The First Of Many Questions For You Re Rescue, Breeding,owning Dogs

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

So should every breeder breed for the betterment of the breed? What is the issue with breeding to provide companion animals to people who want them and will care for them? I don't think that makes someone a puppy farmer.

OMG I Do! Far and away the majority of puppies produced from the breeding plans of registered breeders wind up as loved companion animals i.e. pets. It is not realistic that all ANKC registered puppies are retained by breeders or sold to conformation and dog sport exhibitors. Even the most magnificent Grand Champion showdog is a pet first and a showdog second. There may be exceptions but I'd warrant they are very, very few. There are enough registered puppies produced to meet society's needs for companion dogs. If you dont' agree with this, then why not support registered breeders most of whom actually believe in and adhere to their State Canine Authority's Code of Ethics/Practice for members.

i respectfully disagree. my breed that i love is a Boston Terrier and if i want on from a reputable registered breeder i may have to wait for up to 2 years before a puppy MAY become available.

[Jaxx'sBuddy]

PS:

The area I am greyer on is cross breeds that are bred for a specific purpose.

Can you provide an example?

I was thinking of the whole crossing with poodles thing to make a dog for people with allergies. Practical crosses - not just to make them look cuter. And that is the only example I was thinking of but there could be more?

Bad example. Most poodle crosses shed and many folk have allergic reactions to them. As a "practical cross" its been an abject failure. Guide dogs got out of the crossing business because they could not stabilise the low allergy wool coat. Not that the oodle breeders will tell you that.

What's wrong with the low allergy breeds we now have anyway?

i agree bad example but what about the example of dogs specifically bred as working dogs that have an purpose?

[Cockerlover]

Where to start ??so many good points in op posts

but to me personally, a puppy farmer has NO ethics NO morals,are heartless money grabbing morons who only see $$$$signs in the dogs eyes ,Not the love,devotion, health insuring care they deseve if they r going to produce sound healthy pets of the future .

[Zug Zug]

To me it's simple:

A puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs with the primary goal of making a profit.

The issues about no play, no vet care, no testing etc are all symptoms of this basic defining issue. They would do all those things if they led to increased profit.

In the same way that a sheep farmer will provide sufficient vet care (and other things) to ensure his sheep keep producing meat or wool (to make money), so a puppy farmer will provide sufficient vet care (and other things) to ensure his dogs keep producing puppies (to make money).

But if it doesn't threaten the cash flow, then it doesn't happen.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Zug Zug

[Steve]

For the purposes of law reform, I think it would not be a good idea to differentiate between breeders based on whether or not they profit or by how much they profit.

I believe this for various reasons, but mostly because a dog should not be expected to live in substandard conditions because its owner is or isn't drawing an income from breeding.

I agree - problem is my idea of sub standard conditions doesn't equal yours.

[Steve]

6 years ago when we started the MDBA we didn't want to restrict our members to only ANKC registered breeders so we did a whole pile of research on what breeders did that we felt was in the dog's best interests.

The one thing you can bank on is that the basic difference is whether or not the dogs bred are placed on a registry for the purposes of being able to share and utilise information aimed at breeding consistently better dogs.that includes working breeds which are nowhere near wanting to be ever recognised by the ANKC. So we have some breeder members who are breeding dogs which are not yet a recognised ANKC breeds or who have no intention of ever going after being ANKC recognised.

Someone who only ever breeds first cross dogs can never claim to be breeding for anything other than money. Every single dog is different to any other and the characteristics and management issues cannot be predicted with any confidence. - for example a lab cross poodle has potentially 68 different combinations to produce their coat characteristics.

Its not about why you breed - if you want to breed to make money that in itself isn't a bad thing. However, it is about what you are prepared to compromise on in order to achieve that.

[Zug Zug]

I don't know that i agree with that. I think it is about why you breed.

If you breed primarily to make money, then the dogs' welfare is secondary and will only be provided for if it, in turn, helps to either make more money or contain financial losses.

Which is not to say that the profit itself is a bad thing. But profit-making as a driving motivation or reason for being a breeder is a major driver and what leads to most of the bad breeding practices that are being canvassed in this thread.

Yes the amount of money someone makes is subjective. As is how much vet care is provided, how much personal care is provided, how comfortably a dog is kept, how often it is bred from. All these things are relative. I just see them all as symptoms of the money motive.

Yes there are breeders who don't make a profit but are still substandard/unethical. But they're not puppy farmers - they're just not good breeders.

To me it's the business side of things that distinguishes between a bad breeder and a puppy farmer.

Perhaps you're really trying to define what is a bad breeder? If so, I think that's a different discussion and on that basis I would agree with your previous post.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Zug Zug

[Cosmolo]

I speak to people every week who tell me there is not enough registered breeders pups to meet demand. Some of these people wait, others do not and yes they do go elsewhere and no, they are not 'bad' owners.

Thanks Spikes puppy, i'm glad someone understands where i'm coming from. And OT- i recently met one of your pet homed pups who was absolutely wonderful as is the owner.

[SpikesPuppy]

I speak to people every week who tell me there is not enough registered breeders pups to meet demand. Some of these people wait, others do not and yes they do go elsewhere and no, they are not 'bad' owners.

Thanks Spikes puppy, i'm glad someone understands where i'm coming from. And OT- i recently met one of your pet homed pups who was absolutely wonderful as is the owner.

thank you. Her owner mentioned she went to you for training so I know she's in good hands

I am someone who 'couldn't wait' for a pup and ended up getting my Newfoundland from a pet store - it was purely by chance that I found out he was in the store, but had been looking for one for the past few months and none were available (I was 15/16 at the time, and the plan was for me to get my Newfie over the Christmas holiday period between years 9 and 10 of high school, so I would have the 2 months to raise him and then by the time I was in year 11 and into VCE stuff, he'd be older. There was no point in me getting a puppy during the school year, and it wasn't really appropriate to get a puppy at the same time as starting VCE IMO. But not knowing much about registered breeders etc (although knowing they WERE the preferred option and of course they didn't have pups on demand but even calling New Zealand breeders came up with a big fat zero male puppies), so yep, when I found out there was a male pup in a pet store, mum drove across the city and we picked him up. He was the most amazing, wonderful dog but crossed the bridge at only 8 and a half due to joint issues. HOWEVER at no point in time was he neglected (unlike his litter sister who was handed into the RSPCA as a 7 month old!!!), he was groomed & trained, fed a good diet etc. I consider myself to be a good owner, who went with the heart over the head

I m certainly not saying that there should be pups available at the snap of the fingers BUT my story is just one of MANY responsible and dedicated owners who went to another source to purchase a puppy. Breeding a pet litter (i prefer the term companion myself), is seen as such a dirty thing to do in the dog world and I don't understand it ??? If the homes are there, the sire and dam are healthy and pedigrees compatible & you have the time and finances to breed a litter, but perhaps not ready for another dog of your own.... why is that SO WRONG??? It is seen as okay amongst breeders to rehome a 'retired' dog because you have a new youngster but to breed a litter to provide youngsters to dedicated pet families is not???

With regard to the profit thing- I see that as being dumb luck when breeding responsibly! I didn't add it up completely, but I know I had a bit of 'spending' cash once my 5 pups went to their pet homes - given that the essentials such as prog testing, ultrasound, extra food and any supplements, whelping supplies/vet bed, post-whelping checkup, stud fee, vaccinations & worming, microchipping & registration, membership to the Companion Dog Club and breed club etc were paid for out of my own pocket, I did have a decent sum of money once all pups were collected. Whether or not I made a profit, I don't know- maybe a thousand dollars or so??? It's hard to say exactly, and I don't really care to be honest. But I put it down to luck that my bitch had no complications during whelping and all pups were perfectly healthy and so on... if just one thing had gone wrong, I may have been in debt I don't know maybe the next litter I breed will require a c-section at 2am on a public holiday and may produce 1 puppy that doesn't make it.

Actually, it just hit me. It's almost an opposite answer to the question, but in my opinion, a responsible & ethical breeder doesn't care about the money and quite frankly, deserves to make a profit on occasion!!!

A puppy farmer is someone who breeds dogs en masse and sees them as livestock or dollar signs. There is no thought to the welfare of the animals involved, only for the end result- a bulging bank account. If a bitch doesn't produce - off with her head (figuratively one would hope!). And there is also no thought or care for the peopl who end up adopting these puppies - there is no back up support, no interest and no follow up care.

[Steve]

I don't know that i agree with that. I think it is about why you breed.

If you breed primarily to make money, then the dogs' welfare is secondary and will only be provided for if it, in turn, helps to either make more money or contain financial losses.

Which is not to say that the profit itself is a bad thing. But profit-making as a driving motivation or reason for being a breeder is a major driver and what leads to most of the bad breeding practices that are being canvassed in this thread.

Yes the amount of money someone makes is subjective. As is how much vet care is provided, how much personal care is provided, how comfortably a dog is kept, how often it is bred from. All these things are relative. I just see them all as symptoms of the money motive.

Yes there are breeders who don't make a profit but are still substandard/unethical. But they're not puppy farmers - they're just not good breeders.

To me it's the business side of things that distinguishes between a bad breeder and a puppy farmer.

Perhaps you're really trying to define what is a bad breeder? If so, I think that's a different discussion and on that basis I would agree with your previous post.

The why you breed is what carries the extra risks but it doesn't mean that one persons idea of a good reason to breed a dog is the only one.

No matter the reason each carries with it identifiable risks.

Someone who wants to breed a champion still has to ensure they cover the health and temperament and consider the impact on the gene pool.

I personally know breeders who do very well at making champion conformation dogs but couldn't care less what happens to the other pups or how what they breed impacts on the gene pool. For most of them that comes about by ignorance - they think profiling a pedigree means looking for champs and nothing else but some simply hand the pups they don't want for showing to an agent to slip into Pets Paradise as if an unregistered breeder has bred them.There is one dealer who lives near me who has a thriving business spotting for purebred dogs which the registered purebred breeders don't admit to breeding for pet shops in Victoria.Some of these breeders are very high profile and well known in the show ring.

Breeders who breed primarily for great pet puppies run the risk of over looking the need to take into account the breed standard so over time the quality of their pups deteriorates

Breeders who breed primarily for a working dog couldn't care about how the dog looks as long as it does the job.Over time working dogs wont look much like the breed standard if its not something they consider in their selection.

Someone breeding to make money runs the risk of over looking many things as they aim for their goal just as a show breeder does in their quest for a show dog but the test for all of them comes in what they are prepared to compromise on in order to get there. however, you cant over look the fact that throughout history farmers have been responsible for some pretty innovative solutions to keeping their animals in optimum breeding condition too in order to increase production and therefore profit.

Aiming for primarily a profit might be O.K. as long as the breeder is prepared to take less profit in order to ensure the dogs are being bred without compromise on all of the things needed to make the dogs healthy and happy. If you only have to keep a dog producing for a 3 year period and then you don't need them anymore and its more cost effective to shoot them will you spend money on them you don't really need to in order to get puppies just to be sure she is living her best life while she does?

Im very happy for breeders to make a profit - But when thats the only goal and they treat their animals like stock just as a farmer of any animal does and send their puppies off to market without any care for what happens to the babies or what impact any cost cutting has on them into the future as they go to new families- or the ones who have to live their lives in captivity worse than any battery farmed animal because its easier to clean or manage or more cost effective - that in my opinion is disgraceful and that goes for whether they are breeding purebred or cross bred.

Any one can breed nice cute puppies,ship em off to market and put the profits in the bank and clearly some people will continue to do that. Registered breeders as well as any others are able to breed em, ship them to market and forget about them and thats the most cost effective way to manage them.After they leave the breeder they become someone else's problem. No difference to that and a commercial pig farmer or egg farmer.

I get that this is a huge challenge for everyone who is involved in making sure animals don't suffer but I think the solutions tendered overlook several large issues and we cant keep making up possible solutions without listening to the people who are the stake holders. Breeders - big and small.

A puppy farmer for me is someone who derives their principal income from farming dogs.

[Staranais]

So we have some breeder members who are breeding dogs which are not yet a recognised ANKC breeds or who have no intention of ever going after being ANKC recognised.

I didn't know that Steve, but I think that's great. I have the highest respect for the working dogs in this country, they keep this country afloat (do you know NZ is the country in the world with the 2nd highest number of working dogs, after Russia? I just learned that the other day!) and like I said, would hesitate to join an organisation that automatically classed these breeders as "irresponsible" because they didn't want their breeds recognised or registered by the NZKC (paying good money for nothing but more red tape is how most would see it, IMO). I am so glad the MDBA doesn't do that.

Now I'm all keen to join the MDBA.

[corvus]

The dogs we have rescued were overbred, severely underweight, unsocialised, little/no vet care, unvaccinated, matted to the skin with chronic skin and ear infections, mouth infections, hernias and the list goes on.

I think if a farmer with any kind of livestock had them in that condition it would be grounds to shut them down. Providing animals with enough food, for example, is one of the bare basics of animal care regardless of the species. Intensively farmed animals might slip through the cracks, but the fact is those industries are very production driven, so in a way they are self-regulated. No one wants a bunch of their chickens compromised in any way. It's a waste of money.

I doubt my view will be remotely popular, but the way I see it there's not a lot in the literature on welfare and socialisation that would be much help. Until we have higher standards of welfare for livestock, dogs are in a relatively good position. I say the best way to tackle it is to improve welfare for livestock through legislation. As long as there are battery hens, pigs housed in tiny cages in the dark, and broilers with spongy bones, and mulesing, I think we are going to have trouble changing things for dogs.

[Sheridan]

I am someone who 'couldn't wait' for a pup and ended up getting my Newfoundland from a pet store - it was purely by chance that I found out he was in the store, but had been looking for one for the past few months and none were available (I was 15/16 at the time, and the plan was for me to get my Newfie over the Christmas holiday period between years 9 and 10 of high school, so I would have the 2 months to raise him and then by the time I was in year 11 and into VCE stuff, he'd be older. There was no point in me getting a puppy during the school year, and it wasn't really appropriate to get a puppy at the same time as starting VCE IMO. But not knowing much about registered breeders etc (although knowing they WERE the preferred option and of course they didn't have pups on demand but even calling New Zealand breeders came up with a big fat zero male puppies), so yep, when I found out there was a male pup in a pet store, mum drove across the city and we picked him up. He was the most amazing, wonderful dog but crossed the bridge at only 8 and a half due to joint issues. HOWEVER at no point in time was he neglected (unlike his litter sister who was handed into the RSPCA as a 7 month old!!!), he was groomed & trained, fed a good diet etc. I consider myself to be a good owner, who went with the heart over the head

I m certainly not saying that there should be pups available at the snap of the fingers BUT my story is just one of MANY responsible and dedicated owners who went to another source to purchase a puppy. Breeding a pet litter (i prefer the term companion myself), is seen as such a dirty thing to do in the dog world and I don't understand it ??? If the homes are there, the sire and dam are healthy and pedigrees compatible & you have the time and finances to breed a litter, but perhaps not ready for another dog of your own.... why is that SO WRONG??? It is seen as okay amongst breeders to rehome a 'retired' dog because you have a new youngster but to breed a litter to provide youngsters to dedicated pet families is not???

The reason why puppyfarms, BYBs and pet shops are able to get away with it is because of people who won't wait for a puppy. I waited for four months for a wheaten puppy but I lucked out in meeting a breeder who had just mated his dog. No guarantee of getting one, put on a waiting list, interrogated, and observed, and there aren't a lot of people who are prepared to go through that.

Unfortunately, 'I want it NOW!' and 'Gimme' are well entrenched in our society.

[schnauzer]

The dogs we have rescued were overbred, severely underweight, unsocialised, little/no vet care, unvaccinated, matted to the skin with chronic skin and ear infections, mouth infections, hernias and the list goes on.

I think if a farmer with any kind of livestock had them in that condition it would be grounds to shut them down. Providing animals with enough food, for example, is one of the bare basics of animal care regardless of the species. Intensively farmed animals might slip through the cracks, but the fact is those industries are very production driven, so in a way they are self-regulated. No one wants a bunch of their chickens compromised in any way. It's a waste of money.

I doubt my view will be remotely popular, but the way I see it there's not a lot in the literature on welfare and socialisation that would be much help. Until we have higher standards of welfare for livestock, dogs are in a relatively good position. I say the best way to tackle it is to improve welfare for livestock through legislation. As long as there are battery hens, pigs housed in tiny cages in the dark, and broilers with spongy bones, and mulesing, I think we are going to have trouble changing things for dogs.

Hi Corvus

These were seized dogs and the owner was successfully prosecuted.

[Steve]

The dogs we have rescued were overbred, severely underweight, unsocialised, little/no vet care, unvaccinated, matted to the skin with chronic skin and ear infections, mouth infections, hernias and the list goes on.

I think if a farmer with any kind of livestock had them in that condition it would be grounds to shut them down. Providing animals with enough food, for example, is one of the bare basics of animal care regardless of the species. Intensively farmed animals might slip through the cracks, but the fact is those industries are very production driven, so in a way they are self-regulated. No one wants a bunch of their chickens compromised in any way. It's a waste of money.

I doubt my view will be remotely popular, but the way I see it there's not a lot in the literature on welfare and socialisation that would be much help. Until we have higher standards of welfare for livestock, dogs are in a relatively good position. I say the best way to tackle it is to improve welfare for livestock through legislation. As long as there are battery hens, pigs housed in tiny cages in the dark, and broilers with spongy bones, and mulesing, I think we are going to have trouble changing things for dogs.

Sort of - except when you want to bring in laws which regulate every breeder as if they are producing massive amounts of puppies in an intensive land use situation and demand they comply with laws which interfere with their privacy and cost them money thats not necessary for licenses and the like just so the RSPCA knows where they are all you do is take the smaller breeder out of the picture altogether.

More than anything I want to fight with the RSPCA to stop dogs being ill treated in puppy farms but seriously how could they honestly expect that anyone was going to back them in on a mandatory code for breeders which would make them list their addresses on the net and thats just one part of it that ordinary everyday hobby breeders cant say O.K. to. What on earth were they thinking?

[Greytmate]

I don't agree with a necessity for breeders to have their addresses publicly listed anywhere.

As long as they are part of a recognised registry. If there is a problem, the registry will have contact details that can be provided to other parties if there is a valid reason.

[Greytmate]

Another way of ensuring accountability for breeders is to have all pups microchipped with the breeders registration number linked to the dog's identity, and all breeding animals having a DNA identification and certification.

That way, if there are problem dogs coming to the attention of the RSPCA or others, the breeder can be tracked down and forced to take some responsibility.

Only people that neglect dog's welfare need to be brought to the attention of the RSPCA. They should not have an automatic right to look into the business of the good breeders who breed dogs that never cause problems for anyone.

[Steve]

I don't agree with a necessity for breeders to have their addresses publicly listed anywhere.

As long as they are part of a recognised registry. If there is a problem, the registry will have contact details that can be provided to other parties if there is a valid reason.

Well I don't agree with registries releasing info about breeders.

[Greytmate]

I don't agree with a necessity for breeders to have their addresses publicly listed anywhere.

As long as they are part of a recognised registry. If there is a problem, the registry will have contact details that can be provided to other parties if there is a valid reason.

Well I don't agree with registries releasing info about breeders.

Not even to the police? What have you got to hide?

[Greytmate]

Registries hold info. There should be no compulsion to release identifying information unless there is a serious reason.