Anti-Breeder Attitudes?

I do agree - it's annoying. However I DO think when it comes to the general public and Joe Schmo... the spay/neuter campaign is a good one.

Otherwise, again, you get the "well it's okay to breed a dog, every one else does it!" and that's when you get people who just randomly bought two mixed dogs, no idea of their genetics or background and start breeding and then have no idea where puppies go, thus BYB.

I think it would be a dangerous thing to start spreading the opposite message (that you really don't always have to spay/neuter) because honestly, the average public *can't* handle it. And the more it's pushed, the more it's just a very common thing to do, people don't think twice about fixing their dogs.

I mean, my mom owns a salon and oen of her hair dressers bred her puggle last year... yeah "it was like a dog orgy going on in my living room!" god only knows where all those puppies are now but people like her should NOT be messing with breeding dogs and I'm afraid if the spay/neuter message wasn't around a wholeeeee lot more people like her would be.

I honestly am not sure how much the S/N stuff affects those people TBH.

I think a "Train and Contain" campaign would be so much more beneficial in terms of keeping dogs out of shelters. It's a shame AR groups aren't really about proper care and ownership. When they say "Spay and Neuter until there are none!", they really mean none and that is the real reason behind S/N campaigns. And it is seems they have been successful in havinga negative effect on purebred dogs. These articles are really interesting:

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_1.pdf

http://breedingbetterdogs.com/pdfFiles/articles/a_gathering_storm_pt_2.pdf

Ok so I'm gonna ask again.

Let's say there's a reputable breeder, health tests, shows his dogs, does health testing etc... He had 15 people ask for a puppy, so he breeds his dogs, and sells them on a spay/neuter contract only. Is that acceptable then? Because it's not breeding to continue/improve the line... it's breeding for pets. The breeder might or might not make money, but he still contributes to adding some dogs in the world. Of course if he has plans to keep a puppy for breeding, or sell some for showing, then it's totally different (and I'm guessing the only responsible breeders only breed because they intend to continue their breeding line).

As I said, I'm mixed on the issue. I understand that some people want that perfect dog that will fit exactly what they're looking for, but truth be told, they *could* be a little bit lenient and get a shelter/rescue puppy instead (obviously if the puppies were bred to try and get show/breeding prospects, they're born anyway so I have no problem with it). It's definitely their choice not to and I respect that, but in that sense, some of the anti-breeders have a point, IMO.

Then again I bet it's easier sometimes to get a dog from a responsible breeder (or BYB obviously) than from a rescue (as opposed to the shelter). When we're ready to add a kitten, for example, the first place I'll look at is craigslist... I don't have any intention of dealing with a picky rescue if I can afford it.

And most of those snobs who look down at rescue dogs... they got their dogs from BYBs I bet.

Temperament and heath are huge considerations, too. It is one of my main reasons to go to a breeder. Watching rescue dog after rescue dog succum to mental issues or serious health issues after being placed.in a loving home for only a year...it's heartbreaking. Some breeds more than others.

Rescue dogs aren't broken, but that is a huge difference.

That one makes me really mad, too, because in addition to how I feel about the sentiment behind it, it's just such sloppy thinking. It's a terrible analogy.

This is what I'm afraid of. I have two dogs currently. A spayed bitch and an intact male I show and trial. My husband wants a dog, but right now isn't the right time. He'd like to attempt training it to possibly do some hog hunting, tracking? I'm not sure. He truly knows very little about it, and I wouldn't know where to start either. Basically whatever his dog is will end up being trained basic manners by me and will end up being a pet, since I have a feeling he will get bored with the training, or not know what to do. I'd like to rescue another young cattle dog mix or cattle dog since we both like the ACD's and they could potentially make a decent hunting partner for my husband. I've seen some nice ones come through rescue, but I haven't bothered contacting anyone because I know we will get turned down. No one would give us a rescue if we admitted wanting to try hunting with it, and no one would sell us a rescue while I have an intact dog in the house.

I don't understand why you have a problem with breeding dogs to be pets? If I were to get my next Stafford from a breeder, she would be a pet not a show dog or breeder. If the dogs are health tested, from good lines, and temperamentally sound, why is it a problem to breed them to go to pet homes? Especially if you have a waiting list and already have homes lines up for the dogs. I just don't understand your logic here.

Being a pet is a valid job. As valid as running agility or being shown in conformation or any of the other things that people do with their dogs.

I know that there is a split in thinking about whether dogs should be bred specifically to be pets vs. "any dog can fulfill the role of a pet." I happen to fall on the side that breeding for companionship/pets is a perfectly reasonable and valid pursuit. There are specific characteristics that people look for in "just a pet" dog just like there are specific characteristics that people look for in dogs meant for other jobs. Otherwise we would all be ok with people getting COs or working line Siberians to be "just pets" since any dog can fulfill that role.

IMO, no, breeders shouldn't strive to breed for pet quality dogs. Of course there WILL be pet quality pups in every litter (any breeder that tells someone otherwise is lying), but they should ultimately be breeding for show quality dogs that meet the breed standard (to better the breed).

Again, JMO.

Your scenario is only potentially problematic if you are starting with the viewpoint that "adding some dogs in the world" is an inherently bad thing thing to do and needs to be justified away.

This is a viewpoint I do not share.

To me, anyone who is breeding dogs for a purpose (companionship counts), has those dogs objectively tested in that capacity, does relevant health tests, ensures to the best of their ability that the dog is structurally sound, and provides a lifelong fallback plan for every puppy they produce is good to go. Thatvis to say, they meet the baseline. They may not be producing what *I* am looking for but hey I represent a very small segment of the population. They are not contributing to the unwanted pets problem. And they are such a small segment of the breeding population relative to farming operations and true throw-whatever-we-got-together bybs.

And educate the heck out of the general population so folks know where and how to find what they are looking for outside of a petstore or the newspaper classifieds.

I'd honestly rather see people breeding selectively for temperament/health/companionship than exclusively for physical characteristics, like a show standard. I have no issue with those who choose to show, but I have trouble understanding the mentality that conformation is the end all be all of a breed, when breed standards change frequently, and the types of dogs being put up in each breed often changes based on the flavor of the week. Or when you have judges who like to put up a certain color (of all things), etc.

IMO showing is just one of the many activities people chose to pursue with their dogs, and I do not think it is more valuable than performance sports, temperament, health, and certainly not working ability. TBH, if I ever choose to produce a litter, I confess that "show quality" will be lowest on the list of priorities. That's not to say I'd disregard soundness and type, far from it. But trying to produce dogs that are in line with ring trend just isn't up there for me. *shrug* Performance/working ability is much more important to me.

And thusly, what I'm saying is... No, I don't think it's wrong to produce dogs with an emphasis on companion qualities as opposed to ring trend, anymore than I think it's wrong to produce dogs with emphasis on performance/working qualities. (And obviously, I don't think that's wrong.)

Well said, Emily.

+2 to Emily's post

I thought for sure I was gonna get my hand slapped! :lol-sign:

Yes, I wish every dog in rescue had a home. And back before I joined forums (which educated me!), I probably would have been the one sharing those pics on Facebook. So even though I will always rescue, and wish others would too, I don't ram it down people's throats.

If you want to buy a dog from a breeder, that's fine. Just get it from a good breeder and not one who farms out as many dogs as they can for money

Emily>>Not around here you won't!!

I believe that there are very important qualities that are separate from the 'ring' trend. Health and temperament should be a given. But I would like to see working/athleticism characteristics prized over the best coat or the prettiest head.

Now if you can get whole package.. even better

As the the OT>> I have some rescue people on my FB who post similar things. I respond lol. One is one the main people in JRT rescue. I 'gently' remind her that good breeders are essential to the preservation of the working JRT and are just as important those in rescue.

Agreed! I like a good looking dog as much as the next person, and I like dogs to bear the hallmarks of their breed. I can't imagine Cardis with small, high set ears, straight fronts, small feet, with single coats. LOL. I do want a dog that looks like its breed - and acts like its breed!

They are indirectly contributing to the unwanted pets problem though. Because if none of those breeders bred, people who want a dog would have to rescue one, and one less dog would be killed in gas chambers.

Obviously it would be so much better if all puppies born were coming from responsible breeders, but it's obviously not the case. Here if you read craigslist you'll see a ton of rescues posting that they have pitt bulls available. A lot of them are young, or puppies. A lot of them are 'last chance'. And a lot of them will die, while new 'responsible' breeders will keep breeding their pitt bulls.

I think it's really turning a blind eye to say that responsible breeders don't contribute to the problem. I think it would be more honest to say that you don't want a rescue dog because they might have issues, and you don't really care if they don't find a home, you'd much rather get the dog you want from a breeder than save a dog. I'm saying that without judging by the way, there's a lot of dogs in shelters that I wouldn't want either, and frankly I don't like dealing with rescues in the first place. I just don't think you can say that responsible rescues are not part of the problem.

Obviously I don't think it's an issue with a lot of breeds, because there's really no overpopulation IMO for a lot of them. But dogs like labs and pittbulls, I don't really get it, they're all over the shelters here.

Responsible breeders aren't part of the problem because if I can't/don't get the dog I'm looking for from a breeder, I'm not going to get a dog.

Keeva wasn't a substitute for for a rescue dog. Had a small, purebred, registered, drivey puppy not been available to me, I wasn't going to go out and rescue an adult pit bull.

There is SO much more to this problem than just X number of homes vs. Y number of dogs in shelters. That is not the equation we're looking at here.

And tbh? It's incredibly unfair to suggest that "Idiots breed their dogs and then sell them to idiots who dump them in shelters, so YOU, breeders who have had 3 carefully planned litters in the past 5 years and have never contributed to the shelter population, and YOU, buyer who carefully researches and plans out your breeder purchased dog, are responsible for cleaning up their mess. YOU should stop breeding, stop buying, because of what THESE people are doing." I just.... no. No, I'm not. That's not to say I don't sympathize with rescue dogs or that I won't help, but to truly suggest that a dog who is carelessly bred, carelessly sold, and then thoughtlessly dumped is the obligation of those of us who have been nothing but responsible with our animals is... unreasonable. I help these dogs because I love dogs and I don't want them to suffer, but to say that I'm contributing to the problem by choosing a well-bred puppy is... just wrong.

ETA: And no, I don't buy that it's only morally excusable to buy a dog if it's not a breed that's commonly in shelters. Again, there is so much more to this equation than that.

And I should finish all my food on my plate because of children starving in Africa. And every family who has a baby is killing a child in Korea.

I'm sorry, I don't find a responsible breeder anymore to blame for dogs in shelters than I do a family who has a child.