doesn't think that the breed has fully developed into being a true purebreed dog but is working it's way there. There's a chance that the breed could be added to the AKC breed list in the near future.

UKC recognized mixed breeds too, doesn't it? The UKC doesn't seem to care about what breed they add to there list.

I just looked on the UKC website. The top 20 UKC registered breeds include the pit bull and the AMBOR wich is considered part of the mixed breed listings.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> The rat terrior is on the FSS list wich means AKC doesn't think that the breed has fully developed into being a true purebreed dog but is working it's way there. There's a chance that the breed could be added to the AKC breed list in the near future.
> 
> UKC recognized mixed breeds too, doesn't it? The UKC doesn't seem to care about what breed they add to there list.


Yes the rat terrier is on the FSS. No, the UKC is only a purebred registry.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

I think we need to make a distinction between the doodles..... and other breeds which are already in existence and just not recognized by the akc. 

red and white irish setters
large musterlanders
leonbergers...... 
wirehaired viszlas 

amongst mainy others like the ones that lily mentioned are breeds that already exist but are not AKC registerable. These are different from the designer dogs that people are buying.....and that distinction should be made. 
they are breeds in their own right with a distinct breed type and purpose. 
S


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

What has to be done is the rescuers and RESPONSIBLE breeders forming an alliance to fight Puppymills and BYB. This means the Animal Control, no Kill rescues and BREED CLUBS getting together WITHOUT JUDGMENT to work toward a common goal, the abolition of puppymills.

As voters, we need to make our positions known, this means LOBBYING. If Shelters and rescues will come to understand that responsible breeders want the same thing they do it can happen. We also have to take on the ARCHAIC AKC attitude and hold the AKCs feet to the proverbial fire on the registration of Puppymill dogs. This may mean boycotting AKC events as long as they continue to register litters from breeders that mass produce dogs (more than 8 litters a year by a male, 1 litter a year by a female, breeding under two years old of ANY gender, females producing more than 4 litters in a life time or after the age of 6 years old more than 3 producing females in house) in other words, if a breeder meets the requirements for USDA inspection.



Laurelin said:


> Yes the rat terrier is on the FSS. No, the UKC is only a purebred registry.


There are TWO UKC's, just as there are two CKC's one of each is an national registry and the other of each is a 'junk registery' in the U.S.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> What has to be done is the rescuers and RESPONSIBLE breeders forming an alliance to fight Puppymills and BYB. This means the Animal Control, no Kill rescues and BREED CLUBS getting together WITHOUT JUDGMENT to work toward a common goal, the abolition of puppymills.
> 
> As voters, we need to make our positions known, this means LOBBYING. If Shelters and rescues will come to understand that responsible breeders want the same thing they do it can happen. We also have to take on the ARCHAIC AKC attitude and hold the AKCs feet to the proverbial fire on the registration of Puppymill dogs. This may mean boycotting AKC events as long as they continue to register litters from breeders that mass produce dogs (more than 8 litters a year by a male, 1 litter a year by a female, breeding under two years old of ANY gender, females producing more than 4 litters in a life time or after the age of 6 years old more than 3 producing females in house) in other words, if a breeder meets the requirements for USDA inspection.
> 
> ...



The AKC is a registry, NOT the breeding police. No registry is. 

And who is to determine who is a 'puppymill'? Just using that AR term buys into the AR speak of wanting to eliminate pet breeding and ownership. 

There is no way to legally determine between 'types' of breeders. Any law that affects one breeder affects all breeders. That is why I am so adamantly against any legislation that affects my rights. 
All breeders need to stand together or we all fall together and no one will be able to breed. There can be no compromise because the ARs don't have to give anything up. Anything they can get to control breeders is just one step closer to eliminating animal ownership. 

I should not have to be taxed and at ridiculous rates when I have done nothing wrong. 

Wayne Pacelle, head AR fanatic of HSUS, spoke to a congressional committee today. He acted like such a jerk and spouted lies and nonsense, that none of the committee members gave him any credence and disputed all his lies. It was great. He just wants to use the Katrina dogs to raise money, that he didn't use for dogs in the area. They kept that money. They just use it to raise more money and to wage stupid campaigns. 

Sorry for my rants but AR fanatics really get my goat. And anyone who uses thier terminology such as pet overpopulation and puppymills buys right into that philosophy. I work very very very hard at my dogs. It is not up to you to tell me how I can raise my dogs. I know what is best and works best for me and my dogs.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> There are TWO UKC's, just as there are two CKC's one of each is an national registry and the other of each is a 'junk registery' in the U.S.


Well, I think it was kind of obvious which UKC I was talking about.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> females producing more than 4 litters in a life time or after the age of 6 years old more than 3 producing females in house) in other words, if a breeder meets the requirements for USDA inspection


I'm sorry, but I think that's ridiculous

I know breeders, REPUTABLE breeders who have done back to back breedings, or who have bred a bitch more than 4 times. Sometimes past the age of 6 (not often, but they have)

They talk to the repro vet, discuss options, and pay attention to the health of the bitch, how she's doing overall, etc.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The AKC is a registry, NOT the breeding police. No registry is.
> 
> And who is to determine who is a 'puppymill'? Just using that AR term buys into the AR speak of wanting to eliminate pet breeding and ownership.
> 
> ...


So are you saying that there is no overpopulation of dogs and that there is no such thing as puppymills. Those things exist and are a HUGE problem. Get over your hate for something you don't understand and step down from your pedistal. If you think ARs are bad just listen to youself. Next thing you going to be claiming that the homeless people don't exist and it's just made up by the people that actualy CARE about the lives of other living things.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The AKC is a registry, NOT the breeding police. No registry is.
> 
> And who is to determine who is a 'puppymill'? Just using that AR term buys into the AR speak of wanting to eliminate pet breeding and ownership.
> 
> ...


If I am not mistaken, the AKC was encouraging people a couple of months ago that had purchased dogs from Pet stores ( aka puppy mills) to register their dogs with the AKC. Now there is an organization with alot of integrity.

*By the way, I thought the dialogue on this forum was supposed to be toned down a bit. Is calling people that work for HSUS, liars and fanatics considered toning down, or am I missing something here *


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> If I am not mistaken, the AKC was encouraging people a couple of months ago that had purchased dogs from Pet stores ( aka puppy mills) to register their dogs with the AKC. Now there is an organization with alot of integrity.
> 
> *By the way, I thought the dialogue on this forum was supposed to be toned down a bit. Is calling people that work for HSUS, liars and fanatics considered toning down, or am I missing something here *


I'd assume it's just as acceptable as assuming everyone with intact dogs have no concern for the welfare of dogs, but that's just me.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Get over your hate for something you don't understand and step down from your pedistal.


Helloooo, pot calling kettle here?

She's not ON a pedestal, she's just as against substandard breeders as I am, or any GOOD breeder is.

Breeders are not the issue, *irresponsible people* are the issue.

I know a breeder who just went and *reposessed* a GSD from a man who failed to pay. She had previously sold this man a dog, so sent him a puppy from her latest litter on good faith.

Things went sour, she packed up ON THE FLY with her little girl, went *across the country*, got a *police escort* and took back a dog *she bred* all on her own dime!

What she got back was a malnourished, mangy, scruffy pup (Just over a year old). She was *horrified*! She's keeping him for now and nursing him back to health. She's going to see how his nerves and drives are, and if his former living conditions set him back any (Mentally speaking). From there, she will decide if she'll keep him, or resell him.

I'm sorry, but we need MORE breeders like her, and the fact that she is a rarity is sickening. Legislation to stop and limit people like her is *bad bad bad* and it always hurts the hobby breeders, never the mills.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> So are you saying that there is no overpopulation of dogs and that there is no such thing as puppymills. Those things exist and are a HUGE problem. Get over your hate for something you don't understand and step down from your pedistal. If you think ARs are bad just listen to youself. Next thing you going to be claiming that the homeless people don't exist and it's just made up by the people that actualy CARE about the lives of other living things.


He was saying that the other day on this forum,and when couple of people objected, it turned into a slight flame war, which I wound up in the middle of. I cannot tolerate someone trying to pass off misinformation as the truth. I guess he is ramping up again, but I am not going to engage him this time. I will just calmly point out that there is almost no truth in his claims. It would be the same as me stating that the moon is made out of green cheese and anyone that doesn't believe that is a liar or not very bright, because I said it . 

At the shelter today we were talking about how dog lovers relate to each other . There were about 15 of us training shelter dogs so that they could find forever homes, since the adoptability of these trained dogs is excellent. I can remember the conversation with the other people. and how excited we all got when a dog would learn something that the dog was having trouble with. I was hugging a Pit Bull that hasn't had a real home in over 3 years, and the dog was so happy. The dog still has issue, but the improvement in this dog in just a couple of weeks is dramatic and we all realized that and were happy for our success. 

I don't hear any conversations like that coming from the anti- S/N group on these threads. All I hear is my rights, money, AKC, AR liars, AR whakos, the constituition, more about money, more about rights, etc etc.. ad nauseum ....... Not once in any of all this diatribe in post after post , have I heard any real sign of* love and affection for dogs*. If you think I am wrong, you look back on all these threads about this California Bill, and see if you can find any example of that with the Anti bill folks. That's a real shame and it is very sad, and if the dogs could speak, I bet they all would agree......


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The AKC is a registry, NOT the breeding police. No registry is.
> 
> And who is to determine who is a 'puppymill'? Just using that AR term buys into the AR speak of wanting to eliminate pet breeding and ownership.
> 
> ...


 
My dear, my stance is very anti AR, which you would know if you read my posts, but I will NOT deny the pet overpopulation. 

The USDA determines who is a puppymill and who isn't by their very nature, THEY inspect breeders who mass produce, Plain and simple. In fact, the USDA helped start puppymilling, calling it puppyfarming. 

I was raised by a RESPONSIBLE breeder, I'm now 40 and do Breed Rescue. Responsible breeders are hurt by Puppymills, plain and simple. 

Puppy Mills produce inferior quality dogs, with questionable temperments and a multitude of health problems. They then ship them in INHUMANE conditions to petstores, swapmeets, fleamarkets and at auctions across the country to be sold to people who make impulse buys not knowing what they are getting into. Those people then come into the health/behavior problems and don't know how to deal with them and wind up dumping their problems on the taxpayer. This in turn results in legislation like this that hurts EVERYBODY. 

To say that breeders are not responsible for what they produce is completely wrong. A RESPONSIBLE breeder will ALWAYS take a pup back no matter what the problem is, they are there if ther is a temperment or health problem or if the family is FOR ANY REASON unable to keep the dog no matter how young or old. I know MANY breeders that do this. One is the one that I will buy my show pup from (St. Patricks Mastiffs) when I'm ready for it, I will also ALWAYS have a rescue in my house, as I do now. 

I am opposed to AB1634, but that doesn't mean I'm against spay nueter. I think this legislation is badly written, does nothing to hold mass producing breeders responsible. 

BTW, I was at an adoption fair in Murrieta, CA. We had around 40 rescues and shelters there from three SOCAL counties (San Diego, Riverside and LA) , only FIVE supported AB1634. That is an informal census I did while networking as we often come across multi dog relinquishments and need the contacts. I can say with certainty that FORM region 9 is not supporting it.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> Helloooo, pot calling kettle here?
> 
> She's not ON a pedestal, she's just as against substandard breeders as I am, or any GOOD breeder is.
> 
> ...


That's not what I was upset about. What made me so mad was the fact the just because she doesn't like AR groups that makes any term they use untrue. Sorry to tell you but half of the things AR groups fight against is a real problem and needs to be stopped. There is a overpopulation of animals and just because she has a hatred for a group she obviously knows nothing about doesn't make what they say any less true.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> I don't hear any conversations like that coming from the anti- S/N group on these threads. All I hear is my rights, money, AKC, AR liars, AR whakos, the constituition, more about money, more about rights, etc etc.. ad nauseum ....... Not once in any of all this diatribe in post after post , have I heard any real sign of* love and affection for dogs*. If you think I am wrong, you look back on all these threads about this California Bill, and see if you can find any example of that with the Anti bill folks. That's a real shame and it is very sad, and if the dogs could speak, I bet they all would agree......


Yes, I hate all dogs and don't love them at all.  

Assuming generalizations like that is no better than any other assumptions are going on on these threads.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> He was saying that the other day on this forum,and when couple of people objected, it turned into a slight flame war, which I wound up in the middle of. I cannot tolerate someone trying to pass off misinformation as the truth. I guess he is ramping up again, but I am not going to engage him this time. I will just calmly point out that there is almost no truth in his claims. It would be the same as me stating that the moon is made out of green cheese and anyone that doesn't believe that is a liar or not very bright, because I said it .


Thank you for not taking the bait.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> My dear, my stance is very anti AR, which you would know if you read my posts, but I will NOT deny the pet overpopulation.
> 
> The USDA determines who is a puppymill and who isn't by their very nature, THEY inspect breeders who mass produce, Plain and simple. In fact, the USDA helped start puppymilling, calling it puppyfarming.
> 
> ...


Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?



cshellenberger said:


> Thank you for not taking the bait.


Your welcome


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?


It's called breed clubs and research and effort on the part of the buyer.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Thats true though. In all these threads about this bill everyone against it has only talked about there rights. Not one seems to care about the rights of dogs and the fact we really don't have any say in the life of another animal. I would hate to see another country take america over and start treating us like dogs. They're probably start breeding mixes of us all together and putting dog tags around are neck. If we tried to run away they would just shock us or something. What a nice life that would be.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> If I am not mistaken, the AKC was encouraging people a couple of months ago that had purchased dogs from Pet stores ( aka puppy mills) to register their dogs with the AKC. Now there is an organization with alot of integrity.
> 
> *By the way, I thought the dialogue on this forum was supposed to be toned down a bit. Is calling people that work for HSUS, liars and fanatics considered toning down, or am I missing something here *


 
The Breed Clubs backed them down. They threatened to boycott the National championships. Breed clubs do alot more than you realize, because they CARE about dogs. I will take care of the person in question.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?


No, because the word "responsible" is widely open to interpretation.

I can send somebody to a responsible breeder of GSDs or CWCs, and have them come back to me and say "They asked me too many questions." or "They're making me jump through hoops."

I refer, and refer, and refer to breeders AND rescues, and just because I'm sending somebody to a respsonsible breeder doesn't mean that THEY will be responsible in the way and where they choose to get a dog.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?


There's only one person that can guarantee a buyer is buying from a responsible breeder...the buyer. It really is "buyer beware". Lists are futile...especially internet lists, since my standard may be more rigorous than a billionaire princess, both of us can generate internet lists, but I'd more than likely be ignored. Not because of my lack of intelligence, but rather I wouldn't cater to whats "hot" this week.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Don't most breed clubs have a list of breeders somewhere on the website? Wouldn't they be more likely to have good breeders listed or do they just add whoever?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

Almost everyone knows by now that I have a sarcastic streak. Well, maybe more than just a streak.

But I think sarcasm is counter-productive when you are actually trying to persuade a reader to come 'round to your point-of-view. It clouds the issue and muddies your argument.

I'm not really convinced that anyone here is trying to change anyone else's mind but the alternative is to think that there are lot of people that just love to hear themselves talk.

These comments are not addressed to anyone in particular. If the shoe fits . . .


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?


Capt, this is part of what I was saying in my post way at the beginning of this..... responsible breeders need to make themselves (ourselves) more available.... I don't think the average joe knows how to find a well bred dog. At shows I try to talk to anyone who approaches me. If I am grooming a dog at my set up I will talk to people, they can pet my dogs regardless of whether I am going into the ring or not (sporting breeds don't have perfect trims or fur anyway) but it is up to us to make sure that people can find us. 

I also think that the breed club is the place to go but to be honest before I had my purebred dogs shoot I didn't even know there was such a thing as a national breed club...... I had no idea how to find a breeder..... I called a friend who called a friend who knew of someone who got me to a very very nice informative woman who spent hours talking to me about what I needed to know and who I should talk to next..... now I know how to find a reputable breeder and I tell anyone who is looking for a dog to let me know and I will help them find someone reputable..... 

Personally I don't think that we breeders can complain about people buying from byb's and puppymills when we don't make ourselves readily available to people who just want a nice pet. 

I helped my neighbor find a nice golden retriever, half bros. to my connor.... and her response to me was that "if she didn't know us, she would have never found him nor known how to find a well bred dog" I think she is correct..... the breeder she got him from doesn't advertise (like me doesn't have to) she has a waiting list and breeds seldom..... there are no ads for her puppies no websites..... (at least I have a website) so ..... 

I think it is our responsibility as breeders to make ourselves available.... and its something that I personally need to do a better job with...... 

S


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Don't most breed clubs have a list of breeders somewhere on the website? Wouldn't they be more likely to have good breeders listed or do they just add whoever?


Yes, they have to abide by a code of ethics which is the minimum a good breeder should do. I look for breeders that go beyond the code of ethics.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Don't most breed clubs have a list of breeders somewhere on the website? Wouldn't they be more likely to have good breeders listed or do they just add whoever?


Yes, the breed club has a code of ethics. Breeders should follow those codes, but really the buyer still needs to research the breeder more. They are not guaranteed good breeders, but a really good place to start imo.

Sorry RonE about the sarcasm. I tried not to for a while, but after going round and round and round and round and trying to explain my beliefs I fall back into my old self, which is sarastic. I can't help it. I need to put a note- Post probably contains sarcasm, much of which is barely detectable.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I think I said this before but just incase...
Is there a way for someone to make booklets about what a BYB and puppymill is and then make them available to the public through a vets office or something? Maybe if there were booklets out there about this kind of thing and they were that available people would be more likely to know what to look out for in the future. I know at my vets they have all those pamphets for flea and tick prevention and heartworm pervention. They should make a pamphlet for BYB/puppymill prevention or something like that.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

just to add..... many breed clubs DO NOT have lists of breeders on their websites but have a person you can contact to request the breed list. 

I can always tell who has gotten my name from the breed club vs. my website based on to which email they contact me through first or whether they call my house or not. The breed club gives out my real email address and phone number..... (not home address) and my website only gives out a gmail address that I use just for the website. So how the initial contact happens.... tells me where they got my information from. Most contact me through my website..... 

I can't tell you how many people contact me.....I give lots of information to, usually a several page email of information about mom and dad.... pedigrees, health etc. ..... and they never contact me back with even a thank you for taking the time to respond to them. Then there are the people who email me but can't believe the prices of puppies.... sticker shock.... and I never hear from them again either. 

S


----------



## peace36 (Jan 29, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Might this be a good reason why we need to legislate the way to more responsible choices of a source for animals? If pet shops and puppymills were legislated out of the business of selling puppies, what would Joe Blow do then? IMO, he'd probably end up dealing with backyard breeders (BYBs) but wouldn't that be a little bit of an improvement? What is the solution in your opinion?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I think the pet shops should be able to sell puppies but make sure they are from reputable breeders. I think that no matter where you get your dog/puppy from there should be an application that should have to be approved.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I think I said this before but just incase...
> Is there a way for someone to make booklets about what a BYB and puppymill is and then make them available to the public through a vets office or something? Maybe if there were booklets out there about this kind of thing and they were that available people would be more likely to know what to look out for in the future. I know at my vets they have all those pamphets for flea and tick prevention and heartworm pervention. They should make a pamphlet for BYB/puppymill prevention or something like that.


I agree, Those phamplets should be on the counters of every PetCo, PetSmart, Vets office, Doggy Boutique ect. Here's a good summary

BYB vs Reputable breeder
http://www.jlhweb.net/Boxermap/reputablebreeder.html

Puppy Mills
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/NoPuppyMillsVA/What_is_a_Puppy_Mill_/what_is_a_puppy_mill_.html
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/NoPup.../AKC_Delegate_Report/akc_delegate_report.html

From the second site the AKC DEFINITION of a Puppy Mill AKA Mass Production breeder
*AKC Delegates' Meeting
June 9-11, 2002

Information Sessions and Committee Meeting
Sunday, 6-9-02, HIGH VOLUME BREEDERS

Mr. Gene Brennan, AKC Field Inspector, presented the development of field work beginning in the late 1980s with 6 agents who operated within a reactive program based on complaints. The program is now proactive with an emphasis on education and helping breeders come into compliance. AKC now has 13 inspectors and 1 investigator. In 1996, the Care & Conditions Policy was added to AKC's primary objectives. Field agents currently conduct 4000 inspections per year. Mr. Brennan reported that he has seen significant improvement in his past 15 years with the AKC.*

*All breeders of 7 or more litters in a calendar year are considered High Volume Breeders (HVB) and are subject to an inspection the following year. In addition, brokers who have 25 or more AKC transactions are designated HVB and are subject to inspection. A transaction is any registry paperwork coming through the AKC. High Volume Breeders is not necessarily a euphemism for "puppy mills." Our well respected, quality breeders will be included in this program if they breed 7 or more litters in a year.*

*Dr. Bob Gibbens, DVM, is the Director of the Animal Care section of the USDA. He reported that his office is responsible for the inspection of a variety of animal facilities, including commercial kennels. Their goal is to bring kennels into compliance with regard to paperwork and physical facilities. If these establishments can't or won't come into compliance, they work to put them out of business. Dr. Gibbens reported there are 4000 USDA licensed kennels in the 4 states of Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Arkansas. The Animal Care Division is responsible for puppies in the wholesale chain of business. Once the puppies get into the retail pet shop, they are not protected by USDA regulations. Dr Gibbens emphasized that puppies can best be protected when all agencies invested with their care work together. The website for the Animal Care office is **www.APHIS.USDA.gov/ac.*

*Much has been written on the subject of the HVB Committee's inquiry into the operation of both the Hunte Corporation and PetLand. This has been a controversial topic which deserves your attention and thoughtful consideration.
*
​


peace36 said:


> DogAdvocat said:
> 
> 
> > Might this be a good reason why we need to legislate the way to more responsible choices of a source for animals? If pet shops and puppymills were legislated out of the business of selling puppies, what would Joe Blow do then? IMO, he'd probably end up dealing with backyard breeders (BYBs) but wouldn't that be a little bit of an improvement? What is the solution in your opinion?
> ...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I think the pet shops should be able to sell puppies but make sure they are from reputable breeders.


What reputable breeder would sell to a pet shop, where they do NO screening and just want money?


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

a reputable breeder wont sell to a pet shop because that takes control of who gets the puppy away from us. 

shoot the flat coat society won't allow us to even donate a puppy to service dog organizations because they do the screening and we have no say in who gets the puppy...... 

s


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

peace36 said:


> DogAdvocat said:
> 
> 
> > Might this be a good reason why we need to legislate the way to more responsible choices of a source for animals? If pet shops and puppymills were legislated out of the business of selling puppies, what would Joe Blow do then? IMO, he'd probably end up dealing with backyard breeders (BYBs) but wouldn't that be a little bit of an improvement? What is the solution in your opinion?
> ...


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Good Greif, we're all agreeing on something!!!!!!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Good Greif, we're all agreeing on something!!!!!!


OH EM GEE!


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wow, and I agree too!  

No reputable breeder would sell a dog to a store simply because they have no say in who gets that dog. the people who really care about the pups they produce put a lot of time and effort into screening the potential adopters.


----------



## Amaya-Mazie-Marley (Apr 15, 2007)

I also agree. When I was younger and was getting my rottie, bear, we had several meetings with her, and she even came out to our house. Good breeders love to know where their animals are going.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It would be cool if somehow petstores stopped selling BYB/puppymill dogs and instead somehow got invovled with the good breeders out there. That way the breeders would have a way to get themselves more known to the public. They could still control the selling of their puppies but the petstore could make them known to the public. It could work the way a comercial does. The tv stations play the comercials and the object the comercial is trying to sell gets more well known. Then they get money from that and some of the money goes to the tv station. I don't know if any of that made sense. I just woke up and need a cup of coffee so fogive me if I didn't make any sense to you at all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> I wasn't rude. I was simply stating that I feel it is rude that you would consider telling someone that thier breed shoudn't exist. You certainly could have asked the question without having to infer that.
> 
> And there is also someone else posting on this thread that keeps saying they dont understand why certain breeds exist and therefore should not be bred. That is plain rude and disrespectful to those that cherish those breeds. I dont' tell you your mutt is ugly and it should be euthanized? Do I? But that is what she is saying imho. She might not have meant it as harsh as that, but that is how it is coming off to me.


Neither I, or the other poster you speak of, suggested that anyone's dog be euthanized, so your analogy is bogus. Beyond that, it's obvious that you're trying to derail the discussion, and I wish you'd stop. Instead of worrying about how someone asks a question, how about answering the question? Has it occurred to you that if someone isn't educated on a subject, they might not know exactly how to phrase a question? And also, since I asked the question of Shayla, don't you think that she's a better judge of whether I was being rude than you? 



> I was no where even close to rude. There was no rudeness in my post or namecalling.


Your rudeness was in trying to derail a civil discussion by making accusations of rudeness. Why do you think that I'm supposed to accept your accusations of rudeness, but you are unwilling to accept mine? 



> Because YOU can't see a 'need' for a breed, it shouldn't exist? Your opinion is surely pretty closed minded. I choose to do what is best for my breed over an individual dog also. That is what good breeders do. But it is not one individual's place to decide which specific breeds should exist. I certainly am not enamored by certain breeds. Does that mean I think they shouldn't be bred? No, not everyone loves my breed. That is why there are so many breeds. Something for everyone. Some don't like Standard Poodles, some want a smaller dog. Some don't like Toy poodles, they want a bigger dog. To each his own and it is rude to question someone else's likes or dislikes.


There is no rudeness in trying to understand another's point of view. In order to find common ground, each person has to state their beliefs to see if any beliefs are shared. This is an attempt to open lines of communication, leaving rancor at the door. Apparently you didn't see the sign, and brought your rancor with you. I don't intend to play your game, so please, stop attacking and start discussing. Be creative, not destructive.



Shalva said:


> she did not say that my breed shouldn't exist and if I am the one that was being asked and I was not offended then why should you be. She asked a legitimate question, one that I have asked myself ...... about what we are working for. She did not say that the dogs should be euthanized.....
> 
> I think her question was appropriate and respectful and I answered in an appropriate and respectful manner and as it was MY question to be offended about or not offended about and I was not offended.... then there is no problem.....
> 
> ...


Whoops, I should have read ahead. Thank you !!! Wow, another meeting of the minds. 



xoxluvablexox said:


> Exactly! That's all I'm trying to say. NOT that they should stop breeding all breeds or even the less popular breeds that not many people know about. Just that they should stop breeding the dogs that aren't recognized to have a well put together standard for the breed and don't have a purpose. Some of the dogs on the FSS list for AKC don't even have what the breed standard is. I just think it's adding more breeds that aren't needed.


I'm sorry to be dense, but what is "FSS"? I'm not aware of any breed that the AKC registers that doesn't have a standard. What am I missing?



Shalva said:


> I think we need to make a distinction between the doodles..... and other breeds which are already in existence and just not recognized by the akc.
> 
> red and white irish setters
> large musterlanders
> ...


I think it should also be noted that there are breed clubs that don't want their breed recognized by the AKC and will even fight such recognition because they feel it will make the breed more popular and more liable to be puppymilled.



cshellenberger said:


> What has to be done is the rescuers and RESPONSIBLE breeders forming an alliance to fight Puppymills and BYB. This means the Animal Control, no Kill rescues and BREED CLUBS getting together WITHOUT JUDGMENT to work toward a common goal, the abolition of puppymills.


This might be easier to do if there was a standard that responsible breeders had to meet in order to be considered responsible. I've found that the best of intentions, or maybe even just the public persona, doesn't always follow through to real life actions. For instance, a breeder is thought to be responsible, claims to be responsible, fellow breeders think s/he is responsible, and then when called to take back one of his/her dogs, s/he won't do it. Not all RBs are created equal, unfortunately, and until RBs' feet are held to the fire when they aren't as responsible as claimed, how can there be an alliance? It's just far too easy for rescue to not believe in responsible breeding when we see RBs repeatedly breaking the "rules" of responsible breeding. For that matter, not all alleged RBs even agree with each other about the definition of responsible breeding.

So I think some preparatory work needs to be done before there can be such an alliance, but once that was done, I would certainly support that alliance.



cshellenberger said:


> As voters, we need to make our positions known, this means LOBBYING. If Shelters and rescues will come to understand that responsible breeders want the same thing they do it can happen. We also have to take on the ARCHAIC AKC attitude and hold the AKCs feet to the proverbial fire on the registration of Puppymill dogs. This may mean boycotting AKC events as long as they continue to register litters from breeders that mass produce dogs (more than 8 litters a year by a male, 1 litter a year by a female, breeding under two years old of ANY gender, females producing more than 4 litters in a life time or after the age of 6 years old more than 3 producing females in house) in other words, if a breeder meets the requirements for USDA inspection.


I sure agree with you here. It makes no sense to me that RBs would want to be part of a registry that includes puppymillers. It makes it too easy for the public to lump all breeders together. The term "AKC dog" means a seal of approval and quality to some people, and it means puppymilled dogs to others. I remember one of my adopters had already had a female that he wanted to find a mate for because she had championship papers from the pet shop. These championship papers that he had put in a glass fronted frame and hung on the wall with pride, was a blue AKC registration slip. After I explained the facts of life to him, as well as adding the health benefits to spaying, and the fact that he wouldn't be adopting an unneutered dog from me, he opted to spay his girl, and adopt one of my boys. He was an excellent home, that took excellent care of his dogs, but he was totally clueless on how it all works. 

There just needs to be more of a separation between RBs and BYBs/PMs. RBs have to stand above the crowd (of other breeders) and they also have to make it clear that it's not about elitism, it's about quality.

So how do we lobby breed clubs to get this to happen? If the AKC would refuse to kick out the puppymillers, which would cause a huge reduction in their registration fees, would the RBs really be inclined to walk? Would RBs consider starting their own registry? Maybe QKC (Quality Kennel Club)? What convinced so many breed clubs to get on board with developing COE's (Codes of Ethics)? I realize that all COE's aren't equal, and it's questionable about penalties if the COE's aren't adhered to, but I'm curious about what got them all to agree to do it. Whatever it was, that same method might be used to create a coalition that would demand more of the AKC.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The AKC is a registry, NOT the breeding police. No registry is.
> 
> And who is to determine who is a 'puppymill'? Just using that AR term buys into the AR speak of wanting to eliminate pet breeding and ownership.
> 
> ...


Yes, we understand that you don't want a meeting of the minds unless it results in your being able to do anything you want with your dogs, no matter how much it hurts the dogs, hurts the breed, hurts the public, or hurts the reputation of breeders in general. I wonder what kind of breeder fights so hard to keep puppymillers in business, even to the point of trying to remove the term "puppymiller" from the vernacular?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

FSS aren't breeds registered with AKC. They're breeds that have been around for a while and most do have a standard but there are others that don't seem to make the standard clear. 

One of such FSS breeds is a mix of wolf and dog. It's called the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog. I'm sure someone is going to tell me that this "breed" has been around for years in another country and has every right to be here. To bad it's not a breed and it's just taking up the spaces in homes that should be for other actual dog breeds out there. 

Here's the link for the FSS breeds:
http://www.akc.org/breeds/fss_breeds.cfm


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> Helloooo, pot calling kettle here?
> 
> She's not ON a pedestal, she's just as against substandard breeders as I am, or any GOOD breeder is.


How is claiming that there is no such thing as puppymills showing us that he is against substandard breeders? His concern seems to be more about fighting AR than fighting substandard breeders. His concern is mostly about himself and how any legislation would affect him, even if such legislation would also get rid of those substandard breeders. No responsible breeder should fear legislation that would require other breeders to be as responsible as she is. If I'm driving safely and sanely, why would I object to a law requiring other people to do the same thing?



Xeph said:


> Breeders are not the issue, *irresponsible people* are the issue.


Who chose to sell to the *irresponsible people? It starts with the breeder. 



Xeph said:



I know a breeder who just went and reposessed a GSD from a man who failed to pay. She had previously sold this man a dog, so sent him a puppy from her latest litter on good faith.

Things went sour, she packed up ON THE FLY with her little girl, went across the country, got a police escort and took back a dog she bred all on her own dime!

What she got back was a malnourished, mangy, scruffy pup (Just over a year old). She was horrified! She's keeping him for now and nursing him back to health. She's going to see how his nerves and drives are, and if his former living conditions set him back any (Mentally speaking). From there, she will decide if she'll keep him, or resell him.

I'm sorry, but we need MORE breeders like her, and the fact that she is a rarity is sickening. Legislation to stop and limit people like her is bad bad bad and it always hurts the hobby breeders, never the mills.

Click to expand...

My analysis of that story is that she cleaned up the mess that she made. That's great, but it's still a mess she made because she placed with someone that was negligent/irresponsible. If she had placed the dog in a better home, it wouldn't have happened. And yes, I know that mistakes can happen, and people can be misjudged, but all that means is that the breeder needs to accept that they made the wrong choice and do better the next time, not just try to pass the buck and claim it's someone else's fault. Blaming other people makes no room for improving the placement process.

I don't honestly know whether your (and Saveourdogs) view on this is the norm, but if it is, and most breeders feel this way, then it really shows another huge divide between breeders and rescue. Commonly when adoptive homes go bad, rescuers tend to blame the rescue that placed the dog. We recognize that the rescuer chose that home to be caretakers for the rescued dog, and though we don't absolve the adopter, and would even put them on a "do not adopt" list, we still feel that the one that deserves most of the blame, is the rescuer. And, we are also more than willing to accept that blame. It helps us to learn and to do better the next time.*


----------



## peace36 (Jan 29, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Wow, and I agree too!
> 
> No reputable breeder would sell a dog to a store simply because they have no say in who gets that dog. the people who really care about the pups they produce put a lot of time and effort into screening the potential adopters.


Okedikee.  I also said that the petshops should have to approve an application too but every one did not want to mention that part. You all (most) just wanted to pretend that I think Pet Shops should sell to any "Joe Blow" when that is not what I said.

If there are now byb or petshops selling puppies and a high demand for puppies eventually the sheltors will be empty and there will once again be a need for more doggie pets. If the reputable breeders do not step up and meet that demand we will end up having the same problem over and over again.

Maybe the reputable breeders could open pet shops and screen the customers like they should and make some money selling supplies and up the price of the pups to make some $$ to cover the extra costs of renting a shop? I am sure some of you can rip this to shreds too but I think it is a good idea and could possibley help solve the problem. No not all breeders would want to do that to each their own but some might like too.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> My dear, my stance is very anti AR, which you would know if you read my posts, but I will NOT deny the pet overpopulation.
> 
> The USDA determines who is a puppymill and who isn't by their very nature, THEY inspect breeders who mass produce, Plain and simple. In fact, the USDA helped start puppymilling, calling it puppyfarming.
> 
> ...


Excellent post so far.  



cshellenberger said:


> I am opposed to AB1634, but that doesn't mean I'm against spay nueter. I think this legislation is badly written, does nothing to hold mass producing breeders responsible.
> 
> BTW, I was at an adoption fair in Murrieta, CA. We had around 40 rescues and shelters there from three SOCAL counties (San Diego, Riverside and LA) , only FIVE supported AB1634. That is an informal census I did while networking as we often come across multi dog relinquishments and need the contacts. I can say with certainty that FORM region 9 is not supporting it.


Among rescuers, I too am seeing a differing of opinions. I see more rescuers who are also breeders against this law than I see rescuers be against it that don't breed. I was impressed by the number of rescues and humane organizations that signed in support of this law. I think that even though those rescues/orgs have a variety of opinions, they have all banned together for the dogs, and I can find no selfish motives in that. On the other side, I see breeders banning together to stop the law, and multiple previous proposed legislations, and it is less clear that this is for the welfare of the dogs and is unselfish.

I don't honestly know if the law will work. I think it's obvious that it will have to be accompanied by other measures. I don't think there can be a one-shot solution to the problem. But what I do know is that what we have now is not working. Yes, there has been a decrease in shelter deaths across the nation, but I think we've hit a plateau in that the "less" adoptable dogs are not being saved. I'm sure there has been an increase in adoptions, and an increase in rescues that are giving more time to animals that would have died in the shelter, but now those rescues are full. The dynamics may have shifted, but the problem remains. So I support this law because I'd like to see a break in that logjam. We HAVE to do something to decrease the birth rate. Altering shelter dogs isn't enough, especially since I saw a statistic once saying that the majority of dogs came from members of the public who either purposely or negligently allowed their dogs to breed. These are not dedicated breeders, and not really commercial breeders. They are just people that let stray dogs have access to their in-heat dog, or thought they'd like their children to witness the miracle of birth, or some other equally irresponsible reason to breed.

And of course, this law includes cats also, who society tends to think should be allowed to roam, and who are often surprised when their cat first comes into heat. I haven't seen statistics on how many purebred vs. mixed breed cats are in this country, but from what I see in the shelters, very few are pure, and there aren't very many rescues dedicated to purebreds in So. California - not like dogs. So that tells me that society needs to find a way to stop the indiscriminate breeding of cats - and I think only legislation can do that.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Hey don't come crying when the AR fanatics get their way and there are no more dogs. That is what they want. Along with no meat eating, no eggs, no milk (it's cruel to milk a cow don't you know, and it's cruel to keep it in domestication). You guys are buying right into that using terms like Puppymill, pet overpopulation. You will never get that. You just tell me I'm an idiot and a dog abuser. No, I want to keep MY rights. Along with your's to be able to purchase the dog you wish, whether from a pet store, commercial breeder, internet website, classified ad, responsible breeder, rescue organization, shelter. It is not up to an individual to tell another that they have to buy a pet from a specific location. If it where up to you all, you would outlaw breeders. You look down with disdain at anyone that does not buy their dog from a shelter. thought processes like that will end breeding and make it illegal. This is just one large step towards that process. One VERY VERY large step. Breeding is NOT illegal. Are there bad apples in the bunch? Yup. Deal with them by enforcing EXISTING LAWS. There are animal cruelty laws on the books that deal with substandard conditions by individual dog owners as well as kennel situations. 

And one individual is not to blame for the actions of another. I frankly can not even fathom that some would think that way. The constitution does not see it that way, nor any law in the land. If rescue people want to have an excuse to gossip and talk bad about a fellow rescuer that is only trying to do good by selling/placing a homeless dog, that is your problem not a reason to blame breeders for the lack of responsibility of someone else. What do you expect? That we move in with them? It is just ludicrous, completely ludicrous to blame someone else for the actions of another.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captbob 
Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell? 




Laurelin said:


> It's called breed clubs and research and effort on the part of the buyer.


I don't think it's as easy as that. Much of what qualifies a breeder as being responsible/reputable is what s/he does after s/he sells her dog. How can a buyer know if s/he'll be there when needed? I've had several dogs whose breeders claimed to be responsible, but when problems arose, their dog came into rescue and they wanted nothing to do with it. This is not only detrimental for that dog, and leaves the buyer in the lurch, but it also means the breeder won't be able to watch that dog's health and adjust her breeding program accordingly if the dog develops a health problem. How can a buyer know if the breeder is going to be like that before they buy? How can their fellow breeders know if that's going on unless they are with them on a day by day basis? 

Several years ago there was a well-known breeder who routinely took part in the Westminster dog show, and whose reputation was respected, but was found to be running a puppymill where dead dogs were found, some partially buried in the snow. What kind of homework would have prepared a buyer for that? A solution might be that buyers should visit the breeder's home, but what if the breeder uses a friend or relatives house to show their dogs. That actually happened to someone I know, and it turned out that the breeder had hundreds of dogs in runs, but the buyer only saw the relatives house where there was one breeding pair and their current litter of puppies. Should the mama dog been an indication, by her reaction to the buyer, whether she was a typical home dog or a kennel dog? Maybe, but then can't that easily be explained away by saying she's worried about her puppies and is normally very friendly? I think most buyers would believe it.

Bad breeders aren't stupid. They likely even come to forums like this to learn all the right things to say, in order to convince the public that they are responsible and ethical. Not all show and club breeders are ethical, even according to their own fellow club members some times - often not being disciplined because of politics.

So how is John Q Public supposed to know? Must he know more than the breeder? If dedication to a breed means that a breeder studies for years, is John Q expected to do that too in order to insure he's getting a responsibly bred dog from a breeder that will be there when needed?

Yes, the buyer should beware, but IMO saying it's up to the buyer to judge whether s/he is truly an RB is the same as saying it's the dog owner that should be solely responsible if the dog is abandoned or doesn't receive proper care. What is it with some breeders that they point the finger at everyone but themselves? And why is it that they think they should be absolved from industry standards like other businesses have? It's a hobby, not a business? Even hobbyists are required to meet certain standards if the public can be harmed by what that hobby produces.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Think about it like this. 
Today there are dogs tied outside in all different kind of weather that have never felt the touch of a loving hand and have never felt the love of a human. 
Today there are dogs out there getting torn apart by another and the last things those dogs will heer is the laughing of the humans it had grown to love.
Today there are dogs out there hanging by there back legs and suffering as the fur is ripped of their bodies and then they will be thrown into a bloody pile like a piece of garbage.
Today there are dogs out there sitting in cages waiting to be taken out and loved but when they do get that freedom the only thing they will feel is the needle being put into their skin and then nothing at all.
Today there are dogs out there being kept in cages and the only freedom that they will get from that is to be taken out to be tested on and probably thrown to the side of a room half alive with cuts all over their bodies. 
Today there are dogs out there stuffed in tiny cages watching the slaughtering of other dogs and soon they will be slaughtered as well. Why? becasue they taste good.
Today dogs will be beaten and starved to death because the humans they though loved them decided they didn't care anymore. 
You wonder why people want to stop the ownership of dogs? That's pathetic. Just look at what us humans put them through!
People think that dogs are a mans best friend. That's true, dogs will always love us. Sadly man is dogs worst enimy as well and as long as you just sit there and decide it's okay for people to put their rights above that of another animals things like this will continue to happen. I have no respect for a human that can sit there and say that their rights are more important then that of another animals.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

"How is claiming that there is no such thing as puppymills showing us that he is against substandard breeders? "

You point is that the term is bad. I never said that there are no substandard breeders. There are some that call any commercial breeder, no matter the conditions, a puppymill. This is a derisive term created by the AR fanatics to become ingrained in the culture to make people against ALL breeders. And it is working quite well obviously. Almost everyone on this forum calls all commercial breeders puppymills. 



"His (BTW, bad assumption on your part, I am a SHE) concern seems to be more about fighting AR than fighting substandard breeders. "

Yup, I want to end AR because I think they are a minority and they are fanatics. Do I like steak? No so much, but many do. It is NOT MY place to tell you that you can't have one. I do like burgers, chicken, pork etc etc. They would like to legislate that it is illegal to kill animals for food. Breeding goes along with that. They want all breeding to end. they want dogs to be 'free' and not be 'slaves' of man. This AR fanaticism needs to be nipped in the bud before we have more ludicrous laws like the one in the Florida constitution outlawing a specific kind of cage for pigs. Why would that be in a state constitution? And now they have found campaign violations for by PETA and HSUS in thier campaign to get it passed. They snowed the public with lies and propoganda and half truths to get that passed. You can't see that the same thing is going on here? The shelter numbers that are spouted by HSUS, millions are killed each year, are lies, distortions and half truths. The true number of dogs that are in shelters that are adoptable, ie not sick or bad temperamented, are vastly lower than the number that is quoted. But people believe that number and keep repeating it until everyone believes it is true. 

And as far as fighting substandard breeders, very very very simple. Enforce laws already on the books. Simple as that. 

"His concern is mostly about himself and how any legislation would affect him,"

Concerned about how it will affect me, of course, along with all breeders. 

"even if such legislation would also get rid of those substandard breeders."\
No one has told me how this legislation would do that. It will not, commercial breeders are the only ones that don't have to jump through a million hoops to get an intact tax/license. how does this end breeding by those that you consider to be puppymills since all cbs are puppymills by your definition? 

"No responsible breeder should fear legislation that would require other breeders to be as responsible as she is."

Why shouldn't I be concerned about my freedoms being taken away? I m doing nothing wrong. No puppies I breed end up in rescue or shelters. Why should I be punished by having to spend hundreds of dollars a year on taxes on my dogs to be able to continue breeding? It will cost hundreds of dollars per dog for these intact permits. There is no limit on the cost in this legislation, that means that the localities will keep raising it and raising it. 

How can you legislate morality and ethics? You can't. Has never worked. 


"If I'm driving safely and sanely, why would I object to a law requiring other people to do the same thing?"

Because a drivers license is a minimal cost. I am not even sure, but i know it is less than $25 in my state. Imposing taxes of hundreds of dollars on someone is certainly not the same.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> I'm sorry to be dense, but what is "FSS"? I'm not aware of any breed that the AKC registers that doesn't have a standard. What am I missing?


The FSS is the Foundation Stock Service which is for breeds that are not yet fully AKC registered. 

http://www.akc.org/breeds/fss_breeds.cfm


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Thats true though. In all these threads about this bill everyone against it has only talked about there rights. Not one seems to care about the rights of dogs and the fact we really don't have any say in the life of another animal. I would hate to see another country take america over and start treating us like dogs. They're probably start breeding mixes of us all together and putting dog tags around are neck. If we tried to run away they would just shock us or something. What a nice life that would be.


Morally, dogs definitely should have their rights honored. Legally, they have no rights. And practically, we really do have a say in their lives because they are dependent on us to make decisions for them. Just like children are dependent on their parents. I assume you wouldn't say that we have no say in the life of our children? I think what's important is that we make sure that our decisions are in the best interests of the dog, not just for our own interests.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

peace36 said:


> Okedikee.  I also said that the petshops should have to approve an application too but every one did not want to mention that part. You all (most) just wanted to pretend that I think Pet Shops should sell to any "Joe Blow" when that is not what I said.
> 
> If there are now byb or petshops selling puppies and a high demand for puppies eventually the sheltors will be empty and there will once again be a need for more doggie pets. If the reputable breeders do not step up and meet that demand we will end up having the same problem over and over again.
> 
> Maybe the reputable breeders could open pet shops and screen the customers like they should and make some money selling supplies and up the price of the pups to make some $$ to cover the extra costs of renting a shop? I am sure some of you can rip this to shreds too but I think it is a good idea and could possibley help solve the problem. No not all breeders would want to do that to each their own but some might like too.


I guess I don't see why a person wouldn't go out a search for a breeder instead of going to a pet store.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It's not peoples rights to take the life of another animals when we don't need to. America is made up of some of the fattest people. Why? They eat to much fast food. What does fast food consist of? A lot of unhealthy meat that is gotten by killing thousands of cows that never saw the light of day. It's one thing to kill a cow that had a nice healthy life outside and onother to keep cows in small warehouses, feed them steroids, and then butcher them before they even got to see a ray of sunshine. I'd love to see a country take us over and put us in that situation. Every living thing has an instinct to live, and taking away an animals right to live out a full and healthy life is a sin. Thou shall not murder! 
Blessed be 

By the way sorry to go all AR on you but I mean really. There are some things that just obviously shouldn't be right. I don't care if we're talking about a rat or a horse. Killing an animal just because it doesn't look and act the same as you is never right. Just because you don't think these animals matter doesn't mean they don't. America has become so heartless over the years. Before there were farmers that actually went out and miled cows and fed them good food. Now they get steroids and machines to do all the work for them. It's just disgusting. No wonder people have become so lazy and ignorant lately.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quote:
Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell? 



Xeph said:


> No, because the word "responsible" is widely open to interpretation.
> 
> I can send somebody to a responsible breeder of GSDs or CWCs, and have them come back to me and say "They asked me too many questions." or "They're making me jump through hoops."
> 
> I refer, and refer, and refer to breeders AND rescues, and just because I'm sending somebody to a respsonsible breeder doesn't mean that THEY will be responsible in the way and where they choose to get a dog.


I don't think it's really up to the public to be the ones to decide the definition of responsible. Asking questions, and requiring hoops to be jumped through is one of the standards of a responsible breeder, IMO. And yes, it is an opinion, but it's holding the breeder to the highest ethics, not the lowest (or whatever the opposite woud be  ). 

This is why I think there should be a standard for responsible breeders just like there is a standard for each breed. And if you don't meet that standard, then you're not a responsible breeder - simple as that. No badge for you.

The word YOU is used generically. 



RonE said:


> Almost everyone knows by now that I have a sarcastic streak. Well, maybe more than just a streak.
> 
> But I think sarcasm is counter-productive when you are actually trying to persuade a reader to come 'round to your point-of-view. It clouds the issue and muddies your argument.
> 
> ...


In order to have a meeting of the minds, I think there needs to be at least a little education of the minds, even just to insure we're all on the same page. It's sort of futile to talk about responsible breeders if we haven't agreed on a definition of what's responsible.


----------



## peace36 (Jan 29, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> "How can you legislate morality and ethics? You can't. Has never worked.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I think I said this before but just incase...
> Is there a way for someone to make booklets about what a BYB and puppymill is and then make them available to the public through a vets office or something? Maybe if there were booklets out there about this kind of thing and they were that available people would be more likely to know what to look out for in the future. I know at my vets they have all those pamphets for flea and tick prevention and heartworm pervention. They should make a pamphlet for BYB/puppymill prevention or something like that.


Of course there is, as long as the vet agrees. Why not make up something, and submit it to the board for editing and ideas, and then you can make the changes, print one out, and ask your vet if you can put multiple copies in his waiting room? The worst he could do would be to say no, and then you know a little more about him, and you can move on to another vet who may be receptive.



Shalva said:


> just to add..... many breed clubs DO NOT have lists of breeders on their websites but have a person you can contact to request the breed list.
> 
> I can always tell who has gotten my name from the breed club vs. my website based on to which email they contact me through first or whether they call my house or not. The breed club gives out my real email address and phone number..... (not home address) and my website only gives out a gmail address that I use just for the website. So how the initial contact happens.... tells me where they got my information from. Most contact me through my website.....
> 
> ...


I think it's great that you do that though. You never know what might happen to this kind of thing. I believe in the ripple effect when it comes to education, and your information may not have ended in a dog sale, but it may have been shown to a neighbor who wanted a different breed but used your advice to find a RB. So good for you !!!



peace36 said:


> I think the pet shops should be able to sell puppies but make sure they are from reputable breeders. I think that no matter where you get your dog/puppy from there should be an application that should have to be approved.


I'm sorry, but that's an oxymoron. Reputable breeders won't sell through pet shops, so pet shops can't make sure their dogs come from reputable breeders. Most breed clubs have it written in their Code of Ethics that their member breeders are not allowed to sell through, or to, pet shops. An application would be better than none, but even in rescue we also do interviews and home checks to make sure that what we see on the application is accurate. The more one does to qualify a home, the better chance that one won't miss something that would be bad for the dog.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Quote:
> Is there a list of responsible breeders on the internet that people can access , so that they can be guaranteed that they are buying a dog from one, rather than someone who just decides he or she can get rich breeding dogs, and once they are out the door, doesn't give a rats behind about the dog s they sell?
> 
> 
> ...



The definition of responsible is different to many people. I think it is up to the buyer to determine what they deem acceptable and up to them to decide what is ethical. My definition of responsible might be very different than yours. I know many breeders who consider themselves responsible and are considered responsible by others yet I would not consider them so. The buyer DOES have a lot of the burden here. Like any other major decision there should be research done. Yes, breeders should be responsible, but buyers should demand that responsibility.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> FSS aren't breeds registered with AKC. They're breeds that have been around for a while and most do have a standard but there are others that don't seem to make the standard clear.
> 
> One of such FSS breeds is a mix of wolf and dog. It's called the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog. I'm sure someone is going to tell me that this "breed" has been around for years in another country and has every right to be here. To bad it's not a breed and it's just taking up the spaces in homes that should be for other actual dog breeds out there.
> 
> ...


Wow, you learn something new everyday. I didn't know anything about that part of the registry, or that website. In looking over the breeds (non-breeds?) though, I noticed at least half a dozen that already have, and therefore need, rescues. Doesn't it say something when a breed is in need of rescue before it even becomes a recognized breed?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

A way to connect breeders with petstores would be for the petstores to stop selling dogs and instead sell the breeders. Like someone could just walk into a petstore and ask about a Great Dane breeder in the area and the petstore could have a list of the breeders, phone numbers, and webites. It would be up to the owner to find a reputable breeder but it would be a good way for breeders to get their names out into the public.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Wow, you learn something new everyday. I didn't know anything about that part of the registry, or that website. In looking over the breeds (non-breeds?) though, I noticed at least half a dozen that already have, and therefore need, rescues. Doesn't it say something when a breed is in need of rescue before it even becomes a recognized breed?


They ARE recognized breeds, just not recognized in the AKC. Many are UKC registerable and many are very popular in other countries. They are just as real of breeds as other breeds, simply not AKC registerable yet.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Wow, you learn something new everyday. I didn't know anything about that part of the registry, or that website. In looking over the breeds (non-breeds?) though, I noticed at least half a dozen that already have, and therefore need, rescues. Doesn't it say something when a breed is in need of rescue before it even becomes a recognized breed?


They're more widely known over in other countries where they are usually pretty popular. I think that a lot of the dogs we think are popular over here are less known over in other places just as their dogs are less known over here. It would probably be better for the breeds to stay less known over here anyways because we obviously have difficulties with too many dogs over here.



DogAdvocat said:


> Morally, dogs definitely should have their rights honored. Legally, they have no rights. And practically, we really do have a say in their lives because they are dependent on us to make decisions for them. Just like children are dependent on their parents. I assume you wouldn't say that we have no say in the life of our children? I think what's important is that we make sure that our decisions are in the best interests of the dog, not just for our own interests.


That's the way it should be but sadly it isn't and since so many bad things are done to dogs a lot of people are now fighting for dogs to go exstinct all together. My love for dogs won't let me believe that to be the one and only answere to all these problems but sometimes I start to wonder if I'm just being selfish thinking that. 
Honestly I think too many parents strangle their children. They force their beliefs onto them and don't let the children have enough freedom to come to their own conclusions about life but that's a different topic completely.



Laurelin said:


> They ARE recognized breeds, just not recognized in the AKC. Many are UKC registerable and many are very popular in other countries. They are just as real of breeds as other breeds, simply not AKC registerable yet.


So your saying that a wolf dog should be considered a breed just because it's registerable and popular over in another country. It's half wolf and half dog. That's a mutt to me and nothing more.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

peace36 said:


> Okedikee.  I also said that the petshops should have to approve an application too but every one did not want to mention that part. You all (most) just wanted to pretend that I think Pet Shops should sell to any "Joe Blow" when that is not what I said.
> 
> If there are now byb or petshops selling puppies and a high demand for puppies eventually the sheltors will be empty and there will once again be a need for more doggie pets. If the reputable breeders do not step up and meet that demand we will end up having the same problem over and over again.
> 
> Maybe the reputable breeders could open pet shops and screen the customers like they should and make some money selling supplies and up the price of the pups to make some $$ to cover the extra costs of renting a shop? I am sure some of you can rip this to shreds too but I think it is a good idea and could possibley help solve the problem. No not all breeders would want to do that to each their own but some might like too.


Actually, I covered the application part, but you haven't seen it yet. Maybe once you do, we can revisit that if necessary.

I agree with you that there is going to be a problem if there aren't enough dogs to go around and reputable breeders don't meet the demand, but I don't think it's up to the breeder to lower their ethics in order to meet a demand. Instead, it's up to society to realize that a dog is a privilege, and not a right. I'd like to see society reach the conclusion that if you can't treat a dog properly, then you shouldn't have a dog. That demand for a dog includes a lot of those people, who really can't give a dog what it needs, and should be allowed to do less. What if we cut out of the equation, all those people that would stick their dog in the back yard and ignore it except for food once a day. Just because they demand a dog, do you think a reputable breeder should lower her ethics and meet that demand?

As for the pet shops, why should a breeder open a pet shop, and staff it, when she could just have someone come to her home to see the same pups? Dogs, unlike blue jeans, really shouldn't be an impulse buy. As stated elsewhere, sometimes breeders talk to people for months before those people ever see a puppy. 

I have no basic problem with pet shops, as long as their purpose is to sell the things that pets need. What I'd like to see though, and maybe we can agree on this, is for pet shops to help educate the public on how to find a responsible breeder - maybe have a referral service. BUT, first we need to define what responsible is, and we need to develop a rating system so that the pet shops will be able to tell which breeder is responsible, and which isn't.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> So your saying that a wolf dog should be considered a breed just because it's registerable and popular over in another country. It's half wolf and half dog. That's a mutt to me and nothing more.



No, it's not half wolf, half dog. It's a multigenerational cross that combined Carpathian wolves and German Shepherds. I'm not saying whether I agree with the breed's purpose or it's breeding but it is very different from a 'wolfdog' you'll see bred here which is usually a cross between any wolf and any dog. It has a standard and is FCI accepted already. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakian_Wolfdog It is a relatively new breed.

Some breeds in the FSS are also in the Miscellaneous class (The Dogue de Bordeaux for example). Miscellaneous class breeds can occasionally be fully accepted- like the Beauceron recently.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Think about it like this.
> Today there are dogs tied outside in all different kind of weather that have never felt the touch of a loving hand and have never felt the love of a human.
> Today there are dogs out there getting torn apart by another and the last things those dogs will heer is the laughing of the humans it had grown to love.
> Today there are dogs out there hanging by there back legs and suffering as the fur is ripped of their bodies and then they will be thrown into a bloody pile like a piece of garbage.
> ...


Yes, there are some terrible things that go on in this world, and dogs, like any other being who are ruled by those that thing that "might equals right" are going to suffer for it. But I'd rather work at trying to stop those abuses, rather than stop the dog species, because while those that aren't born don't suffer, they also don't enjoy the pleasures of this world. If there were no dogs, mine wouldn't be flaked out on the bed, chasing rabbits in his dreams. He wouldn't get to enjoy car rides or walks in the park, or playing with his fluff toys, or digging in the garden, or chasing butterflies. Wouldn't it be better to advocate other dogs living like that than to put an end to dogs? Let's stop those that are irresponsibly breeding and putting dogs into situations where they suffer like that. Let's try to work with those who are trying to breed healthier dogs and put them into homes where their only suffering is that the butterfly is faster than they are.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> A way to connect breeders with petstores would be for the petstores to stop selling dogs and instead sell the breeders. Like someone could just walk into a petstore and ask about a Great Dane breeder in the area and the petstore could have a list of the breeders, phone numbers, and webites. It would be up to the owner to find a reputable breeder but it would be a good way for breeders to get their names out into the public.


This is an excellent idea...... and it is something a local holistic pet store does, they maintain a book of various reputable breeders so if someone asks they can send them in the right direction. 
s


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I wish it was that easy to stop the abuse that happens to dogs but it's really not. People will still by products tested on animals because of the lack of caring and education about it. People will still fight dogs because they have nothing better to do with their lives. People will still kill dogs for their fur because they can get away with calling it "fake fur".
People will still get dogs through any way they can just so they can kill them and sell them for food over in other countries.
People will still believe that they have every right to do these things because they are humans and above all other things. People used to be one with the earth, living outside and only killing out of the necesity to do so. Now people kill for money and other selfish reasons. It's amazing that people wonder why the earth is spitting out lava and drowning people in huge waves. It's probably trying to get rid of all the hate we've brought into the world.



Shalva said:


> This is an excellent idea...... and it is something a local holistic pet store does, they maintain a book of various reputable breeders so if someone asks they can send them in the right direction.
> s


That's great! I wish every pet store did that. I don't know any pet stores around me that would do something like that. I wish there was one though.


----------



## luv4gsds (Jul 27, 2006)

OK! I went and read through this thread I am some what confused. Can someone tell me what this thread is about?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> How can you legislate morality and ethics? You can't. Has never worked.


It works just as well as any other law does. And unless you are willing to throw all laws out, including the law against murder, then you can't claim certain of them don't work in order to avoid more legislation. Laws tell people what is acceptable in our society, and what isn't. Laws help to protect victims, by at least giving them a resource if they are victimized. Puppymilling creates victims, both canine and human. Indescriminate breeding does the same thing. 

Quote: "If I'm driving safely and sanely, why would I object to a law requiring other people to do the same thing?"



saveourdogs said:


> Because a drivers license is a minimal cost. I am not even sure, but i know it is less than $25 in my state. Imposing taxes of hundreds of dollars on someone is certainly not the same.


Are you aware that commercial drivers licenses cost more money? The point being, that if I'm not making money from my driving, then it's reasonable that the fee would be lower. However, if I am making money, like breeders do, then why wouldn't I pay that higher commercial fee? It's like a tax based on income, sort of.

And of course, the end result, as you've been told before, is that it really doesn't cost you a dime if you add it to the cost of your puppies. I assume that your puppies cost is based on what you have put into breeding that litter - vet costs, show costs, feed, etc. But you would rather fight licensing fees rather than raise the price on your puppies a little, in order to remedy the homeless dog problem?



Laurelin said:


> They ARE recognized breeds, just not recognized in the AKC. Many are UKC registerable and many are very popular in other countries. They are just as real of breeds as other breeds, simply not AKC registerable yet.


Ok, thank you. 



luv4gsds said:


> OK! I went and read through this thread I am some what confused. Can someone tell me what this thread is about?


This thread is about finding a common ground upon which we can agree, and once that common ground is found, to try to get creative and work together to solve whatever issue we've decided on. So far I think the general consensus is that puppymills have to end. We're still working on definitions and so forth.

Does that help?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> I guess I don't see why a person wouldn't go out a search for a breeder instead of going to a pet store.


Because people are ignorant, lazy and impulse buyers. They don't have the desire to do as much research on buying a dog as they would on buying a car.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Basically people go into pet stores and look at all the cute little puppydog faces and fall in love. That's what happened to me. If those dogs weren't stuck in that little pet store window then I'm sure people would be more likely to go out and look for a breeder. Not saying they would all find a good one but atleast they'ed be trying.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Who chose to sell to the *irresponsible people*? It starts with the breeder.


You're right, it does, but there is only *so much a breeder can do when screening!*



> And yes, I know that mistakes can happen, and people can be misjudged, but all that means is that the breeder needs to accept that they made the wrong choice and do better the next time, not just try to pass the buck and claim it's someone else's fault.


When you sell a dog to a *repeat home* you're certainly sure that you made a good choice! You're not expecting things to go wrong. Things HAPPEN and there's nothing you can do about it except try and put things back together, which is what this very good breeder is doing.



> Blaming other people makes no room for improving the placement process.


You mean like blaming good breeders for the things stupid people do?

The big problem I see here is that people are not separating *responsible breeder* from *irresponsible breeder*, just lumping everybody in one group, and that's not right.

Another breeder I know (the breeder I will get my next GSD from) does rescue as well as breeding. She has nationally ranked working dogs, gorgeous East German lines, absolutely GREAT lady.

She, and the previous mentioned breeder BOTH have it in their contracts that if at any time the buyer cannot keep the dog, it MUST be returned to them. Guess what? You can put it in the contract, doesn't mean people will do it.

You can't force people to follow the contract. All you can do is hope and pray that all your screening and questions and conversations with your buyers were full of truth. When you've been breeding a long time, I'm sorry, chances are that things are going to go sour at least once.

There is a saying in the breeding world of "If you breed long enough, you'll eventually have bred every health problem there is," and the same goes for dealing with people! 

"If you breed long enough, eventually you're going to sell to a bad apple."

There are TONS of con artists out there that know just what to say and do to present themselves, and they spin an absolutely spectacular web of lies. Do a home study? The house is immaculate, the family is beyond perfect, the people are charming, answer all your questions willingly.

You sell them a puppy, and a year later you're repossessing what LOOKS to be a dog, though it more closely resembles something a yak threw up. You wonder what happened, where you went wrong, even though you did everything in your power to do it right.

I'm sorry, but it is NOT always the breeders fault. Passing the buck? Horsepucky. It is the fault of the OWNER who allowed the dog to get in that condition. It is the fault of the OWNER who did not train the dog. It is the fault of the OWNER who did not follow through *with their end of the bargain*! 

You can make a person sign a contract, but you cannot make them follow it. Once the dog is gone, it is out of your hands what is done with that, and that's not irresponsible thinking, that's just plain *fact*!

You cannot force someone to feed the puppy what you fed it, you cannot tell them how to raise it, you cannot tell them that it may not sleep on the bed. Those are the decisions the owner of the dog gets to make.

And don't go and try twisting my words to make it out like the breeder is responsible. The breeder is responsible for what they create in that they need to take it back should troubles ever arise with the dog, and the breeder needs to be available to the buyer if they ever have questions or concerns, but the breeder is NOT responsible for what *somebody else* does to a dog they sold.

That responsibility falls on the *owner of the dog*.

My own Shepherd, Strauss, is from a Backyard breeder. She's never available to me. Hell, I don't even know where she IS anymore (she moved). She wasn't a responsible breeder, and there's no way she'd take him back if I ever needed to give him up. I could have beaten him half to death if I wanted, and she'd never know or care. 

But let's pretend for a moment that this breeder had done the responsible thing, screened me, checked out my living facilities, got references, did everything correctly.

If I still make the decision to go out and cut off my dog's tail with an axe and then singe off his whiskers, that responsibility doesn't fall on the breeder, it's on me. I did it to the dog, not the breeder. That cruelty is on ME, not the breeder.

And if ya'll ever think I would actually do that to a dog, you're nuts. My boys are my babies, but I'm just saying, it's not passing the buck. You cannot force somebody to raise and train their dogs the way you do. The owner of the dog is responsible for what happens to it while they are in posession of it.

This does not absolve a breeder from responsibility when the dog is in dire straits and in need of help, but when the dog isn't in their care? Not a damn thing they can do unless they fight tooth and nail to get it back, because legally, it isn't their dog anymore.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> However, if I am making money, like breeders do, then why wouldn't I pay that higher commercial fee? It's like a tax based on income, sort of.
> 
> And of course, the end result, as you've been told before, is that it really doesn't cost you a dime if you add it to the cost of your puppies. I assume that your puppies cost is based on what you have put into breeding that litter - vet costs, show costs, feed, etc. But you would rather fight licensing fees rather than raise the price on your puppies a little, in order to remedy the homeless dog problem?


two problems here 
first is you assume a responsible breeder makes money. 
that is not so.... if you go to the thread about the dog project some kids are doing you will find that I spend close to 10,000 per year on dogs, dog shows, dog clearances, dog health dog stuff..... for my five dogs..... 

this litter of maybe 8 maybe 9 puppies cost me 1200 is stud fees..... 1400 in AI fees.... not to mention other little things but lets forget the probably 500 bucks I spend on stuff for the puppies, microchips, litter registrations etc. so lets forget that stuff..... 

so that is 2600..... ok I charge $1200/puppy..... I am selling all but one or possibly two puppies. A friend who co-owns shalva with me might want a pup as her litter didn't take... so I won't sell her pupppy we will just co-own but just for kicks just say I dont sell one puppy, the one I will keep and sell all the rest ..... so thats 8 puppies (maybe 7 but lets figure 8) 8x1200= 9600 - 2600= 7000 

ok so I earn 7000 on the litter...... 
BUT 
I spend roughly 10,000/year on dogs...... so do the math..... I breed roughly every 3 or 4 years..... 
so thats 30,000 over 3 years with no money coming in...... and then I earn 7000 roughly ...... 
needless to say I don't earn anything.... I am deeply in the red. 


the other part of this is if you continue to add costs to your puppies then you end up pricing the average person out of getting a well bred dog and this contributes to the byb'er problem when the average person can't afford $1200 for a dog when they can go to joe shmoe down the street and buy a puppy for $400 
S


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Shalva, you're my hero xD


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I'm guessing it's pointless to try and get rid of BYB/puppymills because in the end it would either only end up affecting the breeders that actually know what they are doing or afecting all breeders, good and bad. 
That's pretty sad that we can't stop horrible people from doing things without affecting the good people out there in the process.


----------



## luv4gsds (Jul 27, 2006)

> This thread is about finding a common ground upon which we can agree, and once that common ground is found, to try to get creative and work together to solve whatever issue we've decided on. So far I think the general consensus is that puppymills have to end. We're still working on definitions and so forth.
> 
> Does that help?


Thank you for clearing that up for me.

I think that the dog registries need to change there registration policy. 

The animals have to have all of their health testing done, has to have some type of title to show that it is breed worthy, be either microchip or tattoo. All of this before it can be registered the same thing for their offsprings. They need to change the breeding age. They need to have breed wardens in every county within the states. By doing these changes it would put a damper on these puppymills.

I know this has nothing to do with puppymills but toward animals in shelters/rescues. When people are thinking about getting a pet I think they need to educate themselves before rushing right out and buying the first cutie pie they see. And for some breeders to stand behind what they bring into this world. Like do temperament testing, suite the buyer with the best pet, take pet back when the buyer can no longer care for it and stand by their contact. This is one reason why pets end up in shelters and rescues because of people not educating themselves and breeders not standing behind what they bring into this world.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

I think that a lot of the problems in the dog world stem from them riding halfway between being commodities and family members. When people can treat them like inanimate objects, bought and sold, then the concern will often be more about the money than the welfare of the dog. The fact that dogs can be likened to cars, and we're told "buyer beware" makes it an entirely different status than children, for instance, who are adopted. Maybe I'm more keenly aware of this because of being in rescue where the goal is matching a dog with a family where they can interact successfully and receive the care they need - which is more like an adoptive child than a purchased car. Though I'm not sure where they will lead, there are changes in this country that may account for that in the future. Legislation, is being proposed, for instance, that would grant pain and suffering of the dog's owners in a lawsuit, where in the past, they were granted the value of the dog. This is more akin to losing a child at someone else's hand than having property ruined. And I think that breeder responsibility will work right into this shift in how we value dogs. It may make breeding more of a service, like rescue, than a business. And as a service, I think that it's up to the service provider to assist the "buyer" than the goal being sales. Again, this would be akin to rescue. Rescue's goal isn't to make money. We ask donations, or have fees, based on keeping the rescue going, not based on profit. And since responsible breeders also say that they don't breed for profit, it would seem to me that would put responsible breeding a service, like rescue. Ideally anyway.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

luv4gsds said:


> Thank you for clearing that up for me.
> 
> I think that the dog registries need to change there registration policy.
> 
> ...



see and here is the inherent problem..... 

I guess I have questions for you...... 
what would you change the breeding age to???? do you mean just to age 2 when a dog can have clearances....???? or do you mean later???? what age would you say you can't breed at???? 

so what you are saying is to have no dog registered until it has health clearances, and titles??? that doesnt make much sense to me..... so how do you compete with a dog and show a dog to championship if that dog is not registered......???? 

i have a friend who has a beautiful dog.... who had an injury..... if it had not been for this injury which caused a limp she would have finished her championship but because of the injury she can not.... should she not breed this girl???? she has longevity in her pedigree,,,, is drop dead gorgeous..... shoot an outstanding girl..... but she was injured..... does a breed with a gene pool as small as mine breeds not need every healthy sound set of genetic material it can get??? 

What is a breed warden and what do they do????? how would they impact puppymills and byb's 

finally..... the day after oprah and her darned dog show.... I got three emails looking for "white goldens"..... uuuuugggghhhhhhhhhhh 
24 hours later..... 
talk about impulsive.... and wanting to be just like oprah... drives me nuts.... 
oh and in that list of things that you think all breeders should do.... 

most responsible breeders do all of those things already. 
s


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> What is a breed warden and what do they do????? how would they impact puppymills and byb's


That's how the german system works. A breed warden inspects a litter and the facilities of the breeder.

Under the German system, puppies cannot be registered if the parents are untitled and their hips aren't cleared.

In order for a dog to continue showing in conformation after the age of 2, the dog must either have an HGH (German herding title), or a schutzhund title. This prevents dogs being bred that haven't shown any working ability.

Now, is every VA rated SchH III dog breedworthy? Of course not. But it shows more than just a Championship to a lot of people.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> You're right, it does, but there is only *so much a breeder can do when screening!*


Yep, that's true.



Xeph said:


> When you sell a dog to a *repeat home* you're certainly sure that you made a good choice! You're not expecting things to go wrong. Things HAPPEN and there's nothing you can do about it except try and put things back together, which is what this very good breeder is doing.


I think we're all a little more relaxed when we place a dog with a repeat home, but I don't think that is cause to not requalify that home. Changes happen in people's lives. Children are born, placing toddlers around the new dog that the old dog didn't have to contend with. People move to homes where they have gardeners they didn't have before, and don't realize the inherent dangers. So yes, things do happen that weren't foreseen, but to me all that means is that I have to try harder the next time to foresee those contingencies. And there was never any question about putting things back together - the question was where to place the blame. Those that place the blame on others are unlikely to learn from what happened and prevent it from happening again.



Xeph said:


> You mean like blaming good breeders for the things stupid people do?


Ok, let me put it a little differently - why would a good breeder place with a stupid person? S/he didn't know they were stupid??? Then the breeder needs to look harder. If I blame those that I place with, why would I ever ask myself what I could have done better?



Xeph said:


> The big problem I see here is that people are not separating *responsible breeder* from *irresponsible breeder*, just lumping everybody in one group, and that's not right.


If they can't tell one from the other, how can they do anything but lump them altogether? Maybe responsible breeders need to work on their PR a little more, instead of blaming the public for not recognizing the difference between them and the rest of the breeders. Considering how few RBs there are, I think most of us could probably go a lifetime and never happen to meet one. Is that the fault of the public? I don't think so. Have you thought about the fact that rescue is out in the public eye, doing mobile adoptions, manning booths at adoption fairs, meeting and educating the public whenever possible? What can you cite as comparable in the breeding world, leaving out those breeders that do/represent rescue? What public events do breeders go to? Dog shows? That's really not about the public, it's about the dog, and the judge, and breeders are usually so busy with grooming, or even visiting with other breeder/handlers that they don't have much time to talk to the public. Even dog fancy type publications will advise that the public wait until after a dog has been shown before approaching a breeder, but in my experience, that's usually when breeders/handlers are packing up and anxious to get on the road. Breeders aren't there to meet the public, but rescues are.



Xeph said:


> Another breeder I know (the breeder I will get my next GSD from) does rescue as well as breeding. She has nationally ranked working dogs, gorgeous East German lines, absolutely GREAT lady.
> 
> She, and the previous mentioned breeder BOTH have it in their contracts that if at any time the buyer cannot keep the dog, it MUST be returned to them. Guess what? You can put it in the contract, doesn't mean people will do it.
> 
> ...


We don't look for immaculate homes. In fact, that's a danger sign because no dog is going to be immaculate. An immaculate home isn't going to be tolerant of a muddy pawprint. We do have a set of criteria that we look for, but I don't think it's a good idea to spell it out in a public forum.
continued.........


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> You sell them a puppy, and a year later you're repossessing what LOOKS to be a dog, though it more closely resembles something a yak threw up. You wonder what happened, where you went wrong, even though you did everything in your power to do it right.


I think this is a bigger danger in rescue because of the numbers of dogs being place, but why would a breeder have so many dogs in homes that it would take a year before s/he would check up on a dog? 



Xeph said:


> I'm sorry, but it is NOT always the breeders fault. Passing the buck? Horsepucky. It is the fault of the OWNER who allowed the dog to get in that condition. It is the fault of the OWNER who did not train the dog. It is the fault of the OWNER who did not follow through *with their end of the bargain*!
> 
> You can make a person sign a contract, but you cannot make them follow it. Once the dog is gone, it is out of your hands what is done with that, and that's not irresponsible thinking, that's just plain *fact*!


That's not true if the breeder is doing proper follow-up. If the dog is out of the breeder's hands (metaphorically) how is that breeder going to judge that dog on an ongoing basis to see if medical problems arise that would indicate a needed change in the breeder's line? How will the breeder know if the dog went blind at the age of 8? No, I'm sorry, but this is just more rhetoric on excusing breeders from being responsible. 



Xeph said:


> You cannot force someone to feed the puppy what you fed it, you cannot tell them how to raise it, you cannot tell them that it may not sleep on the bed. Those are the decisions the owner of the dog gets to make.


Actually you can. It's been done successfully by some rescues. Some breeds do well on only certain foods, and it's part of the contract that if that food is not fed, then the rescue has the right to reclaim the dog. The adopter signs that contract and therefore it stands up in court if it comes to that. Some rescue contracts require the adopter pay court costs if it ends up in court. Since it's agreed to before adoption, it's a done deal.



Xeph said:


> And don't go and try twisting my words to make it out like the breeder is responsible. The breeder is responsible for what they create in that they need to take it back should troubles ever arise with the dog, and the breeder needs to be available to the buyer if they ever have questions or concerns, but the breeder is NOT responsible for what *somebody else* does to a dog they sold.
> 
> That responsibility falls on the *owner of the dog*.


I don't think I'm twisting your words at all, but if a breeder is sitting back and only wants involvement if the buyer/owner contacts the breeder with a problem, then there is disaster waiting to happen right there. A responsible breeder needs to be pro-active. They need to stay in contact with the buyers of their puppies, and that would be no problem if they were breeding only the number of puppies they could keep in contact with.



Xeph said:


> My own Shepherd, Strauss, is from a Backyard breeder. She's never available to me. Hell, I don't even know where she IS anymore (she moved). She wasn't a responsible breeder, and there's no way she'd take him back if I ever needed to give him up. I could have beaten him half to death if I wanted, and she'd never know or care.
> 
> But let's pretend for a moment that this breeder had done the responsible thing, screened me, checked out my living facilities, got references, did everything correctly.
> 
> If I still make the decision to go out and cut off my dog's tail with an axe and then singe off his whiskers, that responsibility doesn't fall on the breeder, it's on me. I did it to the dog, not the breeder. That cruelty is on ME, not the breeder.


Are you under the impression that I'm saying that the owner is completely absolved of all responsibility? I'm really not. The owner is to blame for his actions, but the breeder chose the owner, and I don't understand the attempt at trying to divorce the breeder from that fact. If you pick a s**t home, then you shouldn't be surprised when s**t happens. Simple as that. And if a breeder can recognize that they made a mistake, then they are more likely not to make that mistake again. On the other hand, if they put the blame solely on the owner, then the breeder is unlikely to reexamine her methods of choosing a buyer.



Xeph said:


> And if ya'll ever think I would actually do that to a dog, you're nuts. My boys are my babies, but I'm just saying, it's not passing the buck. You cannot force somebody to raise and train their dogs the way you do. The owner of the dog is responsible for what happens to it while they are in posession of it.


Of course you wouldn't actually do that to a dog. A discussion on the philosophy of breeding needn't end up in personal attacks. I'm fully aware that you were using that as an example. A little less defensiveness might help though.  



Xeph said:


> This does not absolve a breeder from responsibility when the dog is in dire straits and in need of help, but when the dog isn't in their care? Not a damn thing they can do unless they fight tooth and nail to get it back, because legally, it isn't their dog anymore.


I find it really hard to believe that breeders can't come up with contracts that are just as effective as rescue contracts are. Remember, a responsible breeder is not breeding to meet a demand, therefore they can really call the shots as to what they require of the people they place their puppies with. If the buyer doesn't want to agree to the breeder's demands, they can go elsewhere. Loss of a sale shouldn't be the breeders main concern. And when breeders talk about having people hang with them for months and years waiting for a puppy, I can't believe that they wouldn't build up a relationship that could even foster something like a co-ownership placement. Again, rescue does it - why is it so hard for breeders to do?



Shalva said:


> two problems here
> first is you assume a responsible breeder makes money.
> that is not so.... if you go to the thread about the dog project some kids are doing you will find that I spend close to 10,000 per year on dogs, dog shows, dog clearances, dog health dog stuff..... for my five dogs.....


Yes, I assume a breeder makes money. What I don't assume is that a breeder makes a profit. I think that depends on the breeder, and the breed, and the number of puppies in the litter. My point remains, when you're selling your dogs, you can simply raise the price to reflect extra expenses, including license fees.



Shalva said:


> the other part of this is if you continue to add costs to your puppies then you end up pricing the average person out of getting a well bred dog and this contributes to the byb'er problem when the average person can't afford $1200 for a dog when they can go to joe shmoe down the street and buy a puppy for $400
> S


You know, I would buy that argument except for one thing - while you are loathe to charge $1200 because of Joe Schmoe's $400, people are buying terrible quality puppies at pet shops for the same amount that you don't want to charge. If anything, if one buys into the idea that you get what you pay for, a responsibly bred dog SHOULD cost more simply because it is better quality. 

People like to compare dogs with inanimate objects like cars - so have you ever seen Rolls Royce lower their price so they won't lose customers to Toyota? Isn't setting your price to what the traffic will bear an attempt to meet a demand? I'd thought we'd agreed that RBs don't aim to meet the public's demands.



luv4gsds said:


> Thank you for clearing that up for me.
> 
> I think that the dog registries need to change there registration policy.
> 
> The animals have to have all of their health testing done, has to have some type of title to show that it is breed worthy, be either microchip or tattoo. All of this before it can be registered the same thing for their offsprings. They need to change the breeding age. They need to have breed wardens in every county within the states. By doing these changes it would put a damper on these puppymills.


All excellent ideas. Do you have any idea how to make this happen? 



> I know this has nothing to do with puppymills but toward animals in shelters/rescues. When people are thinking about getting a pet I think they need to educate themselves before rushing right out and buying the first cutie pie they see. And for some breeders to stand behind what they bring into this world. Like do temperament testing, suite the buyer with the best pet, take pet back when the buyer can no longer care for it and stand by their contact. This is one reason why pets end up in shelters and rescues because of people not educating themselves and breeders not standing behind what they bring into this world.


Yep, and your ideas about breeders are what a responsible breeder would do. Unfortunately, there just aren't enough responsible breeders as opposed to the proliferation of irresponsible ones.


----------



## BoxMeIn21 (Apr 10, 2007)

Xeph said:


> You can make a person sign a contract, but you cannot make them follow it. Once the dog is gone, it is out of your hands what is done with that, and that's not irresponsible thinking, that's just plain *fact*!


I disagree, you may not be able to make them follow it, but if you find that they are not, a responsible breeder will have conditions in said contract to be able to take the dog back. Emphasis on CONTRACT, a legal binding agreement between two parties. I have my boxer Disco because her breeder found her in less than favorable conditions AND her owner was not following the stipulations outlined in the contract. She repo'd her, and if needed, her contract would stand up in court. Furthermore, I have signed a contract on Disco, she is co-owned until I spay her or finish her in the show ring. If I don't adhere to the conditions that I agreed to, she can take her back from me, plain and simple. So no, it's not out of the breeders hands and to me this is one of the qualities that I believe makes a responsible breeder. I don't want someone who will sell me a dog and not care about the rest of it's life - and in IMO those types of breeders along with puppymills are the ones we need to extinguish.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Shalva said:


> so what you are saying is to have no dog registered until it has health clearances, and titles??? that doesnt make much sense to me..... so how do you compete with a dog and show a dog to championship if that dog is not registered......????


This is something I could agree with too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a dog can be shown if it's registered, and it's of a certain age, right? If so, then isn't it possible to win it's points before it's been cleared of health problems? Is the judge going to recognize CHD, or CEA, or PRA, or vWD? Aren't there a number of health issues the could get past a judge? I too would like to see a registration pending status, or some way to insure that the dog passed it's health clearances in order to get a championship. AKC conformation shows should be more than beauty contests.



Shalva said:


> i have a friend who has a beautiful dog.... who had an injury..... if it had not been for this injury which caused a limp she would have finished her championship but because of the injury she can not.... should she not breed this girl???? she has longevity in her pedigree,,,, is drop dead gorgeous..... shoot an outstanding girl..... but she was injured..... does a breed with a gene pool as small as mine breeds not need every healthy sound set of genetic material it can get???


If the AKC weren't holding beauty contests, would this be an issue? Isn't it strange that though illegal, some breeders have cosmetic surgery done on their dogs to meet the standard, but an injury counts against the dog? IMO, your injured girl should be allowed to show, not be judged on her injury, but be required to prove the injury is not genetic, and to also prove that there are no other genetic issues that would make her a poor choice for breeding.



Shalva said:


> What is a breed warden and what do they do????? how would they impact puppymills and byb's


I'll be interested to hear the answer to this - it may be like what I've heard they have in some parts of Europe. The "breed warden" or committee, decides whether your dog should be bred or not. They take into account what other breeders are doing, so that there isn't any overbreeding of any one breed, as well as the quality of the dog.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> That's not true if the breeder is doing proper follow-up.


So, for the next 15 years, the breeder needs to contact every single buyer of every single puppy they've EVER sold? ...that's not only ridiculous...it's just plain...creepy.



> If the dog is out of the breeder's hands (metaphorically) how is that breeder going to judge that dog on an ongoing basis to see if medical problems arise that would indicate a needed change in the breeder's line? How will the breeder know if the dog went blind at the age of 8?


There is this really cool (if not a bit archaic) thing the owner of the dog can do. It's called...a phone call!

No time for a phone call? Hello e-mail! No internet? *GASP!* You can write a letter! Crazy how that works, no?



> Some breeds do well on only certain foods, and it's part of the contract that if that food is not fed, then the rescue has the right to reclaim the dog.


I can tell you right now, that most people aren't going to purchase/adopt from somebody that says "You must feed this!" 

My mother feeds her Labrador Pedigree *insert barfy emoticon here*. If she bred that dog (God forbid) and said "You can only feed your puppy Pedigree or I'll reposess your dog" no way I'd buy. *I* get to choose what I feed my dog, and considering that *I'm* the one living with the dog, I'm pretty sure that *I* would know what feed my dog does best on.



> some way to insure that the dog passed it's health clearances in order to get a championship.


It is not a judge's job to flush out health problems. That's the job of the owner of the dog. The judge's job is to evaluate structure, and that's it.



> IMO, your injured girl should be allowed to show, not be judged on her injury


It's not a matter of being allowed to show. The dog can still be shown...it just won't win. And the reason for that is, movement is important in a great many breeds. If a dog has a limp, show rules dictate the dog must be excused from the ring. If a dog has a limp, movement cannot be properly evaluated.

You cannot see if the shoulder is opening properly, the dog may be extending in the rear correctly, but the limp makes it look off, the topline may roll because of said limp...

And how do you prove an injury is the cause of say a dog who has just x rayed dysplastic in the elbow or hips? After all, you can breed two OFA Excellent dogs together, and still get genetic "duds" as far as health goes.

Epilepsy free pedigree, and all of a sudden, you've got an epileptic puppy...what do you do?


----------



## luv4gsds (Jul 27, 2006)

Shalva, Here something to read http://germanshepherddog.com/members/USA%20Breed%20Registry%20Regulations.pdf This is what I am talking about the registration.

Breed Warden- http://germanshepherddog.com/regulations/breed_warden_tattooer_regulations.htm

And for the breeding part the age should be at least three years of age, when both dogs are at a right mature age and six years for them to be spayed/neutered.



> so what you are saying is to have no dog registered until it has health clearances, and titles??? that doesnt make much sense to me..... so how do you compete with a dog and show a dog to championship if that dog is not registered......????


 http://realgsd.ca/GSDinfo/GerAm/fci_vs_akc.htm



> i have a friend who has a beautiful dog.... who had an injury..... if it had not been for this injury which caused a limp she would have finished her championship but because of the injury she can not.... should she not breed this girl????


 Well I put it this way in Schutzhund when a dog got becomes hurt to were it cannot perform its duty then those dogs are spayed/neutered.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Just wondering about some things..
What do you all think should be the youngest age to start breeding a bitch? What is the oldest?
What health testing should be done on ALL breeds before they are used for breeding?
What do you think is a good way to educate the public about BYB/puppymills?
How can we educate the public so that they understand "teacup", "Giant", and other wierd sized dogs are not healthy and should not be bought?
How can we stop the breeding of "designer dogs"?
How can we get responsable breeders out there into the eye of the public so it's easier for people to buy healthy and well bred dogs?


Those are just a few of the questions that I'm wondering if we can all agree somewhat about.

IMO opinion any breeder that cares about their dogs will atleast ask that the owners stay in contact with them and will atleast try and continue that contact through e-mail and letters themselves as well.


----------



## Dorygirl (Mar 16, 2007)

So you guys are saying that breeders should follow up on their puppies for the duration of their lives? That's amazing. Mine called a couple of times for the first year and then that was that. It might get a little annoying to be called for years after, actually. But it would help keep track of things, I guess.

It would have been very easy for me to give my dog to someone else or even put her in a shelter. My breeder would have never known. I have to agree with Xeph that a breeder can be lied to easily and never know the difference.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Dorygirl said:


> So you guys are saying that breeders should follow up on their puppies for the duration of their lives? That's amazing. Mine called a couple of times for the first year and then that was that. It might get a little annoying to be called for years after, actually. But it would help keep track of things, I guess.
> 
> It would have been very easy for me to give my dog to someone else or even put her in a shelter. My breeder would have never known. I have to agree with Xeph that a breeder can be lied to easily and never know the difference.


To keep that from happening breeders should have their vet microchip all their puppies with their address so that if the dog gets lost or taken to a shelter they will be notified and can go and get the dog back. I don't think breeders should call owners every single month or anything like that but they should keep contact with the owners throughout the years by e-mail and letters.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

ahhh epilepsy....

I have an epileptic Champion..... he was on phenobarb when he finished his championship.... then was neutered 2 weeks later...... many people show for fun..... not to breed.... 

however..... 

I am bowing out of this conversation.... 
because this has become less about meeting of minds and more about a back to ripping apart breeders..... 

oh and just for the record.... before I say my adieu's 

take your contracts to an attorney.... and what you will find is that they are not enforceable as a general rule. Dogs in this country for better or worse are property.... and as such.... people pays their money they gets a dog ..... and Xelph is right..... once you have cashed their check the dog is theirs to do with what they want..... 

I have an extensive contract.... but the reality is that I am hoping for ignorance of the law because I have had several attorneys look at it and basically contracts on dogs are mostly unenforceable.... but I figure what my puppy people dont know wont hurt them.... and if it gets them to do what I think is best for the puppy then thats all I care about...... sometimes ignorance does work in your favor. 

so anyway.... off I go.... 

I don't like being lumped with other breeders who don't work half as hard as I do to do things right by my dog and my puppies. 

so au revoir. 
s

oh yeah last thing.... 
thanks for the GSD info. I will go and check that out. 
s


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I have an extensive contract.... but the reality is that I am hoping for ignorance of the law because I have had several attorneys look at it and basically contracts on dogs are mostly unenforceable....


BAM! Right there! Do you know why contracts tend to work as a general rule? Fear. Plain and simple.

People FEAR that you'll take their beloved new friend for them, they FEAR doing something wrong. Most people don't realize that for the most part, a contract is an idle threat.

If I live in Wisconsin, and my buyer lives in California, and I SUE them, they have to come to me. And guess what? My contract may hold up in court in Wisconsin, but it could easily be chucked out in California. Lots of things depend on the jurisdiction of the complaint etc etc.

I know breeders who are ALSO attorneys, and even THEY know more often than not, a contract *will not hold up in court*!

If Joe Schmoe goes out and buys a $400 puppy and something goes wrong with the puppy, whose fault is it if they don't contact the breeder, or the breeder doesn't contact them back?

Sorry, but it's Joe's fault for not researching their breeder closely enough. Although that is what I would call a bad breeder, it's true, people really DO have to be careful of who they buy from. I'm not absolving breeders of their responsibility, as they are creating life, but ignorance and stupidity is not an excuse to run crying "FOUL!" when you get screwed.

It comes from both sides of the fence. Ignorance begets more ignorance. I educate people on proper breeding *every chance I get*, and it's quite often, because people find my dogs interesting and fascinating and want to know more about GSDs.

One came from a good breeder, one came from a not good one. I'm honest about that. But in the end, people are going to buy what they want when they want it.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> I am bowing out of this conversation....
> because this has become less about meeting of minds and more about a back to ripping apart breeders.....


I agree, it's sad and rather frusterating. Nothing is ever good enough. I appreciate all you do and I want you to know that.

Contracts aren't really that enforcable as people have said. I've seen them ripped apart. You want a good example- http://www.lotekipapillons.com/indexbispaps.html 

Go to about Loteki, then to the Loteki Story, then scroll down to where it says "Loteki Supernatural Being: The Kirby Story". It's interesting and actually pretty common and unavoidable. We have Rose now because of a breach in a contract also to a repeat home. Luckily the breeder got the dog back. 



> So you guys are saying that breeders should follow up on their puppies for the duration of their lives? That's amazing. Mine called a couple of times for the first year and then that was that. It might get a little annoying to be called for years after, actually. But it would help keep track of things, I guess.


People are always amazed by this. Isn't it an invasion of privacy? I've been told many times that my breeder would annoy them with being so involved. My dog from her is nearing three. (My first one) I talk to her at least twice a month, more when we're showing. I see her every few months. I also know other dogs she's placed and their owners. It's been an extensive extensive relationship. I didn't get a breeder, I got a friend and a mentor who is much more experienced than I with the breed. She watches our dogs when we're out of town, when Harry passed away we were offered another dog of equal value (his sister, but we ended up with Rose who fit better). She knows where every single one of her dogs are and what's going on with them. Some people aren't comfortable with this, but to me that says she cares a lot about her dogs. It's like jumping through hoops to get a dog from her though. We went through two interviews for the first one- two three hour drives across state for Beau. It was worth it. She's also been able to put us in contact with our vet, who has papillons and is really good with toys, and our handler, etc.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> So, for the next 15 years, the breeder needs to contact every single buyer of every single puppy they've EVER sold? ...that's not only ridiculous...it's just plain...creepy.


Responsible breeders do it. Failure to do so shows they really don't care about the dog at all. That is creepy.



Xeph said:


> There is this really cool (if not a bit archaic) thing the owner of the dog can do. It's called...a phone call!
> 
> No time for a phone call? Hello e-mail! No internet? *GASP!* You can write a letter! Crazy how that works, no?
> 
> ...


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Again, a court of law would not hold a breeder responsible, why are you?
This law is about an excuse to end breeding, not to eliminate dogs in shelters. The rescue people dont' want to go out of business and the AR fanatics want the end of all breeding. 

If someone truly wants to reduce the number of dogs in shelters then think of ways to truly reach the actual problem, owner irresponsibility and owner relinquishment. The TRUE cause of the problem. You don't like when I mention that I am against using the term 'pet overpopulation' because that is not what the problem is. WHY are there so many dogs in shelters. Because people are abandoning them there. It is an owner relinquisment problem. No it is not an easy fix. But think of ways to approach and improve on the REAL problem, don't just use it as an excuse to end breeding or get back at breeders. And the number of dogs in shelters are going down each year. Is there a quick fix. No. Education is the answer. There is not one thing that can be done to end the issue immediately, unless you end dog ownership period. Education takes time. But it is working, slowly but it is working. 

it is not up to me to tell Joe Blow how to run his breeding program. As long as his dogs are not in bad conditions, there is no crime committed.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It makes sense to me that if your dog is going to be judged to make sure it's a good example of the breed health testing should be done on it as well. Just because it looks the way it should doesn't meen it is as healthy as it should be or even healthy at all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Dorygirl said:


> So you guys are saying that breeders should follow up on their puppies for the duration of their lives? That's amazing. Mine called a couple of times for the first year and then that was that. It might get a little annoying to be called for years after, actually. But it would help keep track of things, I guess.
> 
> It would have been very easy for me to give my dog to someone else or even put her in a shelter. My breeder would have never known. I have to agree with Xeph that a breeder can be lied to easily and never know the difference.


I'm not sure why you think it would be annoying. A lot of breeders are proud to say that their puppy buyers send them holiday cards with pictures of their grown puppies in them. A lot of rescues have doggie picnics where all the placed dogs and their families come to enjoy each other's company. Some breeders probably do the same thing. Responsible breeders build a relationship with the puppy buyers, and often act as mentors to them. These are the breeders that CARE, and I would think that anyone would be happy to have someone that concerned about their dog.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

"What I'm suggesting is that a breeder should have to show the OFA (and other health clearances) results in order to be considered showable. The dog should be just as good a quality on the inside as he is on the outside, and I don't just mean form. A dog that has PRA shouldn't also have a championship. And currently that isn't addressed in the AKC show ring, is it"

Yes breeding should be about reducing health issues. But the show ring is NOT about determining health issues nor the place to do it. 

First of all, this law requires that the dog finish it's ch by the time it's 2 years of age or it has to be neutered, thus ending it's showing and breeding career. OFA doesn't xray until 2 years of age. So using OFA and this law do not combine. 

Not all breeds need to be OFAd. There is no incidence of HD in my breed. We have other problems but not HD. We have some later onset issues. they had a clear exam when they where 1 1/2 finished it's CH and then was diagnosed as affected at 2 1/2 or later. That happens in my breed. So it does no use to require health exams for the show ring. 

Health exams and DNA tests that are available for that specific breed are an additional tool that breeders use besides having the conformation of the dog be evaluated in the show ring. 

You mention that a dog with PRA shouldn't have a CH. I disagree. First of all, just because a dog is a CH doesn't mean it should be bred. Not all CHs are bred. I have some friends that have finished quite a few dogs that have never gotten bred because they have too many good ones. They can't breed them all. They placed them in pet homes once they finished thier CH. One of those same friends, got rid of the prior line she had because they are all affected with a genetic disease. She finished the CHs on some and at prestigious shows, but she didn't breed them. She just wanted to finish them for fun. She had no intentions of breeding them.



DogAdvocat said:


> I'm not sure why you think it would be annoying. A lot of breeders are proud to say that their puppy buyers send them holiday cards with pictures of their grown puppies in them. A lot of rescues have doggie picnics where all the placed dogs and their families come to enjoy each other's company. Some breeders probably do the same thing. Responsible breeders build a relationship with the puppy buyers, and often act as mentors to them. These are the breeders that CARE, and I would think that anyone would be happy to have someone that concerned about their dog.


its one thing to receive a holiday picture,. its not the same thing as constant phone calls. I agree with her, that is totally creepy. I wouldnt want to be intruded upon like that.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> its one thing to receive a holiday picture,. its not the same thing as constant phone calls. I agree with her, that is totally creepy. I wouldnt want to be intruded upon like that.


I don't think it's intrusion. The calls go both ways. I need help with my dogs and showing, and she wants to know how her dogs are doing. I think she called our handler more often than we did when Beau was showing. She also came to shows where she wasn't showing just to see him. I don't find that odd, she's just VERY into her dogs. 

Still, do rescues keep up every year with the dogs they place?

I also think it's odd though that it's always the breeder's fault. For example, they want a way to make sure breeders are telling the truth and not lying. Because it's not reasonable to ask a buyer to differentiate between a liar and someone who is actually responsible. But it's the breeder's fault if someone lies to them during the interviews? So the buyers shouldn't be lied to and it's the breeder's fault for lying, but a breeder should always know when a buyer is lying to them? There's no logic there.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Just wondering about some things..
> What do you all think should be the youngest age to start breeding a bitch? What is the oldest?
> What health testing should be done on ALL breeds before they are used for breeding?
> What do you think is a good way to educate the public about BYB/puppymills?
> ...


The youngest a bitch OR stud should be bred is 2, that is because the OFA, PennHip, CERF and other health testing cannot be certified until that age.

The oldest is 6 after that, it is too risky for the Bitch. 

Health testing is harder to standardized. I would say ALL breeds need Heart, Thyroid and CERF for the eyes. Then you get into the special concerns for sizee and body structure. Some breeds, such as Bulldogs will never score Excellent in a hip exam, but can get "good" or "fair" They should be tested for HD though as it is very prevalent especially in poorly bred lines. 

As far as rare sizes and colors these are usually not to the breed standard. I have never seen a 'Giant' anything advertised unless it was an actual breed (EX Giant Schnauzer) However, I know that many try to breed for 'teacup' which has a direct effect on the health of the puppies often resulting in diabeties, auto-immune disorders and higher prevalence of genetic disorders. 

As far as designer dogs, that is a tough one. There is a fine line between this and development of a breed or even trying to bring in healthy, fresh lines to a near extinct breeds as was done with the Mastiff in the post WWII era when, to save the breed St. Bernard and DDB blood was brought in. This forever split the Mastiff community, but the Decendants of those lines now rank in the top lines in the US and England. 

I would guess we would have to try to define what a 'designer' dog is and try to outlaw the reproduction of thse breeds, however, that could have some serious repercussions. The fact is, Responsible breeders would never produce designer breeds, however at times it may be nessesary to outcross an endangered breed. 

I don't know how to bring responsible breeders to the forefront. I know some Forum sites have 'approved breeders' I also know that some breed groups have gotten together and formed info sites with breeders that meet certain standards such as www.devinefarm.net where ALL litters have to come from health tested parents and they list the scores of tested Studs and give links to find out what other dogs are tested.



saveourdogs said:


> "
> Not all breeds need to be OFAd. There is no incidence of HD in my breed. We have other problems but not HD. We have some later onset issues. they had a clear exam when they where 1 1/2 finished it's CH and then was diagnosed as affected at 2 1/2 or later. That happens in my breed. So it does no use to require health exams for the show ring.


OFA is not just about hips, they also certify Patella, Elbows, Heart, and Thyroid among other tests.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> The youngest a bitch OR stud should be bred is 2, that is because the OFA, PennHip, CERF and other health testing cannot be certified until that age.
> 
> The oldest is 6 after that, it is too risky for the Bitch.
> 
> Health testing is harder to standardized. I would say ALL breeds need Heart, Thyroid and CERF for the eyes. Then you get into the special concerns for sizee and body structure. Some breeds, such as Bulldogs will never score Excellent in a hip exam, but can get "good" or "fair" They should be tested for HD though as it is very prevalent especially in poorly bred lines.


see and that is the problem with legislating.... (carla not that you are suggesting we do) but when you try to find a one size fits all it becomes a problem 

flat coats don't need thyroid or heart..... 
but they do need patellas, hips, cerf and gonioscopy..... 

goldens need heart, elbows, hips and cerf 
but dont need gonioscopy or patella

its all based on the breed...... 
I would never use a flat coat with fair hips.... never ever as many flat coats including my shalva are scored excellent..... 

a golden with fair hips might be a different story.... its breed based..... 

s (who can't believe she is back in this thread)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Shalva,
OK, I though most breeds had thyroid and heart problems of some type. I know ALL breeds have at least one serious eye problem be it PRA, Glaucoma, or Cataracts. 

You're right Health testing has t be done on a breed by breed basis, it is nearly impossible to standardize. Which is a point I tried to get across in my post.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I agree that it's that way now, but do you support the continuation of those methods?


Yes I do. Judge's judge structure, not health. Breeders/owners need to be responsible for checking health, not judges.



> Her concern is the dog, not fulfilling your desire for a dog, so refusing to follow her rules is just a really good way to get shown the door


But by your logic, if a dog should happen to do absolutely HORRIBLY on the food that I'm supposed to feed, and I switch it, the contract would be null and void.

I'm gonna be honest...I'm gonna feed my dog what I'm going to feed it (which is a high quality food). Am I going to avoid people who say I HAVE to feed raw? Yeah. Am I open to purchasing someone who *suggests* I feed raw? Yes.

Suggesting something and saying YOU MUST FEED THIS are completely different. If you want a say in what the dog is fed, you keep the dog.



> What do you all think should be the youngest age to start breeding a bitch? What is the oldest?


2 Years of age to 7 years of age



> What health testing should be done on ALL breeds before they are used for breeding?


Depends on the breed, this isn't something that can be standardized



> What do you think is a good way to educate the public about BYB/puppymills?


If people approach you to inquire about your dogs, begin education that where. Tell them to use internet search engines, and go to dog shows.



> How can we educate the public so that they understand "teacup", "Giant", and other wierd sized dogs are not healthy and should not be bought?


Read above



> How can we stop the breeding of "designer dogs"?


Right now, we can't



> How can we get responsable breeders out there into the eye of the public so it's easier for people to buy healthy and well bred dogs?


Good question, because for breeders there's an oxymoron out there. If you're a good breeder you "Shouldn't have to advertise" but if you don't get out and do some PR work, you suck too. Double edged sword.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> Shalva,
> OK, I though most breeds had thyroid and heart problems of some type. I know ALL breeds have at least one serious eye problem be it PRA, Glaucoma, or Cataracts.
> 
> You're right Health testing has t be done on a breed by breed basis, it is nearly impossible to standardize. Which is a point I tried to get across in my post.



no most breeds do not have thyroid or heart problems. Mine has neither. Though in some it is rampant. 

On the other hand, my breed has 4 genetic eye problems. So CERF as a puppy and yearly thereafter is recommended by my breed club. 

And as far as breeding 'designer dogs' who are we to say that should be illegal? would I do it? No. I think it is the stupidest thing going. It just boggles my brain that people with perfectly fine working brains would pay hundreds of dollars for mutts. Its just ludicrous imho. But should it be illegal, Definitely not. Who's to say my breed won't be next. 

As long as the breeder keeps thier dogs in good conditions, who is it hurting? No one. 

Making laws is about keeping the public safety. How does making a specific breed illegal do that? It does not.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

what is interesting to me is how a meeting of the minds about puppymills comes back to how we can restrict people from showing certain dogs until they reach a certain age and have certain health clearances..... 

I mean how is putting restrictions on show and performance dogs going to impact a puppymill or backyard breeder..... 

so once again.... what starts out as a discussion of how to stop those who are breeding for the wrong reasons, who dont care who they sell to, who want to make money, who are being irresponsible comes back to impact the individuals who ARE out there doing something with their dogs to try and make them prove their worth..... 

and so it goes ....... and thats the problem..... it always ends up impacting the folks that are trying to do it right..... 

this doesn't mean that every showdog should be bred..... but these restrictions on showdogs and performance dogs..... well they are shooting far from the puppymills and backyard breeders. 
s


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> And as far as breeding 'designer dogs' who are we to say that should be illegal? would I do it? No. I think it is the stupidest thing going. It just boggles my brain that people with perfectly fine working brains would pay hundreds of dollars for mutts. Its just ludicrous imho. But should it be illegal, Definitely not. Who's to say my breed won't be next.


Designer dogs aren't considered a breed IMO so how would making the breeding of mutts illigal affect the breeders that actual breed true purebred dogs?




saveourdogs said:


> Making laws is about keeping the public safety. How does making a specific breed illegal do that? It does not.


I think your talking about making "designer dogs" illigal, if not then forgive me. 
Making something like that illigal will help keep them out of the shelters and from being killed because there are not enough homes for them. How is breeding mutts that will only end up homeless not hurting anything?


----------



## luv4gsds (Jul 27, 2006)

> what is interesting to me is how a meeting of the minds about puppymills comes back to how we can restrict people from showing certain dogs until they reach a certain age and have certain health clearances.....
> 
> I mean how is putting restrictions on show and performance dogs going to impact a puppymill or backyard breeder.....


Shalva, no one posted anything like that. I mean you look at it puppymills they do not do health testing, they have no titles on their dogs what so ever same thing with most of the BYB's (some do health testing). If the dog registries would do something on how they allow these people to register their dog's and litters then this would help with selling to petshops, flea markets to people all together. It would make the puppymills and byb's do more and do better for the pets that they are producing. Because they would have to show something in what they are doing instead of showing nothing but over all very unhealthy pets from the inside out. That is what I was trying to point out in my first post.

I know this is off the subject/thread.
They are other ways going about getting titles then just showing. Like the two breeds I own the mini Dachshund and the German Shepherd. The Dachshunds are hunting breed the German Shepherd is a working/herding breed. You have Rally-O, Agility, Carting, Earthdog, Field Trails, Flayball, Mushing, Tracking, Herding, Protection, Weight Pulling and Hunting.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

luv4gsds said:


> Shalva, no one posted anything like that. I mean you look at it puppymills they do not do health testing, they have no titles on their dogs what so ever same thing with most of the BYB's (some do health testing). If the dog registries would do something on how they allow these people to register their dog's and litters then this would help with selling to petshops, flea markets to people all together. It would make the puppymills and byb's do more and do better for the pets that they are producing. Because they would have to show something in what they are doing instead of showing nothing but over all very unhealthy pets from the inside out. That is what I was trying to point out in my first post.
> 
> I know this is off the subject/thread.
> They are other ways going about getting titles then just showing. Like the two breeds I own the mini Dachshund and the German Shepherd. The Dachshunds are hunting breed the German Shepherd is a working/herding breed. You have Rally-O, Agility, Carting, Earthdog, Field Trails, Flayball, Mushing, Tracking, Herding, Protection, Weight Pulling and Hunting.


just a few posts ago there was discussion about not being able to register dogs who weren't shown.... and then not being able to show dogs that couldn't provide proof of health certification..... 



> This is something I could agree with too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a dog can be shown if it's registered, and it's of a certain age, right? If so, then isn't it possible to win it's points before it's been cleared of health problems? Is the judge going to recognize CHD, or CEA, or PRA, or vWD? Aren't there a number of health issues the could get past a judge? I too would like to see a registration pending status, or some way to insure that the dog passed it's health clearances in order to get a championship. AKC conformation shows should be more than beauty contests.


there it is...... 

and while you didn't say it.... let me just also add that conformation shows are not beauty contests.... a beautiful dog can be structurally unsound...
but I want to have a third party evaluate the structure of my dog..... 

then I can do performance type things to evaluate biddability and temperment..... 

clearances to judge health.... and even with clearances there are plenty of other things I look for before I breed a dog..... 

I strive to have a dog that can go hunting in the morning and into the breed ring at night..... and when people only do one type of event or the other.... what happens is what has happened to labs and goldens and other sporting dogs..... breed splits.... you have field dogs and show dogs and the show dogs cant work and the field dogs aren't typey or structurally sound. 

In my mind a well rounded dog has titles on both ends of its name..... Shalva who I bred and is due on Sunday is ready to go into the obedience ring and to hunt tests..... probably rally to but we havent really practiced that..... 

by next summer she will have not only her Am. and Can. Ch. but also performance titles..... 

her mother has her CD is working on her CDX and is an American Can. Ch. who was in the top five of her breed a few years back..... 

it is not an either or thing.... it is a both thing...... 
s 

S


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

> I strive to have a dog that can go hunting in the morning and into the breed ring at night..... and when people only do one type of event or the other.... what happens is what has happened to labs and goldens and other sporting dogs..... breed splits.... you have field dogs and show dogs and the show dogs cant work and the field dogs aren't typey or structurally sound.


Correct me if I'm going the wrong way with this 

After meeting some "field" labs, and seeing the two strains of a breed, like your speaking of, I could personally care less if the next dog I get has Ch in it's name. By no means is a dog who doesn't fit the AKC/CKC's standard structually unsound IMO. In some cases, the field strain is actually MORE structually sound/healthy than the show strains.

I'll never own a lab, but after meeting some Ch's and field labs I would chose the smaller, more agile field labs over the chunky, thick, heavy Ch's any day.

Not in any way trying to downplay a confirmation Ch, but with what I plan on doing with my next dog, I would much rather see related titles to the breed.

Sometimes I wonder with the working breeds where the AKC/CKC comes up with these standards. If dogs that are true representatives of the breed, out there herding for instance (BC's) look like a totally different breed, (which they do) then the "BC's" in the confirmation ring, how much sense does it make?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Again, a court of law would not hold a breeder responsible, why are you?


This is the exact reason why laws are needed. The court can only follow the law, until they are given more tools by society with which to work with. And just because those tools haven't been given the courts yet, doesn't mean that unethical breeders are acceptable. But unethical breeders count on the lack of law to continue their disreputable practices, while claiming that it must be okay because it's legal. 



saveourdogs said:


> This law is about an excuse to end breeding, not to eliminate dogs in shelters. The rescue people dont' want to go out of business and the AR fanatics want the end of all breeding.


This doesn't even make sense. If the rescue people don't want to go out of business, which is nonsense, why would they be endorsing a bill that would reduce the number of homeless animals? It is the fondest dream of every rescue that I know, to actually have a life and not devote it all to the dogs, but the dogs are their priority until the day that they no longer need rescuing.



saveourdogs said:


> If someone truly wants to reduce the number of dogs in shelters then think of ways to truly reach the actual problem, owner irresponsibility and owner relinquishment. The TRUE cause of the problem.


How can we possibly do that when breeders keep selling dogs to irresponsible people? Think of the logistics. Why try to educate 10 puppy buyers when you can educate one breeder that will sell to those puppy buyers to make better choices in picking homes? By concentrating solely on the owners, some of them as adamant as you are that they are doing things right, even while they are abandoning their animals, we increase our work a whole litter size. The problem will be fixed when you do your job in protecting what you've created.



saveourdogs said:


> You don't like when I mention that I am against using the term 'pet overpopulation' because that is not what the problem is. WHY are there so many dogs in shelters. Because people are abandoning them there. It is an owner relinquisment problem.


Owners that YOU (generic breeder) chose for your puppy. Why is it up to rescue to educate these people. Why aren't you educating them? Bottom line is that you are creating the problem by selling to incompetent people, so you should be the one to fix the problem. I didn't cause the problem. Yet you want to make it my responsibility. Look to your own. Clean up your own industry. You say that it's an owner problem, but maybe that's because you (generic) have provided the public with such a surplus of dogs that they think of them as throw-away objects. How much do you screen for commitment and tolerance? How much are you checking into their background to see if they've dumped dogs before? As long as you support a breeders right to be irresponsible and sell to anyone with $$$, then the quality of the home is going to add to the shelter populations.



saveourdogs said:


> No it is not an easy fix. But think of ways to approach and improve on the REAL problem, don't just use it as an excuse to end breeding or get back at breeders. And the number of dogs in shelters are going down each year. Is there a quick fix. No. Education is the answer. There is not one thing that can be done to end the issue immediately, unless you end dog ownership period. Education takes time. But it is working, slowly but it is working.


It's not about getting back at breeders or ending breeding. Licensing a breeder in order to eliminate random breeding is not going to end breeding. Regulating the industry of breeding is not going to end breeding. Regulating any other industry has not ended it. Why should breeders be the only ones running a profitable business without having to follow any rules that will benefit society? Responsible breeders don't profit, and all I ask is that all breeders be responsible. Can you get that into your head? I don't understand why a call for responsibility in breeding equals an extinction of breeders in your mind. We're promoting better quality, not extinction.



saveourdogs said:


> it is not up to me to tell Joe Blow how to run his breeding program. As long as his dogs are not in bad conditions, there is no crime committed.


And that's the attitude that promotes irresponsible breeders that put their dogs into irresponsible homes, while all the while, you refuse to blame those breeders for doing so. The question begs to be asked though, what do you consider bad conditions? Would you include breeders that are selling dogs without health screening the parents? My dog, that had a preventable hereditary eye disease, was definitely in bad condition when she reached 8 years of age. Would you at least blame the breeder for that, or was that my fault as an owner? And if so, what exactly was I to blame for? I rescued her, but if I'd actually bought her, would I have been to blame because I didn't choose a more responsible breeder? If so, then how can you possibly absolve such a breeder for breeding irresponsibly and justify it by the fact that it's not illegal to do so? Your reasoning is convoluted and purely driven by fear, which is unreasonable if you're one of the responsible breeders that all others should aspire to be. Irresponsible breeders probably do have a reason to fear the loss of their cash cow. Cleaning up the industry is bound to leave some in the dust. Is that your fear?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shalva said:


> and while you didn't say it.... let me just also add that conformation shows are not beauty contests.... a beautiful dog can be structurally unsound...
> but I want to have a third party evaluate the structure of my dog.....
> 
> then I can do performance type things to evaluate biddability and temperment.....
> ...


Exactly... 

Ch titles are nice to me because a judge has evaluated my dog's structure. I'm biased and it gives me a a lot more confidence in the fact my dog looks like the breed should look and is structurally sound. 

And many show breeders have multiple titles on their dogs. For example- CGCs, Rall-o, Agility, Tracking, etc on papillons. Beau's breeder has dogs with CGCs, Rally, occasionally agility, and all her dogs are certified therapy dogs. I like seeing versatility.

Right now Beau just has his Ch, but it's at least two years before we're thinking of breeding. We're working on Rally now.



> Correct me if I'm going the wrong way with this
> 
> After meeting some "field" labs, and seeing the two strains of a breed, like your speaking of, I could personally care less if the next dog I get has Ch in it's name. By no means is a dog who doesn't fit the AKC/CKC's standard structually unsound IMO. In some cases, the field strain is actually MORE structually sound/healthy than the show strains.
> 
> I'll never own a lab, but after meeting some Ch's and field labs I would chose the smaller, more agile field labs over the chunky, thick, heavy Ch's any day.


I have strong opinions on labs, since we used to have one. He was a gorgeous dog- field bred, good retriever. 

Anyways... I don't like the look of most show labs- they're very heavy to me. However many field labs I see are way too thin imo. I really like a nice medium. Our dog was a lot thinner than show labs, but quite abit thicker than many fields. 

Another thing that annoys me with labs is that there seems to be no 'badly bred' category. Only field and show when most people talk. Non bench labs are not always field bred, some are just BYB bred. Sorry, it's a pet peeve of mine when people call their dogs working bred, but they're obviously not doing anything 'working'. I see it quite often. 

I was researching labs (though I'll never own one again) a while back. I found a wonderful breeder- did all health certs, showed their dogs AND hunted their dogs. I was thoroughly impressed that such a breeder could have success in such a split breed. Her dogs were gorgeous and fairly moderate. Beautiful examples of the breed imo. Nice and moderate. I wish I still had the link to the kennel. 

Sorry for my little rant.


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

Alpha said:


> If dogs that are true representatives of the breed, out there herding for instance (BC's) look like a totally different breed, (which they do) then the "BC's" in the confirmation ring, how much sense does it make?


and that is the problem..... 
it is not an either or thing as many believe it to be.... and what has happened with border collies, labs, and golden retrievers amongst others is not good.... 

many show labs will sink in the field and are fat with no stamina...... but I have seen some really structurally unsound field bred labs.... neither is correct...... 

goldens are the same way.... what is with the coat..... they would get stuck to a burdock (I dont know how to spell that) bush and you would never find them.... not correct..... but neither is the pointy nose and the weak rears, inefficient movement that I see in alot of field bred dogs..... neither is correct..... 

border collies are the same.... the show border collies I have seen have had the instinct bred right out of them.... but they are pretty.... but the herding working type dogs have little breed type.... but heck they have the instinct.... 

it is not an either or thing..... 
this is something we have worked very hard at maintaining in flat coats..... 
the ability to go hunt in the morning.... swim in the river and go into the breed ring in the afternoon..... my own girl has done it.... and unlike many conformation dogs.... many flat coats are multi titled.... in both hunt and the breed ring..... 

the dog should be able to do what it was bred to do..... AND be structurally sound and you are absolutely right.... in some breeds there is such a breakdown between show and field lines or herding lines that somewhere in the middle is where it should be. 



















its very sad to me 
s


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Alpha said:


> Sometimes I wonder with the working breeds where the AKC/CKC comes up with these standards. If dogs that are true representatives of the breed, out there herding for instance (BC's) look like a totally different breed, (which they do) then the "BC's" in the confirmation ring, how much sense does it make?


The breed clubs come up with the standards. All the changes depend on breeders and what they value most in their lines. The breed clubs set the standard, which is open to interpretation and many things can technically fall within standard. Then the breed club holds judging seminars for the judges. So any fault I have lies on them.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

I think it's increasingly difficult for breeders in working types to be accomplished in the confirmation ring and out in the field.

It would be more than impressive for one who does so in labs like you said. A woman at our school, (I'm looking for a pic but can't find one) has a field bred lab. She's probably a little smaller than she should be, but she's still quite young. If you stood her next to one of the Ch labs at our school, you wouldnt' guess they were the same breed. Of course the field lab doesn't have a Ch, but she's out the ying yang with working titles! LOL


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Yes breeding should be about reducing health issues. But the show ring is NOT about determining health issues nor the place to do it.


It should be. The show ring is about proving a dog's worthiness to produce the next generation. If that were not so, then there would be no objection to showing altered dogs.



saveourdogs said:


> Not all breeds need to be OFAd. There is no incidence of HD in my breed. We have other problems but not HD.


There was no HD in my breed either, until there was. If breeders had been OFAing their dogs all along, they could have prevented the disease from starting in my breed. So yes, all breeds do need to be OFAd.



saveourdogs said:


> You mention that a dog with PRA shouldn't have a CH. I disagree. First of all, just because a dog is a CH doesn't mean it should be bred. Not all CHs are bred. I have some friends that have finished quite a few dogs that have never gotten bred because they have too many good ones. They can't breed them all. They placed them in pet homes once they finished thier CH. One of those same friends, got rid of the prior line she had because they are all affected with a genetic disease. She finished the CHs on some and at prestigious shows, but she didn't breed them. She just wanted to finish them for fun. She had no intentions of breeding them.


Again, that's not what shows are for. If it was, then the dogs could be shown altered. Showing a dog, whether it's eventually bred or not, gives a status to the line that it doesn't deserve if it has an inheritable disease - especially one that could be prevented. The whole concept of BOB and BIS is the word "BEST." How can a dog be considered best when it has a disease like PRA? 



saveourdogs said:


> its one thing to receive a holiday picture,. its not the same thing as constant phone calls. I agree with her, that is totally creepy. I wouldnt want to be intruded upon like that.


Now you're going to stretch it to "constant"? I'm not talking about stalking. I'm talking about a continued relationship with the owner to make sure the dog is being treated properly, or needs help. A reasonable person would have no more problem with that than they would when Grandma calls to see how the kids are doing. But you know, if you only see dogs as inanimate objects, I could understand why you'd think this to be creepy. After all, who calls to see how the car they sold is doing?


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

Alpha said:


> I think it's increasingly difficult for breeders in working types to be accomplished in the confirmation ring and out in the field.
> 
> It would be more than impressive for one who does so in labs like you said. A woman at our school, (I'm looking for a pic but can't find one) has a field bred lab. She's probably a little smaller than she should be, but she's still quite young. If you stood her next to one of the Ch labs at our school, you wouldnt' guess they were the same breed. Of course the field lab doesn't have a Ch, but she's out the ying yang with working titles! LOL


I agree that some of the breeds are so deeply split now it would be almost impossible to bring them back..... and people are so entrenched in their various "camps" (kinda like this thread) that is would be very difficult to find any common ground..... its a shame really..... and like I said it is something that we flat coat people have seen happening and we work hard to prevent it from happening to our breed.... but its starting..... 
and it begins when show people have a beautiful dog wiht no instinct but it wins so who cares..... and the field people say.... well the puppies won't be pretty but they will be good retrievers..... 
drives me nuts. 
s


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shalva said:


> I agree that some of the breeds are so deeply split now it would be almost impossible to bring them back..... and people are so entrenched in their various "camps" (kinda like this thread) that is would be very difficult to find any common ground..... its a shame really..... and like I said it is something that we flat coat people have seen happening and we work hard to prevent it from happening to our breed.... but its starting.....
> and it begins when show people have a beautiful dog wiht no instinct but it wins so who cares..... and the field people say.... well the puppies won't be pretty but they will be good retrievers.....
> drives me nuts.
> s


Yep, one of the reasons toys are nice. No working/showing split. But then you get to deal with lack of even 'reputable breeders' doing health testing and people simply breeding for the Ch title- forget temperament and versatility. Works like that in all breeds. Oh he's a great show dog, nevermind he's agressive and has a bad temperament...


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> Still, do rescues keep up every year with the dogs they place?


The ones I know try to. The more dogs placed, the harder it is to do. But then that shouldn't be an issue with a responsible breeder. A rescue can have placed hundreds of dogs, but is a responsible breeder going to have placed that many? Shayla, for instance, said something about having a litter every 2-3 years (I think), so do you really think it would be that difficult for her to keep up on her dogs? What I have always done with my dogs is sent out holiday cards, which would prompt return cards and pictures. If I didn't hear from them, I'd call. Then in the summer, I call anyway. Some rescues have yearly programs where they offered free vaccines, and that gave another opportunity to see their dogs.



Laurelin said:


> I also think it's odd though that it's always the breeder's fault. For example, they want a way to make sure breeders are telling the truth and not lying. Because it's not reasonable to ask a buyer to differentiate between a liar and someone who is actually responsible. But it's the breeder's fault if someone lies to them during the interviews? So the buyers shouldn't be lied to and it's the breeder's fault for lying, but a breeder should always know when a buyer is lying to them? There's no logic there.


The breeders should be more adept at spotting a lie from an interviewee. A breeder should know the questions to ask. I ask no more of breeders than I do of rescue, and in rescue we train ourselves to spot the discrepancies. And if we miss them, then we recognize that we screwed up and adjust our interview process accordingly so it won't happen again. IF we solely blamed it on the interviewee, then we'd see it as a one time thing and not try to fix our system. 

Have you ever heard the adage: Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me? The point of that adage is that if I don't learn from my mistake of being duped the first time, it's going to happen again. And I'm not going to even consider it my mistake if I'm blaming it solely on the one that fooled me. Again, passing the buck doesn't help the dogs.



Xeph said:


> Yes I do. Judge's judge structure, not health. Breeders/owners need to be responsible for checking health, not judges.


No wonder there is such a large list of health problems for the various breeds. Average is 7 per breed. That could be changed if it wasn't just a beauty contest. I also think it's deceptive because the public thinks that champions are of exceptional quality, but all the while there health was never a factor in that championship.



Xeph said:


> But by your logic, if a dog should happen to do absolutely HORRIBLY on the food that I'm supposed to feed, and I switch it, the contract would be null and void.


No, by my logic, RBs stay in touch with their puppy buyers and can intelligently discuss the dog's welfare and how it's doing on the recommended food. The idea isn't to force someone to feed something bad - it's about the expertise the breeder has in that breed, which is likely to be more knowledge than the puppy buyer has in the breed. If they had equal knowledge, they'd probably agree on what to feed. A breed, for instance, that routinely suffers from skin allergies might avoid those allergies by being fed a food that has proved to be effective with other members of the breed. By your logic, an owner has the right to feed what they want, which could not only end up in the dog suffering, but might also jeopardize the home if the owners don't want to deal with the skin allergies.



Xeph said:


> I'm gonna be honest...I'm gonna feed my dog what I'm going to feed it (which is a high quality food). Am I going to avoid people who say I HAVE to feed raw? Yeah. Am I open to purchasing someone who *suggests* I feed raw? Yes.
> 
> Suggesting something and saying YOU MUST FEED THIS are completely different. If you want a say in what the dog is fed, you keep the dog.


No, all that's necessary is the breeder find someone that is more cooperative and values the expertise that the breeder has. Someone who would honor the contract that they had with the breeder to feed the suggested food. If you can't handle the baggage that comes with a dog, then it's better you don't have the dog at all. This, of course, isn't just about food, it's also about training, discipline, housing, grooming, leashing - all sorts of things.



Shalva said:


> what is interesting to me is how a meeting of the minds about puppymills comes back to how we can restrict people from showing certain dogs until they reach a certain age and have certain health clearances.....
> 
> I mean how is putting restrictions on show and performance dogs going to impact a puppymill or backyard breeder.....
> 
> ...


I think the progression to this point was about defining responsible breeding. If we don't know what's responsible, then we can't know what's irresponsible. Responsible breeders, ideally would be role models, but first we need to define it, and the meeting of the minds seems to fall apart because of those that IMO think that because irresponsible breeding is legal, there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Showing dogs in the conformation ring is not a 'beauty contest'. It is an impartial judge comparing conformation. Looking 'beautiful' is not necessarily correct. There are some in my breed that are very exaggerated, short back, super long neck, super long head. That is not correct, that is a statue. Their body is not balanced. That does not meet my definition of my breed standard. but many think it is beautiful. and those that do not know the nuances of my breed watching ringside think it is pretty but correct, No. 

If someone chooses to not breed thier dog that has a CH, that is thier personal choice. It is thier personal choice to spend the money and time it takes to show the dog. Thier breeding program as a whole is still being evaluated. You look down on that. Would you much rather they not show at all? 

As far as legislating who or what is considered 'responsible', who is going to do that? Each person has a differing opinion on what is considered 'responsible'. It in not up to the law to determine that imo.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Showing dogs in the conformation ring is not a 'beauty contest'. It is an impartial judge comparing conformation. Looking 'beautiful' is not necessarily correct. There are some in my breed that are very exaggerated, short back, super long neck, super long head. That is not correct, that is a statue. Their body is not balanced. That does not meet my definition of my breed standard. but many think it is beautiful. and those that do not know the nuances of my breed watching ringside think it is pretty but correct, No.


But that's still about looks, ergo a beauty contest. The very fact that a judge can decide to advance a dog towards it's championship by giving points for what the judge is seeing on the outside only, proves that it's about the look of the dog versus knowledge about the health of the dog. IMO, a true champion should be judged on both, and I don't think it should left up to the possibly kennel-blind breeder to make that decision.



saveourdogs said:


> If someone chooses to not breed thier dog that has a CH, that is thier personal choice. It is thier personal choice to spend the money and time it takes to show the dog. Thier breeding program as a whole is still being evaluated. You look down on that. Would you much rather they not show at all?


But there breeding program as a whole is NOT being evaluated. It's only the look of the dog that's being evaluated. Inheritable heart problems, eye problems, or blood disorder problems are NOT being evaluated in the show ring. I'd like to see that change. Whether or not a breeder breeds their finished dog was never the issue. I believe your point was that since not all show dogs are bred, their health shouldn't matter in the ring because decisions to breed based on health can be made after the dog is finished. But I'm saying that if that's what the AKC had in mind, they would allow fixed dogs in the ring. The breeding program as a whole can be evaluated with a fixed dog just as well. But that's not what the show ring is about. It's about judging whether dogs are suitable to be foundations for future generations, and that just can't be ascertained by only looking at the outside of a dog.



saveourdogs said:


> As far as legislating who or what is considered 'responsible', who is going to do that? Each person has a differing opinion on what is considered 'responsible'. It in not up to the law to determine that imo.


No, it's up to the people that write the law to determine that. It's up to the law to give the power to enforce their decision. If responsible breeders came up with a criteria of what should be considered responsible breeding, then there would be a working model to work from. That would be what the law would be based on. The first criteria might be that in order to be considered responsible, and therefore allowed to legally breed, the breeder must do health screenings on the parents. The second criteria might be that those health screenings, like conformation competitions (and hopefully combined), must be evaluated by experts in the breed who would make a final decision on whether that dog should be bred or not. 

In any other industry, there are rules to follow, and though I know you don't like the idea of being told what to do, why should you be excused? You're building a dog, just like construction contractors are building a house (or whatever), and even though it may have once been legal for the contractor to do it any way he wanted to, that was harmful to society, so they came up with building codes, and licensing, and tests to decide who would be licensed and who wouldn't, and rules requiring licensed contractors having to include their license number when advertising, and penalties for both those working without a license and those who were licensed but were breaking the rules. And I'll bet there were disreputable builders that fought that all the way, but society has benefitted from these laws. Society would benefit by breeders being regulated as well, and the dogs certainly would benefit.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

All of that is making perfect sense but any breeder is going to look at that and claim that their "rights" were being taken away and it's not fair. Somehow I fail to understand how people still manage to think they have rights over dogs. If they've failed to notice their dogs are aren't a piece of property that's quite sad. 

As for what would a reputable breeder do..
So far my understanding is that any reputable breeder would not breed their dog untill the age of 2 but 3 would be the prefered age. The oldest they should breed their dog at would be 7 but the prefered age would be 6. 
Does anyone disagree on that?
As far as testing goes I'm guessing no real laws can be set in place about that because there are just too many breeds and not all of them need the same testing as others. Possibly someone can right a book about all the different testing that should be done for different breeds. Atleast then potential buyers have the knowledge they need to ask breeders if they do the testing they should. Anyone a good writer around here? 

I think designer dogs should be illigal to breed. It's a total scam and someone needs to stop all the lieing that's going on about these "breeds". 
All mutts should have to be S/N so the pottential threat that they can go out and get pregnant or impregnate another dog doesn't exsist.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> As for what would a reputable breeder do..
> So far my understanding is that any reputable breeder would not breed their dog untill the age of 2 but 3 would be the prefered age. The oldest they should breed their dog at would be 7 but the prefered age would be 6.
> Does anyone disagree on that?


I don't disagree, but I'd prefer it be added that there would be limited, if any, back to back breedings. Dog's need to recuperate, they don't need to be breeding machines.



xoxluvablexox said:


> As far as testing goes I'm guessing no real laws can be set in place about that because there are just too many breeds and not all of them need the same testing as others. Possibly someone can right a book about all the different testing that should be done for different breeds. Atleast then potential buyers have the knowledge they need to ask breeders if they do the testing they should. Anyone a good writer around here?


I really don't think that's necessary. The requisite available tests are already known by the various breed clubs, for their individual breeds. The Collie Club of America knows what tests are available, for their breed. The Poodle Club of America knows what their dogs need. So no law has to list every breed's available testing - besides, as more is known, more tests will be added, requiring an amendment in the law, which wouldn't be feasible. All that's needed is wording that would require all available tests as defined by the breed's parent club. Then the parent clubs can list those tests on their websites - many already do.


----------



## SunSiberians (May 7, 2007)

Alpha said:


> I think it's increasingly difficult for breeders in working types to be accomplished in the confirmation ring and out in the field.


Oh boy is this true and quite unfortunate. I look at show siberians and think, how on earth are they going to be efficient sled pullers with their stumpy little legs  and thick coats (which actually causes them to over heat when running). Unfortunately the working aspect of the dogs are quickly fading away. 

I also have to agree that comformation should also consider health and sacrifice the standard a little if that means healthier dogs. I want the show ring to continue to grow and develop but I also want more efferts to help prevent genetic problems. Unfortuately many breeders would not want to sacrifice perfect looks for a healthy dog. I understand why some breeders do close breeding (like the mother is also the grandmother and sister of this puppy...) because it's keeping something good within the line, however it comes at a huge price when the dogs are sadly at risk for genetic problems. 


DogAdvocat said:


> I don't disagree, but I'd prefer it be added that there would be limited, if any, back to back breedings. Dog's need to recuperate, they don't need to be breeding machines.


Another good point.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> I don't disagree, but I'd prefer it be added that there would be limited, if any, back to back breedings. Dog's need to recuperate, they don't need to be breeding machines.
> 
> 
> 
> I really don't think that's necessary. The requisite available tests are already known by the various breed clubs, for their individual breeds. The Collie Club of America knows what tests are available, for their breed. The Poodle Club of America knows what their dogs need. So no law has to list every breed's available testing - besides, as more is known, more tests will be added, requiring an amendment in the law, which wouldn't be feasible. All that's needed is wording that would require all available tests as defined by the breed's parent club. Then the parent clubs can list those tests on their websites - many already do.



OKay so a logical way to go about making a law that would control breeding practices would be to state those ages and that no more then one litter a year are the only exceptable way to breed. Anyone disagree with this?

Is it possible that making a law stateing that all breeders need to do all the testings for their breed listed on the parent clubs websites could be enforced though?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> OKay so a logical way to go about making a law that would control breeding practices would be to state those ages and that no more then one litter a year are the only exceptable way to breed. Anyone disagree with this?


I don't disagree, but I think there might be some objections by breeders of some breeds, like possibly Great Danes whose lifespan isn't as long as other breeds, but that's just a guess. I suspect the biggest objection will come from those breeders who are paranoid about the slippery slope.



xoxluvablexox said:


> Is it possible that making a law stateing that all breeders need to do all the testings for their breed listed on the parent clubs websites could be enforced though?


I think it could be enforced if it was tied up with the licensing. If a breeder could lose their license because they couldn't produce proof of testing?

Remember, nothing is going to stop all law breakers. There will still be breeders that forego the license procedure, just like there are speeders on the freeways that never get caught. But in the big picture, these type of laws show society what the right thing is to do, and more people will abide with that than are now doing it because there is no law to tell them what's right. Look at the poster that insists that as long as no laws are broken, there is nothing wrong with puppymilling (though he wants to sugar-coat the name). By making such claims, he is admitting that there IS something wrong with actions that are already illegal. He apparently supports current law, just doesn't want any new law. Well at one time, the current laws did not exist, and those now breaking the law, were thought to be legally in the right at that time. Geez, it used to be legal to beat your wife. By his philosophy, we had no right to take away the abusers legal right to do so. It was legal, it must have been ok, correct?


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> But that's still about looks, ergo a beauty contest. The very fact that a judge can decide to advance a dog towards it's championship by giving points for what the judge is seeing on the outside only, proves that it's about the look of the dog versus knowledge about the health of the dog. IMO, a true champion should be judged on both, and I don't think it should left up to the possibly kennel-blind breeder to make that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you need to learn more about the breed ring...... and about what the judge is judging on.... because your first paragraph in this quote shows alot of ignorance about what the judge is judging...... its not what they see on the outside..... 

a breeding program should be based on more than looks and that is why we rely on specialists in health to determine if our dogs are healthy and worth breeding (personally I do more clearances than my breed club requires) 

We rely on obedience judges and other performance venues to tell us if our dogs are trainable and biddable.... 

you use the analogy of a building..... and while there are building inspectors.... they do not do the testing of water... they rely on professionals who specialize in water and plumbing and environmental folks to do that testing..... they do not go and put the roofs on they can look at the roof after its done and determine if its done to satisfaction...... the building inspector might tell you that your chimney needs work but he leaves it to a specialist to do it..... when you build a house you don't rely on one person to do all the work.... you rely on your general contactor to contract out to the various specialists to do put the various parts of the house together...... 

for a dog.... and a breeding program that means 
the breed judge judges structure...... not coat, not grooming not whats on the outside but structurally how the dog is put together, the health professionals judge and certify the health for what there are clearances for and finally the performance judges determine if the dog has instinct and desire to please and work.... and with these three plus a little common sense you can start looking at your breeding program..... 

and just because a dog is a finished champion doesnt mean it should be bred. My Cuinn is a finished Champion who is neutered due to seizures..... I have several puppy people who show their dogs who never plan to breed.... they have no interest and I knew that when they got their puppies..... 

Personally I would like to see alters classes at dog shows..... the problem I think would be time..... and the number of dogs would increase like crazy so logistically that could be difficult, but I would like to see alter classes as a breeder it would only serve to give me more information.... not just about the "show quality" dogs but also about the other dogs that are not necessarilly in show homes. 

s


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I think you need to learn more about the breed ring...... and about what the judge is judging on....


I concur. What do you think the judge is doing in the ring when they're running their hands over the dogs? Petting them!?

They're checking the bone structure. Shoulder lay back, angulation of the rear, strength of the topline, length of the tail. Proper amount of stop and occiput in the head, ear length and set, eye set, pigmentation.

In some breeds you will see the judge run their fingers through the dogs coat, or rub it between their fingers...they're checking for proper texture. For example, the coat of the Briard is supposed to "Crackle" when rubbed, to show the animal has proper texture to repel water and debris from the coat when herding.

If conformation were a beauty contest, the judge would simply look at the dogs and point to one. They wouldn't bother to gait the dogs, or feel their bones, or have them stack.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> But that's still about looks, ergo a beauty contest. The very fact that a judge can decide to advance a dog towards it's championship by giving points for what the judge is seeing on the outside only, proves that it's about the look of the dog versus knowledge about the health of the dog. IMO, a true champion should be judged on both, and I don't think it should left up to the possibly kennel-blind breeder to make that decision.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's about more than looks, it's about the form the dog was bred to for the job it had. Deviation from that form is often what CAUSES health problems. A good example is Bulldogs, it's now popular to for bulldogs to have a 'corkscrew' tail, this is a FAULT the 'proper' tail is a spike. The spike tail has little problems because it's easy to keep clean, the corkscrew tail is LOADED with problems, some requiring surgical intervention because it can grom back into the spine and is nearly impossible to keep clean. There are also Bullys with inverted tails ect that cause problems


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

A corkscrew tail? Like a pigs?? Are they seriously doing that, they must be insane.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

It natuarally occurs, but yes, some BYB and puppymills are breeding for it. Just as hocks that are too straight or sickled can cause problems in the joints. There is more to the standards than looks. The standards directly affect the performance of the dogs. The structure of the dog is mandated by the job it does (or did).


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I really couldn't imagine seeing a bulldog with a corkscrew tail though. It's cute on some dogs but I think it would just look wierd on a bully breed. Hmm..


Just wondering but would not docking a dogs tail or cropping it's ears be bad for a breed thats standard is to have those things done?
I know it's done for dogs that work and other things but or there health related reasons why those things are done?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Again, tail docking and ear cropping was, at one time, a functional thing. That's why it's part if the standard. The only thing I can think of with a breed that the standard calls for one or the other or both is injury in the field, be it hunting or law enforcment breeds. Many breeds with docked tails have thin, fragile tails that injure easily, cropped ears mean the ear leathers are thin and easily torn. I think that's something that people who are against the procedures don't understand. It's far more traumatic for a dog to have a tail amputation as an adult than it is a few days old, same with dealing with an ear injury.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

OKay. That's always something I was unsure about because of the pain facture. I don't think I would get my dogs ears cropped even if it was part of the standard unless need be. If it was something that had to be done because of a health issue then that would be another story. 
I don't think it's something that people should do to their dogs if they are only for compainonship but it's completely understandable for a dog that is going to be out doing something that can cause them to get injured. 
If you don't crop a dogs ears or dock it's tail like the standard says then can you still show it?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Some breeds you can, though they don't do as well in the ring. You have to remember that most of the top judges are older and prefer the look of the cropped ears or docked tail as it's what the dog needed for it's job. It's hard to find docked tail breeds that haven't had their tails done because it's HAS to be done so early. You usually have a better chance with the ears as that's done a 4 months.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> If you don't crop a dogs ears or dock it's tail like the standard says then can you still show it?


Some breeds yes, some breeds no. More and more are "Yes's" to be shown naturally...but winning with a natural Dobe in an American ring is less than easy. Winning with a natural Giant Schnauzer, same thing.

I prefer cropped ears and docked tails on both. I've gotten used to seeing natural ears, but I don't find it at all attractive


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It's natural though...
That's the way the dog would look if there was no such thing as cosmetic surgery. I mean yeah people could go around hacking off dog tails but I'm sure its harder to properly crop a dogs ears. 
It's like plastic surgery some people like the look so much they become obsessed and others hate it. I like the more natural look in some breeds and in others I think it looks wierd but deffinetly not ugly or anything.


----------



## SunSiberians (May 7, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> OKay. That's always something I was unsure about because of the pain facture. I don't think I would get my dogs ears cropped even if it was part of the standard unless need be. If it was something that had to be done because of a health issue then that would be another story.
> I don't think it's something that people should do to their dogs if they are only for compainonship but it's completely understandable for a dog that is going to be out doing something that can cause them to get injured.
> If you don't crop a dogs ears or dock it's tail like the standard says then can you still show it?


I don't know about all breeds but I believe that some can be shown both ways - like Great Danes, Dobermans and Giant Schauzers (sp?) can be presented with cropped ears or natural.

Oops that's already been answered. lol


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

lol. I think dobermans would look cute with floppy ears. Same thing for great danes but I've never seen either without cropped ears  I'll just have to look it up on google images and see what it really looks like.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I've seen both...I think they both look too houndy with natural ears...especially black and tan dobes when they've got both natural ears and natural tail.

It's all a matter of preference


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Yeah the black and tan dobies really look like hounds. I looked up pics and I didn't even realize I was looking at a doberman. They look cute but not like what I'm used to.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> OKay so a logical way to go about making a law that would control breeding practices would be to state those ages and that no more then one litter a year are the only exceptable way to breed. Anyone disagree with this?
> 
> Yes, most absolutely. It is not up to the legislature prodded by those that have no knowledge of serious breeding to make these decisions. It is pretty obvious by the comments here that most on this board are not knowledgeable about serious dog breeding. Everyone is certainly welcome to have an opinion, but something this serious needs to be done with knowledge. This law is being made by ARs with no knowledge whatsoever.
> 
> ...


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I just have one question... did an AR fanatic attack you in a previous life to cause you to hate them soo much? I'm just kidding but honestly your hate for something I don't think you really understand is overwhelming. 

"Legislators have no business making medical decision."

Are there not laws that have to do with medical practices? If you think that legislators have no right in making laws about medical things then who is to say a doctor can't give his patient a pill that will cause that patient to die and then say that the legislators know nothing about medical practices so they have no right to say what he did was wrong. He was only doing what he felt was right for his patient because she would never get better and would suffer any other way. 

Your name is Saveourdogs yet your against anything that could potentially do that. I'm not going to judge you but as far as I can tell your name is a lie compared to what you truly want and think.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I just have one question... did an AR fanatic attack you in a previous life to cause you to hate them soo much? I'm just kidding but honestly your hate for something I don't think you really understand is overwhelming.
> 
> "Legislators have no business making medical decision."
> 
> ...


There are unintended consequences if these laws you are proposing are enacted. All laws have unintended consequences. It takes critical thinking and research to see what they are. 

It would end dog ownership. I am protecting your right to own dogs. The ARs want to eliminate that right. I see that, sorry if you don't believe me. Doesn't make it any less true. Do some research on the heads of HSUS and PETA and learn what thier true agenda is. There are many quotes out there about outlawing animal ownership and making everyone a vegan. 

When and if my dog is bred and how many times and when and if my dog is spayed are medical decision, not legislative ones. these are decisions to be made by vets with medical knowledge, not someone who has never even bred a litter.



Xeph said:


> Some breeds yes, some breeds no. More and more are "Yes's" to be shown naturally...but winning with a natural Dobe in an American ring is less than easy. Winning with a natural Giant Schnauzer, same thing.
> 
> I prefer cropped ears and docked tails on both. I've gotten used to seeing natural ears, but I don't find it at all attractive


A Dobe, Boxer, Rottweiler, Giant Schnauzer, Standard Schnauzer, Miniature Schnauzer with an undocked tail can not win in the ring. Those breed standards require a docked tail.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I understand you point and I know exactly what PETA and other AR groups want to acomplish. I'm a vegetarian for a reason and it's not because I don't like the taste of meat. They have a reason for thinking the way they do. Think about it without judgeing them and just try understanding what they're working towards.
Dogs are treated horribly by some people and they think the only way to stop those things is to save the dogs from us. Do I think they are right? No but I do think their hearts are in the right place they just feel so strongly against animal abuse that they don't think about the other side of things. 
Not everyone that wants to stop BYB/puppymills is that intense about it. I would consider myself somewhat of an AR but not to the point were I won't feed myself normal food or ever own a dog. Not everyone is like the way those groups are. Honestly a lot of ARs hate them because they have so much money and they don't use nearly enough of it to help abused animals and they think that PETA is actually trying to give a bad name to ARs all together. Most ARs think PETA is just a corrupt club of idiots that want people to hate ARs so they act like fools and go out and poor paint on people. PETA even supports kill shelters. Does that sound like a true AR group to you. 
I think it's unright that you just people based on a couple idiotic groups that aren't even true AR groups and that really don't care about anything but money.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Yeah the black and tan dobies really look like hounds. I looked up pics and I didn't even realize I was looking at a doberman. They look cute but not like what I'm used to.


yes if you can't tell what breed it is, that is called 'lack of breed type'.



xoxluvablexox said:


> I understand you point and I know exactly what PETA and other AR groups want to acomplish. I'm a vegetarian for a reason and it's not because I don't like the taste of meat. They have a reason for thinking the way they do. Think about it without judgeing them and just try understanding what they're working towards.
> Dogs are treated horribly by some people and they think the only way to stop those things is to save the dogs from us. Do I think they are right? No but I do think their hearts are in the right place they just feel so strongly against animal abuse that they don't think about the other side of things.
> Not everyone that wants to stop BYB/puppymills is that intense about it. I would consider myself somewhat of an AR but not to the point were I won't feed myself normal food or ever own a dog. Not everyone is like the way those groups are. Honestly a lot of ARs hate them because they have so much money and they don't use nearly enough of it to help abused animals and they think that PETA is actually trying to give a bad name to ARs all together. Most ARs think PETA is just a corrupt club of idiots that want people to hate ARs so they act like fools and go out and poor paint on people. PETA even supports kill shelters. Does that sound like a true AR group to you.
> I think it's unright that you just people based on a couple idiotic groups that aren't even true AR groups and that really don't care about anything but money.


it is your choice to be a vegetarian and no reason for you not to be if that is your personal choice for whatever reason. If it is because you simply do not like the taste of meat or you think it is cruel to eat and/or kill animals. But to legislate that you can't eat meat is another issue entirely. That is my point. 

it is the same thing to tell me that I have to spay my dog. 

And yes Peta is a bunch of freaks agreed. But HSUS is no better I hope you realize. They used the Katrina disaster to steal people's animals. They sent them hither and yon so the owner couldn't find them, refused to work with rescue groups, raised all this money and didn't use one cent to help those animals. Just used it as a big general fundraising campaign. Money used for what? To make more money. They do not feed one animal. They do not place one animal. They decided that those that left thier pets behind didn't deserve them back. Who made them god? 

There is a big difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Big difference. 

and to arbitrarily decide that 'your breeding is better than mine' is against the constitution and can not be enforced. and it doesn't solve the problem as you forsee it which is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters. There are simply much better methods than taxing arbitrarily responsible breeders and taking it upon yourself, with no breeding knowledge to decide what entails responsible breeding.


----------



## Doggies4Evers (Apr 19, 2007)

PETA kills dogs and cats, http://petakillsanimals.com
They dont think humans should have pets, and they should be wiped out 100%
Do you want that? I dont


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Hmm yeah the world is a pretty screwed up place. It's legal to do testing on dogs...
that should tell you enough about the place we live in. Everything is about money even if it means the life of an innocent soul. PETA is all about money and so are those other big shot AR groups. There's only a few AR groups out there that actually spend the money they rase on the animals and not themselves.


----------



## AnniNecaise (May 9, 2007)

> HSUS is no better I hope you realize. They used the Katrina disaster to steal people's animals. They sent them hither and yon so the owner couldn't find them, refused to work with rescue groups, raised all this money and didn't use one cent to help those animals. Just used it as a big general fundraising campaign. Money used for what? To make more money. They do not feed one animal. They do not place one animal. They decided that those that left thier pets behind didn't deserve them back. Who made them god?
> 
> There is a big difference between animal rights and animal welfare. Big difference.


Sorry to be OT here.
I'm surprised I never heard about this before, living in Ground Zero as I do. Maybe because I took my pets with me. It scares me to think what happened to the thousands of poor animals they made "disappear". Shame, they swam through twenty feet of swirling sludge, only to end up in a kill shelter somewhere. I shudder to think.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

AnniNecaise said:


> Sorry to be OT here.
> I'm surprised I never heard about this before, living in Ground Zero as I do. Maybe because I took my pets with me. It scares me to think what happened to the thousands of poor animals they made "disappear". Shame, they swam through twenty feet of swirling sludge, only to end up in a kill shelter somewhere. I shudder to think.


Or hopefully adopted. Most where sent to shelters all around the country. They didn't feel that the original owners deserved to have the dog back so there was no recordkeeping of where it went. This was not temporary fostering like was done in Florida after Hurricane Andrew. This was adopting out. There are many cases where the original owner is suing the present owner because he wont give it back.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Isn't it their fault for leaving their dogs behind to die? I mean if some people took their dogs with them what prevented the others from doing the same thing?


----------



## Doggies4Evers (Apr 19, 2007)

There isnt enough homes for dogs because of: dog haters, parents hate animals from never knowing the joys of owning an animal, from land lords not letting them, etc etc etc.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

In some cases it was unjustified, in some cases it wasn't. There were quite afew dogs that were left CHAINED outside in horrific conditions. Many dogs died because they couldn't get above water because ofthe weight of the chain and had no one to free them. That alone is abuse. 

However, records SHOULD have been kept, including the conditions the dog was found in. If there was clearly an effort made to protect the dog (dog in the house, with food and water) then the dog should have been returned to the owner. If the dog was left outdoors to fend for itself, the owners should have been charged with cruelty by the AC in the area and a judge decided what should be done on a case by case basis. If a dog died due to clear neglect, the same should have occured. NO animal rights group has the right to make that decision, it has to be made by the PROPER authorities.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Well some people just don't like dogs just like some people don't like cats. I don't see how we could blaim them for the reason dogs don't have a home. The same with landlords. Some don't allow dogs because they bark and they'll bother people living in the building wich will lead to arguments and fights. They'ed rather just avoid all the trouble. Some parents don't want to own dogs because they think it'll ruin their house and dig up their yards. If they look at dogs that way then I don't think I would want them to own a dog anyways. It would just end up in a shelter a few months later.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Isn't it their fault for leaving their dogs behind to die? I mean if some people took their dogs with them what prevented the others from doing the same thing?


Often times the rescuers refused to allow the animals to come. The owners had NO choice as it would have endangered their lives and the lives of their families to stay.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Isn't it their fault for leaving their dogs behind to die? I mean if some people took their dogs with them what prevented the others from doing the same thing?


You agree it is OK to steal thier dog and adopt it out? There where very tough times. Some people couldn't take thier dogs. They didn't have cars or they where given the warning too late. I don't think it is up to us to judge what others did in that situation as it is not up to the shelter to make the decision that that owner is unfit simply because they chose to leave the dog. You don't know the reasons why they did that. Remember most thought they would be back the next day.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> In some cases it was unjustified, in some cases it wasn't. There were quite afew dogs that were left CHAINED outside in horrific conditions. Many dogs died because they couldn't get above water because ofthe weight of the chain and had no one to free them. That alone is abuse.
> 
> However, records SHOULD have been kept, including the conditions the dog was found in. If there was clearly an effort made to protect the dog (dog in the house, with food and water) then the dog should have been returned to the owner. If the dog was left outdoors to fend for itself, the owners should have been charged with cruelty by the AC in the area and a judge decided what should be done on a case by case basis. If a dog died due to clear neglect, the same should have occured. NO animal rights group has the right to make that decision, it has to be made by the PROPER authorities.


True but even if the dogs were left inside they would probably have drowned because the water went up to the roofs of a lot of houses. The dog would have just been drowned in the house instead of being left outside and able to swim up to a roof and get onto it. I think there were some dogs that did do that. I think either way leaving the dog there was cruility. It could have drowned from not being able to get out of a flooded house or it could have drowned from not being able to find something solid to get onto and would finely get to tired to even swim.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

Yes, HSUS used the Katrina situation to the hilt. They shamelessly solicited money supposedly to "help" the animals and the shelters in the affected areas after the disaster.

It was mentioned in the news a couple of times, and I remember reading somewhere that they were under investigation because shelters were desperately needing assistance, but yet, HSUS, wouldn't give a dime.

Many all breed kennel clubs (including mine), and specialty clubs and rescues, as well as countless animal lovers in general, went down and assisted all they could with the dogs and cats. The ARC rescued hundreds of Rottweilers from the areas affected, and successfully reunited many with their owners. 

HSUS is an AR organization....they rely on the trusting public to send them donations, and for what? To keep lobbying for laws like the one passed in Louisville, KY (for which the city is now being sued, and HSUS had a direct hand in helping to draft that draconian piece of b.s., that is fact and public knowledge), and the infamous AB 1634, BSL in Denver, etc..etc....And for what purpose? To help unwanted animals? To stop abuse? No, for their ultimate goal: Make it impossible and eventually illegal for humans to OWN animals...any animal. 

So, can there be a meeting of the minds? On some points, I think yes. But both sides must be willing to take a deep breath and work together. The first thing is to start enforcing the laws currentlly on the books in every state/city....the second is (IMO) to educate, educate, educate! No matter what anyone says, I will keep on preaching responsible dog ownership. Just like I have done for 15 years....will everyone listen? NO , but for the ones that do, I have made a difference.

We are fortunate in our neck of the woods that we do not have a pet store. The last Petland that was here close was closed , due in part to my kennel club educating the public, and the shelters doing the same. Granted, my area is smaller than CA, we aren't a major city, but the greedy puppy peddlers are gone. My idea is to make tougher zoning laws...make it more difficult for pet stores to find rentable space, and make it super expensive...there are zoning laws in most every city, where you can have a bar, house, etc....make it harder on the pet stores. Not those of us that are responsible....just a thought off the top of my head.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> True but even if the dogs were left inside they would probably have drowned because the water went up to the roofs of a lot of houses. The dog would have just been drowned in the house instead of being left outside and able to swim up to a roof and get onto it. I think there were some dogs that did do that. I think either way leaving the dog there was cruility. It could have drowned from not being able to get out of a flooded house or it could have drowned from not being able to find something solid to get onto and would finely get to tired to even swim.


 
As I said, the owners often had NO reasonable choice. I suppose they should have refused to be evacuated and chanced losing their own lives. Many were forced to leave their pets behind, they should not have lost those pets because of it. HSUS had no authority to make that call, I know a woman who was an AC in New Orleans, she left because of what was allowed to happen.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> You agree it is OK to steal thier dog and adopt it out? There where very tough times. Some people couldn't take thier dogs. They didn't have cars or they where given the warning too late. I don't think it is up to us to judge what others did in that situation as it is not up to the shelter to make the decision that that owner is unfit simply because they chose to leave the dog. You don't know the reasons why they did that. Remember most thought they would be back the next day.


I'm not sure exactly how they went about it so I don't know. Did they go and rescue the dogs that were still alive and put them into a shelter or did they go in and take the dogs right out of the owners hands?
Did they refuse to allow the owners to get thier dogs back from the shelters?
A lot of different rescues went in and took the dogs from their homes and put them into shelters...

If it was down to me losing my life or leaving behind a part of my family I would risk my life. Just as I would for my children, if I had any. At the least I would let my dog go so that it could use it's instinct to stay alive instead of chaining it or leaving it in the house.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

I don't think any of us can predict how we would react in a situation like that....When I was an EMT, we had disaster training, (multi car injuries, fires, tornadoes etc),,,and let me tell ya', the real thing is never as easy as the training....it's not textbook. You're there, you're in the moment, the adrenaline is rushing....you want to do the right thing....it's a judgement call.

If a dog was left chained outside, that owner doesn't deserve it back, IMO. But if they tried to make provisions, took the animal inside and made the best decision they could at the time, then I think every effort should have been made to reunite the owner and pet....we can second guess and pass judgement all day long, but until we've walked a mile in those folks' shoes, we (meaning those that were not there) have no clue as to what they were thinking ....you never know what you're capable of doing until you're put in a disaster type situation.


----------



## AnniNecaise (May 9, 2007)

Ok, just my two cents, but I have to defend some of the evacuees who left thier animals behind.
Firstly, I took my animals (at the time a pair of kittens and a puppy) and by doing so, put my family's welfare at somewhat of a risk. There are not many hotels that will allow pets, and especially not on such a short notice when you cannot pick and choose your accomodations. Thus, I ended up in one that did not allow them, and had to be careful not to get caught, as we would be tossed out on our ear. Don't think they would have made an exception for us, being evacuees. Not everyone was as kind as you may have been led to believe.
Secondly, people who were unable for whatever reason to evacuate, were brought to shelters when the strom got bad. One here that the people in my hometown ended up at was Nasa's Stennis Space Center. Guess what?
PETS NOT ALLOWED. 
What made it worse was that if you were found smuggling your dog into a shelter, you ran the risk of having your pet turned over to AC. Doesn't look like that turned out too well.
Lastly, and this is something few people outside of this area realize, when I left my house, I was prepared to lose my home. I was prepared for high winds, roof damage, trees on the house MAYBE 8 foot of water, at the most.
NO ONE was prepared for a twenty foot wall of water.
I lost one pet in the storm, the only one I had no room for, my cockatiel Ducky. I left him in the top of our closet, cage open, food and water, fully expecting to come back for him in a couple of days. I will blame myself for it for the rest of my life. I should have said screw it and rode with him on my shoulder.
Don't judge until you have been there.

I do however, agree that anyone who left a dog chained up should be not only ashamed, but thourougly punished. Like I said, I may not have expected a 20 foot surge, but I did expect six or eight feet, which is longer than most chains. That's just cruel, people.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I see you're in Pearlington, my mom is in Pascagoula. What you're saying is exactly what I've been trying to say. Mom was lucky enough to have a two story house and my brother stayed there and was able to get the animals to the second story when the water came up. She is 17 ft. above sea leval and STILL had 42" of water in her house, many in our neighborhood had 8-10 ft of water and their houses had to be torn down. I shiver to think what may have happened if the house had been only one story or my brother not there to help the animals get to safety. My parents had 4 dogs (GSD, Rottie and two poodles), 5 cats and 2 birds, there is no way they could have taken them all and mom packs as soon as she hears the "H" word.


----------



## AnniNecaise (May 9, 2007)

I don't blame your mom. A cold chill ran down my back this morning when I heard on the TWC that we had our first named storm, a full 20 days before the season even starts! That hasn't happened since 1981. And my house was a whole 7 foot above sea level. Before the storm that was alot. Enough for the insurance salesmen to say "Flood insurance? Nah, this place never gets water, didn't even flood during Camille." And why would people push for insurance if your agent said you didn't need it? Have you ever heard of a salesman of any kind, much less an INSURANCE SALESMAN, that didn't want to sell? They honestly believed it wasn't needed. But hindsight is 20/20.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

My parents were told the same thing, Mom is 80 and Dad is 71, he was supposed to retire last year but had to spend his retirement to fix the house. They were offered loans, but turned them down because at their age they didn't need the burden, they had JUST paid off the house that March. Hopefully the lawsuit against the insurance companies comes through.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It's scary to think how you can lose control of what's going on that quickly. I'm glad I don't live in an area where hurricanes are the norm because I really don't think I could leave any of my pets behind. I'ed end up stuffing them all in the back of a truck and taking of and camping out somewhere or something. Then again I really don't know how I would react if the situation rally did end up happening. I just know that it would break my heart to drive away and leave part of my family behind.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Many of the same things happened here with the Wildfires in 2003. Thats why the Govenator just signed legislation the requires Emargency services be provided to pet owners too. MS is looking at similar legislation.


----------



## Orange County Ca (Apr 6, 2007)

I have monitored this Thread closely and am happy to announce that with the last use of the word "breeder" we have reached the 1,000,000 word mark and the 1,000th use the same word, simultaneously. A record.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

COOL!!!! Love your siggy line BTW


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> And yes Peta is a bunch of freaks agreed. But HSUS is no better I hope you realize.


Do you have any proof of this?


----------



## AnniNecaise (May 9, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> It's scary to think how you can lose control of what's going on that quickly. I'm glad I don't live in an area where hurricanes are the norm because I really don't think I could leave any of my pets behind. I'ed end up stuffing them all in the back of a truck and taking of and camping out somewhere or something. Then again I really don't know how I would react if the situation rally did end up happening. I just know that it would break my heart to drive away and leave part of my family behind.


I thought about moving after the storm, but I realized something. It doesn't matter where you live. Whether it's hurricanes, wildfires, tornados, floods, or terrorism, disaster can strike anywhere. It's very scary. And when you have young children, in August, camping in your car is not an option. I hated it, but it was what it was, ya know?
But I learned the lesson. From now on, everyone goes. Down to the fish.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Shalva said:


> I think you need to learn more about the breed ring...... and about what the judge is judging on.... because your first paragraph in this quote shows alot of ignorance about what the judge is judging...... its not what they see on the outside.....


Then please educate me. My understanding is that the dogs are judged on how close they come to the standard for that breed, but one of the problems in this is that there is nothing written in the standards about the health of the dog, its heart, blood, joints, etc. Even the eyes are described as to shape, color, and placement, but says nothing about the health of the eyes - freedom from PRA, CEA, etc.



Shalva said:


> a breeding program should be based on more than looks and that is why we rely on specialists in health to determine if our dogs are healthy and worth breeding (personally I do more clearances than my breed club requires)


Yes, but that doesn't have anything to do with the championship they earn in the show ring. I think it would be a 'checks and balances' system for the show ring to require health clearances before the dog is allowed to get it's final points for it's championship. 



Shalva said:


> We rely on obedience judges and other performance venues to tell us if our dogs are trainable and biddable....


Though I hadn't included training in what goes on in the show ring, I think even that is required to a certain extent because dogs do have to be biddable in order to show. The dog has to stand for inspection, stack itself or be stacked, and walk/run on a leash as required. So a judge would certainly recognize if a dog was out of control.



Shalva said:


> you use the analogy of a building..... and while there are building inspectors.... they do not do the testing of water... they rely on professionals who specialize in water and plumbing and environmental folks to do that testing..... they do not go and put the roofs on they can look at the roof after its done and determine if its done to satisfaction...... the building inspector might tell you that your chimney needs work but he leaves it to a specialist to do it..... when you build a house you don't rely on one person to do all the work.... you rely on your general contactor to contract out to the various specialists to do put the various parts of the house together......


You're right, contractors do rely on specialists, but the difference is that the building inspector, which would equate to the show ring judge, withholds the final inspection until the specialists have done their job, and judges the whole house, including unseen electrical and plumbing, based on completion by those specialists. The show ring judge doesn't currently require testing of any sort before awarding final points to a championship.



Shalva said:


> for a dog.... and a breeding program that means
> the breed judge judges structure...... not coat, not grooming not whats on the outside but structurally how the dog is put together, the health professionals judge and certify the health for what there are clearances for and finally the performance judges determine if the dog has instinct and desire to please and work.... and with these three plus a little common sense you can start looking at your breeding program.....


If a judge is judging on how close the dog is to the breed standard, and that standard includes the coat, how can you say that they're not judging on the coat? Why is it that breeders become so upset if a dog blows it's coat prior to showing? Why is so much time spent on grooming if it doesn't matter? If grooming doesn't matter to the judging process, why do all the dogs within a breed look the same?



Doggies4Evers said:


> PETA kills dogs and cats, http://petakillsanimals.com
> They dont think humans should have pets, and they should be wiped out 100%
> Do you want that? I dont


I really hate to see this turn into a "bash Peta" thread, but you do realize that website is from people whose sole purpose is to protect those industries that use animals? Puppymills, for instance, would be one of the industries they would be fighting to protect. Profits will always be more important to them than the animal's welfare. So I don't really think they are a credible source for information.



cshellenberger said:


> In some cases it was unjustified, in some cases it wasn't. There were quite afew dogs that were left CHAINED outside in horrific conditions. Many dogs died because they couldn't get above water because ofthe weight of the chain and had no one to free them. That alone is abuse.
> 
> However, records SHOULD have been kept, including the conditions the dog was found in. If there was clearly an effort made to protect the dog (dog in the house, with food and water) then the dog should have been returned to the owner. If the dog was left outdoors to fend for itself, the owners should have been charged with cruelty by the AC in the area and a judge decided what should be done on a case by case basis. If a dog died due to clear neglect, the same should have occured. NO animal rights group has the right to make that decision, it has to be made by the PROPER authorities.


You know, that all sounds really good, but I think we forget the conditions down there, and how unequipped everyone was for this disaster. My understanding is that the HSUS was one of the few groups that could even get any cooperation from authorities to set up a triage shelter at all. There were rules that even prevented outside vets from coming in to help. 

Also, the complaint made by another poster about adoptions rather than holding for owners, ignores the fact that shelters all over the country are already at capacity, and bringing in so many animals from the Katrina situation meant either adopting them out or killing the dogs already waiting in shelters. Some areas only allowed fostering until a given cutoff date, then they were available for adoption. 

And, considering the fact that there are still animals down there that need rescuing, that are living on the streets, I doubt that the court system down there puts pets as a priority. It was chaos. Everyone did the best they could. I don't think it's fair for those that didn't go down there to criticize those that did.

One of the other things I was told is that there was an inordinate amount of pitbulls from the Katrina area. All over the country pit bulls are being killed in shelters because of liability fears. Pit bull rescues were full before Katrina. Housing pit bulls in a kennel situation is not easy because of their tendency to be dog aggressive. In a pinch, a shelter can house other breeds together in a run, but pit bulls can't be housed more than one or two to a cage. That reduces space. 

There are just far too many scenarios to take generalized potshots at those that were helping.



AnniNecaise said:


> I do however, agree that anyone who left a dog chained up should be not only ashamed, but thourougly punished. Like I said, I may not have expected a 20 foot surge, but I did expect six or eight feet, which is longer than most chains. That's just cruel, people.


I think there's another aspect of the Katrina situation to be considered. For those objecting to owned dogs having been adopted after rescue, there were some situations where the rescue organization couldn't return the dog in all good conscience. One of the pit bull rescues received several calls from owners who made it clear that she had one of their fighting dogs, and wanted them back to be used for fighting again. She refused. There were also problems with people claiming dogs but being unable to prove it really was their dog. Since many of these dogs were listed on national rescue websites, so anyone could have claimed them. If a dog was not wearing identification, how could the rescue be sure who the dog belonged to, or even whether the person claiming the dog had honorable intentions? There were apparently several situations where children were abducted from New Orleans whose parents had been killed. If pedophiles were taking advantage of the situation, why would it be so strange to find other creeps taking advantage of the unidentified dogs? 

There's just too many scenarios to make blanket judgements.

And by the way, for those that keep saying we don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have -- what about the newly passed law (since Katrina) saying that states would lose funding if they didn't make allowances for pets in future disasters? If that law had been in place before Katrina, think how many human and animal lives it could have saved. Think how many people didn't want to leave their animals, and stayed with them and died - now those people won't have to leave their animals. Know what? That law was promoted by AR organizations, including HSUS and PETA. Without AR and AW groups across the country pushing legislators to enact that law, it would have never gotten off the ground.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

As far as HSUS being the only one that wanted to help, incorrect, they where the only ones allowed to help. Many dog clubs, AKC, rescue organizations went to help and where not allowed to. It will not happen again. Now that HSUS's true intentions are known. They simply used it as a publicity ploy to raise mone. They didn't allow the dogs out of thier crates. They where kept in unairconditioned compounds and did not allow breed rescue organizations in there to help or to foster. 

As far as arbitrarily deciding the owner was not fit, well as far as supposed fighting dogs, they had no proof. They are not judge and jury. And they did not feel those that simply where left as proof of being unfit owners. It is not their place to make these judgement calls. They where supposed to help them be united with thier owners. They blocked that. They where supposed to help take care of the dogs. That was not done very well. 

As far as laws being made, no one ever said NO laws should be made ever on any subject. Not sure where that comes from. Simply that this law is bad and will make things worse, not better. It's simple logic, if there is a problem to tackle, you need to find out why there is a problem. If you want to reduce shelter populations, find out why they are being brought there. There are plenty of studies about why dogs are brought to shelters. Work to solve those issues, not arbitrarily harm a third party that is not responsible for dropping them off at the shelter simply because you hate all breeders.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> As far as HSUS being the only one that wanted to help, incorrect, they where the only ones allowed to help. Many dog clubs, AKC, rescue organizations went to help and where not allowed to. It will not happen again. Now that HSUS's true intentions are known. They simply used it as a publicity ploy to raise mone. They didn't allow the dogs out of thier crates. They where kept in unairconditioned compounds and did not allow breed rescue organizations in there to help or to foster.
> 
> As far as arbitrarily deciding the owner was not fit, well as far as supposed fighting dogs, they had no proof. They are not judge and jury. And they did not feel those that simply where left as proof of being unfit owners. It is not their place to make these judgement calls. They where supposed to help them be united with thier owners. They blocked that. They where supposed to help take care of the dogs. That was not done very well.
> 
> As far as laws being made, no one ever said NO laws should be made ever on any subject. Not sure where that comes from. Simply that this law is bad and will make things worse, not better. It's simple logic, if there is a problem to tackle, you need to find out why there is a problem. If you want to reduce shelter populations, find out why they are being brought there. There are plenty of studies about why dogs are brought to shelters. Work to solve those issues, not arbitrarily harm a third party that is not responsible for dropping them off at the shelter simply because you hate all breeders.


Do you have any proof of any of these claims that you are making in this post , or are they just theories of your's that have no basis in any fact? I asked you a couple of posts back where you called people from HSUS "freaks", to show some proof backing up your claim, and you apparently chose not to answer that question....

By the way, you wouldn't have anything to do with this web site, would you, because it is riddled with false information. 


http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Then please educate me. My understanding is that the dogs are judged on how close they come to the standard for that breed, but one of the problems in this is that there is nothing written in the standards about the health of the dog, its heart, blood, joints, etc. Even the eyes are described as to shape, color, and placement, but says nothing about the health of the eyes - freedom from PRA, CEA, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



OK well this will be my last comment to you but I think you just like arguing and playing semantics

the judge judges structure.... a championship is how well the dog meets the standard but that is structure..... and in my breed they say neatly trimmed ... thats it..... so the dog is the dog and they all look the same because they are all dogs of the same breed with the same type etc. 

the conformation judge is just a judge of conformation..... the obedience judge is just a judge of obedience.... a hunt judge to many is the most important one of the bunch for my breed.... no judge is the building inspector, they are just the judge.... and simply because a dog is judged to be conformationally sound..... nobody is saying it should be bred..... NOBODY has said that.... a conformation breed Championship is just a piece of the puzzle and this is what you can't seem to understand...... 

a conformation breed Championship is the same thing as OTCH or a MACH or a FTCH or a Master Hunter..... it is just a piece of the puzzle.....IT IS NOT A STAMP that says this dog should be bred..... I have seen plenty of dogs in the breed ring who should not be bred..... bad temperments..... for one is a big problem.... just because a dog WINS in teh breed ring does not mean that it should be bred or that it will be bred..... 

The responsible Breeder is the building inspector and he/she relies on the reports of ALL of the various specialists to determine wether the dog in question passes inspection. Does he have sound conformation (breed Championship) ok Check..... Does he have biddability and trainability (obedience, agility, rally titles) ok check...... Does he have hip, eyes, patella elbows or whatever other clearances he needs ..... ok check.......... Does he have a good temperment??? ............... ok check....... Is there good health and longevity in the pedigree???? (something you totally are ignoring) ..... ok Check......Will he contribute something to the breed as a whole?....... ok check..... you get my point...... 

its not all one venue.... there are plenty of dogs worth breeding who dont have championships for one reason or another...... but they have other things that have made them valuable to their breed as a whole. I just bred to a boy.... Shalva's litters sire is not finished.... his family had cancer and the husband just died a couple months ago.... and they just didn't have the time money or energy to show him..... so whatever...... 

It is not my job to educate you...... and to be honest I am fairly bored with it..... go out and educate yourself.... because right now I feel like you are so busy arguing you are not listening..... and thats all I have to say. 
S


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> As far as HSUS being the only one that wanted to help, incorrect, they where the only ones allowed to help. Many dog clubs, AKC, rescue organizations went to help and where not allowed to. It will not happen again. Now that HSUS's true intentions are known. They simply used it as a publicity ploy to raise mone. They didn't allow the dogs out of thier crates. They where kept in unairconditioned compounds and did not allow breed rescue organizations in there to help or to foster.


 
I know for a fact that isn't true. FORM, MCOA, the ASPCA and many others were on the ENTIRE Gulf Coast helping. How do I know? They helped my mom get food and other relief items for her pets. They also helped my mom with a behaviorist when her GSD bit someone due to the stress and being upset by looters coming in the yard at night.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> As far as HSUS being the only one that wanted to help, incorrect, they where the only ones allowed to help. Many dog clubs, AKC, rescue organizations went to help and where not allowed to. It will not happen again. Now that HSUS's true intentions are known. They simply used it as a publicity ploy to raise mone. They didn't allow the dogs out of thier crates. They where kept in unairconditioned compounds and did not allow breed rescue organizations in there to help or to foster.


Nobody said the HSUS was the only ones allowed to help. What I said was that they were one of the few groups that could get cooperation from authorities. Others were being turned away by authorities. I remember being appalled to watch live footage of rescuers, and the animals they'd rescued, being turned away from the only available shelter because it wasn't equipped to handle the number of animals coming in. It takes the "big boys" to cut through red tape and get things going, and it's going to be those same "big boys" who are going to be held accountable for all that happens, including other rescuers mistakes. As for air conditioning and crates, I repeat that this was a situation no one had ever dealt with before. I think it's amazing that they even were able to supply crates. The safety of the animals had to be paramount, and I've handled way too many volunteers who were not dog savvy and could not prevent fights and injuries when taking dogs out of their crates, runs, etc. I've also met far too many over-zealous, idealistic, newbie volunteers who just don't understand that there is a right way, and a wrong way, to handle animals, and who take offense when they don't get to do it "their" way. Those newbies are often a source of misinformation, because they didn't understand what they witnessed. I personally think that the HSUS is suffering from a case of "you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't." I have no doubt you would have been the first to criticize if they hadn't gone down there at all.



saveourdogs said:


> As far as arbitrarily deciding the owner was not fit, well as far as supposed fighting dogs, they had no proof. They are not judge and jury. And they did not feel those that simply where left as proof of being unfit owners. It is not their place to make these judgement calls. They where supposed to help them be united with thier owners. They blocked that. They where supposed to help take care of the dogs. That was not done very well.


In the situation I cited, there certainly was proof. The owners stated they used the dogs for fighting. They are proud of it. Also, it's common for shelter personnel to be able to identify dogs used in dog fighting. There's specific scarring identifiable on fighting dogs, as well as the way their ears are cropped, with minimum leather to prevent gripping of the ears. Everyday shelters are supposed to reunite dogs with their owners too, but they are going to evaluate the dogs for abuse as part of their decision to do so. Am I sensing that you are more concerned with the owner successfully reclaiming their property than you are about the welfare of the dog?



saveourdogs said:


> As far as laws being made, no one ever said NO laws should be made ever on any subject. Not sure where that comes from. Simply that this law is bad and will make things worse, not better. It's simple logic, if there is a problem to tackle, you need to find out why there is a problem. If you want to reduce shelter populations, find out why they are being brought there. There are plenty of studies about why dogs are brought to shelters. Work to solve those issues, not arbitrarily harm a third party that is not responsible for dropping them off at the shelter simply because you hate all breeders.


Actually you have repeatedly said that there were already sufficient laws and they just need to be enforced. You have made it clear that you think laws restricting people's rights are unconstitutional. And of course "people's rights" includes anything they can legally do, correct? Are you now saying that enacting laws is okay as long as it doesn't effect you?

And yes, there are plenty of studies about why dogs are brought to shelters, but I'd say that 90% of them is because they should have never had a dog in the first place -- and guess who gave them that dog? Breeders. If we stop the source of badly placed dogs, then we solve the problem. Why chase leaves in a windstorm when the source of the problem is so evident? Why try to change 10 people when we can change one? Is there any other industry that is regulated from the consumer's end instead of the producer's end? Do we try to stop car drivers from spewing pollutants into the air instead of regulating the car manufacturer's so they aren't selling such cars to the public? 

Your philosophy on all this reminds me of the current panic in regards to dog food. By your way of thinking, nothing should be done at the dog food factory level. The only thing that should be done is to warn people not to buy the food. No recalls. Just hope that everyone got the message so no more pets will die. Can you even imagine the outrage if that's the way it was being handled??? There's the bad food sitting on store shelves, and we're supposed to educate the public not to buy it? And for that matter, by your philosophy, it would be the fault of the dog owner if it died, not the fault of the manufacturer that refused to pull his product off the market, right? Not the fault of the FDA that didn't properly inspect the imported base product, right? For that matter, why do we even need an FDA - shouldn't it be up to us as consumers to protect ourselves?



Captbob said:


> Do you have any proof of any of these claims that you are making in this post , or are they just theories of your's that have no basis in any fact? I asked you a couple of posts back where you called people from HSUS "freaks", to show some proof backing up your claim, and you apparently chose not to answer that question....
> 
> By the way, you wouldn't have anything to do with this web site, would you, because it is riddled with false information.


Wow, good pick-up CaptBob. It even uses the same rhetoric as posted here. Did you happen to notice that it lists Best Friends Society/Sanctuary in Utah as an animal rights group? That's one of the many problems with the NAIA philosophy - they consider all animal activists to be AR, even rescue groups. If their energies weren't focused on AR, they'd probably all be wearing tinfoil on their heads. 



Shalva said:


> OK well this will be my last comment to you but I think you just like arguing and playing semantics
> 
> The responsible Breeder is the building inspector and he/she relies on the reports of ALL of the various specialists to determine wether the dog in question passes inspection. Does he have sound conformation (breed Championship) ok Check..... Does he have biddability and trainability (obedience, agility, rally titles) ok check...... Does he have hip, eyes, patella elbows or whatever other clearances he needs ..... ok check.......... Does he have a good temperment??? ............... ok check....... Is there good health and longevity in the pedigree???? (something you totally are ignoring) ..... ok Check......Will he contribute something to the breed as a whole?....... ok check..... you get my point......


So basically, the breeder, who is not impartial, and can easily be kennel blind, has the sole discretion as to whether the dog should be bred. Seems rather like the fox guarding the henhouse, doesn't it? That's a rhetorical question since you want out of this discussion.



> its not all one venue.... there are plenty of dogs worth breeding who dont have championships for one reason or another...... but they have other things that have made them valuable to their breed as a whole. I just bred to a boy.... Shalva's litters sire is not finished.... his family had cancer and the husband just died a couple months ago.... and they just didn't have the time money or energy to show him..... so whatever......
> 
> It is not my job to educate you...... and to be honest I am fairly bored with it..... go out and educate yourself.... because right now I feel like you are so busy arguing you are not listening..... and thats all I have to say.
> S





Shalva said:


> I'm sorry you feel that way. I've actually learned a lot from you. But learning how something works doesn't mean I have to agree with the process. I can learn how a rocket goes to the moon, but that doesn't mean I support our taxes paying for space flight. Is it somehow bothering you that I'm not agreeing that current methods are how it should be done?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the explanations and civility to this point.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Shalva said:


> OK well this will be my last comment to you but I think you just like arguing and playing semantics
> 
> the judge judges structure.... a championship is how well the dog meets the standard but that is structure..... and in my breed they say neatly trimmed ... thats it..... so the dog is the dog and they all look the same because they are all dogs of the same breed with the same type etc.
> 
> ...


That is an excellent post.



DogAdvocat said:


> So basically, the breeder, who is not impartial, and can easily be kennel blind, has the sole discretion as to whether the dog should be bred. Seems rather like the fox guarding the henhouse, doesn't it? That's a rhetorical question since you want out of this discussion.


Yes, the breeder gets all the various information about their dog from impartial people and then makes an educated decision based on that information. One person cannot simply say if a dog is breeding quality or not. A good breeder looks at conformation, versatily, temperament, and health and then makes a decision. The confromation title is there to prove a dog is conformationally correct. And obedience, rally, whatever other title is there to show versatility and trainablility. OFA's and CERFs are there in my breed to examine health, and yes, taht's the best we can do right now. You get this information from impartial judges and then YOU have to decide if the dog will be beneficial to the breed. Ch titles and obedience titles are nice, they don't mean that a dog is good to breed. I know quite a few Chs that are breeding worth and then some non-champs who were also breeding worthy imo. They just don't have their title for whatever reason.


----------



## KingCharlesSpaniel.us (May 6, 2007)

Regarding the meeting of the minds, I think we can all agree that we as a society should reduce and ultimately eliminate unnecessary sufferring and killing of dogs.

-Hannah


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

Once again, Shalva and Laurelin, excellent posts. I was about to reply, but you summed up how the _responsible_ breeding world works. 
I thought this discussion was going pretty well....but here we go, .....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

That's cause Laur and Shalva are geniuses. Let's stick 'em together like a tacky (but cool) celebrity couple.

Now they're....Shaurvalin!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I like shalvain or laurava better. They're much much easier to say


----------



## Shalva (Mar 23, 2007)

hey who are you callin tacky lolol


----------



## K9SARhandler (May 16, 2007)

Captbob said:


> By the way, you wouldn't have anything to do with this web site, would you, because it is riddled with false information.
> 
> http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html


I have a lot to do with the information on that website, and there is nothing false on it. The information comes from experts in law enforcement, guide/service dogs, search-and-rescue, and the livestock industry. You may not like the message, but it's the truth.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captbob 
By the way, you wouldn't have anything to do with this web site, would you, because it is riddled with false information. 

http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html 



K9SARhandler said:


> I have a lot to do with the information on that website, and there is nothing false on it. The information comes from experts in law enforcement, guide/service dogs, search-and-rescue, and the livestock industry. You may not like the message, but it's the truth.


Speaking of truth, are you speaking for saveourdogs, or is this a case of reincarnation? And truth has very little to do with that website. Even experts can be gullible when bombarded by breeder dis-information.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Even experts can be gullible when bombarded by breeder dis-information.


I can say the same about those who are anti-breeder.

Try again.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Xeph said:


> I can say the same about those who are anti-breeder.
> 
> Try again.


Try what again? Apparently we agree that experts can be gullible - no matter who is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

By the way? Who is anti-breeder?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Try what again? Apparently we agree that experts can be gullible - no matter who is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
> 
> By the way? Who is anti-breeder?


Anyone that doesn't agree with Xeph, duh!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Anyone that doesn't agree with Xeph, duh!


Yes, that's TOTALLY it *insert eyeroll here*


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Anyone that doesn't agree with Xeph, duh!





Xeph said:


> Yes, that's TOTALLY it *insert eyeroll here*


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

"*Can there be a meeting of the minds?* "

I'd say probably not.

Unless someone is really keeping careful score here, it's almost impossible to say what this thread is actually about or who's on what side of which issue.


----------



## K9SARhandler (May 16, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Captbob
> By the way, you wouldn't have anything to do with this web site, would you, because it is riddled with false information.
> 
> ...


I have no idea who has been posting under the name saveourdogs on this forum. That person is not me and that person is not part of saveourdogs.net

I don't base my information on anything from breeders, nor am I a breeder. I am a Search-and-Rescue dog trainer/handler in California. Under California law, Search-and-Rescue is part of law enforcement. 

The content on saveourdogs.net was written by experts in K9 law enforcement, experts on stock dogs, experts on guide and service dogs for the blind and disabled, and other experts in their respective fields. You are invited to read the letters that are linked there from many of these distinguished experts.
http://saveourdogs.net/letters.html

It may not be what some wish to hear, but it is the truth.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

K9SARhandler said:


> I have no idea who has been posting under the name saveourdogs on this forum. That person is not me and that person is not part of saveourdogs.net
> 
> I don't base my information on anything from breeders, nor am I a breeder. I am a Search-and-Rescue dog trainer/handler in California. Under California law, Search-and-Rescue is part of law enforcement.
> 
> ...


How could you possibly know that saveourdogs isn't part of saveourdogs.net unless you are that person? The truth is that saveourdogs used the same rhetoric that's on that site, some almost word for word. Since the material wasn't quoted, I can only assume that it's the same person or plaigerism. Too bad you didn't get to meet saveourdogs - he left just about the time you arrived. It doesn't much matter, but thickening plots are rather amusing sometimes.


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

I'd like to remind everyone that backseat moderating is not part of the game plan here. If someone suspects some dishonesty of another member, you can please send one or all of the moderators a note with whatever proof or suspicions you have.

We can investigate and, if you're right, take appropriate action. If you're wrong, you won't end up making a fool of yourself.

Seem reasonable? (That's a rhetorical question, since that's the way it's done whether it seems reasonable or not.)


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> How could you possibly know that saveourdogs isn't part of saveourdogs.net unless you are that person? The truth is that saveourdogs used the same rhetoric that's on that site, some almost word for word. Since the material wasn't quoted, I can only assume that it's the same person or plaigerism. Too bad you didn't get to meet saveourdogs - he left just about the time you arrived. It doesn't much matter, but thickening plots are rather amusing sometimes.


If you have PROOF this is the same person, bring it to us. If not, back off.


----------



## K9SARhandler (May 16, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> How could you possibly know that saveourdogs isn't part of saveourdogs.net unless you are that person?


Because I am part of saveourdogs.net, I know everyone at saveourdogs.net, and whoever was posting here under that name isn't affiliated in any way with saveourdogs.net.


----------

