Stolzseinrotts Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Just thinking out loud here......... What do people think of "breeders" who clearly show to NOT have the breeds best interest at heart as a basis of their actions???? Who do not wish to conform with State Breed Clubs basic Code of Ethics in regards to the care,maintenance and or breeding of their dogs?? Who do not wish to conform with the accepted practices for the breed by the majority of ANKC Breeders and who if they aren't a member of a State Breed club do not wish to adhere to those minimum guidelines set out for the health and welfare of the breed. Do you think that a breeder as described is ethical and truly has the welfare of the breed as a priority??? Just curious as to some others answers????? Edited to add: I understand that Ethics and the "value" can vary depending on who you talk to, but just looking for some feedback form a variety of people. Edited October 16, 2011 by Stolzseinrotts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missymoo Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Firstly, get proof and 100% facts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stolzseinrotts Posted October 16, 2011 Author Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Firstly, get proof and 100% facts Proof of what??? What I am asking for is feedback on what people value. I get everybody is different but should a basic requirement be adhered to??? Edited to add this; It was a general question. After taking with some people (non Rott people) the other day it got me thinking about different responses from different people based on their knowledge and experience/s and if they are breeders and or pedigree dog owners or cross breed owners or pet owners /people. I just thought I would pose the question/s. I was just after some feedback from other people. I thought it a very interesting subject and one I was looking for some feed back on. Edited October 16, 2011 by Stolzseinrotts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOE Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) I show dogs and buy them from breeders I do not breed and do not wish too but I love my dogs and I love showing them. I also desex them when I have finished showing them and they stay here until death do us part. I am actually about to purchase my next show dog and am having a wee bit of trouble in regard to where it will come from. I have had one breeder state that a puppy will only be on a limited register so I can see why they do it but no good to someone who wants to show. So technically that breeder has lost a show home and a forever home but then again they dont know me either even though I supplied plenty of references. My answers are based on that, I also do not like nor recommend breeders who have no follow up. Just thinking out loud here......... What do people think of "breeders" who clearly show to NOT have the breeds best interest at heart as a basis of their actions???? Do not recommend them especially the ones that have numerous litters and off load their adults, no better than a *************** Who do not wish to conform with State Breed Clubs basic Code of Ethics in regards to the care,maintenance and or breeding of their dogs?? Makes you wonder what they have to hide and would never recommend them. Who do not wish to conform with the accepted practices for the breed by the majority of ANKC Breeders and who if they aren't a member of a State Breed club do not wish to adhere to those minimum guidelines set out for the health and welfare of the breed. Makes you wonder what they have to hide and would never recommend them Do you think that a breeder as described is ethical and truly has the welfare of the breed as a priority??? No I do not Just curious as to some others answers????? Edited to add: I understand that Ethics and the "value" can vary depending on who you talk to, but just looking for some feedback form a variety of people. this quote thingy blahhhhhhhhhhh I have bolded my answers. I am glad you put this here not in the breeders where no one else can answer, and just remember we all have an opinion that a lot of breeders will not like. cheers Edited October 16, 2011 by KOE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Im not sure what it is you are asking. You will need to enlarge it a bit. If someone is a member of any group or club which has a code of conduct then they are obliged to adhere to that or leave. The major danger in any of this is - again - who will decide the breeder's motivation? Just because a breeder does something others dont do or dont agree with doesnt mean to say they dont have the best interests of thei rdogs or the breed in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle. Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 It is an interesting subject and the more I get involved with the dog world, the more I think about it, and the more the "ethics" mean to me. There are some things that don't sit particularly well with me, but that's not to say they are unethical or wrong......they just make me go hmmmmmm. One of them is the revolving door of dog ownership. Breed a litter, keep the pick, show it to a title (or maybe not), rehome. Rinse and repeat. Or acquire a breeding bitch, breed a few litters, rehome to another breeder who does the same, move the bitch on for another litter or two.....this particular practice I find no better than puppy farming but it's not because none of the breeders would be large scale breeders and the bitch is cared for "adequately" by each breeder. In these instances there is clearly no bond with the dog, and in the second instance, no concern for the bitches future once the desired litters have been whelped, sorted and sold. Then there is the practice of health testing after the mating has taken place, purely to adhere to the registration requirements for the breed. But, none of these things are wrong, they all fall within the ANKC ethics guidelines and probably aren't what you mean. But they are practices that don't sit particularly well with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saffioraire Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Someone said to me the other day that "ethics" are what you do when no one else is looking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebanne Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 My experience in GSD's have shown me there are good and bad breeders who may or may not be a member of their breed club. Ethics come from within and I don't believe you have to be a member of a breed club to have them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpette Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Stolz there are breeders who are members of state breed clubs but they do not conform to the ANKC Code of Ethics. They use the membership as a form of respectability yet continue to breed with money foremost as their motive because they know that the breed clubs have no backbone and will not take action against them. If they do get caught out and the club does take action it is usually minimal in the form of a small fine and short suspension. As GayleK said the actions of breeders, not purely their membership of various groups, are a better indication of whether they have the welfare and best interests of the breed as a priority. Breeders who have many litters a year, who are constantly moving dogs on and selling them to anybody who has the right amount of money, breeders who have nothing to do with their puppy buyers once the dogs have left their kennel and provide no support, breeders who are not prepared to take back the dogs that they breed should things go pear shaped and breeders who do not socialise, train and supervise their own dogs, including raising their litters in a home environment are not breeding for the right reasons in my opinion. They are interested in money only not the betterment, welfare or reputation of the breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mita Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) . One of them is the revolving door of dog ownership. Breed a litter, keep the pick, show it to a title (or maybe not), rehome. My pet dogs have come from a registered breeder, who showed them to title, let them have a litter....& then carefully rehomed them, only to someone she knew & trusted. Not all her dogs are rehomed, but some are, like the ones that've come to me. I approve of this as one option. And I approve of how this breeder treats her dogs. She doesn't have a large number which means they enjoy many of the same lifestyle activities of average pet dogs. Time in the house, time going out with her to do some pet therapy at a nursing home, time playing with granchildren, time travelling in a car.....the list goes on. No wonder her dogs slotted in so easily to living here with us. When people praise their good social behaviours, I say they came like that, from a registered breeder. She has a loving, personalised attitude towards her dogs. In all the years I've known her....& have spoken to her.....she's never referred to her dogs by anything else than their call name. And she continues to refer to our dogs as 'my girls'....& I'm delighted she does, because that's how she raised them. We've got the advantage from that. And the little dogs have benefitted by having a show career where they helped develop their breed, being raised & socialised well & then having their own pet home. She doesn't part with them, without emotion. There's always tears at Canberra airport as the plane heads for Q'ld. And I should add, I've had to force her to take money..... & a damn good sum, too, that she deserves. She wanted only the best of pet homes for them for the rest of their lives. 'Naughty girl!' is her response when a cheque arrives. Edited October 16, 2011 by mita Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulesP Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 What do people think of "breeders" who clearly show to NOT have the breeds best interest at heart as a basis of their actions???? Well this one is a no-brainer. All breeders should have the breeds best interest at heart. The other 2 points concerning conforming with breed clubs and the ANKC, well I would want to know the reasons not to conform first. And what it is that they aren't conforming to. They might be misguided rather than unethical or they might have pretty good reasons for not conforming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Missymoo Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Firstly, get proof and 100% facts Proof of what??? What I am asking for is feedback on what people value. I get everybody is different but should a basic requirement be adhered to??? Edited to add this; It was a general question. After taking with some people (non Rott people) the other day it got me thinking about different responses from different people based on their knowledge and experience/s and if they are breeders and or pedigree dog owners or cross breed owners or pet owners /people. I just thought I would pose the question/s. I was just after some feedback from other people. I thought it a very interesting subject and one I was looking for some feed back on. sorry, my bad, read it worng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Baggins Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Stolz good question. Since I have been showing again I have discovered some very dodgy activities by top winning people. My dogs are much loved house pets first, show dogs second, breeders third. I bred for many years pure bred pets for wonderful homes. Have had people coming back for seconds and prepared to wait until I have a litter. I have painted myself in to the ground by keeping the older dogs but I would not have it any other way. Last year I took on a wee girl who did not turn out. Even though I knew she had to go I was devastated and cried. I breed to replace but also supply good quality dogs to loving homes. To survive I am probably going to have to place some dogs. This will be done with great care. KOE I find your situation very sad that the breeders have not looked at your practises and seen what a fantastic home and environment their pups would go to. That I believe is elitist. I would be so proud to see one of my breeding in the ring with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubitty Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I don't think I have ever thought of ethics as a whole. I know I love the type of breeder my golden breeder is. She does all the relevant health testing, breeds great dogs and is quite ruthless about what is suitable for breeding and what isn't. But I think what makes me value her most as a breeder is that she cares. She plain and simply cares about the dogs and that's the most important thing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gayle. Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 Some of these things regarding ethics have been the subject of much conversation between a friend and I recently, because it permeates everything about breeding. When choosing a stud dog for your much loved bitch, is the owner someone you would want to raise on of the resulting puppies? Because that might be part of the deal....a puppy in lieu of a stud fee. If you're the owner of the stud dog, is this the person you want raising the puppies that carry half the gene matter from your lovely boy? Because when it comes down to it, it's not just about choosing the right dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alkhe Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 I'm not quite sure how to approach this either. These seem like the kind of questions that everyone will respond in the same way to - who is going to admit to agreeing with the practices of people who clearly don't have the best interests of their breed at heart? I think to really dissect the question and get to the nitty gritty here, the real questions are along the lines of what does putting the best interest of the breed first actually mean? Where is the line between putting the whole breed first, and an individual dog first? What if putting the best interest of the breed first means churning through dogs? Those are the kinds of questions that really draw people out, in terms of their ethics and attitudes around breeding. The same goes for compliance or not with codes of ethics and practice. I personally think that they're the bare bones, and that compliance with them doesn't an ethical breeder make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted October 16, 2011 Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Just thinking out loud here......... What do people think of "breeders" who clearly show to NOT have the breeds best interest at heart as a basis of their actions???? Unless you know a person's motivations, you're only guessing what the basis for their actions is. How does a breeder clearly show they do not have their breeds best interest at heart? By not breeding as most breeders in your club do? By having a breeding ethos that is outside the paradigm of yourself and other breeders you know? Who do not wish to conform with State Breed Clubs basic Code of Ethics in regards to the care,maintenance and or breeding of their dogs?? Who do not wish to conform with the accepted practices for the breed by the majority of ANKC Breeders and who if they aren't a member of a State Breed club do not wish to adhere to those minimum guidelines set out for the health and welfare of the breed. Code Of Ethics is at the end of the day just what the people who have the most influence think. Generally 'code of ethics' to do with the above, centre around arbitrary numbers that someone thought up, and have nothing to do with individual dogs in a breed. Something along the lines of "this is what I think is best so you should do it too". Like minimum breeding age. Or maximum breeding age. Or how many times a bitch can be bred. If a breeder is not and does not want to be a member of a State Club and they are breeding and producing competitive dogs, they have my attention; as a potential breeder of interest. It says a lot more to me about a breeder's critical thinking, that they do things their way after forming their own opinion on certain matters. They might be wrong of course. But according to me more damage is done to a breed when we imagine that State Breed Clubs or any breed Clubs, are selfless entities and not propelled by politics of influential members. Do you think that a breeder as described is ethical and truly has the welfare of the breed as a priority??? Ethics and 'Health and Welfare' have become a norty goading stick that breeders point at other breeders, with whom they dont agree with or cant relate to or are not familiar with their breeding paradigms. Edited October 16, 2011 by lilli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) The 'breed's best interest' is highly subjective. Working Labradors often don't look much like the show standard, and oftentimes their breeders couldn't care less, especially in the US where many people take hunting seriously. Show quality pugs/tibbies/bulldogs may be considered health disasters by people who prefer a more natural look and put health above success in the ring. Some people accept line breeding; others hate it. None of us have a right to impose our brand of 'best' on others who subscribe to another version. As for people who just put some dog over some bitch, don't do health tests, and hope for the best . . . I think all you can do is try to educate puppy buyers about what to look for in a breeder. Edited October 17, 2011 by sandgrubber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Rusty Bucket Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 Is someone who refuses to follow the majority accepted code of ethics - ethical? Erm - no. Are they doing the right thing? Not enough information. I think certain breeds have suffered from the way that their breed standard has been implemented and judged at shows. And I think if some breeders decide to go outside the breed standards to improve the health of their breed ie fix breathing problems or birthing problems or back problems or brain problems etc, that ought to be a good thing. If they're breeding and not considering the best health interests of their dogs, that would be a bad thing but they may still fit the ANKC standards. I do think the ANKC could do more to encourage their registered breeders to comply with their rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted October 17, 2011 Share Posted October 17, 2011 (edited) Is someone who refuses to follow the majority accepted code of ethics - ethical? Erm - no. The Majority of dalmation breeders were against introduction of low uric acid genes via outcross/backcross. The Majority of boxer breeders would have stood against the introduction of natural bob-tailed genes via outcross/backcross with the corgi. Does it make the breeders who have accepted the introduction of non-defective or bobtailed genes unethical? Sometimes, by my reckoning, the majority gets it wrong. I think live and let live is a better dictum. Edited October 17, 2011 by sandgrubber 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