Requiring customers to sign agreements regarding desexing?

[moosmum]

IMO this sort of thing just illustrates the very poor relationship between breeders and their market. The organization, and the environment they depend on to support their 'mission;.

 

And people argue breeders are not 'elitist' or exclusive. Wonder what they think that means?

 

The market is far from perfect, but what other result could be expected from  an exclusive statement of intent ?

 

Yes, of course breeders want to ensure, to the best of their abilities, that their dogs go to homes where they will be loved, appreciated and live the lives intended by their breeding. Thats getting harder, not easier. Legislation is clearly not working. Not for Breeders other than commercial. They are in a crap position, no doubt. So sad to read the stories posted to illustrate.

 

More legislation won't do better. All it its doing is solidifying the barriers between breeders and their market. Breeders clearly are not breeding 'for their market' to meet its demands. Of course their success is going to be severely limited in that market, and value seen or recognized is going suffer.

 

  Rather, they are breeding to 'protect and preserve' the statehood of the Pedigree system as some thing separate or 'apart' from the Objective environment of "Dog Breeders". It is, and always will have that separation of being. They are pedigree, or they are not. Thats not a problem.

 

What made it a problem was the statement of The K.Cs that they don't recognize cross breeds. Thats known as a double negative in the writing of a constituition. It re-enforces the separation, and puts the value of Dogs bred squarely into the pedigrees, not the dog. Split values. Pedigree dogs have value, non -pedigrees don't.

Pedigree breeders give value, non pedigrees can't. 

A double negative does the opposite of whats intended, negative values are acted on, rather than positive value. Its exclusive. It excludes. What it excludes is environment of the objective, which is to breed dogs. Its doing its job very admirably. Non recognition of breeders outside the pedigree system legitimized a negative bias to Dog breeders in drawing up that division of Pedigrees from their objective environment. You can't have the one with out the other.

Form follows function. Function does not happen with out the form work, but thats what is being thrown out with exclusivity.

 

Responsibility to environment is lost, when it isn't recognized, and its not, while there is no recognition of the objective beyond the organization

Responsibility can be defined as meeting the needs and demands of your environment, providing means for its health and well being. Delivering and demonstrating Positive values that, when recognized, lead to emulation. Few taught to recognize positive values of Dog breeding will settle for less than expected from those lessons.

Pretty hard to give that sort of ability of response, while there is such clear contempt for the environment into which the dogs are going. 

 

Its a hard place for breeders after 150 yrs or so this process has had, to take the form dog breeding has today, but there is only one solution to saving our domestic dogs and thats by returning them to their rightful environment in common with Humanity, End the exclusive branding of breeders into objective groups because object they will, theres no other choice. Work together for the common objective of providing the best dogs we can to show case their value, and the practices that can deliver it. Subjectively. Then we might actually see breeders judged the same way and rewarded for their efforts instead of being eliminated or discredited based on arbitrary objectives, and buyers too.

[coneye]

I really really can see both sides of the argument ,, On one hand i feel excatly the same way has the  original poster ,, I come across it myself  when i was looking for another dog only a couple months ago ,, i was stuffed if i was going to pay a huge PRICE FOR A DOG then told what i could and could not do with it ,, your not allowed to show it , its not show potential and will reflect on me i was told ,, but my answer was ERR well why the  big price , ,,, it must be  desexed , i was told its not a perfect example   to breed from ,, Err why the big price , , I like the other poster just walked away , fine  find some other mug to pay you 5-6000 dollars , for a pup thats   not up to standard  by there own admision . .

 

But on the other hand i can understand    real dog lovers  , really being concerned what happens to there pups above the dollars ,  and not wanting there lovely little puppy being bred in a backyard  every season ... But what i found was  most were just BYB anyway ,,, most   you went to had 2 dogs i found an awful lot were  single women  or unemployed couples with   a couple of dogs that were sub standard for there breed ,, but they talked a good game ,  an awful lot of the breeders i spoke to   did'nt know much about the breeds they were selling , i specificly was looking for a GSD  , i have owned them  know about them and know a good one when i see it , and unfortunatly i did'nt see too many good ones ,, ,, mind you i am partial to the straight back european lines ,, not the hunchback jackel lines i continually come across .

 

 But i did come across a few  what i would call reputable breeders with a lot of knoledge . One did'nt want to sell me a dog because i did'nt want to show it  , and i said fair enough , she was proud of what she had and  from what i seen so she should off been ,,, One   did

,nt want to sell me a dog because i told her straight up it would not be getting desexed ,  ,   and the reason for that is simple  , if the dog were to turn out has good has i hope it would , later on down the track i may want a pup from it to replace it ,, ,,  It really is a double edged sword  pro's and con's for both arguments ,, but i'm with the original poster i will not part with thousands and then be told what i can and can't do with my dog .

 

I can understand a breeder who's paid thousands and thousands out for   imported dogs or semen to get top quality show dogs  not wanting to sell a substandard pup or even a  top dog , to anyone and find there mating it with there mates dog up the road and using her  pedigree to get top dollar , yes in that case  get the dog desexed and include it in the price , but when you see all the sub standard dogs coming out with the same regulations from  nothing more than back yard breeders with a superiority complex  , stuff em  , let them get stuck with the puppys

[Deeds]

Even imported dogs can throw off sub standard pups which are still sold for thousands and at the last minute the buyer is asked to sign an agreement they will accept the dog on the Limited Register .  Even though the "entire litter is show quality".  And purchased from a registered ANKC breeder..  

 

There appears to be no straight forward dog purchases anymore even though the dogs cost far more after Covid than they did pre Covid.

 

My last puppy purchase 6 months ago was completely different to all my other straight forward puppy purchases.  In the past all that was involved was to pay the asked price for the right pedigree and all on the Main Register.  

[asal]

On 17/09/2022 at 12:12 AM, Papillon Kisses said:

Suprelorin effects hormones. I know a number of dogs with anxiety disorders for whom it has been used before deciding whether or not to desex. If their condition/behaviour deteriorates the effect is (hopefully) not permanent; if nothing changes or there’s an improvement then you have more confidence going ahead with operating. Sometimes despite best breeding and puppy-raising you can have an anxious dog for whom those hormones are important for behavioural wellness.

 

interesting, decades ago I had a young stallion who was incredibly anxious about mares, he just was not coping with his hormones,  an experimental injection to chemically castrate colts for the racing industry was asking for people willing to have their colts treated in return for input on the results.   signed him up and another really quiet colt as well.  the improvement in the nervous boy was remarkable, even took him riding with the pony club kids n he didn't have a clue he was a colt anymore.

 

when it wore off, in his case 11 months later he remained content.

 

the quiet colt had no changes noticeable, but then it was to be expected. The aim was to keep the oversexed colts mind on the job for racing so they did not have to be castrated and their genetics lost if they proved their worth on the track.

 

the once anxious boy was done twice more over  a 15 year period to ascertain any changes in how long the injection worked and any changes to fertility after it wore off. he was still fully fertile at 27.  

 

Very interesting research to be part of

[asal]

as for the present mindset of dead end kennels, its been a long progression to the mess we are witnessing today.

 

It began with the establishment of peta , took me a while to learn of their existence but the time line fits, along with after meeting some members, I realised where the "we have to get rid of puppy farmers" came from.  My ankc breeder friends began parroting it in the 80's and by 1990's many were busy dialing the rspca and council rangers to dob in any member they decided were puppy farmers in the hope the harassment and stress would elicit a prosecution, in which case they could then report to the ankc and the targets membership cancelled.   Most resigned to escape the harassment. The timing was perfect as the attitude of the rspca was subtly at first, then radically changing  to the ruthless pursuit of profit that is now rspca inc we now have to contend with.

 

No ankc's countered the avalanche of awful photos of skeletal bitches with puppies sucking the life out of them that is supposed to be the fate of any bitch bred from , let alone more than one litter a year.   the landslide of laws to "eliminate puppy farms" has done exactly the opposite?

 

Instead only puppy farms that can afford the costs,  but in all this time no definition of what is a puppy farm has ever been done.

 

Meanwhile those left has declined by the thousands annually.

 

The end is pretty close if even Peta went public in 2021 that they anticipate "the extinction of the domestic dog and cat within this generation". with plans to eliminate all domestic animals.  That has been the agenda for over 30 years.   The pet owning public and every one involved with pets has been deaf and blind to the unfolding  agenda.

 

what may prevent the anticipated "extinction" is the millions of people who are "backyard" breeders members of no organisation so untraceable.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by asal

[Amazetl]

As long as councils don’t make all pet dogs desexed. I guess there will be some who fall through the cracks intentionally still but heavy fines or worse may deter that. Then the perfect storm. 

[Rascalmyshadow]

I have no issue with signing a contract not to breed you can always find another breeder without such contracts however if the dog is no good for breeding/showing then price should reflect this, asking upwards of $3000 for a family pet is ridiculous,  I do have a big issue with breeders that desex young puppies before they go off to their new homes, any breeder that does this I would steer clear of.

 

 

[sandgrubber]

You're probably aware, but the castration contract isn't the only hurdle with pedigree dogs.  If you want to end out with papaes for the pups, you need to buy a dog/bitch on Main Register.   Lots of breeders are vety picky about selling in Mains.

If you want to breed a purebred bitch who isn't on Mains, you will find it difficult to locate a good stud.  It's against Kennel Club rules to use a stud over a bitch that isn't on Mains.

My own feelings on this are libertarian, and I agree that it’s effect is to limit entry and stifle competition.  It also makes things very difficult for people who want to do quality cross breeding.  Not to mention that pedigree dog numbers and kennel club membership numbers are declining everywhere. 

[Amazetl]

And prices continue to stay high, not as high as lockdown times but still higher than before covid. A lot of people locked out of being able to have a quality (pedigree lines tested) pet. But at the same time, I think with what goes into breeding with time, effort and their own money, prices do need to be high if they want to make their money back or profit. 

 

I can’t remember where it is that I saw lately, but when looking through the puppy adds for various breeds one breeder said their price is very negotiable for the right home. So the question is are breeders meant to be able to make a good profit, or one at all, or are they meant to prioritise best homes and not worry so much about money. Lowering the prices though will make many unable to continue breeding just because the costs are so high. 

 

There are all kinds of road bumps in all this. Not sure what the answers are. 

[tdierikx]

I've found that generally, the price of quality purebred pups is still significantly lower than the price of pretty much any "oodle" type pup, so the cost argument is a bit redundant nowadays. The issue is more "I want a pup now", and people may not be willing to wait until a registered breeder might be having another litter, whether or not there may be a very long waiting list for a pup, etc...

 

Having recently become dogless, I know how difficult it is to have to wait for the pup I want, from the breeder I want it from... but I also know that the wait is going to be so worth it to get that perfect pup for me. I may look at fostering for rescue to fill the space in my life that fits a dog until the time my perfect pup comes along... it's too lonely for me to be without a dog in the house for long.

 

I'm in the lucky position where I had identified some time ago exactly what breed of pup I want, and who I want it bred by. I have established a form of relationship with my preferred breeder, and we have had open, honest, and frank discussion about what we both want for said pup... and I am now patiently waiting until said breeder has a litter with a pup designated for me. To be honest, while price is always going to be a factor, it was the last factor to consider or ask about... more as an afterthought really, but it helps to make sure one has the funds available when they are needed, yes?

 

T.

[Kirislin]

I bought a puppy from a breeder who usually sells on the limited register and although not discussed with her I’m sure she would NOT want the puppies she sells as pets only to be bred from.  From the very outset I told her I am a registered breeder and would want the puppy on the full register, even though I don’t know if I will ever breed from him.  I would imagine she checked out that I was legit and then she had no problem selling him to me on the full register.

if I wasn’t a registered breeder I don’t think she would’ve sold him to me under these conditions.   I think that’s fair enough.

[Amazetl]

I think most here support the idea that not everyone should be a breeder and not every dog should breed but I think it’s more about how difficult some breeders do make it to allow those who do want to do so.  

Edited September 21, 2022 by Amazetl

[moosmum]

On 17/09/2022 at 9:38 PM, coneye said:

I really really can see both sides of the argument 

 

 

Yes, there are two sides to all this mess, both valid. 

But, there is only one reality that embraces both and the separation of the two is by the choice ANKCs made in their formation to separate their being  from any other.

 

The use of Pedigrees to bring improvement to Dog Breeds should have been a demonstration of the value in doing so. The results, speaking for the value of understanding what you are using, and the traits they are used to support. Ideally, the benefits of a Pedigree system should have increased awareness of the benefits. It did that anyway, for quite a while after formation. 150 years ago the culture ANKC was 'born' into was very different. The norms were different and few would have had serious opposition to breeders working outside of a pedigree system that was new or recently formed.

 

The separation included in the statement of intent is not completed at once- Its interpreted differently (subjectively) by membership, and the culture its members are drawn from. What were normal expectations at the time. What it did though was direct the value of Dogs in their environment, to the pedigree instead.

The value in using a pedigree system should have been self evident, and remained inclusive of any Dog breeding enterprise. It would have. Even with out a written pedigree, the value of understanding what is behind a dog that it may or may not bring to the table is self evident. At least to anyone with the most basic  understanding of genetics. That would have been encouraged through the establishment of a pedigree system, and the influence of that system on its environment.

That was never going to happen with the separation of the then Kennel Clubs separation from its environment. Its evolution would be independent of what occurred beyond their own domain and shaped by its own internal workings and expectations. Not by the expectations and demands of an environment deemed inferior and not worthy even of recognition.

Membership could have been self selected by a persons ability to make use of the system, and the value they could get from having that system in place.

Instead membership is limited. To those who can't see the value in a DOG, unless it has a pedigree to verify its 'standard'  or state of being.

Regardless of weather an individual member has that faith or belief in the Pedigree, that is a directing principle of the organization that all members support in becoming a signed member, and has guided its evolution. Its not based in fact or science, its faith and not even faith in Dogs, but in the pedigree alone to provide better dogs. Even when the evidence contradicts that belief.

 

The pedigree system would have assumed independence of those not making use of it. It lost the independence when those not making use of it were brought in through the statement of intent decreeing the relationship to be oppositional.

 

Peta was not the cause of this. They make full use of the conditions put in place through that opposition. ANKC just responded to an environmental threat by decreasing the states available to its membership. Take no responsibility for the state of the environment they operate in, instead attempting to reduce the environment they have internally to exclude the threat. As most of the expectations and environmental demands are and will be met. So we get limited register and desexed babies to discourage poor breeding choices, instead of  promoting the value and knowledge needed to make informed and valued adding decisions. With holding knowledge, with holding dogs. With holding open discussion and the once universal value of dogs from an environment seen to be in opposition to the values of a pedigree system.

Even then, there is no recognition of Pedigree systems that still can. ie: working dog registries with open stud books- where dogs are selected based on working abilities and what they can bring to the table, rather than just what its parents did.

 

The K.Cs, by dint of their collective objective has had more influence on the course and evolution of Dog Breeding than anyone else. They did a great thing, in creating an environment of great benefit to Dog breeders any where, then, with the use of a secondary objective, turned that environment into an oppositional identity to dog breeders instead. 

 

 

 

 

On 20/09/2022 at 10:14 AM, asal said:

as for the present mindset of dead end kennels, its been a long progression to the mess we are witnessing today.

 

It began with the establishment of peta , took me a while to learn of their existence but the time line fits, along with after meeting some members, I realised where the "we have to get rid of puppy farmers" came from.  My ankc breeder friends began parroting it in the 80's and by 1990's many were busy dialing the rspca and council rangers to dob in any member they decided were puppy farmers in the hope the harassment and stress would elicit a prosecution, in which case they could then report to the ankc and the targets membership cancelled.   Most resigned to escape the harassment. The timing was perfect as the attitude of the rspca was subtly at first, then radically changing  to the ruthless pursuit of profit that is now rspca inc we now have to contend with.

 

No ankc's countered the avalanche of awful photos of skeletal bitches with puppies sucking the life out of them that is supposed to be the fate of any bitch bred from , let alone more than one litter a year.   the landslide of laws to "eliminate puppy farms" has done exactly the opposite?

 

Instead only puppy farms that can afford the costs,  but in all this time no definition of what is a puppy farm has ever been done.

 

Meanwhile those left has declined by the thousands annually.

 

The end is pretty close if even Peta went public in 2021 that they anticipate "the extinction of the domestic dog and cat within this generation". with plans to eliminate all domestic animals.  That has been the agenda for over 30 years.   The pet owning public and every one involved with pets has been deaf and blind to the unfolding  agenda.

 

what may prevent the anticipated "extinction" is the millions of people who are "backyard" breeders members of no organisation so untraceable.