# Frustration



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

Threads like this just frustrate me:
Doxie Spot - View topic - Best Puppy Food

Breeders are held to a much higher standard than pet owners -- and to continue to feed kibble and scoff at PMR because "my dogs do fine on kibble" is so stupid and ignorant. Breeders are put on a pedestal - people respect and admire us and come to us for advice. At least know what you're talking about. "Bacteria is gross, eww!"


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

All you can do is say it. Or don't bother when you know you aren't going to get a good reception.

And who knows - maybe someone who is reading there but doesn't post goes hmmm, takes a look at it and decides to try it. Maybe you should put a link to this place.

I love your dachsie. I am rather fond of the breed.

You gotta compare this "breeder" to the fellow who won't give up his dogs to someone who won't feed raw. A whole breed apart.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

I don't agree with breeding anyway, but from what I've seen breeders feed crappy kibble because they want the highest profit they can get from their dogs and a high-quality kibble/raw is too expensive. I don't know many breeders I would put on a pedestal OR go to for advice...most of them (as seen on that thread!) are completely ignorant with food and wouldn't have their brains any other way.

I like how they're all saying how they don't need to analyze the ingredients in the food- I think it's a mix of denial and apathy. They don't want to take the time to see if they're feeding them something good, and they can't bear to think that they're not anything but the ~ideal breeder~. Ugh.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Mokapi said:


> I like how they're all saying how they don't need to analyze the ingredients in the food- I think it's a mix of denial and apathy. They don't want to take the time to see if they're feeding them something good, and they can't bear to think that they're not anything but the ~ideal breeder~. Ugh.


Anyone can put two dogs together and call themselves a "breeder" unfortunately. The only reason to breed dogs, unless you are trying to improve the breed and know alot of genetics, is to make money - period.

Sure doesn't make them a food expert.


----------



## 3Musketeers (Nov 4, 2010)

Uhmm, wow, that:


> I don't need to analyze every ingredient in my kibble to know my dogs are doing great! I've had dogs all of my life (literally), I am now turning 40 in June so I've had alot of experience in training, handling and now breeding! I know a healthy dog from a sick one. Don't always assume that a certain type of dog food is going to work miracles with your dog. Every dog is different! What I feed my dogs keeps them healthy, what you do with your dog is your thing.


After saying she/he feeds them puppy chow and then being told whats in it. Like refusing to believe the crap they are feeding their dogs, all those poor dogs.

Luckily there were a few people on the boat for raw, so that was nice.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Mokapi said:


> I don't agree with breeding anyway, but from what I've seen breeders feed crappy kibble because they want the highest profit they can get from their dogs and a high-quality kibble/raw is too expensive. I don't know many breeders I would put on a pedestal OR go to for advice...most of them (as seen on that thread!) are completely ignorant with food and wouldn't have their brains any other way.
> 
> I like how they're all saying how they don't need to analyze the ingredients in the food- I think it's a mix of denial and apathy. They don't want to take the time to see if they're feeding them something good, and they can't bear to think that they're not anything but the ~ideal breeder~. Ugh.


I think that you have not spoken to nearly enough breeders. 
Breeders that I am associated with care very much about their dogs, and are in no way out for a "profit" by any stretch of the imagination. ANY breeder who goes into breeding thinking they are going to make a pretty penny is an absolute idiot. Can profit be made? Well, depends on how you look at it. A litter might cost the breeder $10. They might make $11 on selling the pups. Maybe. But is that $1 worth the two months of care for a pregnant mamma, and the at LEAST eight weeks of around-the-clock puppy care, missed nights of sleep, and time off work? (CLEARLY I am using very small numbers for an easy example and ion reality we'd be talking hundreds or thousands) Shoot, I am in the process of buying my first breeding prospect, and while he's a male I've already calculated what it would cost ME just in time off of work to adjust my schedule for eight weeks if I were to havea female with babies at my house. It would cost me, off of my paychecks, about $2100 to cut my hours down enough. This is assuming everyone is healthy, happy, and all pups have gone home at the 8 week mark. This does NOT include any care for the puppies, or mamma. This ONLY includes what I'd lose in pay for those eight weeks. 
RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL breeding is the savior of any breed that exists. Finding such a breeder is key, but to be "against breeding" is absolutely silly. So, what, you're against dogs?



that being said.... 


> My dogs eat Purina Puppy Chow, no matter what age. 6 days a week they have kibbles, one day a week they get a stew of brown rice, chicken stock, fresh whole chicken breast and eggs. Every day they each get a slice of cheese. My dogs are never sick, my pups grow nice and healthy and I've never had any problems! It just depends on your dogs and what they do good on!


....what... the... heck?!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

If you are breeding only for the betterment of the breed, have few litters, and make sure they are spayed/neutered if they aren't going to perpetuate the good of the breed, make sure they go to good families, plus always make sure they will be returned to you if something happens, you will be a responsible breeder.

The AKC is a joke. Showing dogs only exacerbates the genetic defects in dogs, because it necessitates breeding for looks.

Personaly, I am not against dogs - I am against dogs being euthanized every year to the tune of about 7 million. And people like me get the castoff dogs, the unwanted, the defective, abused, neglected, unloved and unwanted dogs. And people like me cannot save even the tiniest number of them.

For every responsible "breeder" there are a thousand who aren't. Not even counting the puppy mills.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

PuppyPaws said:


> I think that you have not spoken to nearly enough breeders.
> Breeders that I am associated with care very much about their dogs, and are in no way out for a "profit" by any stretch of the imagination. ANY breeder who goes into breeding thinking they are going to make a pretty penny is an absolute idiot. Can profit be made? Well, depends on how you look at it. A litter might cost the breeder $10. They might make $12 on selling the pups. Maybe. But is tht $1 worth the two months of care for a pregnant mamma, and the at LEAST eight weeks of around-the-clock puppy care, missed nights of sleep, and time off work? (CLEARLY I am using very small nmbers for an easy exampe and ion reality we'd be talking hundreds or thousands) Shoot, I am in the process of buying my first breeding prospect, and while he's a male I've already calculated what it would cost ME just in time off of work to adjust my schedule for eight weeks if I were to havea female with babies at my house. It would cost me, off of my paychecks, about $2100 to cut my hours down enough. This is assuming everyone is healthy, happy, and all pups have gone home at the 8 week mark. This does NOT include any care for the puppies, or mamma. This ONLY includes what I'd lose in pay for those eight weeks.
> RESPONSIBLE, ETHICAL breeding is the savior of any breed that exists. Finding such a breeder is key, but to be "against breeding" is absolutely silly. So, what, you're against dogs?


By "against breeding", I was under the impression it was pretty obvious I meant purposefully putting dogs together in order to sell the offspring for hundreds to thousands of dollars. 

Against dogs? Where in the world did I write that...anywhere (especially considering I own one, and I joined this forum to ensure he lives as healthy a life as possible)? I am 100% against overpopulation. The hundreds of thousands of dogs that are put to sleep yearly is enough for me, personally, to think that anyone who wants that number to drastically drop should spay and neuter every canine they own, and certainly shouldn't think about adding to the number of dogs. Breeders who make that their career are even more upsetting to me, because they're churning out litter after litter, year after year, seemingly without regard to dogs and puppies already needing homes and already being abused, not cared for well, etc. If a breeder cares about that specific breed so much, I don't see why they wouldn't contact a breed-specific rescue and ask to foster. No profit (apart from emotional), but you can also be certain that you are not directly adding to the dog population AND you get to help ascertain your fosters good, solid homes and treat them like your pets.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

xellil said:


> The AKC is a joke. Showing dogs only exacerbates the genetic defects in dogs, because it necessitates breeding for looks.
> .


If I could thank this statement 1347623785629785642789 times, I would. 



xellil said:


> Personaly, I am not against dogs - I am against dogs being euthanized every year to the tune of about 7 million. And people like me get the castoff dogs, the unwanted, the defective, abused, neglected, unloved and unwanted dogs. And people like me cannot save even the tiniest number of them.


I've done a decent amount of rescuing. I spend Tuesday and Thursday mornings volunteering at my local shelter. I transport dogs for rescue groups on weekends. I open my boarding facility to foster dog-friendly dogs. Of the four dogs under my roof, three are rescues, two of which were on their last string. I get it. I do. But I also know that for some people, it's not the best choice. 



xellil said:


> For every responsible "breeder" there are a thousand who aren't. Not even counting the puppy mills .


Oh, I know this through and through. I guess it just hits really close to home, as someone who is passionate about ethical breeding, and passionate about my particular breeds. I am very much so dedicated to my dogs, and as I just barely have my toes in the water in obtaining my first breeding prospect.... I HATE to be lumped into the sea of irresponsible breeders out there. Hate it.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 20, 2011)

Mokapi said:


> I don't agree with breeding anyway,


I really hate when people with dogs say this. Also it sounds like you haven't talked/been in contact with any reputable breeders. Not everyone is a backyard breeder (although the majority are, unfortunately).



> The AKC is a joke. Showing dogs only exacerbates the genetic defects in dogs, because it necessitates breeding for looks.


Not completely. While there is a lot of politics and  at dog shows, they certainly have their place. A good breeder will show their dogs and try and produce dogs that conform to breed standard. That's the point of shows, or should be. Yes, there are certain breeds that the dog show world has corrupted and I think that's wrong. But I still show my dogs because it still means something to have your dog titled, and I wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder that didn't show.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

Mokapi said:


> By "against breeding", I was under the impression it was pretty obvious I meant purposefully putting dogs together in order to sell the offspring for hundreds to thousands of dollars.


My apologies, it was not very obvious at all. It seemed that you were lumping ALL breeders into one blanket statement. 



Mokapi said:


> Against dogs? Where in the world did I write that...anywhere (especially considering I own one, and I joined this forum to ensure he lives as healthy a life as possible)?


What I meant was, if you're against ALL breeding.... and breeding is what produces dogs, well, without it, there would be no dogs. 



Mokapi said:


> The hundreds of thousands of dogs that are put to sleep yearly is enough for me, personally, to think that anyone who wants that number to drastically drop should spay and neuter every canine they own, and certainly shouldn't think about adding to the number of dogs.


You DO realize that without ethical breeders, every breed of dog would end, and that would be DEVASTATING for dogs serving a purpose beyond basic companion, right?
That this fantastic thing called breed research to ensure that you obtain a dog that will fit your lifestyle would be a dead point. 
That more dogs would be surrendered because more people would have dogs not suitable for them?





Mokapi said:


> . Breeders who make that their career are even more upsetting to me, because they're churning out litter after litter, year after year, seemingly without regard to dogs and puppies already needing homes and already being abused, not cared for well, etc.


I agree with this entirely. However, this isn't the case of all breeders. At all. 



Mokapi said:


> If a breeder cares about that specific breed so much, I don't see why they wouldn't contact a breed-specific rescue and ask to foster. No profit (apart from emotional), but you can also be certain that you are not directly adding to the dog population AND you get to help ascertain your fosters good, solid homes and treat them like your pets.


I know a lot of breeders that do this very thing. 
Will I?
Absolutely not. 
Why?
Well, most rescues will not let you foster unless all your animals are spayed or neutered. I obviously will not meet that criteria. 
When I DID foster, back in Las Vegas when all my animals were spayed or neutered, it very much so threw off the dynamics of my pack at home and put my dogs under additional stress that was not necessary. My dogs come first, and I will not do anything to make their lives of any less quality, and if that means I can not foster, then I can not foster. I give myself in other ways- through item and money donations, volunteering for transports, which often times can mean 24 hours on the road, with gas and motel expenses, and time away from my house and pets, meaning I also need to pay for someone to watch them. 
It is not ideal for all people to foster, but it is even LESS ideal for most breeders to foster. Starting with the fact most do not meet the criteria, and ending with the welfare of their own pets.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Very, very good of you to do rescue work. As you can tell, we are all kind of defensive - those of us whose moon revolves around the sun of the rescue world, and those who want to breed responsibly.

But honestly, I don't know any good breeders. I have just met the bad ones.

In my opinion, the ultimate goal of a breeder should be to never have a dog, or an offspring of a dog, or any descendant of a dog that they breed end up in any bad place. And we should ALL be trying to strengthen the laws, to punish those people who get away with so much cruelty.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

xellil said:


> The AKC is a joke. Showing dogs only exacerbates the genetic defects in dogs, because it necessitates breeding for looks.


While I do agree there are a lot of politics in AKC conformation and a very nasty side that includes people who will put looks before health, temperment and other important qualities of a well rounded dog, I personally classify a breeder who does not show their dog to prove that they are *conformationally correct* as a less than ideal breeder. I would not purchase a puppy from a breeder who does not show their dogs to prove they have corrrect conformation.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Angelwing said:


> Not completely. While there is a lot of politics and bullshit at dog shows, they certainly have their place. A good breeder will show their dogs and try and produce dogs that conform to breed standard. That's the point of shows, or should be. Yes, there are certain breeds that the dog show world has corrupted and I think that's wrong. But I still show my dogs because it still means something to have your dog titled, and I wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder that didn't show.


That is precisely my point. The AKC has sold the crap to everyone who breed, OR people who don't want to bother with little things like heart defects and hip dysplasia have influenced the AKC to ignore those little problems.

If "titling" a dog included a genetics test and a temperament test, and THEN a beuty contest, that would make more sense.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

BrownieM said:


> I personally classify a breeder who does not show their dog to prove that they are *conformationally correct* as a less than ideal breeder.


I personally believe that if a breeder does not know their breed well enough to judge their dogs against the breed standard, and needs the help of other people, generally more concerned with the politics of it all, to tell them who is and isn't suitable... then that breeder ought to make a beeline for the nearest spay and neuter clinic because they shouldn't be breeding. 

WIll I show my dogs? Probably not. Why? Because the "breed standard" for my particular breed has too many restrictions on color that have NO EFFECT ON HEALTH in any way shape or form, and only limits the gene pool to a devistating extent. 
And I refuse to line breed. Period. 



xellil said:


> If "titling" a dog included a genetics test and a temperament test, and THEN a beuty contest, that would make more sense.


YES! THANK YOU!
This is exactly why I have ZERO respect for the akc whatsoever. They COULD make it a wonderful thing for the welfare of dogs, but they don't. I imagine it would limit their entries, and therefore their entry fees too much. 
I also think line bred dogs should be banned form the show world.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Angelwing said:


> I really hate when people with dogs say this. Also it sounds like you haven't talked/been in contact with any reputable breeders. Not everyone is a backyard breeder (although the majority are, unfortunately).
> 
> 
> 
> Not completely. While there is a lot of politics and  at dog shows, they certainly have their place. A good breeder will show their dogs and try and produce dogs that conform to breed standard. That's the point of shows, or should be. Yes, there are certain breeds that the dog show world has corrupted and I think that's wrong. But I still show my dogs because it still means something to have your dog titled, and I wouldn't buy a dog from a breeder that didn't show.


Angelwing, your post is truly a needed breath of fresh air for me. I couldn't agree more with everything you say. First, health testing and the presence of good health should be the most basic priority. Then, a breeder should be involved in the fancy, showing their dogs to prove that they conform to the breed standard. 

Yes, there are breeders who campaign specials with health issues lurking. I do NOT agree with this practice. But, there are many small scale, reputable breeders who health test and show their dogs to prove they meet the breed standard and are worthy of being bred. To me, a breeder who does not prove their dog to be conformationally correct and/or attain performance titles is nothing but a BYB.

ETA: In my breed there are occasional "trends" that IMO are not healthy. For example, poodles can be so extreme and fancy that they have limited movement. This is a "trend" and I believe a reputable breeder would breed to the standard rather than the current trend.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

i think those who ARE good breeders, though, have to realize that you will be lumped in with the bad ones. And that's natural - how many BYB puppies are bred for every good one? 

If i had to guess, it's probably half a million to one. So it's like having a million black marbles and dropping in two white ones - i think the statement "all breeders are bad" basically is true, because the good breeders are statistically insignificant.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

xellil said:


> i think those who ARE good breeders, those, have to realize that you ARE going to be lumped in with the bad ones. And that's natural - how many bad puppies are bred for every good one?
> 
> If i had to guess, it's probably half a million to one. So it's like having a million black marbles and dropping in two white ones - i think the statement "all breeders are bad" basically is statistically true, because the good breeders are statistically insignificant.


Ad that "basically statistically true" to justify such a blanket statement is an entire disjustice to those few's efforts.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

After spending my weekend at a local AKC dog show (I was with the Danes of course...) I came to realize that the CH title really doesn't mean a whole lot to me. At least with the case of Danes, one just has to wait long enough for the right circumstances to win points and gain CH title. Mismarked Danes are allowed in the show ring even when there are perfect specimens of the correctly marked out there. Why allow such laxity for the rules? To me, it should never take years to title a dog...but it happens all the time. Three dogs finished their champion titles the day I was there...but had taken each one years to do. I personally think that its actually too easy to CH title a dog in conformation. There is just too much laxity in entry "faults" and judges make too many opinion based decisions for a "lesser" dog. 

ETA: I actually think that coat color standard when it comes to Danes should be tossed out the window because it puts up too many barriers for genetic diversity within the breed. I'm just using the coat color mismarks as an example to the laxity of the standard. 

AKC conformation titles would mean more to me if health testing, temperament testing and obedience were all lumped into it. Like a dog could only earn a CH title if it passed full array of health testing with flying colors, passed temperament testing (confident dogs tend to do better in the show ring but aren't necessarily good companion dogs), and can be capable of difficult obedience tasks. I think only then would the CH title in front of a dog really mean something to me. Probably close to 98% of people looking to buy a puppy from a breeder are looking for companion only dogs, and most of those people don't care one bit about the CH in front of the name of the dog...all they want is a member of the family. I believe that health and temperament come first...then conformation. 

Mokapi- I think your head is in the right place, but you're failing to see the larger picture. Not everyone wants to rescue dogs...does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to own one? A lot of people want to blame "back yard breeders" for filling shelters and rescue groups, when it really doesn't have much to do with that. The number one reason for dogs to be surrendered to shelters are behavioral problems. Being proactive about positive training techniques and socialization skills for dogs will do a whole lot more good than writing off all breeders out there. There are absolutely good, responsible breeders out there that are hard to find...but even the BYBers of the world aren't the only ones to blame for over pet population. Puppy mills, pet stores, inappropriate training techniques, just plain ol' ignorance to responsible pet ownership are just a handful of the issues regarding pet overpopulation. We are all entitled to our own opinions on this, and I respect yours but I don't agree with it. 

Mollly- Sorry to thread jack!!!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

No, it's not fair. But unfortunately, there are just too many people out there producing poorly bred dogs that will end up producing many more. It's way too profitable and overwhelming for people who do it right to make a dent.

And add in the designer dogs, the people who don't spay and neuter, the puppy mills, people who think every female should be bred at least once AND the AKC that encourages poor breeding practices, and it's hopeless. You can only effect a tiny, tiny little portion and make it good.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

DaneMama said:


> After spending my weekend at a local AKC dog show (I was with the Danes of course...) I came to realize that the CH title really doesn't mean a whole lot to me. At least with the case of Danes, one just has to wait long enough for the right circumstances to win points and gain CH title. Mismarked Danes are allowed in the show ring even when there are perfect specimens of the correctly marked out there. Why allow such laxity for the rules? To me, it should never take years to title a dog...but it happens all the time. Three dogs finished their champion titles the day I was there...but had taken each one years to do. I personally think that its actually too easy to CH title a dog in conformation. There is just too much laxity in entry "faults" and judges make too many opinion based decisions for a "lesser" dog.
> 
> AKC conformation titles would mean more to me if health testing, temperament testing and obedience were all lumped into it. Like a dog could only earn a CH title if it passed full array of health testing with flying colors, passed temperament testing (confident dogs tend to do better in the show ring but aren't necessarily good companion dogs), and can be capable of difficult obedience tasks. I think only then would the CH title in front of a dog really mean something to me. Probably close to 98% of people looking to buy a puppy from a breeder are looking for companion only dogs, and most of those people don't care one bit about the CH in front of the name of the dog...all they want is a member of the family. I believe that health and temperament come first...then conformation.
> 
> ...


Have you heard how some breed clubs offer versatility certificates? Say, with Golden Retrievers if you get a certain number of points on conformation, agility, tracking and obedience you can have a versatility certificate. Many other breeds have a similar version of this too. I really like this idea because it provides incentive for a breeder to actually *do something* with their dogs. To prove that they have something to offer. I also think that, although AKC does not require obedience, health testing, etc., a *reputable breeder* will do these things on their own. 

Also, I can't believe it takes years to finish Great Danes! That is absolutely crazy to hear. A standard poodle of extremely high quality can finish within a matter of weekends.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Which is exactly why we are standing up for the breeders out there that ARE doing a good job. Making it known that there ARE good breeders out there that do health testing and temperament testing and are involved with rescue work. They are out there....and they need the support!


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

BrownieM said:


> Have you heard how some breed clubs offer versatility certificates? Say, with Golden Retrievers if you get a certain number of points on conformation, agility, tracking and obedience you can have a versatility certificate. Many other breeds have a similar version of this too. I really like this idea because it provides incentive for a breeder to actually *do something* with their dogs. To prove that they have something to offer. I also think that, although AKC does not require obedience, health testing, etc., a *reputable breeder* will do these things on their own.
> 
> Also, I can't believe it takes years to finish Great Danes! That is absolutely crazy to hear. A standard poodle of extremely high quality can finish within a matter of weekends.


I haven't heard of those....I've only been around Danes and they aren't usually worked in field trials, agility, etc but only conformation (which I hate). Which is probably why I haven't heard of anything like that before. I'm actually wanting to produce Danes on the smaller side since they tend to be healthier, live longer and can move better so they can do things like agility, field trials, obedience etc. 

I don't think it should take years to finish Danes. Like you said, it should take a few weekends.....and I know it happens and I personally think those are the ONLY dogs that should be CH titled. Not ones that are finished at 4 or 6 years of age!


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

/extremely upset because the forum ate my first attempt to post.

It was pretty long but I'll sum it back up...I think that casual breeding should be illegal, and that there should be many, many laws and restrictions put in place before someone can get a license to breed. Anyone breeding without a license should be fined, largely, if not made to face other consequences. There are simply too many dogs for people to think that adding pure-bred ones help. 

Dogs bred for things other than companionship should have even stricter laws in place for breeders, since they usually have very important jobs.

Breed research can be a moot point anyway. Not every dog will conform to the breed temperament listed on its breed's AKC page. Personalities are affected by things far outside of its breed. 

My initial post was not meant to offend you, PuppysPaws, or anyone else, but I will stand by my opinion that breeding isn't something that can be done by just anyone simply because they have a piqued interest in helping out their favorite breed. I do understand your point about not being able to foster. 

I hope it lets me post this time. I do not have any experience with showing dogs so I don't have a comment on that, although the titling bit by xellil about genetic and temperament testing sounds the best. I never knew why colors mattered so much anyway.

Quick edit: Just saw your post DaneMama. 

I didn't say that people should only own rescued dogs, I simply said that I don't think they should be breeding. You can own a pure-bred dog without having to breed (or show, although, again, I don't have a strong opinion on showing either way yet). Most BYBs do not take the time to properly socialize their puppies anyway, which gives them a disadvantage. And because they are interested in making money, not finding the best possible owner for each individual dog, they are not ensuring they go to homes where the owners would take the time TO train and socialize those dogs- so, in a way, the BYB breeder that sold the dog to the ignorant couple that couldn't stand the barking at the neighbors so they dropped him off at the pound is responsible for the dog being there. Of course the owners are definitely to blame as well, but if breeding were limited and owners were selected CAREFULLY by breeders who truly care about the future lives of their pups, they would have a higher chance of being placed in a home where they would be trained, socialized, vetted, etc. 

Again, these are all my opinions and I appreciate you all letting me have them.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

DaneMama, i agree with everything you say.

People giving up their dogs is a whole nuther issue that's kicks up my level of P&&sed off no end.

My dachshund was turned over to animal control at 12 years because she got "too old" and they wanted a new one.

that's not a dog problem - she has no behavioral problems. That's an ignorant "#($%"(# who seems so typical. Or having a baby and get rid of the dog. Or don't want to take it with you when you move. Can't be bothered - too expensive to feed, train, vet. 

There are WAY too many dogs - there simply aren't enough homes for all the dogs we keep producing. And most of those we DO have aren't even good homes.

We can't get people to do something so simple as spay, even when it's offered free. We sure aren't going to get people to take the time to help a dog that has some behavioral problems.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

xellil said:


> DaneMama, i agree with everything you say.
> 
> People giving up their dogs is a whole nuther issue that's kicks up my level of P&&sed off no end.
> 
> ...


 My old neighbors gave up their three 9-year-old chocolate labs in favor of two French bulldog puppies that the labs didn't get along with. I can't remember ever being so angry.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Mokapi said:


> My old neighbors gave up their three 9-year-old chocolate labs in favor of two French bulldog puppies that the labs didn't get along with. I can't remember ever being so angry.


So many stories like that. Unfortunatlely, big dogs are so often the ones who end up tied to a tree in the back yard, or turned over to be euthanized. Any many, many many of those are purebred dogs. I could go out and have my pick of 500 Dobermans from just the rescues in my area.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Again, Mokapi I think your mind is in the right place but putting those kind of restrictions on breeding practices with dogs is just taking the infiltration of the government into the private lives and free will of living in the US. Where is the line drawn? 

There are laws governing those who are considered "high volume" breeders who churn out puppies that make a profit. Although the laws governing these operations are just laughable and need to be tightened down considerably. But the breeders who are responsible should be governed by the law? I don't believe that will help pet overpopulation one bit.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Example of breed versatility: Versatility In Poodles

A poodles must have 10 points, with one point from at least four of the below categories, for a basic VC certificate. More advanced achievements are necessary for VCX (versatility excellent)

conformation (2 "points" awarded for each AKC minor. 5 "points" awarded for each AKC CH. This pointing schedule is similar for the below categories.)
obedience
rally
tracking
agility
hunt/field
working poodle
flyball/scent hurdles
herding
misc: canine freestyle, drafting, carting, dock dogs, trick dogs
temperament testing

Health testing must be provided.

I think that any breeder who is interested in "bettering the breed" will be able to choose some of those above activities and prove that their dog has something to offer in one or more category.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

DaneMama said:


> Again, Mokapi I think your mind is in the right place but putting those kind of restrictions on breeding practices with dogs is just taking the infiltration of the government into the private lives and free will of living in the US. Where is the line drawn?
> 
> There are laws governing those who are considered "high volume" breeders who churn out puppies that make a profit. Although the laws governing these operations are just laughable and need to be tightened down considerably. But the breeders who are responsible should be governed by the law? I don't believe that will help pet overpopulation one bit.


Right now the line seems to be drawn at "animal cruelty", which doesn't seem to be enough considering the high volume of dogs in shelters/graves because they've been dumped or surrendered. I think that the laws and licensing that would ideally (for me) be put in place would not just curb casual breeding, but it would also help establish breeding standards that would drastically improve the lives of both the puppies and the dogs used for breeding. Do I think a female should only be allowed one litter her whole life? No, but I think there should be a limit on both amount of puppies produced in a year and amount of litters procured from a dog.

EDIT: Can someone explain to me how temperament testing is done?


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

Wasn't this post about feeding PMR? :tongue:


----------



## Pompey (Apr 14, 2011)

Mokapi said:


> I don't agree with breeding anyway, but from what I've seen breeders feed crappy kibble because they want the highest profit they can get from their dogs and a high-quality kibble/raw is too expensive. I don't know many breeders I would put on a pedestal OR go to for advice...most of them (as seen on that thread!) are completely ignorant with food and wouldn't have their brains any other way.
> 
> I like how they're all saying how they don't need to analyze the ingredients in the food- I think it's a mix of denial and apathy. They don't want to take the time to see if they're feeding them something good, and they can't bear to think that they're not anything but the ~ideal breeder~. Ugh.




I think you mean puppy mills and _maybe_ large scale commercial breeders, not breeders in general. At least, I hope you do. Because some of the replies on that thread were ignorant, but no one there seemed like their kennels were pumping out dogs for profit. 

Another issue to consider is that a pet dog might thrive on holistic foods, but in ten years of experience, I've seen that breeding/working dogs do better on mid grade feeds like Nutro, SD, Pro Plan, Kirkland, etc. NOT because we as breeders are somehow not willing to feed "holistic" kibbles that cost designer prices because it will cut into profits. I had a litter born premature with scabs almost like cradle cap on Merrick, bitch had nearly no milk. Skin problems cleared up and mom had triple the milk on Purina ONE of all things. So, the logical choice was for me to continue feeding the latter since the dog's health improved. I have bred three litters on raw, no problems, but I do know a breeder who tried it and had two dogs with eclampsia. So she went back to Nutro because her dogs did well on it. Price did not come into play. 

It's not that breeders (mills excluded of course) aren't bothering to try Fromm and Taste of The Wild or Wellness - we have. They failed our dogs, miserably.


----------



## Angelwing (Feb 20, 2011)

BrownieM said:


> Angelwing, your post is truly a needed breath of fresh air for me. I couldn't agree more with everything you say. First, health testing and the presence of good health should be the most basic priority. Then, a breeder should be involved in the fancy, showing their dogs to prove that they conform to the breed standard.
> 
> Yes, there are breeders who campaign specials with health issues lurking. I do NOT agree with this practice. But, there are many small scale, reputable breeders who health test and show their dogs to prove they meet the breed standard and are worthy of being bred. To me, a breeder who does not prove their dog to be conformationally correct and/or attain performance titles is nothing but a BYB.
> 
> ETA: In my breed there are occasional "trends" that IMO are not healthy. For example, poodles can be so extreme and fancy that they have limited movement. This is a "trend" and I believe a reputable breeder would breed to the standard rather than the current trend.


Exactly! Health should always be a priority, and it's too bad the akc/ckc etc. has nothing to do with it. Which is important to potential puppy buyers that they find the reputable breeders who are health testing their dogs as well as showing. I also think that getting working titles is important but can be much harder (at least for me because there is almost no interest for it in my city/province so there is no opportunity for me to participate in earth dog events).

I also hate a lot of the trends that are cropping up (or have been around for awhile) for certain breeds that compromise health and/or the dog's ability to perform the job it was bred for correctly.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Mokapi said:


> Right now the line seems to be drawn at "animal cruelty", which doesn't seem to be enough considering the high volume of dogs in shelters/graves because they've been dumped or surrendered. I think that the laws and licensing that would ideally (for me) be put in place would not just curb casual breeding, but it would also help establish breeding standards that would drastically improve the lives of both the puppies and the dogs used for breeding. Do I think a female should only be allowed one litter her whole life? No, but I think there should be a limit on both amount of puppies produced in a year and amount of litters procured from a dog.


I get where your line of thinking is going, and I agree with it to some extent. But what about the people who own dogs but don't breed them and still treat them like trash? What about people who own cats, rabbits, turtles, livestock, etc. that treat them like trash? Ethics surrounding animal companionship are a sticky subject. If we start with governing dogs, all other breeding practices, animal husbandry, etc would have to be governed as well. This takes a lot of man power, money, lobbying, etc to get on the boards. I think its a more proactive approach to promote ideal and responsible animal ownership, promote good breeders, and give part in animal rescue efforts.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

Pompey said:


> I think you mean puppy mills and _maybe_ large scale commercial breeders, not breeders in general. At least, I hope you do. Because some of the replies on that thread were ignorant, but no one there seemed like their kennels were pumping out dogs for profit.
> 
> Another issue to consider is that a pet dog might thrive on holistic foods, but in ten years of experience, I've seen that breeding/working dogs do better on mid grade feeds like Nutro, SD, Pro Plan, Kirkland, etc. NOT because we as breeders are somehow not willing to feed "holistic" kibbles that cost designer prices because it will cut into profits. I had a litter born premature with scabs almost like cradle cap on Merrick, bitch had nearly no milk. Skin problems cleared up and mom had triple the milk on Purina ONE of all things. So, the logical choice was for me to continue feeding the latter since the dog's health improved. I have bred three litters on raw, no problems, but I do know a breeder who tried it and had two dogs with eclampsia. So she went back to Nutro because her dogs did well on it. Price did not come into play.
> 
> It's not that breeders (mills excluded of course) aren't bothering to try Fromm and Taste of The Wild or Wellness - we have. They failed our dogs, miserably.


While there are generally a few exceptions to every rule, the multiple breeders I know specifically feed their litters Puppy Chow (I think the brand may be Purina?) out of a mix of habit, stinginess, and an unwillingness to try something else because their breeding dogs eat Purina/Kibbles N' Bits/what have you and since their dogs don't seem to be developing issues, it's certainly going to be far worse than to try and achieve an even healthier dog by switching than it is by sticking to a brand that isn't exactly known for its nutritional excellence. 

I do think it's great that, as a breeder, you feed dogs individually according to what keeps them in a the best health. I just do not personally know more than one (two, but her litter was an accident, so I don't really consider her a "breeder") breeder that feeds their dogs a premium/healthy/holistic kibble. 

@DaneMama:

I do have ideas for pretty much every animal that can be owned when it comes to laws if you'd like me to post them (I'd have to round up all of the lists/notes in my journal though, but I will), and I think animal cruelty, just like assault to a human, should be a felony 100% of the time. I am a huge activist for animals ("promoting" thorough knowledge of your pet's species/breed/needs/etc.) and I volunteer for several rescues, but instead of promoting good breeders, of which I know none, I encourage people to look at rescues and shelters for potential new family members.


----------



## Pompey (Apr 14, 2011)

DaneMama said:


> I get where your line of thinking is going, and I agree with it to some extent. But what about the people who own dogs but don't breed them and still treat them like trash? What about people who own cats, rabbits, turtles, livestock, etc. that treat them like trash? Ethics surrounding animal companionship are a sticky subject. If we start with governing dogs, all other breeding practices, animal husbandry, etc would have to be governed as well. This takes a lot of man power, money, lobbying, etc to get on the boards. I think its a more proactive approach to promote ideal and responsible animal ownership, promote good breeders, and give part in animal rescue efforts.



I think you really brought up an EXCELLENT point! I'm literally amazed at how many pet owners with one dog use abusive training methods- my favorite instance being a neighbor with a 14-15yr old golden retriever they dragged around on a choke collar, despite the dog's hacking. I ended up giving them a buckle collar for her because I could not bear to hear the dog being yanked and gagged on that leash. The dog was morbidly obese and diabetic. It got a walk halfway down the block, at the most. Was also infested with fleas from the time she was 5yrs until it died. Could not have been from poor health? Course not. This same woman chastised me for breeding and did not believe that dogs should have to go through pregnancies. Dear god. 

Meanwhile, my dogs were lean, healthy, kept mentally & physically stimulated with field trials and just runs in the park a few times weekly. I trained them w/ the clicker and kept up on that. A few of them went to shows on weekends. They loved the attention. I screened them for thyroid, hips, cardiac and MLS. My pups were temperament tested, and believe you me, people with deposits had them returned if all was not kosher. I had a stipulation in my contract that negated health guarantee (which was otherwise 5yrs) if the dog became obese. My pups are amongst the most svelte Beagles in North America because of it  I've bought training books for pup owners having a time of it to prevent harsh methods from being used. Have taken back pups. Have unsold ones that flopped here. I have never had a flea. Fleas would not dare set their filthy little legs on my property. 

There are too many people that relegate their dogs to a life in the backyard or just a life of absolute nothingness, and yet the breeders are the ones getting blamed. Those people treating dogs like trash, 9 times out of 10, got them from the shelter or an oops litter, not a responsible breeder.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

Unfortunately laws cannot be written based on one person's opinions on responsible pet ownership. It takes a LOT more than that to get laws in effect. I agree with you that things need to take a drastic change, those who commit crimes towards animals should be punished as if they had did it to another human. I think even those days are far off because unlike you and me, and the majority of the people here....MOST people out there don't care for their animals like members of this forum. Its a hard fact of life, but its true. I'd go far as to say that we are as rare as a good, responsible breeder.


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

I met Molly (hcdoxies) today and if she is okay with driving all the way to my house from marble falls for some raw meat which isn't a short trip then I think she is a very very very caring breeder. She feeds all her dogs a raw diet! Obviously she loves them dearly. Have you looked at her website? She has a palace for her dogs! I have to admit, I'm swooned by the mini dachshunds and I think when I move out of this house I may just want a mini. Especially since a mini dog as a demo dog for a dog trainer would be awesome! So portable and non-threatening!

I agree that the akc is pretty useless when it comes to health. They need to start requiring health testing. I also completely agree that if we didn't have breeders, breeds would be disappearing left and right, and that is counter productive to all the breeding we have been doing for hundreds, thousands of years. Dogs are bred for numerous reasons and you cannot discount working breeds for a second. Mokapi, I said something pretty similar to your statement not too recently and the people here gave me a quick wake-up call about some reasons people buy purebred dogs. They are extremely important to so many people's way of life. I know of people who acquire dogs from excellent breeders because they need a reliable working dog out on the ranch; they often say their work would be so much harder without the dogs. That is enough to convince me that breeds are extremely important to man kind. Not everyone is in the position to adopt. Not everyone is dog savvy, so if you can find a breed that is generally easy to train it can be easier on you the first time. I have all mixed bred dogs who I rescued. I know why you said what you said in a way because there are so many dogs out there dying because of overpopulation. Honestly, I don't really agree with no kill either, reason being is that a life in a kennel is a sad life unless you can tell that the dogs standard of living is not bad and they are not depressed. I do think dogs should be given much longer amounts of time to be adopted. But sadly, because of "backyard" breeders and people letting their dogs run loose the numbers are just added to and many of these dogs are often destined to a death sentence.


----------



## pandaparade (Dec 29, 2010)

In regards to the post on that other thread: "Here too YUCK! Rosebud just caught a baby bunny and tried to bring it to her pups!"

Awesome :hungry:


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

Pompey said:


> I think you really brought up an EXCELLENT point! I'm literally amazed at how many pet owners with one dog use abusive training methods- my favorite instance being a neighbor with a 14-15yr old golden retriever they dragged around on a choke collar, despite the dog's hacking. I ended up giving them a buckle collar for her because I could not bear to hear the dog being yanked and gagged on that leash. The dog was morbidly obese and diabetic. It got a walk halfway down the block, at the most. Was also infested with fleas from the time she was 5yrs until it died. Could not have been from poor health? Course not. This same woman chastised me for breeding and did not believe that dogs should have to go through pregnancies. Dear god.
> 
> Meanwhile, my dogs were lean, healthy, kept mentally & physically stimulated with field trials and just runs in the park a few times weekly. I trained them w/ the clicker and kept up on that. A few of them went to shows on weekends. They loved the attention. I screened them for thyroid, hips, cardiac and MLS. My pups were temperament tested, and believe you me, people with deposits had them returned if all was not kosher. I had a stipulation in my contract that negated health guarantee (which was otherwise 5yrs) if the dog became obese. My pups are amongst the most svelte Beagles in North America because of it  I've bought training books for pup owners having a time of it to prevent harsh methods from being used. Have taken back pups. Have unsold ones that flopped here. I have never had a flea. Fleas would not dare set their filthy little legs on my property.
> 
> There are too many people that relegate their dogs to a life in the backyard or just a life of absolute nothingness, and yet the breeders are the ones getting blamed. Those people treating dogs like trash, 9 times out of 10, got them from the shelter or an oops litter, not a responsible breeder.


I'd just like to point out that oftentimes the "breeders...getting blamed" and "responsible breeders" are two separate things. One is a type of person we are in no shortage of in this country that ARE having "oops" litters and ARE helping populate the shelters, and the second is not easy to find at all.

Can I also say that your paragraph on that poor golden is really heartbreaking for me because I live with two pugs that have only been to the vet and the groomer's outside of their home or an RV. They do not have harnesses (and thus they don't have leashes/aren't walked, since they'll "slip right out of those collars", have extreme health issues, and are 8 and 12 lbs. overweight, respectively. The only command they know is "speak" (and by that sentence I mean they are not trained, socialized, etc.), they are not house trained, and they have been eating Kibbles N' Bits their entire lives. My grandparents, who own the dogs, believe that feeding Chip raw will kill him, that I am stressing him out by walking him, and that his GL is a means of torture. While he pranced around in it today (he took to it quick), they spent the entire 5 minutes we were in the same room as them going "Oh my GOD, that poor baby!". Their dogs have never been on a legitimate walk, and they snap at me when I offer to take them. 

@DaneMama- That's really too bad...I had some good ideas, too! 

@CavePaws- I do find those dogs to be adorable, and I think she has healthy standards at her kennel/home, but she is not the norm, which is where my initial response came from. I hope she didn't think I was meaning to attack her directly. /: 

I agree with the rest of what you said and I am in no way against getting a pure-bred dog for good specifics (bad specifics being the obvious ones like dogfighting, etc.), OR as a pet- I just think that the laws behind breeding desperately needs to improved and that there need to be regulated standards for breeders apart from simple licensing. I have mixed emotions about no-kill shelters, partly because of the same reasoning you listed. 

I would never want a breed to die off/be bred out...but I do not think that breeding should be something cavalier. I'm really enjoying reading these posts , though...there are some points being made that I accept and the people striving to be high-qualty breeders give me faith in humanity. xD


----------



## mischiefgrrl (Oct 28, 2010)

hcdoxies said:


> Wasn't this post about feeding PMR? :tongue:


LOL as I sit here typing this - Miss Tiffa is sitting here staring at me and letting out little whines because her dinner is thawing in the sink. I forgot to put it in the fridge from the freezer this morning. 

I am very proud of you as a breeder for constantly educating other breeders and new owners of the benefits of feeding PMR. It puts you a step above the rest. I think your best argument is the lack of mortality rate since switching to raw. As other lose pups more and more at birth, hopefully they will realize that you are onto something!


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

Mokapi, I always wonder why people think GLs are the devil. But I can see how they are pretty easily put under the classification of punitive tools. I use a gentle leader on some dogs for their training period.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I do want to add that feeding raw or high quality kibble does not equate to a good breeder. In fact, my *personal opinion* is that this is one of the last things I will look at when choosing a breeder. Now, I would hope they are feeding something better than, say, 'Ol Roy.  However, if I am purchasing a puppy at 8-10 weeks, I have the rest of their life to feed them a proper diet. It is more important for me that a breeder health test, be involved in the breed fancy, give back to the breed, and prove through showing that their dog has proper conformation and do other activities with their dog. It is far more important to me that a breeder breed an appropriate amount of litters within a given time period than feed raw. *If you breed five litters within a matter of months, I don't care what you feed. You are a high volume breeder.*


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I agree with most of your points BrownieM, except dog showing and nutrition. I think that appropriate diet makes a HUGE difference to a dog's overall health, including the health of the puppies they produce. It'll be a priority of mine to do an exclusive raw fed breeding program because I honestly believe that it has the potential to increase longevity. 

BUT I do agree that just what a breeder feeds isn't enough to win me over. Its just one of the things that matters a lot to me. We need more responsible, holistic breeders out there :thumb:


----------



## mischiefgrrl (Oct 28, 2010)

I think your opinion on Molly being a "high volume" breeder has been expressed enough in other threads. This one is about educating other breeders and the frustration that comes with it about the benefits of PMR. You obviously have a personal issue with her standards and have been invited before to contact her with your questions and concerns. Your digs are nasty and not productive to the topic at hand - nor appropriate. She is a valuable member to this community for her source of knowledge of feeding PMR and her experience as a breeder doing so.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

mischiefgrrl said:


> I think your opinion on Molly being a "high volume" breeder has been expressed enough in other threads. This one is about educating other breeders and the frustration that comes with it about the benefits of PMR. You obviously have a personal issue with her standards and have been invited before to contact her with your questions and concerns. Your digs are nasty and not productive to the topic at hand - nor appropriate. She is a valuable member to this community for her source of knowledge of feeding PMR and her experience as a breeder doing so.


Where did I specifically say anything about any individual? You have put words in my mouth. I am expressing my view that raw feeding does not make a breeder reputable. That is a completely appropriate comment for this thread. :smile:


----------



## RawFedDogs (Jun 16, 2008)

Lets be careful where this is headed.


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

hcdoxies said:


> Wasn't this post about feeding PMR? :tongue:


Five pages ago, yes!
I'm sorry! I didn't mean to hijack... it just kinda happens. 




BrownieM said:


> I do want to add that feeding raw or high quality kibble does not equate to a good breeder. In fact, my *personal opinion* is that this is one of the last things I will look at when choosing a breeder. Now, I would hope they are feeding something better than, say, 'Ol Roy.  However, if I am purchasing a puppy at 8-10 weeks, I have the rest of their life to feed them a proper diet. It is more important for me that a breeder health test, be involved in the breed fancy, give back to the breed, and prove through showing that their dog has proper conformation and do other activities with their dog. It is far more important to me that a breeder breed an appropriate amount of litters within a given time period than feed raw. *If you breed five litters within a matter of months, I don't care what you feed. You are a high volume breeder.*


While it isn't necessarily a deal maker, what a breeder feeds DOES speak volumes to me. More than a stupid title on their dogs. Why?
Well, to me it shows both knowledge and dedication on their part. If they aren't dedicated enough to provide proper nutrition, what other corners are they cutting? It's not about financial investment or dedication... but rather... how can you call yourself dedicated, if you're skimping on the BASICS?



DaneMama said:


> BUT I do agree that just what a breeder feeds isn't enough to win me over. Its just one of the things that matters a lot to me. We need more responsible, holistic breeders out there :thumb:


ditto


----------



## CorgiPaws (Mar 31, 2009)

RawFedDogs said:


> Lets be careful where this is headed.


I'm ALWAYS careful, Bill! :biggrin:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

just to be devil's advocate - what would be so bad about some breeds dying out?

Some genetic flaws have become part of the breed's exterior looks - flat-faced dogs that have all kinds of breathing issues, dogs like my dachshund with long backs that cause spinal problems.

They were originally bred for a purpose - dachshunds to hunt underground, for example. Does anyone catch badgers with a dachshund these days? Nope - and standard size doxies are few and far between - the preferred smaller ones could never kill a badger. So why not breed them for size (because that's what people want) and temperament, and forget about how long their backs are, or how short their legs?

Some dogs still work, and perform the functions for which they were bred. But I would venture to say not many.

We used to own dogs that really worked - we used cattle dogs (blue heelers) when I was married to a cowboy. Incredible dogs, incredible job they did. They had the build and temperament to do exactly what they were bred to do. But they weren't pets - they were almost like equals and they worked with us out of mutual respect. It would have been an insult to them to call them a pet. Their trainer was amazing. 

Which is why it is horrible to take a dog like that, put it in an apartment or a back yard, and not let them use the energy God (or breeding) gave them to run all day. i doubt there are many blue heelers whose owners truly give them all that they need.

It's all about the looks, with the AKC. The other stuff is peripheral. If you have a dog whose a half inch shorter than the "standard" - forget about getting anywhere with the AKC, no matter how well that dog does what he was bred to do, no matter how healthy, how good-natured, how perfect in every way.

And DaneMama, I agree you don't have to go far at all to say there are not many reputable breeders. In fact, I don't think you have to go anywhere at all.


----------



## CavePaws (Jan 25, 2011)

xellil said:


> just to be devil's advocate - what would be so bad about some breeds dying out?
> 
> Some genetic flaws have become part of the breed's exterior looks - flat-faced dogs that have all kinds of breathing issues, dogs like my dachshund with long backs that cause spinal problems.
> 
> ...


Ahahaha, I so agree about your point with the AKC. Seriously, half an inch and boom you're out of there bucko. But let's not forget that anyone competing in AKC can still do other things like the neglected step-sister of the AKC - Agility. Rally is probably much more popular than agility...But seriously, a few years ago they held nationals for the Agility dogs in pouring rain, kept them in a tent which had flooding going through it and everyone was like "So this is how you treat your champions?" Poo-poo on the AKC. They're lame and boring and will never get my money. That's right, I said it, I won't give them my money. Not a penny and certainly not a nickel or dime, we won't even think about quarters. D:<


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm shocked to see so many breeders take the time to do things right, but totally miss the diet by feeding kibble. I don't care how premium the kibble is....Crap is Crap no matter how you slice it. I don't care if the kibble is rated 6 stars, it is still processed, heat damaged crapola!!! I don't understand why it is so difficult for people to make the connection? Health begins with nutrition. Fresh, whole food is the only food I would consider premium (for myself, and my dogs). 

BTW, my husband sells air handling units to a company that manufactures the vitamin additives for all commercial dog food brands, and he said the smell in the factory is unreal. He leaves with the smell on him, and it makes him ill. Every time he visits that factory, he leaves feeling good about the fresh food we feed our beloved pets.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I actually got my dog registered with the AKC as a purebred without papers, because I wanted to compete in some obedience or rally just for fun. But since we don't walk on the left, I ended up not being able to do it. Those darn rules.

RaisingWolves - last week I was feeding that stuff, and not thinking too much about it. I found this place by accident. So I find myself a little hypocrital saying "how can anyone feed their dog that trash" when I just quit doing it. However, I am sooo glad I found this site, and realized there is a much better way to feed my dogs.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

xellil said:


> RaisingWolves - last week I was feeding that stuff, and not thinking too much about it. I found this place by accident. So I find myself a little hypocrital saying "how can anyone feed their dog that trash" when I just quit doing it. However, I am sooo glad I found this site, and realized there is a much better way to feed my dogs.



I understand, you didn't know. My first dog forced me to look for a different way of feeding. I fed her kibble and she was vomiting every single day. We had to replace the carpet in our home for all the vomit stains. I started out with home cooking, and she was doing very well on that (or so I thought) until my second boxer...he is the reason I switched to raw. 

I was talking about breeders who spend their life devoted to a breed.


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

I just wanted to point out that the AKC is a registry - nothing more and nothing less. The breed standards come from the parent clubs - not the AKC. Pretty much anyone can register their pups with the AKC (or CKC for that matter) - doesn't mean the breeder is ethical or reputable (and yes, I know - some of you don't like those terms!)

As for those that are making comments about certain dogs not 'making the cut' due to size, colour, etc - what would you propose? The standard is there for a reason. A Great Dane should look like a Great Dane and if you start to compromise on certain aspects, and yes - that does include size and colour in my opinion - you will eventually end up with a dog that looks absolutely nothing like a Great Dane.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

I am one of those people who had no noticeable problems on kibble... but I believe I heard about PMR on Craigslist, of all places. And I started looking into it and though, "Huh, that's interesting!"



mischiefgrrl said:


> I think your best argument is the lack of mortality rate since switching to raw. As other lose pups more and more at birth, hopefully they will realize that you are onto something!


This is EXACTLY IT! I can pull my hair and just scream! I mean, that's great if your dogs are doing seemingly fine on kibble... but EVERY BREEDER is losing puppies just like I was. Here they have the option to do something about it AND THEY'RE NOT! It's like they just gloss over it... "Oh, well, she must be just lucky." HELLO!!! I mean, how can you just sit there and be okay with puppies dying when you have the opportunity to change it.

I can understand if they think I'm just "lucky" (and I don't deny I am blessed), but to not lose ONE SINGLE PUPPY in what will soon be two years... That's a pretty strong track record! I'm not saying I won't lose one eventually, and that PMR is a "guarantee"... but.. come on... it's pretty good so far.

But the biggest excuse I get from breeders is that "it would cost too much money" or "it's not practical for my number of dogs". IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO DO IT RIGHT, DON'T DO IT! Or don't have as many dogs!

I mean, I have 9 dogs and it takes me 10 minutes from pulling the food out of the freezer, weighing and cutting and dividing their meals, them eating it, and me cleaning up. Not many breeders in my circle have more than I do -- maybe 15 dogs. So I'm sick of that excuse.


----------



## werecatrising (Oct 15, 2010)

I used to be entirely against breeding dogs (or any animal). My views have changed somewhat. I support rescue 100% for the average, household pet. At this point in time there are just too many animals sitting in shelters. I am beginning to see now that some people need a dog to fulfill some task. In this case I can understand going to a breeder with a solid breeding program. 

I have felt a bit torn on the issue lately. I have always sworn I will never buy an animal. I can say, my next dobe will also be a rescue. I don't see the desire to show, do certain sports, etc as reason enough to buy. I consider my dog, Darla, a working dog. She is not happy being a normal "household pet". I (as well as my other animals) have learned to rely on her for protection. She was a rescue. I lucked out tremendously with her. I do realize that when the time comes that I need another guardian breed I may not get so lucky going the rescue route. I feel like a complete hypocrite, but I am seriously considering an anatolian from a breeder I deal with at the hospital. In my opinion, they do everything right and their dogs are excellent guardians and total sweethearts with their people.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

Loki Love said:


> As for those that are making comments about certain dogs not 'making the cut' due to size, colour, etc - what would you propose? The standard is there for a reason. A Great Dane should look like a Great Dane and if you start to compromise on certain aspects, and yes - that does include size and colour in my opinion - you will eventually end up with a dog that looks absolutely nothing like a Great Dane.


We run into these obsticals in the dachshund world. There are MANY colors and patterns and yet the ones that do the best are "classic" reds and black/tans. It has nothing to do with conformation or health - it's just that the judges are partial to that color. And that, to me, is wrong. Dog shows are very subjective. It should be about health and confromation - not color, patterns, and politics. (though, I admit, I don't like seeing double dapples win because a lot of puppies die to get one nice double dapple). You pay enough money to the right handler, and your dog will CH in just a month. Why? Because that handler is prefered among the judges.

You know, a semi-local show breeder and puppy mill (oh yes, they do both!) was telling me that one of her show friends called her and asked her to bring in some of her inexperienced show dogs to "sweeten the pot". The more dogs their dog is up against, the more points it can win. So she PAID HER to take three dogs into the ring so that that dog can get more points. Now, somehow, I don't think that CH that that dog brings in will mean much to me.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

werecatrising said:


> I used to be entirely against breeding dogs (or any animal). My views have changed somewhat. I support rescue 100% for the average, household pet. At this point in time there are just too many animals sitting in shelters. I am beginning to see now that some people need a dog to fulfill some task. In this case I can understand going to a breeder with a solid breeding program.
> 
> I have felt a bit torn on the issue lately. I have always sworn I will never buy an animal. I can say, my next dobe will also be a rescue. I don't see the desire to show, do certain sports, etc as reason enough to buy. I consider my dog, Darla, a working dog. She is not happy being a normal "household pet". I (as well as my other animals) have learned to rely on her for protection. She was a rescue. I lucked out tremendously with her. I do realize that when the time comes that I need another guardian breed I may not get so lucky going the rescue route. I feel like a complete hypocrite, but I am seriously considering an anatolian from a breeder I deal with at the hospital. In my opinion, they do everything right and their dogs are excellent guardians and total sweethearts with their people.


When people call or e-mail me about a potential puppy, this is one of my "copy and paste" statements:



> Check your local shelter and rescue groups first - even if you don't think it's the way you want to go... just go look. YES shelter and rescues dogs MIGHT take a little more work, but there are many purebred doxies, even puppies, in the shelters and, of course, in the dachshund rescue groups that are perfectly good dogs!
> 
> Now, if you're going to go to a breeder, you should be going for the following reasons. If you're NOT going for these reasons, go to a shelter or a rescue group!
> 
> ...


----------



## Loki Love (Jan 30, 2011)

hcdoxies said:


> We run into these obsticals in the dachshund world. There are MANY colors and patterns and yet the ones that do the best are "classic" reds and black/tans. It has nothing to do with conformation or health - it's just that the judges are partial to that color. And that, to me, is wrong. Dog shows are very subjective. It should be about health and confromation - not color, patterns, and politics.


And with Danes - those that do best are male fawns. Loki is a black and still received his CH - in less than a year. It can be done - politics aside. Is the system perfect? Of course not. I'm also not convinced it's as corrupt as some would like to believe.


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

My pup comes from what could be classed as champion blood lines (I could list there accolades but it is totally immaterial to me). my trainer is a show dog person all in and from what I can gather corrupt is a little to organised for it.

Going right the way up to crufts it is a little inconsistent. My pups aunt won the best puppy at crufts but my trainer was having none of it saying how the judge was all over the place. It seems to come down to how they feel on the day. Obviously there are some cases of the judges always picking their friends and that sort of thing but I don't think they are paid off as such. 

To me its a load of doggy do do, I picked my pup as the breeders were hobby breeders and I could see the mother, grandmother and other family members, with the stud dog being local as well. I could not have cared for the best of breed rosettes on the wall. 

Hopefully my dog will be pass her assessment as a therapy dog in a few months time and that to me says far more about the dog then if some one can wash and paint a dog and get it to walk around a ring!!!!!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Good luck with being a therapy dog - I think there is no better life for the right dog, they can do so much good for people.

I really wanted mine to be one, but he's just too serious about life and not very cuddly.

Maybe my next dog will be good for therapy - I wish you all the best in getting there.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

Loki Love said:


> And with Danes - those that do best are male fawns. Loki is a black and still received his CH - in less than a year. It can be done - politics aside. Is the system perfect? Of course not. I'm also not convinced it's as corrupt as some would like to believe.


Oh yes, it absolutely can be done. Self-colored noses are not allowed in the AKC standard, except in chocolates, but Penny's mate, Simba, is CH sired - his dad is a chocolate based red -- self colored nose and all. 









Also there's CH doubled dapples... which I don't agree with.









CH piebalds, which aren't "technically" against AKC standard but there are many purists who hate the pattern.









The English Creams (dachshunds) are just starting to get in on the action -- in fact, there was one at Westminster! 

I could go on and on.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Double dapples should never be allowed in any decent dog show, for any reason, ever. They just encourage breeding blind and deaf dogs. Horrible. I actully didn't know they were allowed, and I'm totally shocked.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

xellil said:


> Double dapples should never be allowed in any decent dog show, for any reason, ever. They just encourage breeding blind and deaf dogs. Horrible. I actully didn't know they were allowed, and I'm totally shocked.


I totally agree -- But the DCA allows them, so, there you have it.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

DaneMama said:


> A lot of people want to blame "back yard breeders" for filling shelters and rescue groups, when it really doesn't have much to do with that. The number one reason for dogs to be surrendered to shelters are behavioral problems.


I'm sorry, but this is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the truth.


----------



## maplewood (Apr 14, 2011)

RachelsaurusRexU said:


> I'm sorry, but this is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the truth.


Actually it is! 80% of dog's surrendered to shelters are taken there because of behavioral issues.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Where do you get those numbers? I suppose different groups have different stats.

The AAHA lists the top 10 reasons for surrender, and behavioral issues is only one of those reasons (10th)
Why Do Pets End Up in Shelters?

Dogchannel.com doesn't have any behavioral issues in the top 10 from its survey:
Dogs Surrendered for Reasons Unrelated to Pet

DogStar daily lists its top three - no behavioral issues there either:
NORMAL, NATURAL & NECESSARY | Dog Star Daily

Ah, here's one:
http://www.shibascoutrescue.com/surrendering_your_shiba

Doesn't say where they got those figures. Just from anecdotal experience, I find it's just plain getting tired of the dog, don't want to mess with them any more, OR, they want a newer model. Or buy one on impulse and quickly realize they have no clue what they are doing.

If you look on craigslist, EVERY dog is wonderfully behaved. So can't do any calculations off of that one.

I can find a few sites that quote the 80-86% because of behavior, but I can't find any reference back to any study or survey that found it. The Humane Society survey didn't find that number.


----------



## maplewood (Apr 14, 2011)

> The Regional Shelter Relinquishment Study sponsored by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP) is a national research project designed to explore the characteristics if relinquished dogs and cats, their owners, and the reasons for relinquishment. The NCPPSP Regional Shelter Study found that behavioral problems, including aggression toward people or nonhuman animals, were the most frequently given reasons for canine relinquishment and the second most given reason for feline relinquishment.





> The most commonly given reasons for surrender are: 1. The landlord objects, 2. The owner does not have enough time, and 3. The owner is moving. The above are all people-reasons. Additional questioning reveals underlying dog-reasons. Why does the landlord object? The landlord objects to endless complaints from other tenants about urine dripping through the floorboards, feces on the footpath, and the dog barking all day and all night. Also, the landlord is seldom enthusiastic about the dog's demolition job on the apartment. Not enough time? Not enough time for what? A well-behaved dog doesn’t take that much time to care for properly





> The majority of the surrendered dogs (47.7%) and cats (40.3%) were between 5 months and 3 years of age.
> The majority of dogs (37.1%) and cats (30.2) had been owned from 7 months to 1 year.
> Approximately half of the pets (42.8% of dogs; 50.8% of cats) surrendered were not neutered.
> Many of the pets relinquished (33% of dogs; 46.9% of cats) had not been to a veterinarian.
> ...


Even dog's listed for other problems Landlord, time ect ect Most likely have behavior issues that contribute to the dog being surrendered.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

maplewood said:


> Actually it is! 80% of dog's surrendered to shelters are taken there because of behavioral issues.



I'm asking....don't you think that has to do with the lack of support BYB's provide? Lack of screening? Many behavioral issues stem from operator error, don't you think? 
I purchased my first boxer from a BYB, and was ready to hand her over to anyone willing to take her. Thankfully, my husband worked with a boxer lover who told us to take the pup to puppy class and if we still felt the same way after attending puppy class, she would take our boxer off our hands.
Puppy class taught me the error of my ways! I thought I had a dumb dog, but in reality she had a dumb owner!!! I bonded with my girl in class and I'm a different dog owner now.


----------



## maplewood (Apr 14, 2011)

RaisingWolves said:


> I'm asking....don't you think that has to do with the lack of support BYB's provide? Lack of screening?Many behavioral issues stem from operator error, don't you think?
> I purchased my first boxer from a BYB, and was ready to hand her over to anyone willing to take her. Thankfully, my husband worked with a boxer lover who told us to take the pup to puppy class and if we still felt the same way after attending puppy class, she would take our boxer off our hands.
> Puppy class taught me the error of my ways! I thought I had a dumb dog, but in reality she had a dumb owner!!! I bonded with my girl in class and I'm a different dog owner now.


I purchased a dog from a "reputable, respected, ethical" breeder, shortly after all the puppies from this litter were placed the breeder was rehoming the mother to the litter. When I asked her why her response was "because she is "testy" with other dogs and I want to be able to keep more dogs in the house" WTF??!?!?!?! SERIOUSLY!?!?!?!?! Don't you think this information would have been good for puppy buyers to know BEFORE they shelled out $2500 for a dog? Yes I asked all the appropriate questions about health, temperament ect ect and I was lied too.



> Many behavioral issues stem from operator error, don't you think?


For the most part. However there is no doubt in my mind genetics play a part in it as well.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

I just want to clarify that "behavioral issues" is a very broad spectrum term that encompasses a lot. It depends a lot on who surrendered the dog and their description of why. There are SO many reasons dogs end up in shelters...all I'm saying is that irresponsible breeders shouldn't take all the heat or even most of it. Even responsible breeders who do extensive screening and have a thorough contract still have their puppies land in shelters/rescues because people are just plain  and don't care. 

If you want to blame anything for pet overpopulation it comes down to one thing only: BAD PEOPLE. End of story.


----------



## RachelsaurusRexU (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't understand where these figures come from either. The most common excuses we get at my shelter are moving, divorce, new baby, can't afford, and allergies. 

I help cross-post urgent dogs from an inner city shelter that one of my own dogs was adopted from. In that city, it's a true rarity for people to alter their dogs and everyone and their mother thinks it's a great idea to breed their pit bulls. As a result, the shelter ends up with dozens of pit bulls picked up roaming or abandoned in apartments, tied to fences, etc. every week. Very few of those dogs are claimed by owners, the rest have ten days to be adopted. 

Look at the south. It's a daily occurrence for entire litters of puppies to be euthanized because there are too many people who allow their dogs to roam around intact and think nothing of it, or intentionally breed their dogs because they think they're going to make a quick buck.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Yes, that makes sense. If I were to surrender a dog, I probably wouldn't want to say it was because it was ill-behaved.

However, it still doesn't exonerate breeders for producing so many dogs. 

My dog trainer quotes an interesting stat - 60% of people who adopt a puppy will surrender it. 80% of people who adopt an adult dog will surrender it.

Not sure where he gets those figures, but it does make sense that an older dog would have more behavioral issues.

I think the problem is we are talking about apples and oranges here. There are many reasons we have so many damaged and euthanized dogs.

Bad breeders (far and above the biggest, because they are producing the puppies)
Neglectful and lazy owners
Hoarders
Ignorant owners
Selfish and stupid owners

But, all things start at the source - the breeding of the puppies. you can't misbehave if you were never born.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

When I look at our Animal Control website (in indianapolis) 90% (at the very least) are pit bulls or pit bull mixes. So terribly sad. There is no way those dogs are getting adopted.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

DaneMama said:


> Even responsible breeders who do extensive screening and have a thorough contract still have their puppies land in shelters/rescues because people are just plain  and don't care.


Does this mean a breeders contract cannot be enforced? I thought most responsible breeders include clauses that state the pup is to be returned to them in the case of surrender?


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

maplewood said:


> For the most part. However there is no doubt in my mind genetics play a part in it as well.


I would have to agree with this.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I don't know about breeders, but rescues normally have that clause, and the ones I have worked with also state they know that contract can't be enforced. 

Now, you might be able to file a civil suit and get some kind of monetary damage, but if someone surrenders a dog to a shelter and gets it euthanized, there is not much anyone can do. And frankly, most breeders AND rescues don't track a dog through its whole life to make sure it's still where it's supposed to be.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

xellil said:


> And frankly, most breeders AND rescues don't track a dog through its whole life to make sure it's still where it's supposed to be.


Honestly, the boxer breeders I know lose sleep over placing their pups, and do indeed follow the life of the dog. I don't think I could breed knowing what they go through. My son thinks I would never adopt my grandpups out, I would keep them all.:biggrin:
Although, I visited a mastiff breeder who spent a lot of money on health screening and showing, but her dogs lived in kennels. She seemed more obsessed with the process than passionate about the dogs. I could be wrong, but it seemed that way to me. It was very depressing for me to see.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Remember, very few breeders are good breeders. once they get those $$, the dog is forgotten.

i have that problem with fosters. Cry for years over them, I always try to keep in touch with adoptive families and am currently hoping to get a dog back that went to the wrong family last year. It's one reason I can't foster very often, I so admire those folks who can let go emotionally.


----------



## DaneMama (Jun 27, 2008)

RaisingWolves said:


> Does this mean a breeders contract cannot be enforced? I thought most responsible breeders include clauses that state the pup is to be returned to them in the case of surrender?


It happens. And it depends on how much legal action the breeder is willing to go to protect/enforce their contract. I keep tabs on all the puppies Bailey had three years ago, but one of them went behind my back and rehomed the puppy. My contract clearly stated the puppy was to be returned to me if they were unable to keep him. She even contacted me and said they weren't sure about keeping him and then a week later rehomed him. I was lucky enough to get the contact information of the guy she rehomed him to who I'm now very close with. I could have sued her, but I didn't want to go through the hassle of that since I got the contact info on the pup. I wanted to but it wouldn't have been a smart financial move. I later found out that she not only rehomed him but sold him for MORE than what she paid for him from me! I was so angry!!! She just wanted to get her money back, which she wouldn't have if she brought him back to me. She sure ad me fooled. She and her whole family came by to visit the puppy numerous times before he was ready to go. I probably talked to her for 10+ hours before she commuted. All of her references checked out well. The only thing I didn't do was a homecheck, but honestly I don't know if that would have changed the situation. Let's just say is was a hard lesson learned :frown:


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

DaneMama, I think your situation is why many breeders lose sleep over placing their pups. At least you know your pup is safe. It sounds like your pup is better off, and it's great that you have a relationship with the new owner!:thumb:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

yes - why return what you can make a buck on?

I happened to end up with the AKC papers on my rescue Dobie (invalid of course) - he wouldn't fetch any money because he's bald and 7 years old, but if he were younger and had hair I might be able to sell him for more than I paid to the rescue.

I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's one reason (secondary to cost of care, of course) that rescues charge what they do - to lessen the possibility of a craigslist sale.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

DaneMama said:


> It happens. And it depends on how much legal action the breeder is willing to go to protect/enforce their contract. I keep tabs on all the puppies Bailey had three years ago, but one of them went behind my back and rehomed the puppy. My contract clearly stated the puppy was to be returned to me if they were unable to keep him. She even contacted me and said they weren't sure about keeping him and then a week later rehomed him. I was lucky enough to get the contact information of the guy she rehomed him to who I'm now very close with. I could have sued her, but I didn't want to go through the hassle of that since I got the contact info on the pup. I wanted to but it wouldn't have been a smart financial move. I later found out that she not only rehomed him but sold him for MORE than what she paid for him from me! I was so angry!!! She just wanted to get her money back, which she wouldn't have if she brought him back to me. She sure ad me fooled. She and her whole family came by to visit the puppy numerous times before he was ready to go. I probably talked to her for 10+ hours before she commuted. All of her references checked out well. The only thing I didn't do was a homecheck, but honestly I don't know if that would have changed the situation. Let's just say is was a hard lesson learned :frown:


Sad.... good thing that it was rehomed well..

I have been seeing this for well about 2 years with BT's which i've always loved so always watched etc... people will get them for 5-600 dollars on craigslist then try to resell them as champions etc for well over 1500$ usually they wind up abused or abandoned because of their personalities 

I've started doing home checks for a rescue in our area and so far i have seen a few homes and i have turned down 2 out of 3... it's really pathetic.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Even though rescues say they do home checks, some don't - especially if it's inconvenient. 

I didn't have a home check for one of my dogs. At the time, I was new to rescue and thought it was just because they had to know I was so special!! HAHA - turns out, they often give dogs to people without a home check. It's the main reason I don't support them any more.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

xellil said:


> yes - why return what you can make a buck on?
> 
> I happened to end up with the AKC papers on my rescue Dobie (invalid of course) - he wouldn't fetch any money because he's bald and 7 years old, but if he were younger and had hair I might be able to sell him for more than I paid to the rescue.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but I suspect it's one reason (secondary to cost of care, of course) that rescues charge what they do - to lessen the possibility of a craigslist sale.


I feel like the CL here might be worse than in other states- plus, Indiana tends to harbor a lot of ignorance. Chip's rescue typically charges 300$ for their adoption fees, and I personally know the amount of work and effort that goes into rehoming a dog because that was my job on the team. I'd scan through between 2 and 10 adoption forms and would usually only find 1- rarely 2- that would meet MY standards. Thorough vet check, three personal references, and the possible adopter would be talked to twice. There were literally about a hundred different ways someone could slip up on a form and ruin their chances, but the ones that did pass on both my end and the foster mom's end were owners of the best sort. We have contracts as well, but people seem to abide by them because we've had two dogs returned over the past 6 months and the rest of the families are encouraged to post pictures of their new family members on our Facebook, which they often do. I think people may return dogs adopted from rescues more readily because they are not single people/families, and they are legal "organizations". Just a thought, though...that might not have anything to do with it at all.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

On the flip side....some rescues have ridiculous expectations! I've worked for rescue myself and some rescues shoot themselves in the foot so to speak because their adoption guidelines are insane! 
We have a friend that lost their 12 year old boxer (to old age), have owned boxers their entire life, and was turned down by local boxer rescue. The only reason we can think of why they were declined was the applicant's age. Who knows! They did adopt a boxer mix from stray rescue. 
There was a post on the boxer forum from a home checker who approved the home, but the foster mom wouldn't approve because she was uncomfortable with the applicant's questions. The volunteer quit doing home checks.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

RaisingWolves said:


> On the flip side....some rescues have ridiculous expectations! I've worked for rescue myself and some rescues shoot themselves in the foot so to speak because their adoption guidelines are insane!
> We have a friend that lost their 12 year old boxer (to old age), have owned boxers their entire life, and was turned down by local boxer rescue. The only reason we can think of why they were declined was the applicant's age. Who knows! They did adopt a boxer mix from stray rescue.
> There was a post on the boxer forum from a home checker who approved the home, but the foster mom wouldn't approve because she was uncomfortable with the applicant's questions. The volunteer quit doing home checks.


I do agree with you there, definitely. If we weren't successfully adopting out at least two or three dogs a week, I'd really be concerned...but as it stands, things are going well, so I still help volunteer. 

My friend (who actually owns Chip's girlfriend) adopted her australian shepherd/husky mix, Skimo, through CL about a year and a half ago and treats her very well. She has a large fenced-in yard, tons of toys and treats, tons of time to devote to her, etc. She wanted to adopt a strikingly similar-looking dog through a rescue, and I helped her fill out the adoption form and everything. We waited a week, and when they hadn't contacted us yet, I called for her. They told me she had been declined because her mother's (she isn't even hers) single completely indoor cat (she's...13?) isn't UTD with her vaccines this year. That was a huge loss not only for the rescue, but also for the dog she had been wanting to adopt. That rescue was a facility vs. someone's home, so she was kept in a cage most of the time, just like at a shelter. It was very sad. She did adopt an adorable chow/shep mix from the humane society, though.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I agree - that's a big reason alot of people won't go to rescues. 

But when I got my dog, the ONLY reference they checked was my vet. No calls to my personal references, no home visit.

I could easily have had 50 cats in the basement and three dogs chained to a tree in the back yard, and I would have been allowed to adopt. Oh - they said they googled my house and it looked ok from the satellite view. Well, that's a clincher!

There's gotta be a better way. Don't be adopting dogs out if you can't do the home checks, and don't be losing out to good people because you are too picky.


----------



## martye (Mar 9, 2011)

I did a lot of work for the Golden Retriever rescue in No.Va. in the 90's. 
we picked up a large number of dogs that the owners just couldn't afford
anymore, and I suspect we're seeing a lot of that now. Has little or nothing to
do with breeders, or with buyers.
I don't think every breeder is bad, heck I dont think that most breeders are
bad or only in it for a buck. I'm more concerned with casual breeders
("we wanted little johnny to see the miracle of life"), or Oops litters that
end up being sold off craigslist or the back of a pickup in front of Walmart.
Marty


----------



## MollyWoppy (Mar 19, 2010)

I agree too, look at potential adopters with an open mind. From what I read, I would probably be turned down for a cattle dog rescue because I don't have a fenced yard. I hope in the future, the rescue group I apply to will take into account that my current ACD x is, I'd hazard to bet, the most exercised, brain tired dog in this town, fence or no fence. I will always adopt, but I'm prepared to be pretty vocal if I am turned down for a high energy breed because someone judges me on face value and doesn't take into consideration the life style I am prepared to offer a dog like that.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

MollyWoppy said:


> I agree too, look at potential adopters with an open mind. From what I read, I would probably be turned down for a cattle dog rescue because I don't have a fenced yard. I hope in the future, the rescue group I apply to will take into account that my current ACD x is, I'd hazard to bet, the most exercised, brain tired dog in this town, fence or no fence. I will always adopt, but I'm prepared to be pretty vocal if I am turned down for a high energy breed because someone judges me on face value and doesn't take into consideration the life style I am prepared to offer a dog like that.


My chief complaint about rescues- mandatory fencing! Really?! Boxers are indoor dogs...yes they require adequate exercise but not the kind you get from a typical fenced in backyard. I can't tell you how many dogs I see left in a fenced yard away from the family. Out of sight, out of mind. 
Funny, I didn't have a fenced yard with my first boxer. I had to take her out on lead for every bathroom break. When we did install fencing, she wouldn't go in the yard unless I was with her. 
To this day, I supervise my fur kids in the backyard.

What about fence jumpers? You can't leave a jumper in a backyard unsupervised.


----------



## Tobi (Mar 18, 2011)

RaisingWolves said:


> My chief complaint about rescues- mandatory fencing! Really?! Boxers are indoor dogs...yes they require adequate exercise but not the kind you get from a typical fenced in backyard. I can't tell you how many dogs I see left in a fenced yard away from the family. Out of sight, out of mind.
> Funny, I didn't have a fenced yard with my first boxer. I had to take her out on lead for every bathroom break. When we did install fencing, she wouldn't go in the yard unless I was with her.
> To this day, I supervise my fur kids in the backyard.
> 
> What about fence jumpers? You can't leave a jumper in a backyard unsupervised.


Ya this ideal is ridiculous, we've been turned down because of no fence for fostering a dog... of all things it was a jack Russel mix, they said that because of the high energy of the terriers they need a fenced yard... but somehow i manage a 50lb Jack equivalent :lol:

Every dog i have owned has been an indoor dog, they may like to hang out outside, (Tobi sunbathes on the porch ON LEAD) but i'm always peering out the window watching, we don't have a fenced yard and we probably won't ever will... another thing is just like you said.. fence jumpers, even with a 6ft fence they can still be scaled, i've seen it.


----------



## Liz (Sep 27, 2010)

Wow, I am kinda of afraid to admit I breed my shelties and Collies. I have 4 collies and 2 shelties. They are all fed raw, minimal if any vaccination, holistically treated and they are all housepets. Most of the day there are 5 dogs in my house and 3 playing outside. Everyone can come in whenever they want - although living in Washington whenever we have anice day everyone get thrown out (LOL) to play in the sun. My dogs have a covered run for nasty days, the whole yard for decent to nice days and my house. They go on errands with me and are mascots for our church bus ministry. We are showing in AKC, but also in UKC which is more family friendly. The title proves they are bred to stadard, they are health tested and temperment tested. A collie or sheltie who cannot work is not worth breeding. I am in touch with all my puppy buyers and petsit many of my pups when their owners need to travel. My family's life revolves around our church ministry and our dogs. 
People expect to much of AKC - they are only a registry. The breed clubs are where the breed clubs are where the standards should be enforced. My club has very high standards. My dogs being loved is the foremost goal. My pups are placed where they are adored. My dogs stay with me until death do us part. I generall breed my collies every 3-5 years and the shelties the samee in between that. Last sheltie litter was in 2007 - one is hopefully one the way for June. My last collie litter was in November , 3 years after the last one. The owner of the stud and I have kept 3 out of the 7 pups and others in homes where they can work and be loved. The people who purchase my pups would not be buying from a pound, shelter or rescue. They know exactly what they want and they want the whole history of their pup. I have trained dogs for many years and understand people not wanting to start off with dogs that have issues. This doesn't make them bad people. That being said I am also available to rescue and place any collie or sheltie in this area. The ones we have taken in have been vet check, temperment tested, and had basic training so that tehy could integrate into their new homes better. They are treated as my own and followed up on with care. 
There are some very bad breeders - I don't think dogs should live in kennels or that you should have more dogs than you can care for. There are irresponsible pepole breeding their pets for profit and they are probably the largest part if the problem. I do know of quite a few very good breeders who genuinely care for their dogs and do an excellent job of educating people about their breed. It is tiresome to hear all the breeder bashing - not all of us are out for the money.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

On the other hand, we did return a dog to a rescue a few months ago - I saw a dog on petfinder I was really interested in, and asked if they could bring him to their weekly PetSmart adoptions - no. I asked if I could visit him at his foster - no. I asked how on earth I could meet the dog, and they said I had to take him on a two day trial. 

Reluctantly, I agreed because he did seem like a good fit. He wasn't. I'm not sure I would have been able to tell that with a 10 minute visit at PetSmart, but I kinda think I would have. Luckily, he was adopted three weeks later but that whole experience left a bad taste in my mouth, because a) I was a failure for not keeping him, and b) I felt pressured to adopt. 

When I returned him to the foster, she had taken in 3 puppies the day they dropped him off with me becasue she thought "he was gone for good" and then I got THAT guilt also.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

Tobi said:


> ... another thing is just like you said.. fence jumpers, even with a 6ft fence they can still be scaled, i've seen it.


Boxers have springs in their feet (and some in their brain:biggrin, they are pretty much spring loaded!
My girl could jump the length of our couch- completely airborne. She was amazingly athletic!


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

xellil said:


> On the other hand, we did return a dog to a rescue a few months ago - I saw a dog on petfinder I was really interested in, and asked if they could bring him to their weekly PetSmart adoptions - no. I asked if I could visit him at his foster - no. I asked how on earth I could meet the dog, and they said I had to take him on a two day trial.
> 
> Reluctantly, I agreed because he did seem like a good fit. He wasn't. I'm not sure I would have been able to tell that with a 10 minute visit at PetSmart, but I kinda think I would have. Luckily, he was adopted three weeks later but that whole experience left a bad taste in my mouth, because a) I was a failure for not keeping him, and b) I felt pressured to adopt.
> 
> When I returned him to the foster, she had taken in 3 puppies the day they dropped him off with me becasue she thought "he was gone for good" and then I got THAT guilt also.



We returned a great dane puppy to the breeder after a few weeks (it broke my heart), but she had a very bad genetic heart condition. Our vet and a few of my boxer breeder aquaintences advised us to return her. I sometimes second guess our decision. The breeder offered us another dog, but I couldn't do it. I was too heart broken and during the conversations about the heart condition, the breeder admitted to having another pup with hip dysplasia.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I will admit it - I am very uncomfortable talking about breeding dogs. It's never been in my universe - I understand there are good breeders. I also know they are few and far between. 

My world has always been saving dogs that came about as a result of indiscriminate and reckless breeding, whether by people who do it for money or Billy Bob up the road with two cur dogs.

So, even though I understand intellectually, because I know if someone were to say "all rescues are bad" I would be ticked because I know that's not true, just like people know every single breeder in the world is not bad.

On the other hand, MOST rescues are good. Most breeders are not. There are a very few people who do it right. So I apologize, but honestly, for the vast majority of people, breeding dogs is not good. It's just not. There is no defense to what is happening to the animals in this country.

And there is no comparison with someone who breeds a litter every five years to someone who breeds to make money.

Perhaps it should not be "reputable" vs. "BYB" - perhaps it should be "breeder for love" vs. "breeder for cash."


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

RaisingWolves said:


> We returned a great dane puppy to the breeder after a few weeks (it broke my heart), but she had a very bad genetic heart condition. Our vet and a few of my boxer breeder aquaintences advised us to return her. I sometimes second guess our decision. The breeder offered us another dog, but I couldn't do it. I was too heart broken and during the conversations about the heart condition, the breeder admitted to having another pup with hip dysplasia.


That is just so sad. I have owned one Great Dane in my life, tossed by a "breeder." That poor dog had so many ailments I can't even begin to list them. He died very young, before he was three. He was also, it seemed to me, mentally retarded. He could never even learn his own name. His name was Toby, and I still wish I had gone back with a shotgun to that person's house .... no, no no. , can't think that way.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

It is very sad. The heart condition our dane had required heart surgery. My vet said she would most likely not live past 6 months old.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

RaisingWolves said:


> It is very sad. The heart condition our dane had required heart surgery. My vet said she would most likely not live past 6 months old.


That's just awful.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

xellil said:


> I will admit it - I am very uncomfortable talking about breeding dogs. It's never been in my universe - I understand there are good breeders. I also know they are few and far between.
> 
> My world has always been saving dogs that came about as a result of indiscriminate and reckless breeding, whether by people who do it for money or Billy Bob up the road with two cur dogs.
> 
> ...


I agree with 99% of this post, LOL.

On the fencing issue- I didn't even know rescues would make that mandatory. Wow. I know tons of people without fenced-in yards who still have well-exercised dogs. I know our rescue turns their noses up at invisible/underground fences AND doggie doors, both of which I understand entirely and neither of which I agree with, unless the doggie door can be locked in some way when you're not home. I just know when I was younger my dad thought it'd be fun to get a lab x border collie mix (not fun.) puppy and then install an invisible fence- he knew what it was and where its boundaries were, but that pup would close his eyes and barrel through the fence, screaming the whole way. Our neighbors had an invisible fence their spaniel and bichon would escape all the time, and then they couldn't get back in because they didn't want to get shocked a second time. And with all of the dogknapping going on, I woudn't dare let Chip roam around outside via a doggie door when I'm not home. 

Of course, Chip knows hand signals way better than commands so he wouldn't be listening to anyone, and starts screaming if he even THINKS something MAY be hurting him, so I feel like he'd be returned pretty quickly


----------



## eternalstudent (Jul 22, 2010)

I agree that most breeders are money grabbers rather than breeding for the benefit of the species.

But.

Not one rescue would allow me to have a rotti. I have to admit it was probably right of them to not let me have one!!

My pup is my first ever dog, neither me nor my partner have ever had dogs before, chirst I never had a pet before let alone a (potentially) 100 lb dog. Being that I had my heart set on a rotti I then had no choice but to look at breeders.

And I met my fair share of BYB's. The first I went to basically was looking to make 2K as fast as possible, she was selling the pups to anyone that came to her door. It was only really at that point I found out what a BYB is (incidentally she was in a flat and at 12 weeks the pups had never seen day light). Do I wish I had taken the pup. Hell yea. But I would have had to pay for it at which point she would have got what she wanted. I would have got a dog that may have turned out to be the best pet in the world but if there had been a problem I would have been so far up the creek having never held a paddle I would have been lost.

After that experience I went off sought guidance from people more experienced than me was put in the direction of accreditation schemes and 6 months later got my pup.

My fingers are now crossed that I will continue to keep her right.

I am wanting a second rotti in the house and again I will go for a pup. Why - again if I get a rescue with issues I am not the one to be sorting them.

i think anyone who takes in fosters (my neighbour for instance) are fantastic people and those that can rehabilitate rescues are in a league of their own. One that I hope one day I might consider myself a good enough dog owner to try and join. 

But for now I need a good breeder who I have trust in and who will support me through the first few years of dogie parenthood. 

Thankfully they are out there ;-)


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

xellil said:


> That's just awful.


yup....no health screening. It didn't stop her from breeding though.:frown:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Just FYI, most rescues give tremendous support after the fact, every good rescue encourages it. And rescues DO have puppies, although there is often a waiting list.

Although if they won't give you a dog in the first place, you don't have that opportunity. I can understand a rescue being reluctant to give a first time dog owner a Rotti - they are alot of dog. However, everyone has to start somewhere and I don't believe you have to start with a small dog to learn how to do it right. My dachshund is the first small dog I have owned in my life, and I am old. In alot of ways, the big dogs are so much easier. 

It's all the person - and I think some people are born to be dog owners, and some aren't. And if you are born to love dogs you will do right by your dog, no matter how big it is. Rescues lose out on good owners by saying it's ALWAYS this way or that way.


----------



## Pompey (Apr 14, 2011)

xellil said:


> just to be devil's advocate - what would be so bad about some breeds dying out?
> 
> Some genetic flaws have become part of the breed's exterior looks - flat-faced dogs that have all kinds of breathing issues, dogs like my dachshund with long backs that cause spinal problems.



It's perfectly fine to say allow such and such breed to die out until it's your own breed someone is exaggerating flaws about. Health issues come from genetics and to degree, improper breeding. Even the most careful breeders will produce pups with major health problems, which refers back to the genetics aspect, and since all living things are comprised of genes and all genes carry with them flaws, you have to eliminate those living things outright to be rid of genetic disease. 

In the case of brachycephalic breeds like bulldogs, instead of wiping out the breed altogether, why not make changes to the breeding practices that will allow the dogs to breathe naturally? You mentioned long backs were associated with genetic disc problems. That's inaccurate. Length of back is not a determinate in spinal problems such as disc disease, which also afflicts my breed left & right. I've had four dogs affected with it over the years - the one I have now is the shortest backed Beagle I have ever owned. She's had the issue since around a year old, and at 5yrs it's starting to affect her ease of movement. Meanwhile, the worst and most obvious fault of my 8yo foundation bitch is her overly long back. It's looooong. Out of proportion long. Cringe worthy long. Spinal probs? Nope. Do any of her get, the youngest of whom are 2ys now, have any spinal issues? Nope. 

In at least 3 of the 4 dogs I've had with intervertebral disc disease (the same offender of back problems in doxies) have traced back to one common ancestor in a kennel that was severely overusing inbreeding in the 1960s. I can predict with accuracy which dogs will be affected with or produce spinal issues by a look at a 4-5 generation pedigree, studying which of those dogs listed are from kennels that branched off from that original problem bloodline. I have eliminated the occurrence of intervertebral disc disease in my dogs using this method. I also stay far away from a frequently used sire in my breed who I know has produced that issue, and so far, that has kept it out of my show lines as well as field. Dogs in question all had varying lengths of back, but most were normal length, nothing exaggerated. Disc disease is an erosion of the cartilage and also seems to be similar to patellar luxation in it being a musculoskeletal problem. Loose muscle + eroded cartilage + swelling = slipped disc. 




> They were originally bred for a purpose - dachshunds to hunt underground, for example. Does anyone catch badgers with a dachshund these days? Nope - and standard size doxies are few and far between - the preferred smaller ones could never kill a badger. So why not breed them for size (because that's what people want) and temperament, and forget about how long their backs are, or how short their legs?



The ingrained temperament, intelligence and activity level of a dog is dictated by the work it once was used for. This is what gives us different breed characteristics and separates a GSD temperament from a Daschund. Beagles are a bad example because they_ are_ still being used for their original work, but I have met show kennels who breed for absolutely nothing but the show ring/pet dogs who have lost aspects of the breed's innate character. 




> Which is why it is horrible to take a dog like that, put it in an apartment or a back yard, and not let them use the energy God (or breeding) gave them to run all day. i doubt there are many blue heelers whose owners truly give them all that they need.



Another misconception, and one I see all the time in my breed. There was (still is) a "theory" amongst hunters that taking a beagle in the house and making a pet out of it ruins the dog for hunting OR will somehow break the dog's spirit because it was bred to hunt and lives for nothing else. Or that the owner will not be able to deal with the energy, etc. Not true, any of it. A well bred working dog can find other outlets for stimulation - most of mien were bred to hunt and no longer do so after years of having been gunned over. They're fine. They get their exercise elsewhere and are busy making dents in my couch now. I have sold pups bred out of hunting parents to moderately active families, and those dogs never had any issues because of it. A romp on the beach or a romp chasing a hare, either way, it's all fine. 




> It's all about the looks, with the AKC. The other stuff is peripheral. If you have a dog whose a half inch shorter than the "standard" - forget about getting anywhere with the AKC, no matter how well that dog does what he was bred to do, no matter how healthy, how good-natured, how perfect in every way.



Most people who mention this don't realize that AKC actively inspects breeders who breed four or more litters per year, which is not a very large volume, either. Many breeders go to other registries because the AKC's inspection standards are high, and want impeccable paperwork. They also have DNA testing on frequently used sires, which is the only registry that makes this mandatory. And last but not least, the AKC Canine Health Foundation is one of the largest, if not the largest support of research on canine genetic diseases.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

Liz said:


> Wow, I am kinda of afraid to admit I breed my shelties and Collies. I have 4 collies and 2 shelties. They are all fed raw, minimal if any vaccination, holistically treated and they are all housepets. Most of the day there are 5 dogs in my house and 3 playing outside. Everyone can come in whenever they want - although living in Washington whenever we have anice day everyone get thrown out (LOL) to play in the sun. My dogs have a covered run for nasty days, the whole yard for decent to nice days and my house. They go on errands with me and are mascots for our church bus ministry. We are showing in AKC, but also in UKC which is more family friendly. The title proves they are bred to stadard, they are health tested and temperment tested. A collie or sheltie who cannot work is not worth breeding. I am in touch with all my puppy buyers and petsit many of my pups when their owners need to travel. My family's life revolves around our church ministry and our dogs.
> People expect to much of AKC - they are only a registry. The breed clubs are where the breed clubs are where the standards should be enforced. My club has very high standards. My dogs being loved is the foremost goal. My pups are placed where they are adored. My dogs stay with me until death do us part. I generall breed my collies every 3-5 years and the shelties the samee in between that. Last sheltie litter was in 2007 - one is hopefully one the way for June. My last collie litter was in November , 3 years after the last one. The owner of the stud and I have kept 3 out of the 7 pups and others in homes where they can work and be loved. The people who purchase my pups would not be buying from a pound, shelter or rescue. They know exactly what they want and they want the whole history of their pup. I have trained dogs for many years and understand people not wanting to start off with dogs that have issues. This doesn't make them bad people. That being said I am also available to rescue and place any collie or sheltie in this area. The ones we have taken in have been vet check, temperment tested, and had basic training so that tehy could integrate into their new homes better. They are treated as my own and followed up on with care.
> There are some very bad breeders - I don't think dogs should live in kennels or that you should have more dogs than you can care for. There are irresponsible pepole breeding their pets for profit and they are probably the largest part if the problem. I do know of quite a few very good breeders who genuinely care for their dogs and do an excellent job of educating people about their breed. It is tiresome to hear all the breeder bashing - not all of us are out for the money.


It is nice to hear about breeders like you. :smile:


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Pompey - how many breeders go back, like you did, and try to breed OUT the flaws? Almost none. I have decided there should be two different names. Maybe breed-advocates vs. breeders. I am learning alot here, but you have to remember, almost no one does that, and they are the huge problem. I am sure there are no Amish puppy mill owners, spitting out 700 dogs a year, worrying about what happened in the 60s.

And I didn't mean to say blue heelers should be out herding cows - I meant to say they should be out getting exercise - running, being mentally challenged etc. How many owners do that? That's my biggest peeve with pet owners - they think running in the back yard is plenty. And it's the exact reason I don't own that kind of dog - I own the kind of dog I can properly stimulate and exercise.

I stand corrected on the long spine thing, I DID think it was the actual length of the spine that causes the problems, and I certainly believe you know more about it than I do.

Oh, i am aware of AKC inspections. I am not so impressed, that's not exctly a stamp of excellence.


----------



## martye (Mar 9, 2011)

I don't know, I have to believe that there are more than 'almost none' when one looks at responsible
breeders. I know of at least a dozen very involved breeders of various breeds in the Dallas area, and 
I'm pretty sure I don't know 1/100th of the breeders here. Yes there are puppy mills (Oklahoma has 
it's share), yes there are back yard breeders in it only for a buck, and there are the Oops litters but
they are not the entirety of dog breeders. 
personally I don't see the situation as being nearly as grim as y'all are painting it.


----------



## bumblegoat (May 12, 2010)

This thread makes me appreciate the kennel club here. The Swedish Kennel Club (SKK) actually requires some breeds to pass health tests if you want to breed them and register the offspring. Breeds prone to hip dysplasia have to pass a test or in some cases at least have an x-ray done (that way their results will be registered). Some breeds are tested for luxating patella, some have to pass eye tests etcetera.

Some breeds even have to go through a temperament test, where the temperament is described.

Most tests, trial/show results are avaliable to anyone, since all registered dogs' pedigrees can be found online.

Some working breeds must have some sort of working title to earn a CH title in the show ring.

One breed is particular is very interesting; the border collie. They can not be shown at all in national dog shows in Sweden (they can however be shown in international shows). Plus, to register a litter of border collie puppies in SKK, the parents must pass a basic herding trial. This means that we basically only have border collies bred for herding, besides the occasional imported show dog.

So, I just want to say, that this CAN be done. SKK could absolutely make some improvements, I wish all these tests were done for even more breeds. I have to say though, that Sweden has the advantage of being a very small country in this situation. If some breeders are unhappy with whatever the SKK decides, it isn't easy to get enough breeders to start their own kennel club or switch clubs. That would be a lot easier in the US, so I'm sure the AKC must keep that in mind. They don't want to lose their members.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

martye said:


> I don't know, I have to believe that there are more than 'almost none' when one looks at responsible
> breeders. I know of at least a dozen very involved breeders of various breeds in the Dallas area, and
> I'm pretty sure I don't know 1/100th of the breeders here. Yes there are puppy mills (Oklahoma has it's
> share), yes there are back yard breeders in it only for a buck, and there are the Oops litters but
> ...


I don't mean to be offensive, but that is the attitude that perpetuates the problem. Where do you think the millions of dogs that get euthanized every year come from? I know it's hard to imagine millions of dogs - somewhere between 4-7 is the estimate. Visit one kill shelter and see how they die. Then imagine that happening in hundreds of thousands of shelters every day of the year. It is mind-boggling. 

It IS as bad, and worse, than anyone can imagine.

I am from the Dallas area. in fact, I am currently trying to get a hoarder in Nocona arrested (again). I lived near Denton for many years, still own land and a house near Sanger, and plan to move back some day.

Want to know how I got most of my dogs? From people dumping them in the country. Mixed breeds, purebreds, you name it. I can't imagine you think there is not a big problem down there. It is one of the WORST states. Two years ago in Montague County a puppy mill was shut down, and about 350 starving and neglected dogs were seized. It's right at your back door.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

bumblegoat said:


> This thread makes me appreciate the kennel club here. The Swedish Kennel Club (SKK) actually requires some breeds to pass health tests if you want to breed them and register the offspring. Breeds prone to hip dysplasia have to pass a test or in some cases at least have an x-ray done (that way their results will be registered). Some breeds are tested for luxating patella, some have to pass eye tests etcetera.
> 
> Some breeds even have to go through a temperament test, where the temperament is described.
> 
> ...


Europe is so much better than the US when it comes to dogs. I know Dobies can't be shown with cropped ears and tail - because that's the humane way to treat a dog, regardless whether they look better with cropped ears. Kudos to your club, and your country.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

I hope this doesn't get lost amongst the non-raw talk, but here's a positive result from the previous thread in the OP :-D

Doxie Spot - View topic - Feeding dogs pork... okay or not??


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

That's good - and just as another back-to-the thread, they are talking about pork - I have heard for many years that dogs have a hard time digesting pork.


----------



## RaisingWolves (Mar 19, 2011)

I feed pork with no problems.

It's good to see a few raw converts Molly!:thumb:


----------



## Grandiose (Apr 2, 2011)

Some of the opinions of "breeders" on this thread make me want to vomit. 

I work my rear off to be reputable, ethical, breed healthy, sound, well tempered dogs. I sit up nights crying over puppies, stressing over sick dogs, worrying about health testing results coming back. Put blood, sweat and tears into every dog in my home, spend countless hours worrying about matching each puppy with the perfect home for them. I send emails, cards, letters...make phone calls, request pictures...offer "rebates" for spaying/neutering, for puppy classes, for obedience classes, for titles earned. Anything to get my puppies out and about and to have them be positive influences on society and the center of their families worlds.
The last litter I had born here (that *I* bred) will be 4 in June. I can tell you exactly where all three boys are (there were only 3 in the litter), I PERSONALLY paid for their health testing when they turned two, I took them everywhere, I did everything I possibly could, I made sure they were the happiest, healthiest puppies in the world when they left here. And it showed. It still shows to this day. Never mind the fact that I maybe got 10 hours of sleep a week for almost 12 weeks. Nevermind the fact that I spent well over $5000 from the time of breeding to when the puppies left, and didnt even recoup 1/5th of that. No, I did it all because I LOVE my breed, I LOVE my dogs, and I bred that litter for ME. Not to sell puppies, not to put puppies in pet homes, or make money, or whatever else you guys have said to trash "breeders"...I did it for the love of my breed, and because I believed that the pairing would better the breed. The second litter I bred, was in name only as it was whelped at my co-breeders house. 8 puppies, and I can personally tell you exactly where all 8 of them are. I have constant contact with 6 of the 8 owners. (and again, this is an in-name breeding because I co-own the dam....) Every single one will be health tested at 2 years, even if, yet again, the funds to do so come from my own pocket. All but the 4 that we deemed "show potential" are spayed/neutered and center-of-the-family pets. I love nothing more than to get messages about how wonderful the puppy is and how they love having it as part of their family. 
Before I will make ANY breeding arrangements for a female, she will be at least pointed in the show ring (sorry, but in my breed, it can take years to finish since we havent had a major-entry in Pointers in this area in 3 years....and the nearest shows that *sometimes* have majors are 10 to 12 hours away. Cant always travel that far just to show!), COMPLETLY health tested (in my breed, most only do hips and call it good. I will do hips, elbows, eyes, thyroid and hearing testing for every breeding female in my home), and have a sound temperment. I make stud selections based on very similar criteria. I would rather keep every puppy in a litter than place one single puppy in a home that is not the right match, so I am very selective about who gets one of my babies. If a home EVER does not want the puppy, cant care for it, something changes, the color doesnt match the sofa any longer, WHATEVER the reason, I will take it back, at my expense, no questions asked. 
To lump ALL "breeders" in the same catagory - or even in just two catagories - is doing breeders who are honest, ethical, and reputable, a GIGANTIC disservice. Its just plain rude, and shows a BLATENT ignorance for what really goes into (or doesnt go into) dog breeding. I can list HUNDREDS of breeders who follow the same ethical guidelines that I do, that I PERSONALLY know. And thats just the very tip of the iceburg.
Yes, there are bad breeders. Yes, there are puppy mills. But more so than that, there are BAD OWNERS. I want to cry every time I hear "I'm moving, I cant keep my dog."...My husband is military, and every summer (we call it PCS season) when Soldiers start moving, they start dumping their dogs. Why pay $200 to ship the dog with them when they can just get a new puppy on the other end? Fido too old? Dump him at the shelter (or not! Why not just dump him on a back road somewhere and not have to get the guilt trip!) Cant afford the $600 heartworm treatment because you opted to not use any type of preventative? Dump the dog at the shelter. Didnt spring for the $100 for Princess to get spayed and now shes pregnant? Dump her at the shelter. THAT is the American mentality. And its HORRIBLE. Its not BREEDERS filling the shelters with unwanted dogs, its OWNERS filling the shelters with the problems they created and now dont want to have to clean up after. 

Go to my website....look under the "foster pointers" tab. Read the story of Ruby and Jewels. The side note on that story that I will not publish on my website is that Pointer Rescue contacted their breeder - and he laughed and said "well, they are your problem now!" 

Funny thing is, 99.8% of all Pointers pulled from the shelters in a year are "field bred" Pointers bred to "do the job the breed was designed for." Their breeders refuse to be responsible for them, if they can even be tracked down. They dont health test. They dont care about soundness, or temperment. Just how well a dog hunts. "Bob finds 10 birds every day in the field, and Sally finds 8...they are the best two hunters in the kennel so they MUST be bred." And some of you say "show breeders" are the evil ones........

As for "breeders" fostering rescue dogs...I saw a few people respond to say its a very grey area because of pack dynamics. And I echo that. It is HARD to bring foster dogs out of the pound into a home. You have no idea what the true temperment of the dog is. I have a male Doberman, so I can not bring any adult males into my house for risk of disrupting the harmony and pushing him over the edge. We are on eggshells some days as it is with the two boys in the house. So I cant help male Pointers in my area, although there have been many of them. All I can do is offer money to Pointer Rescue to help pay their expenses. Females are another story...adding a bitch with an alpha personality into a household with a resident alpha bitch is asking for trouble. I have to be VERY careful of the dogs I introduce to my crew. I have a great pack dynamic, but one wrong personality can upset it completly. Not to mention the risk of disease that you introduce. If you bring in a foster dog and you only have one or two dogs in your house, and they get sick, no big deal...your vet bills are cheap and the time invested is minimal. Add in a foster dog to a pack of 6 already, and they all get sick...and suddenly you are spending 30 hours a day taking care of and cleaning up after sick dogs, your vet bills just went higher than your mortgage, and its not a situation anyone wants to be in. We got hit with a round of kennel cough last fall....and 8 sick dogs was a nightmare!! I had two clients dogs in the house at the time that were being shown, and I was a walking zombie after the 2 weeks it took everyone to recover. 
It becomes harder for me personally to foster when we hit the main show season around here because we are gone so often. My dog sitter charges per dog, and its not always feasable to take them all with me, so that becomes added expense in hiring someone to watch after a dog thats in foster at my house. Its easier for me for most of the year to just send money to rescue and contribute in other ways. I can transport dogs (and do transport dogs) anytime, but you want to knock me because I dont have foster dogs in the house?


I'm done rambling....and I'm done defending "breeders". All I really wanted to say is its increadibly wrong to lump all breeders into the same catagory, regardless of what you call them. And I really hate seeing breeder bashing. 


To the OP, sorry to hijack.


----------



## Jgk2383 (Oct 27, 2010)

I couldnt agree more with Jessica above me.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

to quote Shakespeare, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

I don't want to vomit. I want to cry, at people who expect some kind of blanket approbation for all the breeders in the world, who are obviously wonderful. i want to cry for all the dogs, and I do - often. 

If you don't fit the shoe, then don't put it on and wear it downtown. I can't believe how people defend the horrible breeders in this world, by saying "I'm not one of them" If you're not, then don't worry about what names they are being called.


----------



## Mokapi (Apr 7, 2011)

xellil said:


> to quote Shakespeare, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."
> 
> I don't want to vomit. I want to cry, at people who expect some kind of blanket approbation for all the breeders in the world, who are obviously wonderful. i want to cry for all the dogs, and I do - often.
> 
> *If you don't fit the shoe, then don't put it on and wear it downtown. I can't believe how people defend the horrible breeders in this world, by saying "I'm not one of them" If you're not, then don't worry about what names they are being called.*


LMAO...exactly. It's fine opinions like mine about breeders want to make you vomit, but if everyone blindly accepted breeders as being the best thing possible for dogs, then the issue would be even worse. Also, breeders are just as responsible for dogs winding up in shelters as the owners that put them there. And just because the people who admitted to breeding on this thread all seem to be decent does NOT mean this is the norm. This is a dog nutrition forum- I EXPECT the people that are here to be ethical, responsible...whatever adjective you're demanding.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

I hope you guys are keeping up with the second thread (regarding pork) - Doxie Spot - View topic - Feeding dogs pork... okay or not??


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

This is a site I send to people I talk to at work, friends, etc., who think they want to go to a pet store or breeder to get a dog. 
Red-Flagging a Dog Breeder

Signs of a bad breeder. I post this only because, if someone is reading this and considering buying a dog, all breeders are NOT created equal. The vast majority will have some of the following issues that should tell you to run the other way. REgardless of what is posted here, these are the vast, vast majority of breeders. If that wasn't so, we wouldn't be having to kill so many millions of dogs every year.

* He won't let you see the puppy's parents (the father may not always on site, this is normal).
* He won't let you see his breeding facility.
* He can not produce registration papers for the parents.
* He does not have the registration papers for the current litter of puppies.
* He has no pedigrees on either of the parents.
* None of his puppies come with guarrantees.
* None of his dogs have been checked for genetic diseases.
* None of his dogs have been OFA'd.
* None of his dogs have been CERFed.
* He does not want to know if anything has happened to your dog (that came from him).
* He breeds a lot of unrecognized breeds - Cock-a-poos, Spoodles, Labradoodles and the like.
* No veterinary health checks of the puppies from birth.
* No mandatory spaying/neutering of pet quality animals.
* No mandatory vaccinations (at least basic ones), no de-worming.
* Breeding solely for "pet quality" means breeding for money - not for the betterment of anything.
* Does not breed to better the overall conformation or working style of the breed.
* Does not know the history of his chosen breed.
* His dogs appear to be in ill-health.
* He always has puppies for sale, sometimes two or three litters at a time.
* Does not have veterinary records for at least the mother on hand.
* His dogs have no titles, either showing, working, or sports, whatever the animals are being bred for.
* He won't give references from owners of pups from previous litters.
* He doesn't ask any questions about the environment you offer the pup, just wants to see the cheque (and prefers cash).
* The puppies are ready to go before they should be (under eight weeks of age). Advertises "rare" colors, sizes, etc (such as "rare" white Dobermans, or Great Danes, "king-sized" German Shepherds, etc.)
* Advertises or sells their pups for greatly reduced prices
* . Sells to pet stores, puppy brokers, wholesalers, etc.
* Breeds before the age of two.

And to the breeders - if this isn't you, then don't assume you are being accused of it.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

hcdoxies said:


> I hope you guys are keeping up with the second thread (regarding pork) - Doxie Spot - View topic - Feeding dogs pork... okay or not??


Yes I am!! I am actually just browsing around to find out more about Sandra Scarr.

She breeds Labradoodles. Sigh.


----------



## hcdoxies (Sep 22, 2010)

xellil said:


> Yes I am!! I am actually just browsing around to find out more about Sandra Scarr.
> 
> She breeds Labradoodles. Sigh.


LOL! Yeah, but, but... that's not the point of this thread!


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

Your vet list website is interesting. There are none listed in Indy - my vet is encouraging me to do the raw diet even though i don't think she's a holistic vet.


----------



## jdatwood (Apr 13, 2009)

hcdoxies said:


> LOL! Yeah, but, but... that's not the point of this thread!


Ugh, I hate when kibble junkies have to pull the "science" card... HELLO... what about NATURE??


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

jdatwood said:


> Ugh, I hate when kibble junkies have to pull the "science" card... HELLO... what about NATURE??


I would love to have the energy and the time to follow their science. What i found when I was researching the science against the Atkins diet, was it was a bunch of cronies or people paid by the diet/cereal industries to do studies that supported eating a bunch of carbs or YOU WILL DIE.


----------



## BrownieM (Aug 30, 2010)

I think there are great breeders, good breeders, acceptable breeders, crappy breeders, and horrendous scum breeders. There is everything in between, as well. I commend the great breeders. If you are one of these, don't worry about what is being said negatively about breeders because you do not fall into the category. :smile:


----------



## Pompey (Apr 14, 2011)

xellil said:


> Pompey - how many breeders go back, like you did, and try to breed OUT the flaws? Almost none. I have decided there should be two different names. Maybe breed-advocates vs. breeders. I am learning alot here, but you have to remember, almost no one does that, and they are the huge problem. I am sure there are no Amish puppy mill owners, spitting out 700 dogs a year, worrying about what happened in the 60s.



Almost none? It's basic pedigree research, and I could not even begin to count off the breeders of my acquaintance who know their dogs family trees better than their own. The dog world is a small one, and word of mouth is how we learn about these issues. 

I am also very certain Amish puppy mills barely know what a pedigree is, they're also very rarely using AKC - would not pass those unimpressive inspections anyway - but the majority of breeders in this country, even the ones with large kennels and the casual oops litter breeder are so far removed from puppy mills they do not even belong in the same category.

Why don't you visit a dog show one weekend and have a friendly chat with random handlers? No interrogations - if someone seems to have an agenda behind their questions at a show they will be ignored - but honest, friendly questions. I think you would be surprised to learn that while good breeders still are a minority, we are much more organized, compassionate, and knowledgeable than you give us credit for.


----------



## xellil (Apr 4, 2011)

I have nothing against good breeders - nothing. I tried saying that and got pounded on for trying to call you two different names. I don't encourage people to foster, nor do I encourage ANYONE - breeder or otherwise - to do anything but what they do as long as it's not hurting any animals. 

And I am fine with anyone buying a dog from a reputable breeder - as long as they love that dog its whole life, and don't spit out unwanted puppies that will go into the abusive world of discard and neglect - they are not causing the suffering of a dog. What people need to understand is that buying a malti-poo for $1000 from a pet store is NOT a responsible purchase. 

What I DO do is attack those who breed for profit, who care nothing for the animals they produce, or their progeny. And there are vastly more of those than there are of you - to the nth degree. You are a drop in the bucket. If you know 500 good breeders, there are 50,000 bad ones to make up for it. No one with eyes open can deny this - just look on petfinder.

I admit, I know little of the show ring. I watch the Westminster dog show on TV. And honestly, it holds no interest for me - it's a different world than the world i live in. And I know all the rescues i work with have people who breed and rescue both - the two halves don't have to be nasty to each other. I have no animosity toward anyone who is good to dogs, and doesn't add another dog that risks death at a shelter, or worse, a life of abuse and neglect tied to a tree.

The word "breeder" is probably derogatory, yes. But when someone rags on rescues as bad groups, I don't take it personally even though i work with rescues. I am pretty shocked that people think they are the ones being targeted, if they aren't doing the bad things.

I don't attach a sliding scale to it - if you are breeding dogs that are producing unwanted litters that end up in shelters, on craigslist of petfinder, dead, or abused - you are a bad breeder, period. Doesn't matter if your cages are clean, and you have AKC papers, and you show dogs and have all kinds of titles. "You" being absolutely generic, not you in particular.


----------

