The Backyard Breeder Fallacy

[Keshwar]

http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Jade/06_Backyard.Breeder.Fallacy.Rights_05.htm

I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper. However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either.

Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights.

While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.

Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on “death row”. Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.

It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding”. Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.

Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.

The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.

Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.

We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.

According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same “hybrid vigor” so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.

The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.

Am I a “backyard breeder”? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.

Ms. Jade

[sunny1shine]

unlicenced breeder would be a better term than backyard breeder

with licenced breeders complying with mandatory microchipping and being a registered breeder with their local council and/or ankc.

one standard registry for microchips nation wide would also be great - with the breeders details and whoever the animal is transfered to remaining permanantly on this register. then dogs shelters would be able to work out exactly where all the dogs are coming from with breeders who have a higher represenation of "dumped dogs" or in fact "dumping" dogs having legal repercussions. onus on person transferring a dog to another person to ensure the register is updated with the new owners details

then there just neds to be more public awareness of only buying from licenced breeders

[Jed]

None of these verbal differences existed about 20 years ago. Some people bred dogs. They were not judged and not especially judged by their peers. If Mrs. Jones down the road bred her Aussie Terriers once a year and sold the pups without papers, no one really cared. Not our business. Unless the dogs were very ill treated.

Then along came AR - "pets" became "companion animals" and breeders were divided into classifications. This began in US, and then spread to other countries.

And, like sheep, we swallowed it.

Admittedly, there were no "puppy farms" 20 years ago.

This AR tactic was used to divide and rule .... and it has worked.

[mita]

'Producing' pet dogs isn't just a matter of what the person who breeds them, is called. It's what that person does. But that gets left out ... & the various labels (BYB, puppy-farmer, registered breeder) are believed to be self-explanatory. Which they're not.

Yes, 'pet' got translated into more jargon-y 'companion animal'. It tends to stop with the label, too... as if just saying it, means something. Which it doesn't.

Recent US research pointed to hobby (small scale), home-style bred dogs going on to have less behavioral problems (in relation to living alongside humans) and less health problems. So that's what needs picking apart, in terms of both animal & human welfare. What exactly fosters that socialization & better health.

And it's a scenario that's been around for yonks.

There's some evidence that registered breeders tend to largely work that way. But not all. And so would some unregistered breeders.

And there's also evidence that large scale breeding tends to be less able to reproduce those benefits. Large scale is how puppy farming tends to work ... to make it commercially viable.

Edited July 30, 2013 by mita

[Little Gifts]

According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

So what is a mongrel to me? A dog that is not verifiably a pure bred. Even if there is a predominant breed evident so you can say it is a kelpie cross, that still does not make it pure of its breed. So if the mongrel is the majority of dogs finding themselves in the rescue system and pts then we still need to work on reducing that. Even with all the laws in the world there will still be a percentage of mongrel/crossbreed/designer litters happening, along with planned litters of registered pure bred dogs (which can be raised home style too rather than in a farm style environment!). But to identify and not reduce the risk area by doing nothing is murder.

I don't want to see breeds become extinct but I also don't want to see beautifully natured, healthy dogs being pts day in, day out because there are not enough rescue and rehoming options. And I don't accept we can't change opinion on what is good dog ownership in a disposable society. If you can't look after yourself, your kids, your home then I'm fine if you're missing out on also owning and neglecting a dog!

Let's face it, if you can't afford to buy, maintain and care for a top of the line Mercedes you learn to do without. You learn to lower your standards to what you can afford and maintain, like maybe a Nissan Pulsar made last century. Elitism is every where - the clothes we wear, cars we own, houses we live in, holidays we take. It has been like this since the dawn of time.

I do appreciate the article's POV but to me the definition of what is a mongrel and what is pure bred are the key. People are buying false goods and not taking responsibility for them so we need to reduce the number of false goods available and educate the people on better options available. OR we make the sellers of those false goods take the responsibility? You can guarantee a toaster so why not an animal?

[RuralPug]

If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not "puppy mills", breed enthusiasts or "backyard breeders" of purebred dogs.

No, the random dogs are NOT the cause. Nor are the deliberately bred dogs. PEOPLE are the cause.

And, of people, those people that are more responsible for shelter overpopulation than any other sort of people are the revolving door cute puppy owners who repeatedly buy (from breeders OR from rescue/pounds/shelters) puppies or young dogs and then sell/dump/giveaway those puppies or young dogs within a few years or even a few months and then go out and get another cute puppy or young dog.

For every responsible dog owner who keeps their dog for 15 years or until death do they part, there appear to be 3 or 4 irresponsible owners who have owned 6 - 12 dogs one at a time over that 15 year span, the bulk of whom have been added to the shelter population.

STOP the revolving door syndrome, or at least dramatically reduce it and the demand for puppies to be bred will drop equally dramatically and shelter overcrowding will also stop.

So how do we get our society to value pets as non-disposable family members?

[Steve]

unlicenced breeder would be a better term than backyard breeder

with licenced breeders complying with mandatory microchipping and being a registered breeder with their local council and/or ankc.

one standard registry for microchips nation wide would also be great - with the breeders details and whoever the animal is transfered to remaining permanantly on this register. then dogs shelters would be able to work out exactly where all the dogs are coming from with breeders who have a higher represenation of "dumped dogs" or in fact "dumping" dogs having legal repercussions. onus on person transferring a dog to another person to ensure the register is updated with the new owners details

then there just neds to be more public awareness of only buying from licenced breeders

Well I believe this to be part of the problem and if you want a clear view of this take a look at Victoria - way over regulated to a point of craziness - anyone who owns more than 3 fertile dogs has to be licensed and it has more puppy farmer activity, more large scale commercial breeding, and it hasn't done a single thing to stop dogs being dumped or Euth. They even have a code on the table which looks like it will get in where they will be giving the nod for people to have over 100 per person on their property!

If you don't do something to interrupt the demand then people will continue to breed dogs and if you continue to make life difficult for small breeders and make them get licenses and spend loads of money to breed a litter of puppies they will leave and the demand will be taken up by large scale commercial breeders and dodgy people who do what they want underground.

Educate the public to only buy from licensed breeders? Go and have a good look at the places you will be educating them to buy from in Victoria.

No one who really tries to find homes for puppies has any difficulty in doing so - rescue even fight over puppies and pregnant dogs because they know they are in higher demand

If you really think any system is going to be able to blame a breeder for what happens to a dog after it becomes someone else's property time to re think the plan because it wont ever happen.

The situation we are in as dog lovers in the year 2013 - if we care about dogs in general and not just our own is far more complicated that picking a part of a perceived problem and isolating one group as the cause and making regulations and laws to change it. There are always un intended consequences and while each group works in isolation seeing one other group or another as the enemy it will always be like this.

We don't even know the facts because no real stats are kept and its all about anecdotal perceptions and stories which are often exaggerated and sensationalized and each geographical area is different with different social and regulatory impacts.

There is so much mythology and assumptions made that its become almost impossible to have an open debate or realistic converstation of the real issues and possible solutions - too much ego and power and money and blame to really deal with whats best for the dogs into the future.

[Steve]

According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not "puppy mills", breed enthusiasts or "backyard breeders" of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a "designer" product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

So what is a mongrel to me? A dog that is not verifiably a pure bred. Even if there is a predominant breed evident so you can say it is a kelpie cross, that still does not make it pure of its breed. So if the mongrel is the majority of dogs finding themselves in the rescue system and pts then we still need to work on reducing that. Even with all the laws in the world there will still be a percentage of mongrel/crossbreed/designer litters happening, along with planned litters of registered pure bred dogs (which can be raised home style too rather than in a farm style environment!). But to identify and not reduce the risk area by doing nothing is murder.

I don't want to see breeds become extinct but I also don't want to see beautifully natured, healthy dogs being pts day in, day out because there are not enough rescue and rehoming options. And I don't accept we can't change opinion on what is good dog ownership in a disposable society. If you can't look after yourself, your kids, your home then I'm fine if you're missing out on also owning and neglecting a dog!

Let's face it, if you can't afford to buy, maintain and care for a top of the line Mercedes you learn to do without. You learn to lower your standards to what you can afford and maintain, like maybe a Nissan Pulsar made last century. Elitism is every where - the clothes we wear, cars we own, houses we live in, holidays we take. It has been like this since the dawn of time.

I do appreciate the article's POV but to me the definition of what is a mongrel and what is pure bred are the key. People are buying false goods and not taking responsibility for them so we need to reduce the number of false goods available and educate the people on better options available. OR we make the sellers of those false goods take the responsibility? You can guarantee a toaster so why not an animal?

People are buying or receiving as a gift goods - puppies - dogs and not taking responsibility for them. No one really knows how many dogs per dogs bred are landing with people who are irresponsible and the numbers of purebreds per cross breeds ending up in pounds may be about nothing more than the fact that a lot less purebreds are bred than cross breeds. I can tell you right now I work my heart out trying to cover it all, educating and screening the potential buyer, saying no more often than yes to a home for one of the dogs I breed, I work at staying in touch and offering all manner of support and care and now and then I still end up with a bad ending. Now in 35 years of breeding I know there have been 4 instances where the owners have decided they no longer want the dogs - that's horrible but its also pretty good odds - I reckon its about one in a hundred that go wrong might be vastly different for different breeds and different breeders. So how do we know what the odds are of a pet shop selling a puppy and the new owners turning out to be baddies, how do we know how many people [what percentage] who take a mongrel bred by their neighbour chuck it it? We know registered purebred breeders in Australia breed less than 10% of all the puppies bred per year so surely in Australia we expect to see less purebred dogs being dumped. Is it because people are able to predict the behaviour and management easier of a purebred or is it because the same amount of rats take purebred dogs per dogs bred as they do non registered dogs?

The concept of guaranteeing and animal has become popular but not realistic - its like asking a human fertility specialist to guarantee a child - its a living being. You can guarantee it doesn't have PRA or another recessive if you do a DNA test for it etc but

what do you want the guarantee to cover ?

Lets look at Sharpei for a minute - a purebred yet owners dump them in the hundreds .Is it the breeders who breed faulty goods, is it the breeders who breed too many of them, is it the people who take them and promise to care for them and own them and love them no matter what and then chuck em away , is it lack of education on the part of the breeder or lack of education on the part of the owner? Are the breeders of Sharpei most likely to be dumped most likely to be registered with the CCs or breeding them un papered are they most likely to be breeding them with approvals or without them, are they screening their puppy buyers or selling the pups off to pet shops? What role does rescue play in it all and what are the intended and un intended consequences of rescue intervention ? How is the solution required to stop the numbers of Sharpei being dumped differ from a solution for stopping a beagle being dumped or a mongrel being dumped ? Would making everyone who owns a pet Sharpei have it desexed impact at all on the numbers bred or dumped? If so how much impact ? Who breeds them , who dumps them and why - if we launch a huge campaign to educate potential owners of the facts about what they may have to live with if they take a Sharpei prevent people from buying them and then feeling they cant live with them? Would making laws and enforcing them to ensure breeders are screening and educating their potential owners impact at all? Do purebred registered breeders have less un happy customers per numbers placed than any other breeder breeding this breed?

So many questions - different for each geographical area and breed or part thereof and while ever we try to make laws to deal with a perceived problem based on assumption and false data generically it will take us nowhere positive for the welfare of dogs or the numbers dumped.