In Defense of "Backyard Breeders"

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by HoundedByHounds

I think there are a lot of assumptions being made..by yourself as well, as far as what a reputable breeder requires. We are not a uni mind, we are individual people who have our own ways of doing things.

If you want to purchase from a BYB...do so...but suggesting that others cut them slack, because of unfair assumptions...when you yourself seem to have some assumptions, about reputable breeders yourself...seems off to me somehow.

Actually, I'm not making assumptions. I'm going off what people have posted on Chaz about requirements for responsible breeders. In other words, I'm quoting what other people have said. I haven't the slightest idea if all "responsible" breeders act this way. In my experience, the people I have taken to be perfectly responsible breeders do not act this way. I've probably gotten more crap from shelters than from breeders. I'm not accusing you of anything. BUt I'm quoting what I've seen posted, in all seriousness, when someone says they are looking for a dog. I've seen some of this stuff in books, but a lot of it . . . err . . I saw it on Chaz. So if I am quoting back to you what I've heard on this board, is that making an assumption, or just questioning what I've read here?

[Lilavati]

Originally Posted by doberkim

You assume that "good breeders" of the past bred "healthy" dogs (how doyou define healthy?? again - please tell me what makes a dog healthy - the ability to work??? being ALIVE?? ) to healthy dogs and made healthy dogs.

I'll tell you thats crap. I know "good breeders" in the dobe world that don't health test - and their lines are now coming out FROUGHT with health testing - and they simply continue not to test. They don't care, and they didn't both to CHECK to see if their dogs were healthy. At 3-4-5 years old, when they were breeding them, they were fine. That isn't a healthy dog.

Is it a crux for me? Absolutely - because it has to be. And just because they have a dog alive and competing at 10 or 12 isn't going to make me want dogs from them - yes, I still want the health testing - what if that pedigree on that dog (while she is great and healthy) is frought with hip and eye problems, or cardiac issues?? What good is a dog from a healthy 12 year old if she throws consistently unhealthy dogs? Just being healthy yourself DOES NOT mean your puppies will too - that's not how genetics works.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the others - don't sit here and tell me to cut some BYB some slack because its "hard to be responsible". Better the breed, or don't reproduce. You aren't doing MY breed any favors by not doing everything that needs to be done, or breeding "healthy" dogs that are good pets without everything else I mentioned. I think its disgusting to sit here and tell us to cut them some slack, because life is hard... breeding is not a right. You don't have to do it.

Doberkim, you missed the rest of what I said about the dog. It wasn't just THAT dog. THAT dog could be a fluke. But her mother died at 15, healthy by the account over her owner. No fewer than 5 of her decendents were there and also competing (there were actually more, I just didn't get to meet them). So, that's a pretty good pool to draw from. It wasn't one dog. It was her, and the stories of her mother, and 3 of her pups, two of her grandpups, and the sire of the pups all there together. I asked lots of questions, and no one, out of more than 10 people, had ever heard of a problem. Would a test be better yet? Sure. But I'll take that as pretty good evidence that these are dang good dogs.

Now, if you know your line as problems (they've manifested) and you continue not to test, you're an idiot. I'd agree with you on that. Indeed, that's how so many lines got screwed up BEFORE there was testing. The dogs had problems, everyone knew it, and they bred those lines anyway. Indeed, in many of the cases of screwed up lines I have encountered, someone knew. Maybe not the breeder, but the breeder of their dogs knew. Someone knew and either didn't care, or didn't speak up. Sometimes, these things are surprises . . .often they were there, and if people had really done their homework, they would have at least known of the possibility. Also, its not a sure thing. I read an article about hip dysplasia recently. They can do OFA tests to be fairly certain a given dog won't have it, which lowers the risk that their pups will. But its not a single factor gene, or a single factor. Two dogs with no problems can have pups with problems . . . because there are multiple factors involved (the shape of the pelvis, the end of the femur, the ammount of cartiledge). It can mix in a way to create a problem in the next generation, and they are still trying to figure out how to predict that. Does that make testing useless? Of course not! But I'm going to take a testing form as a plus and a good sign, not as a talisman.

However, as I stated above, I didn't want to start a discussion about genetic testing. Clearly, people feel very strongly about this issue. I don't feel as strongly about it, at least not in all situations, and I think that it is being put forward as too much of a cure all . . . not that YOU think it will cure all, but that many people will. When real BYBs and puppy mills start offering genetic testing (and some of them do now) you know that its caught on with the public . . .and that the public is taking it as the new sign of "quality." But we are free to disagree . . . I think the point we disagree on, whether it should be universal NOW or in 10 years, is probably not worth arguing about any further. I will make my choices about who to buy dogs from, and I will give friends my honest opinion on the matter, which is its a good sign, but it shouldn't be the make or break sign. If I start breeding, I will test.

As I said above, I am more concerned with some of the less "scientific" requirements . .. such as advertising, or the fercocious selection of owners. Note I'm not saying that you shouldnt' pick owners as you chose, only that I have to wonder, if you tell people only to buy from responsible breeders, yet say that responsible breeders only sell to a very specific sort of person, where are other people supposed to get their dogs? (Again, for the sake of arguement, forget shelters and rescues, say the person wants a purebred puppy of a specific breed in the next three months).

One answer, of course is that people who don't met those standard shouldnt' have dogs, but suddenly at least 50% of Chazers shouldnt' have dogs. That can't be right. Moreover, it relegates dog ownership to such an elite level, there will soon be not enough dog owners to protect ourselves from AR. (yes, in the real world the puppy mills will go on, and people will get dogs, but I'm assuming that "they should go to puppy mills" is not the correct answer). It is my opinion that that rise of dog-restrictive legistlation is not just the result of AR . . . its the result of millions of Americans growing up with either no exposure to dogs or only negative exposure. Not only are these people often poor owners if they get a dog, they often just plain don't like dogs, and are frequently afraid of them. So yes, dogs for the people, in my mind, is an important consideration. We often have a very cynical view here of other dog owners, but when I look around my block, its probably no more than 10% I would call bad owners. However, of the other 90% only perhaps 20% of those would meet the standards of some "responsible breeders." I wouldn't. I rent, and we are both gone six hours a day. We have other pets as well. The lady with the pomerians down the street has the same problem. So does the woman with the bearded collie (shes gone longer than I am), the woman with the three rescue shelties . . . these people are good responsible owners. They just aren't perfect.

I don't mind being asked questions, indeed, I'm disturbed if I'm not asked questions when getting an animal. However, like PW, I mind not being listened to. I also mind being talked to as if it is ASSUMED that I am irresponsible. Its rude. I don't appricate rudeness from shelter employees, and I don't appricate it from someone to whom I am considering writing a rather large check and establishing a relationship for the rest of my dog's life. I also don't like arbritrary things being crucial (you rent, you might move and dump your dog at a shelter. Well, yes, if I owned I might not pay my morgage and dump my dog at a shelter too, IF I was the sort of person to do such things . . .now, I have a letter from my landlord, would you like to read it? When confronted by people who have such restrictions, I'm left wondering if they just assume everyone is the sort of person who dumps their dogs at shelters, or if they assume those of us who rent, being poor/low class/unstable/young take your pick are too irresponsible). But when you do confront that, what should we renters do?

I started this threat to pick a fight. Mostly because I wanted people to think. Unfortunately, I included some things that were too controversal, in the sense that there are VERY good reasons why they should be done, such as testing. So lets try this again. Advertising? No renters? No children? Do these requirements make someone responsible or are they decisions that equally responsible breeders should make for themselves, with no smear on their reputation?

[Saje]

I agree with both sides that have been said but mostly I think that there is no one definition of 'responsible' breeding that will fit all breeds and all uses of the breed. I think some flexibility is required. It's been said that a 'good' breeder won't have a website. I don't see why not! There are lots of uses for the website. Including spreading the word about responsible breeding.

[drmom777]

I certainly agree that there are certain demands that both breeders and rescues make that drive quality owners away. I, for example, do not have a fenced yard and live only one apartment building away from a busy street (and next to this apartment building that sees a ton of traffic in its parking lot). I have a breed that is considered by most people to be unsuitable for suburbia.

Take a look at the fat, underexercized coonhound in the siggie. He doesn't get his exercize running in traffic either. The assumption seems to be that somehow a fenced yard guarantees the perfect home. I don't get it. If I just stuck Uncle Fred out in a yard all day he would be neither happy nor fit.

So if this rule is so capricious, i have to assume that others are as well.

I know that being too rigid about who can breed purebred dogs, and using only the very best dogs to breed will result in a frightening narrowing of the gene pool in all but very large number breeds. Look at what a problem this has become in racehorses, and they usually have one offspring at a time, not litters of sibs.

I got a Sheltie for my parents many years ago. She was a late cull from a good show kennel in Massachusetts. She was the pick of the litter, and then at four months she developed a serious overbite. Of her four great gransires, three were the same dog, Sir Joshua of Winslow, I think his name was. then i went to a show in illinois a couple of years later, and talked to the Sheltie people there and was surprised to find out how many of their dogs were realted to old Josh as well. You really need to have an outlying gene pool in case of disaster, or you can lose the whole breed. Something to consider.

[Renee750il]

I think what's gotten lost in the fine points is the original gist of Lilavati's post (as it seems to me) which was that we seem to be caught up in so many concrete "if you do this you're a responsible breeder; if you vary from it you're a despicable BYB" rules that we've gotten ridiculously hidebound and at times, downright snotty.

[drmom777]

Well, Renee, that certainly covered it in a nutshell. Kudos for getting the point across in as few words as possible.

[adojrts]

Originally Posted by HoundedByHounds

and BTW...I am not sure the BYB needs defending...

far as I can see they have it pretty good. They can reap the financial rewards and accolades of the pet buyers...and be answerable to no one because most do not attend shows or have peer pressure, are not members of clubs or do any organized activities...and spend none of the money involved in proving a dog in some way.

It's easy to be a BYB...so why does one need to defend them? It is hard to be a good breeder..IMO...and in most cases we are left on our own to defend ourselves and answer tons of questions about what we do. We do xyz and people still ask us why we didn't do W...lol.

Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and totally agree.
I have been away and haven't read the entire thread, but this is so true.

There is a BYB near me, two different breeds, several bitches, one stud dog for each breed. No showing or working on any level and no genetic testing.
A quick estimation of how many litters they say to have each year and what they charge per pup.........they earn $60,000+ (yep thats right) each year. That is one hell of an INCOME for someone who is not even trying to improve their breeds.
Minus of course their very limited expenses compared to a breeder who does genetic testing and proves their dogs by working and/or showing.

Who would you rather support??? I know which one I would.

[adojrts]

[QUOTE=Lilavati;1073096]

As I said above, I am more concerned with some of the less "scientific" requirements . .. such as advertising, or the fercocious selection of owners. Note I'm not saying that you shouldnt' pick owners as you chose, only that I have to wonder, if you tell people only to buy from responsible breeders, yet say that responsible breeders only sell to a very specific sort of person, where are other people supposed to get their dogs? (Again, for the sake of arguement, forget shelters and rescues, say the person wants a purebred puppy of a specific breed in the next three months).

One answer, of course is that people who don't met those standard shouldnt' have dogs, but suddenly at least 50% of Chazers shouldnt' have dogs. That can't be right. Moreover, it relegates dog ownership to such an elite level, there will soon be not enough dog owners to protect ourselves from AR. (yes, in the real world the puppy mills will go on, and people will get dogs, but I'm assuming that "they should go to puppy mills" is not the correct answer). It is my opinion that that rise of dog-restrictive legistlation is not just the result of AR . . . its the result of millions of Americans growing up with either no exposure to dogs or only negative exposure. Not only are these people often poor owners if they get a dog, they often just plain don't like dogs, and are frequently afraid of them. So yes, dogs for the people, in my mind, is an important consideration. We often have a very cynical view here of other dog owners, but when I look around my block, its probably no more than 10% I would call bad owners. However, of the other 90% only perhaps 20% of those would meet the standards of some "responsible breeders." I wouldn't. I rent, and we are both gone six hours a day. We have other pets as well. The lady with the pomerians down the street has the same problem. So does the woman with the bearded collie (shes gone longer than I am), the woman with the three rescue shelties . . . these people are good responsible owners. They just aren't perfect.

I don't mind being asked questions, indeed, I'm disturbed if I'm not asked questions when getting an animal. However, like PW, I mind not being listened to. I also mind being talked to as if it is ASSUMED that I am irresponsible. Its rude. I don't appricate rudeness from shelter employees, and I don't appricate it from someone to whom I am considering writing a rather large check and establishing a relationship for the rest of my dog's life. I also don't like arbritrary things being crucial (you rent, you might move and dump your dog at a shelter. Well, yes, if I owned I might not pay my morgage and dump my dog at a shelter too, IF I was the sort of person to do such things . . .now, I have a letter from my landlord, would you like to read it? When confronted by people who have such restrictions, I'm left wondering if they just assume everyone is the sort of person who dumps their dogs at shelters, or if they assume those of us who rent, being poor/low class/unstable/young take your pick are too irresponsible). But when you do confront that, what should we renters do?

QUOTE]

You have raised some excellent points, personally I look at people on their own merits.
I have sold to a teen (with parents approval), I have sold a jrt to an apartment but the people where very very active and the dog would (and did) suit their lifesyle. And I have sold to people without a fenced yard, although with this breed I would prefer that they did but having said that sometimes it takes a Fort Knox to keep the little buggers in lol.
I have a contract that is meant to scare SOME people and I do screen, but I also take into account that in many cases I am doing these people a favor by pointing them in the direction of a breed that maybe better suited to them.
Like the 70 yr old grandma with 2 hip replacements that wanted a small cute dog, in the end I helped this woman find a wonderful middle aged little Pom mix, much better than a Jrt puppy........that would later grow up into a dog that more than likely would be too much dog for her. Of course that would be assuming that the jrt pup didn't do her in first
In my opinion, one job as a responsible breeder is at the very least helping people make some smart choices and helping them find other breeders (even if its not your breed) instead to dismissing people because of this or that.
Now having said all that, I am still tough to purchase a pup from, BUT that doesn't mean that I am rude or dismissive of people.

[Dekka]

Originally Posted by adojrts

that sometimes it takes a Fort Knox to keep the little buggers in lol.

hmm that comment wouldn't reflect some small tan and white JRT that you found running lose that you had to clip and zip tie into her wire crate this weekend at the regionals, would it?

[HoundedByHounds]

There's no way to even discuss this because EVERYONE here has a different definition of what is resp vs BYB and apparently...some people have what seems like bias towards one and sympathies towards the others. IMO there doesn't need to be a defined box for either any more than there needs to be a defined box for resp dog OWNER or resp PARENT or resp CAREGIVER. The individuals in the situation will define what they desire and consider acceptable.