How do you feel about breeders

[akitavet]

I am talking about responsible, ethical breeders. I know that there are kind of two camps (or maybe more that I dont know about)

1.) Responsible breeders should continue to breed in order to advance the breed. They should promise to care for any dogs that they breed for life. They should commit themselves to educating the public about the dangers and detrimental affects of BYBs and puppymills. Ultimately, the public has a desire to buy puppies and the responsible breeders should be available to provide good puppies for these people.

2.) We are at crisis state for pet overpopulation. There is no responsible breeding with so many dogs dying in shelters every day. We should hold a moratorium on all breeding as described by the ASPCA project orange.


Just a bit of an opinion thread brought to you by a purebred fancier and aspiring small animal therio specialist.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[rexosaurus]

i am on the fence on this one. as much as i love bulldogs and labradors and other purebreds, i cannot rationalize spending thousands of dollars on a dog that a) in genetically NOT diverse, which will inevitably lead to more hereditary disease/mutation; b) will not love me any more or less than a dog i can rescue from a shelter; c) is only adding to the overpopulation issue. the more dogs we demand that people breed, the more shelter dogs do not find a home. i understand this is not a direct correlation, but you can see where i am going.
on the other side of my fence, i can understand why people want certain bred dogs for things such as hunting, agility trials, racing, etc. or a certain demeanored dog for a family, or a guard dog, etc. and a purebred is more likely to give you the traits you are looking for than a mutt....

what to do, what to do?
have a dog farm! adopt the mutts from the shelter, and have a few purebreds here and there!

 

[ri23]

I am for responsible dog breeding. There is not only a pet overpopulation problem because of stray dogs/cats, a lot of the problem is because people think it would be fun to let their dogs have a litter of puppies. No matter how much educating you can do these people will continue to do this and there will be an excess of dogs. I hardly think it's fair to tell responsible breeders to stop while letting irresponsible people to continue to breed their animals.

Also, each breed has such specific and unique qualities, it is great to get a breed that you know will fit into your family (not that most people do that!). This is the first time in my life I've ever owned a non-purebred dog and I adore him, but it is also frustrating as I'm training him in agility and I know that I won't really be able to compete with him.

I may be somewhat biased, as we bred our labrador. We only bred two litters, but we made sure to find a responsible breeder, to OFA elbows and hips and CERF eye certifications (for the mother and the puppies) as well as microchipping the dogs with our names as the second contact to make sure that our dogs NEVER ended up in a shelter.

 

[nyanko]

I think that purebred dogs are very important to our culture and society and responsible breeders definitely have their place. Here are some criteria that I think are important for responsible breeding and some caveats to that criteria.

1) As you mentioned, the breeder should breed to improve the breed. Anyone who breeds their dog should have a goal in mind, an "ultimate example" of the breed that they are striving towards. This example, however, should still fall within the breed's standards, so in my opinion some sort of competitive exhibition should be required. Conformation showing is a touchy subject and sometimes the extremes favored in the show ring do more harm than good (see American GSD's and Bulldogs for an example of this) but by and large conformation showing is one piece of the puzzle that is important for the maintenance of purebred dogs. Competitive sports like lure coursing, tracking, obedience, herding and agility are also essential to this. A purebred dog should be bred for function as much as form and I don't believe that any dog that hasn't proven that it can perform what its breed was meant to do should ever be bred.

2) Genetic and health testing is of utmost importance when you are evaluating a breeder. All dogs should be OFA and CERF cleared and tested for any disorders common to that breed such as von Willebrand's for Dobermans and such. The breeder should also know the health and genetic status of at least the sire and dam's parents, if not grandparents and farther back in their pedigree. It goes without saying that the dogs should appear healthy and clean and well-groomed and should be on heartworm and flea prevention and current on vaccinations, but this is not enough on its own.

3) The breeder should be open to questions and should also ask you a lot of questions. I'd be loathe to acquire a dog from someone who didn't basically put me through an interview to determine whether I am a responsible dog owner or not, and to make sure that I know what I am getting into with the breed of choice. This of course requires that the breeder knows the breed inside and out, the good points as well as the bad points, the kind of training to which they respond best, and any special requirements or added quirks of the breed in general. A person who will sell a dog to anyone with a checkbook and a leash and collar is not a responsible breeder. Likewise, the breeder should be open to fielding questions about their own breeding practices without getting snippy or defensive.

4) A good solid contract is often totally unenforceable in court, but I still think that it is important to set guidelines for a person purchasing a dog from you. A responsible breeder has a well laid out contract with a clause about neutering the animal unless it is specifically going to a home to be shown and possibly bred. They will only provide an AKC limited registration to help protect against unscrupulous breeding of their stock as they take pride in their kennel and their dogs. They will assist in rehoming a dog if the animal does not work out for any reason and they also be available for any questions or problems that you may have to try to ensure that they don't NEED to rehome the dog for a preventable reason in the first place.

I'm sure there are things I'm forgetting, but these are four major points that I feel are important in selecting a responsible, reputable breeder for your purebred dog of choice, and I do feel that these breeders play an important role in the world of dogs. Many of these responsible breeders are involved in breed clubs and rescues, so that's a good place to start to find one of them. They don't normally advertise in the newspaper or anywhere else for that matter, so you have to look more carefully for them, but they are there. Go to a dog show and meet one.

Backyard breeders and puppy mills can go right to hell though.

 

[ri23]

I think that is a pretty solid list. I definitely agree on the conformation aspect that you were talking about. It's especially noticeable when you look at labs, when over half of the dogs that are champions (at least) would certainly be unable to do any field work!

 

[rexosaurus]

nyanko, that was a very informational reply. it opened my eyes to some things i had not considered, thank you. you have some very good points about purebred dogs and their place in our culture.

 

[ShelterGirl]

Totally agree with all of nyanko's points, as well as ri23's about overpopulation being due to people thinking it would be fun to have their children "witness the miracle of birth" or some other such nonsense.

 

[sofficat]

what is OFA and CERF?

 

[bakaduin]

what is OFA and CERF?

Orthopedic Foundation For Animals- Certifies for Hips

CERF- Canine Eye Registration Foundation- Certifies Eyes

 

[akitavet]

Nyanko you are right on in defining what makes a responsible breeder, and I totally agree personally. I know a lot of people will make that argument that even doing it the right way that breeders should not breed because the dogs they produce take the place of shelter dogs in pet homes. I dont think that's true, but I know there are a lot of people who do.

 

[akitavet]

what is OFA and CERF?

The Canine Heallth Information Center (CHIC) is an organization that many breeds use to standardize the health checks done by breed. These for most breeds include OFA Hips, CERF eye checks, and a variety of other tests.
http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/breeds.html
These requirements are submitted by each breed's parent club and are specific to health issues in each breed.

PLEASE EVERYONE NOTE!! Many breeds have Thyroid as one of their required tests, but a lot of breeders dont do it. For your future as a vet, please be aware that this is as important, or IMO more important than orthopedic tests because its a LOT harder to treat autoimmune disorders than orthopedic ones.

 

[nyanko]

Nyanko you are right on in defining what makes a responsible breeder, and I totally agree personally. I know a lot of people will make that argument that even doing it the right way that breeders should not breed because the dogs they produce take the place of shelter dogs in pet homes. I dont think that's true, but I know there are a lot of people who do.

I think the main underlying problem with that is that people who buy a puppy from a breeder like this want a puppy, and they want one that's going to be a predictable size, have a predictable coat and at least some idea of a temperament. They aren't going to adopt a puppy from a shelter no matter what because as awesome as shelter puppies are - the vast majority aren't purebred and thus aren't predictable. Obviously an adult dog from a shelter would alleviate some of this problem as what you see is what you get, but if somebody wants a puppy they're going to get one either way and if these breeders didn't exist, well, they'd be buying from puppy mills and pet stores instead.

Also, one thing that I mentioned is that these responsible breeders are often involved in rescue as well. I got my rescue dog (Great Pyrenees) from a show person who runs one of these breed rescues, so a lot of them try to help with the homeless pet problem far more than they possibly would add to it. I know this isn't your argument, but it's a response to the argument that is made by a lot of these people.

 

[ShelterGirl]

Forgot to mention in my earlier post -

It is also very, very, rare (at least at shelters in my corner of the world) to get a certified purebred anything surrendered, so that's another reason why I believe breeders don't significantly contribute to the homeless pet problem.

Puppy mill dogs? That's another story - been seeing quite a few of those, especially lately.

 

[Beagingese]

I used to work at a shelter and I'm still not nuts on breeders...but I'm warming to it. As I've studied different breeds and their purposes, etc I realize that there really is a great purpose to it. I'm definitely NOT talking about backyard breeders, but if I was looking for a particular breed of dog to fill a particular purpose...I would get a puppy from a breeder. I know that you generally can find examples of most breeds in shelters if you look hard enough and long enough but if I'm going to make an investment in a particular breed for a particular purpose I'm gonna buy one (after EXTENSIVE breeder research). Just my thoughts. I still encourage EVERYONE to spay/neuter their pets. Just cuz you have a purebred doesn't mean you should be breeding.

 

[Kara31191]

I enjoy breeders who are responsible, but I really am a shelter dog kind of girl. We have two mutts. One is some kind of blue heeler/australian cattle dog mix, and the other is a lab mix. Our third dog is a purebred Dachshund. His breeder was my Mom's best friend. She is a responsible breeder who takes care of the dog's who don't work out with their new owner.

I mean, honestly, I could never breed a dog. I would feel to bad for the shelter dogs.

I have bred my Leopard geckos (not on purpose), and the eggs should hatch soon. I feel that as long as I tell anyone who wants one that if they can't keep the gecko, or can't afford a health problem or something like that, they could give it back to me. I feel that I took a home away from another little guy, and that I should be more responsible than the new owner for the animal's well being.

I adopted these two geckos, and one day I noticed the female had eggs in her belly. Uh oh... Their okay. Don't worry!

Just my humble opinion!

 

[vegternarian]

Breeding in a state of overpopulation is always a problem no matter how ethical you are. I will be so bold as to say that any breeding that occurs while other animals are being euthanized is unethical and irresponsible.

It doesn't matter how ethical or responsible you are. We have too many breeders out there.

 

[168135]

Breeding in a state of overpopulation is always a problem no matter how ethical you are. I will be so bold as to say that any breeding that occurs while other animals are being euthanized is unethical and irresponsible.

It doesn't matter how ethical or responsible you are. We have too many breeders out there.

Good point.

I think we need to clean up the mess that we started before we go overboard with breeding. Like trap/neuter/release programs, introducting bi-laws and fees, having animal control becoming more involved, ect.

I heard somewhere that if every person in Canada had ten dogs each, there wouldn't be an over-population issue.

And now, we have this whole designer-doodle dog trend thing, and people being hauled off to court because they had 120 animals living in their house, living in horrible conditions... stuff like that makes me sick.

Anyway... lets solve the problem of overpopulation first! Then we can breed all of the doodles we want.

 

[Poke]

Anyway... lets solve the problem of overpopulation first! Then we can breed all of the doodles we want.

I'd say us as a species are overpopulated too. I don't think either will ever be solved, despite the best efforts. Perhaps it's pessimistic, but I think it's realistic. I don't like designer breeds, and I hate the fact that dogs are in shelters, but I understand the need for responsible breeders. Discouraging these breeders may shrink the gene pool further or undesirable traits may become more likely as BYBs continue to breed regardless of the health/condition of the animal.

To be honest, I have no idea how the situation should be remedied. Shelter dogs need homes, too, and I wouldn't put my faith in educating BYBs.. Too many just don't care. It's an unfortunate, sad situation.

</pessimism>

 

[VAgirl]

I fall on the shelter/rescue side of the fence. But I think there's another piece to this discussion that is missing. Having worked in animal hospitals, I've talked to countless people about how they tried to adopt a puppy from the local animal shelter, but were made to jump through so many hoops that they gave up and got a puppy from one of these so-called back-yard-breeders. This is NOT what the shelters are trying to accomplish. I completely understand that shelters and rescue groups want to be sure that their animals are placed in good, permanent homes. And I'm not saying that all or even most shelters make it difficult to adopt. But some do, and I've seen the result: wanted animals remaining in shelters and business generated for irresponsible breeders.

Now, one may argue that the problem here is with the breeders who don't make people jump through enough hoops when getting a puppy. But this side of the problem is not one that we can fix. Instead, I think there may be some room for improvement in the shelter side of the equation.

 

[Beagingese]

Anyway... lets solve the problem of overpopulation first! Then we can breed all of the doodles we want.

Except that by the time we "solve" the problem of overpopulation there won't be any more labs or poodles left because folks like vegternarian would impose mandatory spay/neuters. I own a mutt, I love mutts, but I love particular purebreds as well and, surprise, surprise, you can't continue to have purebred anything without....breeding. And while owning a dog may be a privilege and owners need to take into careful consideration the cost of owning and caring for a dog for the next 15 years, once I buy that puppy it's mine. It's my property. And beyond basic requirements (food, water, shelter, rabies vaccines) I don't want anyone legislating my property and telling me how I am to raise it or care for it. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE my dog, but at the end of the day he's a dog and he's my property. (At least until rights-ers change the law to guardianship and give anyone and everyone the right to take my dog away- or your dog for that much matter...sorry, tangent) As a veterinarian I don't want legislators in some capital building far, far away telling me how I'm supposed to practice veterinary medicine either and telling me what procedures are best and when. That's why I'm gonna be $120K in debt thank you much, I don't need politicians telling me how to be a veterinarian.

 

[Beagingese]

I fall on the shelter/rescue side of the fence. But I think there's another piece to this discussion that is missing. Having worked in animal hospitals, I've talked to countless people about how they tried to adopt a puppy from the local animal shelter, but were made to jump through so many hoops that they gave up and got a puppy from one of these so-called back-yard-breeders. This is NOT what the shelters are trying to accomplish. I completely understand that shelters and rescue groups want to be sure that their animals are placed in good, permanent homes. And I'm not saying that all or even most shelters make it difficult to adopt. But some do, and I've seen the result: wanted animals remaining in shelters and business generated for irresponsible breeders.

Now, one may argue that the problem here is with the breeders who don't make people jump through enough hoops when getting a puppy. But this side of the problem is not one that we can fix. Instead, I think there may be some room for improvement in the shelter side of the equation.

Good points, VAgirl! When I went to adopt my dog I visited numerous shelters and rescues and while at a private rescue that didn't have anything under 50 pounds (I live in a small apartment and that would be completely inappropriate), I asked for the phone number of the county shelter up the road. The woman looked at me and refused to give me their phone number or directions because "they're not a no-kill shelter". Are you kidding me? I wouldn't adopt from them on principle now. If you are trying to get animals into homes you shouldn't be purposefully trying to hinder another groups methods, especially since most rescues are no-kill simply by virtue of limited admission. If you only let in the most adoptable animals, OF COURSE you won't put anything down. County shelters generally don't have that option.

Similarly, this Ellen DeGeneres fiasco is angering for several different reasons. Number one, many shelters have adoption contracts that essentially try to maintain ownership (you will return the animal to us if it doesn't work out, you will call us if considering euthanasia, you may not sell/give away, etc) and those contracts are questionable at best. When you transfer ownership, like in an adoption, it's complete. I can't sell you a car and tell you not to paint it green. It's your car. And I guarantee you legal battles over such adoption contracts are going to be right around the bend. Shelters and rescues generally aren't doing themselves any favors either with restrictive rules and contracts and policies. If it's gonna be that difficult, I'd look in the paper for a breeder too!

 

[VAgirl]

Similarly, this Ellen DeGeneres fiasco is angering for several different reasons.

Not to mention that from what I heard (hearsay, all of it, of course), her stylist or hair dresser or whomever was willing to re-adopt the dog directly from that shelter, but the shelter refused. I dare say they've lost sight of the fact that they should be trying to find good, loving homes for animals. Instead, they're just enforcing rules for the sake of the rules. Stupid, and the animals are the ones who suffer.

 

[Beagingese]

Oh yea and after my Ellen rant I forgot to mention that the "dog loving, animal-righters" called up the rescue owner and called her skum, threatened her life and to burn down her grooming salon. Ummm yea...if you care more about a mutt from a shelter than the life of a person, even if she did something stupid, it says a lot about your character. I take serious issue with animal rights-ers that put animals first and plow people out of their way. Ok...I'm ranting a lot today.

 

[nyanko]

Breeding in a state of overpopulation is always a problem no matter how ethical you are. I will be so bold as to say that any breeding that occurs while other animals are being euthanized is unethical and irresponsible.

It doesn't matter how ethical or responsible you are. We have too many breeders out there.

How do you propose this problem gets solved? Are you one of those crazy PeTA members who thinks that we shouldn't have pets at all and that all animals should be FREE?

People want purebred dogs to perform certain functions or for qualities that are unique to their specific breeds. If nobody carefully bred purebred dogs we would not have police dogs, guide dogs for the blind, sled dogs (yes I know not all of them are purebred - but they are carefully bred in a breeding program as well and are not just random mutts from the shelter!), retrieving dogs, herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs or many other dogs who play very important roles in our society! I think it is very irresponsible for you to say something like this as a future veterinary professional.

I worked at a shelter for 3 years, I know the problems animals face in shelters. But the fact remains that if somebody wants a purebred dog, they should be able to get a purebred dog and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

 

[vegternarian]

How do you propose this problem gets solved? Are you one of those crazy PeTA members who thinks that we shouldn't have pets at all and that all animals should be FREE?

People want purebred dogs to perform certain functions or for qualities that are unique to their specific breeds. If nobody carefully bred purebred dogs we would not have police dogs, guide dogs for the blind, sled dogs (yes I know not all of them are purebred - but they are carefully bred in a breeding program as well and are not just random mutts from the shelter!), retrieving dogs, herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs or many other dogs who play very important roles in our society! I think it is very irresponsible for you to say something like this as a future veterinary professional.

I worked at a shelter for 3 years, I know the problems animals face in shelters. But the fact remains that if somebody wants a purebred dog, they should be able to get a purebred dog and it's ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

First off, I don't think I would be working my butt off to get into vet school if I believed that people shouldn't own pets.

Secondly, I never said it was wrong for people to own dogs that are being used for what selective breeding has intended, ie actually using them to herd, retrieve, pull a sled, etc. But do you realize how few people actually use an animal for the purpose for which it was bred? Very few! It's like how many people drive SUVs in the city when they don't actually need an SUV. Plus you are forgetting the ornamental breeds: the pugs, toys, and other species that have hip and breathing problems because of what they are and not because of recessive gene issues.

I have a question for you: WHY should a person be ENTITLED to a purebred dog? Is that some kind of inalienable right that the framers of the constitution somehow left out?

 

[nyanko]

Secondly, I never said it was wrong for people to own dogs that are being used for what selective breeding has intended, ie actually using them to herd, retrieve, pull a sled, etc. But do you realize how few people actually use an animal for the purpose for which it was bred? Very few! It's like how many people drive SUVs in the city when they don't actually need an SUV. Plus you are forgetting the ornamental breeds: the pugs, toys, and other species that have hip and breathing problems because of what they are and not because of recessive gene issues.

I have a question for you: WHY should a person be ENTITLED to a purebred dog? Is that some kind of inalienable right that the framers of the constitution somehow left out?

First of all, you DID say that. You said that nobody should be breeding dogs. Unless the breeders who are breeding these service dogs aren't actually people, then you did say they shouldn't be breeding.

I have a Great Pyrenees and no livestock. I like the breed because their personality as a breed fits mine. I would not want a dog who is hyperactive or clingy and I like big dogs. Also, I like the way they look. He is from a rescue, not a breeder, but if somebody didn't breed Great Pyrenees dogs then he wouldn't exist at all.

And I do think that people should be entitled to whatever property they want and can afford. If they want an SUV or a miniature poodle, that's their business and there's no reason why they should be deprived of any property that they want and can properly provide for. Of course there are irresponsible SUV drivers and miniature poodle breeders, but yes I do believe that they have a right to own this property until it is illegal to do so (and even then, I think that there are a lot of nonsensical laws that are very unethical, personally) And why do you even bring the Constitution into this? Using Constitutional rights to determine ethical behavior is not even a valid argument at all, nor is it valid for specific circumstances such as this.

 

[Catnapper]

--Not too highly.

 

[Beagingese]

I second Nyanko!

No one has a "right" to a purebred dog anymore than you have a "right" to a particular brand of shoes or clothes or car or furniture or computer. But because there is a demand for it, that's what the market provides. Econ 101, baby. Besides this would be a REALLY boring job if every dog we saw was a ~40# brown and black lopped-eared mix breed (because that's what all mutts would eventually end up looking like- go to a 3rd world country and look at their feral strays, that's what domesticated dogs revert back to). But you're surely not going to legislate what I choose to do with my property.

 

[david594]

How can you really blame the "legit" breeders for the overpopulation of dogs? I'm pretty sure they had nothing to do with your neighbor who has that litter of puppies they are trying to give away. Where I work we see a lot of breeders and most of them are good people. I find it hard to blame the woman who litters out 20 Mastiffs a year to her waiting list for overpopulation as she isnt producing an excess of dogs.

If we are going to say that all breeders should be stopped to help control population we might as well tell everyone they can't buy/adopt cats either as that could take away from the numbers of people who might consider purchasing a dog. Also, how long would we stop the breeders for? 2 years? 3? 10? From a genetics standpoint stopping breeders could have a detrimental affect on the "seedstock" population of purebred dogs.

 

[Beagingese]

I second David594 also!

Most of the people who bring their dogs to a well-established, well-equipped, modern veterinary hospital are not the ones that are contributing to the pet overpopulation. It's the people who don't have enough money for a real animal hospital and only take their pets to a low cost clinic once every 8 years and even then their animal has a nasty oozing 3 month old mass on the side...but is also pregnant. THEY are the ones contributing to the pet overpopulation, not the vast majority of breeders (hobby, career or otherwise) you see come through a vet hospital.

 

[vegternarian]

First of all, you DID say that. You said that nobody should be breeding dogs. Unless the breeders who are breeding these service dogs aren't actually people, then you did say they shouldn't be breeding.

I have a Great Pyrenees and no livestock. I like the breed because their personality as a breed fits mine. I would not want a dog who is hyperactive or clingy and I like big dogs. Also, I like the way they look. He is from a rescue, not a breeder, but if somebody didn't breed Great Pyrenees dogs then he wouldn't exist at all.

And I do think that people should be entitled to whatever property they want and can afford. If they want an SUV or a miniature poodle, that's their business and there's no reason why they should be deprived of any property that they want and can properly provide for. Of course there are irresponsible SUV drivers and miniature poodle breeders, but yes I do believe that they have a right to own this property until it is illegal to do so (and even then, I think that there are a lot of nonsensical laws that are very unethical, personally) And why do you even bring the Constitution into this? Using Constitutional rights to determine ethical behavior is not even a valid argument at all, nor is it valid for specific circumstances such as this.

Okay, so you're saying that people should be able to have anything they want if they have enough money. That's super-ethical if you ask me. If I want a bazooka, a dvd filled with child pornography, and an SUV that gets 1 mpg highway and I can afford these things, they are all ethical purchases.

I say no, this is not a good way of looking at things. I think that it's not ethical to buy a Hummer just because you can afford it (even if you like it's personality and looks) because it burns fossil fuels and contributes to climate change. And I don't agree that your ability to purchase a purebred animal entitles you to having one because there is a perfectly good animal sitting at the pound.

I'm going to call off this little argument because of irreconcilable philosophical differences. You think of dogs as property, I don't. You think if you can afford to have property you deserve it even if it is harmful, I don't.

Oh and let me develop myself a bit further: I think that there are breeders out there that are the salt of the earth and are devoted to the breed(s) they love. However I don't think just anybody should breed, and again I do believe in mandatory spay/neuter laws and licenses and regulations for existing breeders.

Peace.

 

[ShelterGirl]

Most of the people who bring their dogs to a well-established, well-equipped, modern veterinary hospital are not the ones that are contributing to the pet overpopulation. It's the people who don't have enough money for a real animal hospital and only take their pets to a low cost clinic once every 8 years and even then their animal has a nasty oozing 3 month old mass on the side...but is also pregnant. THEY are the ones contributing to the pet overpopulation, not the vast majority of breeders (hobby, career or otherwise) you see come through a vet hospital.

Word.

 

[nyanko]

Okay, so you're saying that people should be able to have anything they want if they have enough money. That's super-ethical if you ask me. If I want a bazooka, a dvd filled with child pornography,

Did you ignore the part where I said "until it is illegal to do so?" Child pornography is illegal. I don't know gun laws but I don't think a bazooka is legal either.

and an SUV that gets 1 mpg highway and I can afford these things, they are all ethical purchases.

But yeah, an SUV that gets 1 mpg highway is legal and I don't have a problem with a person owning one if that's what they want.

And I don't agree that your ability to purchase a purebred animal entitles you to having one because there is a perfectly good animal sitting at the pound.

That animal at the pound may not have the qualities you want in a dog. I say it again, if you want a puppy that will grow to be a predictable size with a predictable coat and at least a ballpark predictable temperament, you can't get that at the pound. You can argue that until your fingers fall off, but it's the truth.

I'm going to call off this little argument because of irreconcilable philosophical differences. You think of dogs as property, I don't. You think if you can afford to have property you deserve it even if it is harmful, I don't.

Dogs are property in this country. That's the law that you so tenaciously cling to in your prior argument. Obviously going into this field we care about our pets more than we care about a lot of our other property, but the fact remains that they are property. Animal-rights psychos are trying to change that and I fear the day they actually do because you know what it will do? It will take the right to choose the best care for our own pets right out from under us. I don't see how that would help a veterinarian at all.

Oh and let me develop myself a bit further: I think that there are breeders out there that are the salt of the earth and are devoted to the breed(s) they love. However I don't think just anybody should breed, and again I do believe in mandatory spay/neuter laws and licenses and regulations for existing breeders.

Why would you want to make it harder for good breeders to breed dogs? That's all those licenses and regulations would do. A giant puppy mill can afford all those license fees and hire people to ensure they meet regulations but a person who spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on showing their dog, health testing their dog, training for obedience/tracking/agility and selecting a mate who will make the offspring even stronger - they've already stretched themselves thin and proven themselves in my mind and I don't see why you would want to punish them for it. I'm all for neutering pet dogs for a hundred different reasons, don't get me wrong, and if you actually read my original post I don't think just anybody should breed dogs either, but I think that saying all breeders are unethical and that breeding dogs should be outlawed is quite a bit extremist of a viewpoint to take.

 

[vegternarian]

Did you ignore the part where I said "until it is illegal to do so?" Child pornography is illegal. I don't know gun laws but I don't think a bazooka is legal either.

I'm still making the point that just because you can afford it doesn't make it right to have it, whether it violates the laws or not. On the other hand there are things that are ethical to have but not legal in some countries, like banned books.

But yeah, an SUV that gets 1 mpg highway is legal and I don't have a problem with a person owning one if that's what they want.

But is it ethical? Do you really think that owning an SUV is the right thing to do, or do you just not care about fossil fuel depletion or green house gases?

That animal at the pound may not have the qualities you want in a dog. I say it again, if you want a puppy that will grow to be a predictable size with a predictable coat and at least a ballpark predictable temperament, you can't get that at the pound. You can argue that until your fingers fall off, but it's the truth.

I agree with you that knowing what you are going to get in a dog is a great concept. I also think it's great that you can choose whether you want your dog to have hip dysplasia, breathing issues, and other problems that are associated with specific purebred breeds.

Dogs are property in this country. That's the law that you so tenaciously cling to in your prior argument. Obviously going into this field we care about our pets more than we care about a lot of our other property, but the fact remains that they are property. Animal-rights psychos are trying to change that and I fear the day they actually do because you know what it will do? It will take the right to choose the best care for our own pets right out from under us. I don't see how that would help a veterinarian at all.

I disagree that animals are "just property" in this country. If I want to forcibly remove the leg of a chair, I can do so and am completely within my rights and am not violating furniture welfare laws. If I pull my dog's leg off, I will probably face jail time. You see, animals have rights above and beyond the rights of a chair, a car, etc. The law recognizes these rights. Also, I can't leave twelve million dollars to my bed when I die, but I can leave my entire estate to my cat. So you see animals occupy a gray area of the law between property and human beings. Also, I don't think that viewing animals as property is the best view to have as a future veterinary professional. We're not trying to become auto mechanics here, but doctors. We need to not just blindly follow the client's will, but be patient advocates.

Why would you want to make it harder for good breeders to breed dogs? That's all those licenses and regulations would do. A giant puppy mill can afford all those license fees and hire people to ensure they meet regulations but a person who spends thousands of dollars and countless hours on showing their dog, health testing their dog, training for obedience/tracking/agility and selecting a mate who will make the offspring even stronger - they've already stretched themselves thin and proven themselves in my mind and I don't see why you would want to punish them for it. I'm all for neutering pet dogs for a hundred different reasons, don't get me wrong, and if you actually read my original post I don't think just anybody should breed dogs either, but I think that saying all breeders are unethical and that breeding dogs should be outlawed is quite a bit extremist of a viewpoint to take.

I didn't say that all breeders are unethical. I said that breeding dogs is unethical, so let me make my point a bit clearer. I think that to bring another litter into the world, even if you are extremely responsible and are doing so because you love the breed is just a tad irresponsible. You see, I don't lump all breeders together, saying they are all irresponsible, unethical drunken louts who smell bad and beat their children. Dogs have to breed or we wouldn't have any more! I wish I could put all breeding into the hands of the responsible breeders who do it out of love and not for profit. But I cannot. And again, as I explore this issue more I have warmed up a bit to the best of breeders. I'm really here to learn more than argue, although it seems that is what it has come down to. That's why I'm so "outrageous" about mandatory spay/neuter. I've worked at animal shelters where we have the same animals having litters year after year. It breaks my heart.

I guess it all comes down to this: I view the mutts dying in the pounds as equal to those being bred with the utmost care. It's a personal philosophical view, one that I have for my own reasons. I would rather have a world with pound puppies than of breeds selectively bred for positive traits if it meant that less animals would have to die. And if believing animals deserve more than to be just property and that pound mutts and purebreds are equal makes me a bad veterinarian, then that is how it will be.

 

[VAgirl]

It's the people who don't have enough money for a real animal hospital and only take their pets to a low cost clinic once every 8 years and even then their animal has a nasty oozing 3 month old mass on the side...but is also pregnant. THEY are the ones contributing to the pet overpopulation

While there is a lot of validity to this statement, I don't think we should forget that sometimes educated, middle class/upper middle class/upper class (I'm just talking financially, here) people are just as careless. The family of one of my best friends growing up never spayed/neutered their indoor/outdoor cats and they were always having litters of kittens. I believe they generally saw that the cats ended up in a good homes, often keeping one kitten themselves. But to me, this is still irresponsible. They didn't even want their children to "witness the miracle of birth" as one person earlier suggested. They just never thought about why you might need to spay or neuter the cats before letting them roam outside. These are not bad people. Well educated, nice, well off. Just careless and probably uninformed.

 

[sofficat]

legally, as in the eyes of the law, pets are property. (and honestly it needs to stay that way (for many reasons, some were brought up in previous posts about being a guardian and having the state take away your pets, also there would be problems with euthanasia, etc)). there are other laws to govern pets, too. just like you can't leave a car in a ditch somewhere even though the car is your property, you can't rip the leg off your dog. the point that i think is trying to be made is that pets are property, whether you agree with it or not.

 

[sofficat]

While there is a lot of validity to this statement, I don't think we should forget that sometimes educated, middle class/upper middle class/upper class (I'm just talking financially, here) people are just as careless. The family of one of my best friends growing up never spayed/neutered their indoor/outdoor cats and they were always having litters of kittens. I believe they generally saw that the cats ended up in a good homes, often keeping one kitten themselves. But to me, this is still irresponsible. They didn't even want their children to "witness the miracle of birth" as one person earlier suggested. They just never thought about why you might need to spay or neuter the cats before letting them roam outside. These are not bad people. Well educated, nice, well off. Just careless and probably uninformed.

i completely agree. money does NOT equal good pet owner. and you are right, most of the time they are just uninformed. i have seen many examples of lower income families come in because of a dog fight and when we start educating them on vax and preventatives and neutering they are kind of in shock because they didn't realise what they should be doing- then we see them a week later with money and they get everything done.
then there are people that come in with loads of money and just want the basics or just want to get the uti fixed even though there are a million other things that need to be done with the pet.

i love this story- the big brother on 'everybody loves raymond' (brad garrett) was a client of a vet i know many years ago (before he was famous). brad had two yellow labs and loved them very much. one of them was having gastro problems and had to go the specialist many times. brad sold his car to pay for the vet visits. isn't that so cute

 

[nyanko]

I guess it all comes down to this: I view the mutts dying in the pounds as equal to those being bred with the utmost care. It's a personal philosophical view, one that I have for my own reasons. I would rather have a world with pound puppies than of breeds selectively bred for positive traits if it meant that less animals would have to die. And if believing animals deserve more than to be just property and that pound mutts and purebreds are equal makes me a bad veterinarian, then that is how it will be.

It's not about equality. It's about what's good for a specific situation. Dog ownership is a huge commitment and dogs have a wide range of sizes and traits (both personality and physical). There is not a one-dog-fits-all situation and I believe that if you took away the ability to buy a purebred dog, more people just wouldn't have dogs. I don't think they would go to the shelters and adopt that much more frequently and the animals that are dying would still be dying. Many people have bad ideas about shelters and rescues, some completely untrue and some founded in fact. Also many people who can provide great homes for dogs live in places such as apartments where they may need a dog that will predictably be under 25 lbs. Or their kids have allergies so they need a breed like a poodle or bichon. Or they need a couch potato dog or a very active one (and you know as well as I do that dogs do not exhibit their true personality at an animal shelter).

I'm not disagreeing that the state of things is bad. Puppy mills and backyard breeders are causing this problem though, not good ones who require that the dogs they place be spayed or neutered unless they are good stock and health test and know their stock's health histories. Yeah I think some breeds are screwed up and the system isn't perfect, but if you want a purebred dog that has a good chance of not having hip dysplasia or progressive retinal atrophy or whatever, then you go to a breeder who does appropriate health tests, problem solved.

By the way, mutts can have breathing problems, PRA, hip dysplasia and all of the problems that purebreds have as well.

As far as the property thing goes, I'm sorry but it is the law. Regardless of any personal views anybody here may have, it is. Stealing someone's dog is not kidnapping, it is the same as stealing their television. If someone accidentally kills your dog the most you will likely be recouped is their purchase price unless they were a highly prized show dog with breeding contracts that you can prove. It doesn't matter what we want to think about it, it's the way it is right now. And I'm not so sure we want it to change because that can open up a whole other can of worms.

 

[vegternarian]

It's not about equality. It's about what's good for a specific situation. Dog ownership is a huge commitment and dogs have a wide range of sizes and traits (both personality and physical). There is not a one-dog-fits-all situation and I believe that if you took away the ability to buy a purebred dog, more people just wouldn't have dogs. I don't think they would go to the shelters and adopt that much more frequently and the animals that are dying would still be dying. Many people have bad ideas about shelters and rescues, some completely untrue and some founded in fact. Also many people who can provide great homes for dogs live in places such as apartments where they may need a dog that will predictably be under 25 lbs. Or their kids have allergies so they need a breed like a poodle or bichon. Or they need a couch potato dog or a very active one (and you know as well as I do that dogs do not exhibit their true personality at an animal shelter).

I'm not disagreeing that the state of things is bad. Puppy mills and backyard breeders are causing this problem though, not good ones who require that the dogs they place be spayed or neutered unless they are good stock and health test and know their stock's health histories. Yeah I think some breeds are screwed up and the system isn't perfect, but if you want a purebred dog that has a good chance of not having hip dysplasia or progressive retinal atrophy or whatever, then you go to a breeder who does appropriate health tests, problem solved.

By the way, mutts can have breathing problems, PRA, hip dysplasia and all of the problems that purebreds have as well.

As far as the property thing goes, I'm sorry but it is the law. Regardless of any personal views anybody here may have, it is. Stealing someone's dog is not kidnapping, it is the same as stealing their television. If someone accidentally kills your dog the most you will likely be recouped is their purchase price unless they were a highly prized show dog with breeding contracts that you can prove. It doesn't matter what we want to think about it, it's the way it is right now. And I'm not so sure we want it to change because that can open up a whole other can of worms.

I agree with you. Dogs are property in the eyes of the law, but they are not just property, they do have rights as I stated above.

Totally different subject, but has everybody here heard of the new wisdom panel that is coming out? http://www.whatsmydog.com/

Pretty soon we'll be able to tell exactly which different breeds are in each mutt and be able to look out for breed specific problems! I'm so excited. We had a big talk about it at the clinic today.

 

[JerseyisCutest]

That is so neat! I had no idea there was anything like that. I have always wondered what breeds my dog is. My best guess is some sort of Cocker Spaniel mix, but I once posted a pic of him on a message board and they had some good guesses as to other things as well. He's 11 years old at this point so I think by now I would have seen any breed related issues (he has none at all) but I just think it would be neat to know what he was--he actually looks like a minature Golden Retriever.