A Law Against Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeders

Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
4,381
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Midwest
#41
ok, i'm totally against any law that says I can sell you a dog, but if you don't like it, I in essence have to buy it back from the shelter holding it or pay a fine because an owner didn't live up to their responsibilities.

It's hardly the same as having responsibilities for defective merchandise or faulty equipment.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#42
no I mean the smoking analogy. Education slowed it, but didn't stop it. The population is much more aware so percentage wise I bet people are throwing away less dogs. But as there are a growing number of people there will be a growing number of dogs thrown away.

(a better illustration would be numbers of cigs sold per year, I couldn't find much data going back, but even with less people smoking they sold of 371 billion cigs in 2006 in the US alone)

Hounds>> I never said a breeder would have to buy the dog back from a shelter. Not sure where that came in.
 

Beanie

Clicker Cult Coordinator
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
14,012
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
34
Location
Illinois
#44
Just wanted to add there's a lot of research about microchips coming out that is suggesting some interesting health stuff. I will probably chip my next dog since I am not entirely convinced about the health problems they are suggesting are tied to chips, nor entirely convinced the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits - but to require microchipping is not much better than requiring S&N.

Also, I can think of a few situations, including some on this board, where people have bought a dog and yet would NOT want that breeder on the dog's chip anymore and the breeder probably SHOULDN'T be on the chip anymore...

I agree with RTH, it's simple. The laws about how animals should be cared for and kept are good if they are only enforced properly.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Oklahoma
#45
Just wanted to add there's a lot of research about microchips coming out that is suggesting some interesting health stuff. I will probably chip my next dog since I am not entirely convinced about the health problems they are suggesting are tied to chips, nor entirely convinced the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits - but to require microchipping is not much better than requiring S&N.

Also, I can think of a few situations, including some on this board, where people have bought a dog and yet would NOT want that breeder on the dog's chip anymore and the breeder probably SHOULDN'T be on the chip anymore...

I agree with RTH, it's simple. The laws about how animals should be cared for and kept are good if they are only enforced properly.
:hail::hail::hail:
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#46
As an aside, the chip stuff came out a few years ago, and was published in some obscure journal. To my knowledge (and I try to keep up to date, as Dekka is chipped) no one has been able to duplicate their results.

The breeder would only get the dog back if you surrendered the dog to a shelter/rescue or your dog got picked up and after one week (or what have you) you didn't respond.
 

elegy

overdogged
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
7,720
Likes
1
Points
0
#47
Thank god someone else too :rofl1: I've confused more than my fair share of people when they ask if I'm going to "fix" Traveler and I gasp out "He's broken?!"
he has TUMORS!

(i don't think it's possible to be more offensive than that... and i've heard vets and vet techs say that- testicles as tumors. the mind boggles.)
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Illinois
#48
he has TUMORS!

(i don't think it's possible to be more offensive than that... and i've heard vets and vet techs say that- testicles as tumors. the mind boggles.)
Wow. Just...WOW. Yeah you win, that's about the worst thing I've ever heard and more than a little disturbing
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
94,266
Likes
2
Points
36
Location
Where the selas blooms
#49
Frankly, I think the biggest part of the problem stems from the appalling number of people who just don't care, who buy a puppy on a whim, because it's cute, because Celebrity X has one, because whatever . . . and then, when the whim passes, they don't care. They aren't emotionally invested in the animal anymore than the mill that produced it.

Until there's a way to turn those kinds into decent, worthwhile human beings anything else is just a band-aid. :(
 

Doberluv

Active Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2004
Messages
22,038
Likes
2
Points
38
Location
western Wa
#50
Frankly, I think the biggest part of the problem stems from the appalling number of people who just don't care, who buy a puppy on a whim, because it's cute, because Celebrity X has one, because whatever . . . and then, when the whim passes, they don't care. They aren't emotionally invested in the animal anymore than the mill that produced it.

Until there's a way to turn those kinds into decent, worthwhile human beings anything else is just a band-aid. :(
Well surely there must be some legislation, some law or regulation to fix that...to make people be decent. The government can fix everything. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
6,403
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Central Texas
#51
Thank god someone else too :rofl1: I've confused more than my fair share of people when they ask if I'm going to "fix" Traveler and I gasp out "He's broken?!"
Nice. I love when people tell me "I got my dog fixed." I usually respond, "Actually, I think he'd say you broke him!"

Well surely there must be some legislation, some law or regulation to fix that...to make people be decent. The government can fix everything. :rolleyes:
:rofl1:
 

Doggie07

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
246
Likes
0
Points
0
#52
Nope.

Ranch and farm dogs are often bred, and their pups handed out to other farms in the area as working dogs, and often one is kept to keep dogs of different age groups on the farm. They usually breed their dogs simply because their dogs are fantastic livestock movers/guardians, and they want to pass those traits on. These dogs are never genetically tested, and heck, some of them aren't even purebred. Dogs that do great around the farm, move livestock, and are otherwise a great help to their farmer. The pups tend to grow to become more of the same, and you don't really know this breeding is going on because these good working dogs don't often wind up in rescues, they just grow old on the farm.

But they're theoretically backyard breeders, and under your laws they would be outlawed. Many working/herding breeds and their fanciers avoid AKC/CKC, Finn's breeder included, and instead have their own governing organizations to protect the working characteristics of the breed. Same with sport dogs, a lot of them are not registered with the large showy organizations.
But see, that's different. That's different than someone just getting two unregistered dogs without any registries and breeding them.

I think all breeders, regardless of what people say, need to follow some type of guidelines.

What's wrong with OFA'd the hips of large breed breeding stock? What's wrong with CERF'ing breeds that are prone to eye problems? Not saying you have a problem against it, but it's good to do these things for certain breeds. It's not a rule, yet it's something that helps and should be done.
 

Kat09Tails

*Now with Snark*
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
3,452
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Upper Left hand corner, USA
#53
But see, that's different. That's different than someone just getting two unregistered dogs without any registries and breeding them..
Clearly all breeds who will ever be are created now. Truly every dog of quality is part of a registry. ;)

The reality is that someone somewhere decided that they liked the qualities of dog A and decided to combine them with bitch B with a goal in mind. Registries are a fairly new concept along with closed registries being absolute being an even newer concept.

A great example of this is the lurcher. You take a (insert breed here) and cross it to a (sighthound breed) and wa la... you have yourself a lurcher - the original designer dog. There is no standard, no registry and that is half the point of the history of lurchers.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
7,099
Likes
1
Points
36
Location
Illinois
#54
I think all breeders, regardless of what people say, need to follow some type of guidelines.
Who's going to decide what the guidelines are?

And again, what about mixes being bred for work and sport? What about new breeds being created? What about breeds without a real registry? What about people who don't want anything to do with a registry? The "what abouts" can go on and on

Nice. I love when people tell me "I got my dog fixed." I usually respond, "Actually, I think he'd say you broke him!"


:rofl1:
LOVE IT
 

Doggie07

New Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
246
Likes
0
Points
0
#55
Who's going to decide what the guidelines are?

And again, what about mixes being bred for work and sport? What about new breeds being created? What about breeds without a real registry? What about people who don't want anything to do with a registry? The "what abouts" can go on and on
I dunno, maybe dog organizations? Dog breed clubs?

I dunno, I just thought there should be something done.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Oklahoma
#56
I think your intentions are good but the reality is that there really isn't a way to regulate breeding so that some responsible group isn't hurt by it.
 

AllieMackie

Wookie Collie
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
6,598
Likes
0
Points
36
Location
Ottawa, ON
#57
I think your intentions are good but the reality is that there really isn't a way to regulate breeding so that some responsible group isn't hurt by it.
^ yup. I do get what you're trying to say Doggie, but you have to understand that between existing breeds, mixes bred with purpose, breeds being developed and mixed breeds in rescues, there's just no easy foolproof way to keep the populations down AND keep the reputable breeders happy / keep breeding programs solid.

Many existing laws are i8n place and could do well with being enforced more. Animal rescue can be advocated more. Responsible spaying/neutering can be advocated more. Lots of positive ways to make the change are there, and are improving things overall.
 

Aleron

New Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
2,269
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
NE Ohio
#58
But we are talking about animals being killed. Seems the estimate is that shelters put down between 8-10 million dogs a year in the US. Now I am sure a few aren't due to no homes, but the vast majority of these are dogs who are DYING, being KILLED because the person who bred them either didn't want them back, or had no way of knowing they were in a shelter.
I'm pretty sure your numbers are too high, 8-10 million would be a high estimate of how many end up in shelters every year. Shelters themselves could very well be responsible for the deaths of many dogs, as many still are not set up for promoting adoption. They are set up to hold unwanted animals and dispose of them. Shelters here have microchip scanners and admit they don't use them unless the dog looks like a purebred someone might want back or they have seen a missing pet poster that looks like the dog and says the dog is chipped.

Debunking Pet Overpopulation:
Debunking Pet Overpopulation : Nathan J Winograd

T

In some breeds if you spayed and neutered all the dogs that didn't score 'excellent' on their OFAs and then you also neutered the 'byb' dogs then you'd be taking a HUGE hit to the genepool. Breeds also need genetic diversity. You can't just go out and spay and neuter them all. That so called 'byb' line could be very invaluable to a breed. Many show lines are already closely related especially in some breeds. I think we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot getting rid of that potential there.
Some respected breeders have made use of "BYB" and commercially bred lines for genetic diversity. I know of a case with IGs where a commercially bred lines was introduced to someone's show line and it went very well (one of the commercially bred dogs was able to finish, the dogs were not poor quality). They couldn't get away from a certain popular sire within the show population, so had to look elsewhere.

This two part article shows how the push to sell on limited registration and S/N all dogs who don't compete is hurting the stud books in some breeds. It also explains why terms such as "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder" are harmful to all breeders: Breeding Better Dogs

Breeding Better Dogs

And someone losing their house for being a 'byb'? That's horrifying!
ITA! It is very scary that anyone thinks that would be acceptable.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
43
Location
Ontario
#59
I googled for a bit, that was the lowest estimate of how many will euthanized by shelters in the US per year. I ignored some sources, those that seemed overly biased (such as the HSUS). Even if it is a bit high, its still a pretty crazy number.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Oklahoma
#60
There are dogs euthanized in large numbers in the US. I don't think anyone will say it's not true. But, having worked in a high kill shelter, it's a complicated problem to say the least. Most is just cultural. NO ONE around there spays and neuters their dogs. And yes, I know you can keep intact dogs responsibly but they just don't. Dogs wander from farm to farm or town to town and we get in tons of unwanted litters. Cats were 100 times worse. Most the dogs and cats we got I'd bet were from oops litters, not bred litters. Most were generic herding dog mixes or hound mixes, pit mixes, etc. We did get in a few purebreds and a few designer type crossbreds but the vast bulk of the dogs were generic mixes. I don't really think intentional breeding is that much of the problem as opposed to accidental litters and just plain owner responsibility issues.

Also, our 'kill rate' was 70% of the animals coming in. It IS a lot but a very large portion of that was feral cats. I wonder how much of that 8-10 million is simply feral cats. They're a HUGE problem around here.

I think if we could focus on some of the worse areas and just make it easy and cheap to spay and neuter these wandering dogs and cats then our numbers would be drastically lower. Yes, there has been some s/n campaign and some education but it really doesn't reach some of these rural areas. And it's a hard thing to just change the cultural attitude towards domestic animals in such a short time.

Some respected breeders have made use of "BYB" and commercially bred lines for genetic diversity. I know of a case with IGs where a commercially bred lines was introduced to someone's show line and it went very well (one of the commercially bred dogs was able to finish, the dogs were not poor quality). They couldn't get away from a certain popular sire within the show population, so had to look elsewhere.

This two part article shows how the push to sell on limited registration and S/N all dogs who don't compete is hurting the stud books in some breeds. It also explains why terms such as "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder" are harmful to all breeders: Breeding Better Dogs

Breeding Better Dogs
Very very interesting! I do not buy the idea of breeding only the best to the best. I think in many cases breeders are selecting based on too few characteristics. Short term it may work great but long term we are probably hurting ourselves.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top