MalteseLuna Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We do have a definition of puppy farmer Oakway as far as I can tell it is anyone who dares to do something that is different to the average Doler. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :D I don't really think that is fair. A puppy farmer in most peoples eyes is someone who breeds large quantities of puppies without proper health/temperament screening for the purpose of making money. Someone who is breeding at a larger scale but with adequate staff (to care for the dogs and enrich their lives) whilst doing health screening etc isn't a puppy farmer... if the sole purpose isn't "making money". There is a stigma attached to "making money" and breeding puppies - this is generally because breeding dogs properly isn't really profitable when you consider the time outlay, food costs, health testing costs etc. Perhaps this isn't correct - but this is the general "feeling" about breeding that most dog lovers get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We do have a definition of puppy farmer Oakway as far as I can tell it is anyone who dares to do something that is different to the average Doler. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :D I don't really think that is fair. A puppy farmer in most peoples eyes is someone who breeds large quantities of puppies without proper health/temperament screening for the purpose of making money. IMO quantity has nothing what-so-ever to do with someone being a puppy farmer. A puppy farmer is someone who's SOLE intention is to make money. If they breed one litter or a hundred is irrelevant - IMO it is the intention not the quantity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalteseLuna Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We do have a definition of puppy farmer Oakway as far as I can tell it is anyone who dares to do something that is different to the average Doler. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :D I don't really think that is fair. A puppy farmer in most peoples eyes is someone who breeds large quantities of puppies without proper health/temperament screening for the purpose of making money. IMO quantity has nothing what-so-ever to do with someone being a puppy farmer. A puppy farmer is someone who's SOLE intention is to make money. If they breed one litter or a hundred is irrelevant - IMO it is the intention not the quantity. That is a valid comment and one that I would agree with generally but I do think there is a distinction between a backyard breeder which I would classify as a smaller scale breeder who is breeding just for money (and doesn't health or temperament test) and a larger scale "business" operation which breeds solely for a profit and doesn't do adequate health/temperament testing. Each is equally bad but at different scales. A larger scale operation is more likely to create "more" problems ie. more puppies dumped, more families affected etc sheerly because of the difference in scale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The official definition adopted by the RSPCA and government is a puppy farmer is someone who breeds their dogs in sub standard conditions - whether that be one or 1000. In my opinion it is someone who views the animals they own and breed as stock - just as any farmer does .With no care for anything much past what will bring the most profit and with no consideration as to what my come for the future for the puppies. This means you breed em for a perod of time and move em out as their litter sizes drop or when they stop paying their keep. It means you dont need to be concerned about what may show up in thepup after it has gone home as far as health or temperament is concerned as your responsibility ends at the sale. This guy may well be doing that - however tagging people with derogatory terms such as puppy farmer has become so common place that people dont take the time to gather more info before they tag someone and ruin their lives and reputation. Not all commercial breeders view their animals as stock and it is possible to make money and genuinely care for the animals you own - again much depends on breed and several other things. I know my limits and what is condusive to me being able to cope with and give the best care to my animals. 84 for me isnt anywhere near consideration or possible but I worked in a kennel in Sydney some 30 plus years ago where their whole lives were dogs - breeding and showing and not one of those dogs missed anything nor did any puppy go home without the breeder caring for where it went and what was happening in their lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) I don't think you can judge a person's ethics or standards as a breeder based solely on the number of dogs they own. You have to dig below that. How are the dog's housed, exercised and socialised? How often are they bred and how are the bitches and pups cared for? Does the breeder vet buyers? Is there an aim for the breeding program beyond profit? Personally I don't think dogs that never see the inside of a home are necessarily missing out, but I do think its preferable that pups intended as family dogs do have some experience of that life before reaching their new homes. I'd not call a breeder who didnt' do that a puppy farmer on that fact alone though. Edited August 1, 2011 by poodlefan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakway Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The official definition adopted by the RSPCA and government is a puppy farmer is someone who breeds their dogs in sub standard conditions - whether that be one or 1000. In my opinion it is someone who views the animals they own and breed as stock - just as any farmer does .With no care for anything much past what will bring the most profit and with no consideration as to what my come for the future for the puppies. This means you breed em for a perod of time and move em out as their litter sizes drop or when they stop paying their keep. It means you dont need to be concerned about what may show up in thepup after it has gone home as far as health or temperament is concerned as your responsibility ends at the sale. This guy may well be doing that - however tagging people with derogatory terms such as puppy farmer has become so common place that people dont take the time to gather more info before they tag someone and ruin their lives and reputation. Not all commercial breeders view their animals as stock and it is possible to make money and genuinely care for the animals you own - again much depends on breed and several other things. I know my limits and what is condusive to me being able to cope with and give the best care to my animals. 84 for me isnt anywhere near consideration or possible but I worked in a kennel in Sydney some 30 plus years ago where their whole lives were dogs - breeding and showing and not one of those dogs missed anything nor did any puppy go home without the breeder caring for where it went and what was happening in their lines. My thoughts to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) We do have a definition of puppy farmer Oakway as far as I can tell it is anyone who dares to do something that is different to the average Doler. I think you have hit the nail on the head. :D I don't really think that is fair. A puppy farmer in most peoples eyes is someone who breeds large quantities of puppies without proper health/temperament screening for the purpose of making money. IMO quantity has nothing what-so-ever to do with someone being a puppy farmer. A puppy farmer is someone who's SOLE intention is to make money. If they breed one litter or a hundred is irrelevant - IMO it is the intention not the quantity. That is a valid comment and one that I would agree with generally but I do think there is a distinction between a backyard breeder which I would classify as a smaller scale breeder who is breeding just for money (and doesn't health or temperament test) and a larger scale "business" operation which breeds solely for a profit and doesn't do adequate health/temperament testing. Each is equally bad but at different scales. A larger scale operation is more likely to create "more" problems ie. more puppies dumped, more families affected etc sheerly because of the difference in scale. But you see its the same thing you cant stand back and judge a group based on what you would consider to be one thing or the other when its based on assumptions. Lots of back yard breeders have no intention of making any money - there a million reasons they breed their dogs- to let the kids see the miracle of birth, to make another one just like the last one, because they are bored and want to do it all as a hobby etc. Many people say that people who breed dogs to win a champion ship have it all wrong,or breed a working dog without caring about the way it looks is all wrong etc You have to judge each and everyone on its own merits primarily because much of this is beaten up. Now and then animal rights grab hold of someone who is breeding dogs in filthy conditions and its promoted as if its endemic to make laws and regs which restrict everyone. It is now at a point where no one stops to get all of the info before someone is branded - they breed too many, they own too many, they dont show, they dont work them, they dont feed them in pretty bowls, they dont vaccinate them every year , they dont live in poverty , etc Wait and hear and judge objectively not based on what someone else may have done or not done or someone else's goals or motivations . None of us can say what someone else's motivation is or what goals they may have in what they are doing until they tell us. Edited August 1, 2011 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 no one has said, whether this gentlemen had crosses or pedigrees? whether he is propping up that petshop with his own stock, whether those 2 breeds he has he is crossing them togther. then you could go into, not health testing unable to because if they are crosses you can't research to weed out genetic problems etc. etc. a whole other discussion! ????? OP has specifically stated the shop doesn't sell animals so how do we go from this man has 84 dogs to this man is supplying the shop he works in ????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandra777 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) That is a valid comment and one that I would agree with generally but I do think there is a distinction between a backyard breeder which I would classify as a smaller scale breeder who is breeding just for money (and doesn't health or temperament test) and a larger scale "business" operation which breeds solely for a profit and doesn't do adequate health/temperament testing. Each is equally bad but at different scales. A larger scale operation is more likely to create "more" problems ie. more puppies dumped, more families affected etc sheerly because of the difference in scale. I think there is a distinction between a BYB and a PF too - but it has nothing to do with quantity. IMO a BYB is someone who doesn't do the "right" thing through ignorance or through lack of understanding. IMO a PF is someone who doesn't do the "right" thing because it would cut into the profit margin. And what is "the right thing" changes dramatically through time - when I started out it was considered perfectly acceptable and correct to allow a dog to have his first mating at around 8 months (small-medium sized breed) and breed a bitch on her second heat at around 13-14 months, then again on her next heat then miss a heat (or more) These are just two things that were considered "right" then which are almost universally frowned on now. Edited August 1, 2011 by Sandra777 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) That is a valid comment and one that I would agree with generally but I do think there is a distinction between a backyard breeder which I would classify as a smaller scale breeder who is breeding just for money (and doesn't health or temperament test) and a larger scale "business" operation which breeds solely for a profit and doesn't do adequate health/temperament testing. Each is equally bad but at different scales. A larger scale operation is more likely to create "more" problems ie. more puppies dumped, more families affected etc sheerly because of the difference in scale. I think there is a distinction between a BYB and a PF too - but it has nothing to do with quantity. IMO a BYB is someone who doesn't do the "right" thing through ignorance or through lack of understanding. IMO a PF is someone who doesn't do the "right" thing because it would cut into the profit margin. And what is "the right thing" changes dramatically through time - when I started out it was considered perfectly acceptable and correct to allow a dog to have his first mating at around 8 months (small-medium sized breed) and breed a bitch on her second heat at around 13-14 months, then again on her next heat then miss a heat (or more) These are just two things that were considered "right" then which are almost universally frowned on now. Yep problem is no one can really say why its not right now and many repo specialists think thats where many of our problems come from. Say it often enough though and obviously what is best for the species can be over ridden by animal rights who have never bred a dog Edited August 1, 2011 by Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartok Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 For goodness sake stop and think for a while. How do you think the big kennels around the world survived. Some of the big breeding kennels in the UK survived very well and so do the dogs. Just because people live more urban lives these days in Aust. doesn't mean that some of the big kennels havent survived around the world. It can be nothing to some people to own many dogs and cope well and the dogs cope well too. Don't forget some of the big kennels are owned by wealthy people. Some of these kennels supply some of our top winning show dogs. Without these kennels how would we replace our gene pool. just because that is what used to happen doesnt mean it should and it doesnt make it right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartok Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I went into a animal supply store yesterday (doesnt sell live animals) and one of the workers told me he has 84 dogs. After I gave him this look he said 'oh, Im a breeder.....2 different types'. I still think that sounds like a few too many dogs Lol Surely he was exaggerating...right? He works there and has 84 dogs? Regardless if he is a registered breeder or BYB or puppy farmer He must have some good $$$ to pay for ppl to clean feed, socialise the dogs etc Because looking after that many dogs doing basic care would take an 8hr day (and yes i can speak from experience after working in a facility for 2yrs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I went into a animal supply store yesterday (doesnt sell live animals) and one of the workers told me he has 84 dogs. After I gave him this look he said 'oh, Im a breeder.....2 different types'. I still think that sounds like a few too many dogs Lol Surely he was exaggerating...right? He works there and has 84 dogs? Regardless if he is a registered breeder or BYB or puppy farmer He must have some good $$$ to pay for ppl to clean feed, socialise the dogs etc Because looking after that many dogs doing basic care would take an 8hr day (and yes i can speak from experience after working in a facility for 2yrs) Maybe he just has a wife and kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartok Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I went into a animal supply store yesterday (doesnt sell live animals) and one of the workers told me he has 84 dogs. After I gave him this look he said 'oh, Im a breeder.....2 different types'. I still think that sounds like a few too many dogs Lol Surely he was exaggerating...right? He works there and has 84 dogs? Regardless if he is a registered breeder or BYB or puppy farmer He must have some good $$$ to pay for ppl to clean feed, socialise the dogs etc Because looking after that many dogs doing basic care would take an 8hr day (and yes i can speak from experience after working in a facility for 2yrs) Maybe he just has a wife and kids. Still not enough IMO to care for them how they should be with training & enrichment and playtime etc. Just how I feel about dogs being kennelled. I am not a fan of it at the best of times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MalteseLuna Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Yep problem is no one can really say why its not right now and many repo specialists think thats where many of our problems come from. Say it often enough though and obviously what is best for the species can be over ridden by animal rights who have never bred a dog Just to be clear I wasn't passing judgment on the guy - there is too little information to really make a valid judgment about the situation as many before have said. I mainly started posting to make some comments about the evolution of dogs and their relationships with humans to make the point that dogs (as we have them now) are a human construct that have been bred largely as pets (or to fulfill a specific function) and this has lead to a close bond between the two species. Drawing conclusions about dogs being "wild in packs" or happier in packs because wolves are is fundamentally flawed - humans have been playing with dogs for to long to be making statements about that. Yes dogs are related to wolves (closely) but we have shaped them for our lives - so that they exist in our lives to suit us however socialization is still immensely important to create a well rounded canine and I do think that all dogs should be socialized - even if they are breeding bitches - even more so if they are to be rearing pups which will be sold to families. I do dislike large (and small) breeding establishments that breed for pet shops and unfortunately the more the public hears about the evils of puppy farms the more large breeding kennels will be vilified (even if they are doing it "right")... it's just something people have to accept. I want to see less people sprouting nonsense about how evil inbreeding is or how purebred dogs are unhealthy... pretty hard when many of the unhealthy dogs are being bred by large profit hungry farming operations or the oblivious family down the road who just wants to "experience the miracle of birth"... sorry if i rambled abit without making a point - long day at work ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 For goodness sake stop and think for a while. How do you think the big kennels around the world survived. Some of the big breeding kennels in the UK survived very well and so do the dogs. Just because people live more urban lives these days in Aust. doesn't mean that some of the big kennels havent survived around the world. It can be nothing to some people to own many dogs and cope well and the dogs cope well too. Don't forget some of the big kennels are owned by wealthy people. Some of these kennels supply some of our top winning show dogs. Without these kennels how would we replace our gene pool. just because that is what used to happen doesnt mean it should and it doesnt make it right WHY? If the dogs are happy, sound in body and mind, healthy and tick all the right boxes as far as health testing etc what is the problem? You don't like it? You don't have to, but it doesn't make it wrong. It still happens today, there are big kennels that breed lovely dogs that are doing all the above. Some of these Breeders have forgotten more about their Breeds and the breeding of them than many of us could ever strive to know. Yet some of you would like to stamp them out because you don't like it. I am glad that I had the pleasure of meeting some of these Breeders and that they were gracious enough to share some of their knowledge and the fruits of their labour with me and with others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We do have a definition of puppy farmer Oakway as far as I can tell it is anyone who dares to do something that is different to the average Doler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) Sorry but I believe the comments that are made here are just not fair. I would like to remind all of you that until man took over the canine they all lived in pack away from man. Just because we have people around the world that manage large numbers of dogs does not mean they are wrong. It just means that they are more capable of coping with larger numbers than some others. It does not mean that they are Puppy Farmers it just mean that they are capable and financially able to do so. Also I would like to remind all of you that to my knowledge that the word Puppy Farmer has not been defined and I would refrain from accusing people of being one, because if you don't you could end up in court. The OP asked if that amount of dogs was to many. I said no, (I think) it depends on the way they are are looked after. If these supposed dogs are well housed and cared for and go on to support other members of the family then thank your lucky stars because your taxes will not be going to support them in unemployment. Yes, it's a fact that for many, many years families around the world have made a living breeding dogs. Yes, even the Romans before they invaded Briton. I would argue that dogs have not lived in "packs" as wild canines for a LONG time. Domestic dogs were "created" about 15,000 years ago. Since then they have had a very close relationship with humans. This relationship has deepened further in the last 2,000+ years as breeds were developed (via selective breeding etc) and yet again in the Victorian Era. Dogs are NOT wild animals and have not been for a very long time. They were developed by humans to preform certain functions - guarding stock, helping care for livestock, companions, hunting dogs etc etc. Dogs were developed to work closely with humans - this meant bonding between humans and dogs and largely humans would only have kept small numbers of dogs (after-all feeding too many animals would be costly - especially when food was scarce). Large scale operations are a relatively RECENT occurrence. They have gotten very popular for money-making schemes. Large kennels can only function properly if they are well-funded and have a large staff. This does not mean that all people with large numbers of dogs are "farmers" BUT rarely does someone do it well or properly. I would argue that for domestic dogs to function properly they need a close relationship with humans - from a young age - this means a low dog to human ratio. Even working dogs that might not be allowed inside will have a close bond with their owner - of should imo. This is the reason why I think dogs should be kept in smaller numbers. Lets look at why people keep dogs now - largely as pets. Pets need to be socialized for them to fit into our lives (which are rapidly becoming more urban). Unsocialised dogs get dumped because they don't make as good pets (most of the time). Many unsocialised dogs/puppies come from large scale operations that sell to pet shops or via the internet - they may be able to recover (i.e. socialised by the owner) but sometimes the up-bringing and lack of human contact at a young age has already limited the puppy/dog and it's temperament is compromised. You seem to know a lot about how I should raise my dogs. I live on my own - what's my optimal dog ownerhship ratio? Edited August 1, 2011 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 (edited) I went into a animal supply store yesterday (doesnt sell live animals) and one of the workers told me he has 84 dogs. After I gave him this look he said 'oh, Im a breeder.....2 different types'. I still think that sounds like a few too many dogs Lol Surely he was exaggerating...right? He works there and has 84 dogs? Regardless if he is a registered breeder or BYB or puppy farmer He must have some good $$$ to pay for ppl to clean feed, socialise the dogs etc Because looking after that many dogs doing basic care would take an 8hr day (and yes i can speak from experience after working in a facility for 2yrs) Maybe he does. So what? Who said the way I or anyone else might run 20 odd or 60 odd ++ dogs operates anywhere near the same way as the facility that you worked for? Edited August 1, 2011 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megan_ Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I wouldn't call your breed domestic dogs lilli. They are working dogs, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now