As another storm moves in, remember the puppy-mill dogs …
By Gina Spadafori
December 15, 2007
… and don’t buy from a pet-store or direct-sell internet puppy site. From Newsweek:
Some of [the dogs] live in rabbit hutches with no heat, no air conditioning, no protection from the elements. Sometimes they don’t even have a roof over their heads. I’m thinking right now about the puppies in Oklahoma, with the ice storm they’re having. There are dogs right now in puppy mills there that are shivering and huddling close together, trying to stay warm. But as long as they are alive, and producing more puppies, the people running these places don’t care about the suffering.
They don’t care about the suffering. Do you? When you buy a puppy from a pet store or Internet puppy site, you’re making sure this industry continues.
The power to stop puppy mills in in your hands. Don’t support this cruel industry.
I am negtiation with my wife to adopt another English Setter named Molly as a companion for my little pal Scout. Molly is in terrible shape. She is emaciated to the point that her hips and pins stick out like old TV tuner knobs. Her ribs are visible and your fingers bump over them just but running them down her sides. Her hair is matted and was obviously wet before coming to the shelter. She had probably been outside in the snows we had recently.
She was surrendered by people who said that they had no time for her. Doesnt look like they had food for her either. When I asked about her dire condition the shelter worker said her owners said that she just has a high metabolism. Yeah, right….
When I got Scout he was almost chubby still with a puppy face and puppy fat. At least his owners had fed him. Setters are high energy dogs and he did run himslef skinny at the farm this summer. But now with less run time and the foods I force down his throat he is smooth and sleak. Compared to Molly he is a fat pig! At his thinnest he never got to the point where the space on his rump behind his hips was convex. Im pretty certain that she was forced to hunt for her supper. Ive seen that before.
Molly is a sad sad case who I found sitting in the shelter pen looking about as sad and depressed as any dog could. It is cold in that kennel with metal doors to outside pens that do not seal down tightly. She was shivering and it took some coaxing to get her to come to the door. When she did, she put her head in my hand and just moaned.
I’ve sent out a family email requesting her as my Xmas gift. Why not? All the kids have their Amazon wishlists. I think Molly and Scout would make a nice pair and I’d get much more happiness seeing her happy than some new tie or some slippers.
Who were these people and where are all these setters coming from locally? Usually you just see labs and lab mixes or rotties or pits. SOMEBODY is back yard breeding these dogs and they are winding up in bad places they dont deserve. Its a crime. Its a damned crime.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 15, 2007 @ 8:59 am
Bernie … I am so glad you’re considering another dog! Good luck with the convincing. Two is better than one. (But much more is crazy … I know! — :) )
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Here she is!
http://www.htrnews.com/apps/pb.....s=Itemnr=7
I dot mind publishing her link cause if I can’t adopt her maybe someone else can.
The shelter is full though and be sure to look at all the other nice doggies on the thumbnails below!
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 15, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Molly is a beatiful girl! You simply MUST have her. Can we create a virtual petition for you…lol???
Comment by Nadine L. — December 15, 2007 @ 10:27 am
You KNOW I’m pulling for you and MOLLY all the way. I can’t think of a better home than yours, Bernie. And Scout is so smart and all-knowing that I’m sure he’ll be her champion.
Yes, say the word and we will get a virutal petition for the adoption going.
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for you.
Comment by Lynn — December 15, 2007 @ 11:45 am
Luck to you Bernie. You will make a super ‘dad’ for Molly.
Comment by VJ — December 15, 2007 @ 11:52 am
Just read the Newsweek article and they had me until the comment “if you bought a purebred dog it probably came from puppy mill”. Now we all know that that’s not true.
Yes, if purchased from a pet shop or off the internet, but, contrary to what some rescue people seem to think (and I do rescue), there are responsible breeders of purebred dogs out there and they do fill a variety of needs, including mine. I was becoming a first time dog owner four years ago and realized after one false start (see below) that we needed the relative predictability of a purebred since I was going to be “learning on the job”. We have cats and grandchildren and I wanted a dog who was “bullet-proof” with both.
Now, even then I knew that there are no guarantees since dogs are all individuals, but I was able to stack the deck, correctly as it turned out, by getting a purebred rough collie from a hobby breeder who had gotten her bitch from a kennel that had been in the fancy since 1965 (Lochlaren in Oregon). I did my breed and breeder homework and couldn’t be happier.
So this was about more than me. I had to think about the safety of the cats and the granddaughters and my own level of knowledge at the time.
The False start: I wanted to do the “right” thing, so we adopted local shelter dog, who then pestered and chased the cats. I realized I was in over my head, met with a trainer who said that the problem could be fixed in two weeks and go get a prong collar. Not. Returned dog to shelter, dog re-adopted happily to better family. He was a two year old McNab/border mix. Fell in love with his looks. Had no training. Was advised by staff not to. Did it anyway. Five days of frustration. Cried all the way back to shelter. Still think of him sometimes. Re-evaluated “the dog thing” and got a collie.
The investigator, assuming they were quoted correctly, really should have made that distinction. But, maybe he or she are on that slippery slope that ends with some people hoping to end the existence of domestic companion animals. The failure to make that distinction affects their credibility in my eyes to some extent, but how wonderful that Newsweek is covering a story that has been hidden for so long! What reasonable person would take a chance on having supported such cruelty as was so well described once they knew the reality of puppy mills.
The disconnect between the puppy mill owner’s treatment of their own dogs vs. “the product” just blows me away. Doesn’t surprise me, though. The human capacity for self-delusion seems to be endless.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
I vote for Molly to go home with Bernie. My heart just breaks for her, just reading Bernie’s comments. What sweet, sad dogger girl. How can we stop these awful, awful millers from doing what they are doing? Of course, I’d like them all shut down YESTERDAY and the animals in good living conditions. It just makes me sick to my stomach to think about what those animals suffer through. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth for some humans.
Comment by catmom5 — December 15, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Re the Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 12:01 pm in which she cites a quote from the original Newsweek article referenced above, “If you bought a purebred dog it probably came from puppy mill.” Fox responds with “Now we all know that that’s not true.”
I beg to differ. While I don’t have hard numbers in front of me to quote from, common sense tells me that the odds are indeed excellent that if you purchased a purebred that it did come from a puppy mill or back yard breeder. Reputable breeders don’t breed a significant number of purebreds for purchase.
Comment by Lynn — December 15, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Please re-read and note the caveat “from a pet shop or off the internet.
If you only buy from purebred breeders who do medical certifications, have the parent or parents on site, house raise the puppies, require a contract with a no-resale and spay/neuter clause and who welcome you to visit their location, among other things, I think you can be pretty certain that you are not dealing with a puppy mill.
But you are absolutely correct about the limited number of puppies good breeders produce. They are right to do so, but it does provide an opening for the puppy mills to sell to uneducated buyers who don’t understand that they will get a much better dog and not support cruelty if they are willing to go on a waiting list and not indulge in the instant gratification that comes from just whipping out the credit card at the local pet shop.
I added and then deleated a mention of backyard breeders since the topic was puppy mills and while bb’s are the source of a lot of physically and mentally screwed up dogs that end up in shelters, my impression is that the term applies to people operating on a much smaller scale than a puppy mill. I guess that the question could be at what point a backyard breeder becomes a puppy miller. And how best to educate the public to avoid both.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
It’s true that the absolute majority of puppies for sale come from breeders we here at Pet Connection would characterize either as puppy-mills, high-volume commercial or clueless, careless back-yard breeders.
But it’s not just purebreds! Were do you think all those puggles and “oodles” are coming from?
Reputable, ethical breeders have waiting lists, not credit-card processing. If you want a purebred, we recommend finding and working with a reputable breeder. If nothing else, you’ll have an advice line for life and your dog will always have a safety net if you can’t keep your pet or something happens to you.
But … you also can go to a good shelter or rescue group, especially one that works on socializing and behavior issues. Some great dogs come from these source (as my own silly Pipster is proving).
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 15, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
susan Fox:
I think we’re on the same page, though we’re saying different things. My oppostion to your “not true” comment was a perhaps clumsy attempt to say, “Statistically, more purebreds are purchased from puppymills than from reputable breeders,” which would have gone against your “Not true” comment. [I was looking at it from a numbers standpoint and I believe you were looking at it from a personal experience without reference to all the purebreds purchased.]
I am all for educating the public about not enabling the profiteering puppymills and pet stores and back yard breeders and I applaud all news media for spreading the word.
Comment by Lynn — December 15, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
I have an easy way to avoid such tricky distinctions as “When does a backyard breeder become a puppy mill?” or “What’s the difference between a puppy mill and a commercial breeder?” and so on.
I simply accept that breeders fall into one of two categories.
They’re either Responsible Breeders. Or they’re not.
And I do my darndest to help steer people away from the “not”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Amen to that.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
And Lynn, yes, I see what you meant “statistically” and think that you are right, simply because there are more puppy mill pups available than pups from responsible breeders. Sigh.
Omigod, the designer dogs, which used to be called mutts. Not from responsible breeders for sure. We’re starting to get a trickle of them in to our rural shelter. Pom/chi mixes, etc. I knew it was coming when I read that Yorkshire Terriers are now the most registered breed with the AKC, knocking off labs, which have been on top it seems forever. I’d love to stuff a kong in Paris’ pretty little mouth. I even saw a couple of young women carrying around tiny puppies Paris-style in the State Department Store in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia last September. Power of the internet. Bleah.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Several weeks ago, a teenage girl had the (either “luck” or “misfortune” - depending on how you look at it!) to be within my earshot when telling a friend that she wanted a dog “That I can carry around in my purse”.
And yes, she got some “eddy-catin’” on dogs as living beings rather than accessories, the expected lifespan of most Toy Breeds, the health hazards (not to mention socialization issues) to a dog that never walks but is always carried, the kinds of breeders who will sell a dog into that kind of a life, and so on.
To her credit, she accepted it rather well. She said a lot of what I was saying to her were things that had never occurred to her. Still, as I walked away, I felt she was still sorta’ wantin’ a dog “That I can carry around in my purse”.
Sigh.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2007 @ 3:09 pm
Somebody needs to start a “Let Dogs Be Dogs!” campaign. This child/doll substitute thing has gotten out of hand. And it sure doesn’t seem to have reduced the number of dogs coming into shelters. At least most cats have the psychology needed to keep up the resistance. I feel sorry for the ones like the rag dolls who are bred with those disgusting short legs
though.
Sometimes I wonder if, as a species, we will ever learn to put any other life form’s interests before our own, especially if there is money to be made. If we don’t, we are toast as far as this planet goes.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 3:43 pm
I have had a “purebred” only once before. Her name was Rusty - a Golden Retriever who was killed on the road under questionable circumstances. Other than her, every other dog and cat we have ever owned since I was a kid has been a rescue case or a stray that just showed up and adopted us or an actual shelter animal.
Each in their own way they have all found ways to fit into our lives in sometimes unexpected but always welcome ways. I have loved each and every one of them for the things they did for me or even just the companionship.
I’ll mention as many of at least the dogs as I can to memorialize them here: Pooper (dont ask), Ceasar, Moochie, Tiny, Tina, Tuffy (a great dog), and the other sibblings from Moochie’s litter who I cant all recall, Freckles, Lady, Rusty, Muffin, Buddy, Herman, Monte, Brownie & Blackie, Brandy, and now Scout and hopefully Molly. I hope I didnt leave anyone out. There are too many cats to mention.
I actually feel guilty that I have this supposedly pure little creature with all of the lost little nobodies out there. I did not know what he was when I first saw him. He was just a little white dog that looked like he might like to hunt and a little lost. There are so few setters around here that the people at the shelter did not know what he was and called him a Brittany Spaniel.
What is a purebred anyway but maybe a dog that allows us to predict what they will be like or perform certain tasks in certain ways. With this long list of dogs to my history Ive come to believe that the best dogs are the ones that surprise you the most.
Ceasar was older than me and he saved my life perhaps. Maybe nothing surprised me more than his willingness to give up himself to take on a larger attacking dog for my sake.
Monte just showed up one day and assigned himself the position of herd dog and he was a great one. When we sold the cows and moved to town he just left one day and look though I might, I never saw him again. He left the way he came - out of and back into nowhere.
Brandy was my daughter’s dog and when she left for college Brandy adopted me and became my constant companion until Menu took her away from me. I was surprised to find out how I felt about her and how much I missed her quiet companionship when she died.
Scout was every bit as much a surprise to me as Monte. I was surprised to find him. I’ve been surprised at his antics and his skills and his intelligence and his affection almost every day that I have known him.
Every time I see a dog I do not look to the breed but I look for the surprise I know is coming though I have no idea what it might be. It wouldnt be a surprise then, would it?
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 15, 2007 @ 7:33 pm
I don’t believe anyone should have to feel the need to defend their choice in dogs - whether purebred or mixed breed. Whether the dog came from a rescue, a shelter, or a breeder - they’re all equally unique and deserving of a good life as a cherished companion. The only caveat is that - if the dog was obtained from a breeder - that it was a *Responsible* Breeder and not one of the other kinds.
Aside from that, everyone is entitled to look for the dog that suits them best, and never have to explain or justify the choice(s) they have made.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 15, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Pat,
I wasnt attempting to do that.
I was in fact agreeing with you. All of my dogs have always been just exactly what I needed at the time.
I wonder how they know.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 15, 2007 @ 8:03 pm
I got an email from a cousin teling me her sister went out and bought a designer dog….a Schnoozle? Poodle and Schnauzer. I won’t tell you what she paid for it - made me choke. And then I read the part about getting it from someone she works with whose dog had a litter. [Yeah, just in time for Christmas $$$$$.]
I was furious. She should have known better. We’re “rescuers” in my family.
Just as I launched into my email tirade to the renegade cousin, her sister [the one who emailed me] called me. “Lynn, I know you’re probably getting ready to call my sister and give her a long distance guilt trip. But I’m calling to tell you I just did it for you. I made her feel SOOOO bad that tomorrow we’re going to the shelter to get a second dog….that’s her penance for buying a dog from a back yard breeder. And boy was SHE crying by the time I finished with her!”
Yeah, old fashioned guilt. Works every time.
Comment by Lynn — December 15, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Lucky Schnoozle to end up in your family.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 15, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
On that note thought I would put this link in for Scoop the news dog.
Scoop was purchased from a local puppy mill as part of an investigative sting the station ran. He (?) was advertised as a “Peek-a-poo” but when they had him checked out by a vet he said that was a “piece o’ poo”. He had conjuntivitis and lung congestion from the filthy conditions that they caught on camera.
It turns out that the pups were being hauled in from Kentucky by a relative of the woman. She had over fifty dogs most of which were being held out of site in a filthy barn. State regs already cap the number of dogs at something like 20 before requiring licensing but I may not have gotten that part of the story right.
Anyway, Scoop at least has come to a good place. The mill was put out of business at least here in Wisconsin after being sited for multiple code and animal violations. The adults were given away and most of the pups were sold for just a few dollars and the rest went to animal rescue shelters.
They also reported that better legislation is now pending.
The dilema is what becomes of these dogs once they come into the world. The natural instinct is to buy one and give it a good home. But that just encourages more breeding. The best resolution is just what happened here - the dogs were placed in homes but not with huge profits to the mill owner. Its a difficult thing to do and I doubt if it could have been done without a TV station putting the lies on the screen for everyone to see.
Scout and now maybe Molly probably came from some backyard breeder and after some hard luck will hopefully both be in a good place. But someone has to take a loss in order to cut off the profits first. I would never have never bought either from any breeder simply because the pounds and shelters are loaded full of good and deserving dogs (and cats) who are desperate for homes. If you cant find one - just one - there, you are not looking. Thats where most of these dogs wind up anyway purebred or wangdoodle or just plain mut. There is one (or two) waiting for you right now. You just dont know it yet.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 16, 2007 @ 7:13 am
OOps! Think I forgot to add the link!
http://www.nbc26.com/today/11570071.html
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 16, 2007 @ 7:25 am
So what’s the word today on Molly? I was hoping to hear that she had a new home with you, Bernie. Please keep us posted. And, thank you for sharing so beautifully your dogs and what they mean to you.
catmom5
Comment by catmom5 — December 16, 2007 @ 7:38 am
No real commitment from the family so far.
Some rumbling about maybe purchasing a sponsorship for her.
Not exactly what I wanted but better than nothing.
We will see.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 16, 2007 @ 9:22 am
This is off topic but we need help ! My sister in laws dog has been missing since the night of 12/1.From Tabernacle in southern NJ.She is a 10 yr old rottweiler named Cheyenne,wearing a dark pink[almost purple] collar with name & # on it.She is friendly,but shy with strangers. We have contacted everyone local pet related & the police & townships. She is on petfinder & Itchmo & they put up signs & flyers.If you have any ideas you can pm me at lesliek on Itchmo or lkslayer@comcast.net.
Comment by Leslie k — December 16, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Oh, Bernie. Hope Molly will remain long enough at the shelter for you to adopt. Most purebred do get adopted fast. Especially since you posted her picture.
I have owned many dogs, upto seven at one item, some purebreds and some mutts. Only have cats now. No clue what a wangdoodle is. All were wonderful dogs, all lived into the high end of teens.
But the best, smartest and healthiest(also lower vet bills)I had were the mutts.
One way to get rid of puppy mills is to hail the wonderful Mutt. Granted, you will never know really how she/he will turn out when you get a mutt as a little pup but who cares.
I think too many people buy purebreds because it looks better to other people when they are walking them or when taking them to vet , they get plenty ooh’d and ahh’s in the waiting room. Most of them are not into dog shows,just show offs.
I bet other posters have had wonderful experiences with just plain Mutts.
Comment by Serijna — December 16, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Oh, see my post above! Mutts are great! I just got Scout by accident and when I saw Molly I thought she would be a good match and companion for Scout because he gets a little down when I cant take him for runs out at our farm for a few days. He brings me his ball or tug rope and just walks here in town arent enough.
I figured they could play in the back yard and even goof around the house.
Scout tries to play with Wicket the cat and he plays back but Scout is too big and it gets rough and doesnt last.
Maybe it wont happen but thats why I wanted her along with the fact that she seems so skinny and lost in that cell.
I noted that her picture was in the Sunday paper ad for the shelter. Maybe she will be gone soon. At least Ill know she got a home.
Cant really force her on the family if they dont want her. When you think of this, its kind of like the reverse of the original subject here. The gift reciever WANTS the dog but the givers aren’t so sure.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 16, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Bernie, maybe one of these techniques will work for getting the family to agree to adopt Molly:
1. Guilt
2. Groveling
I’m shameless and I’d do either.
Or you could publish your wife’s email address and we’ll bombard her with pleas on your behalf. [No, don’t! Stupid suggestion.]
Maybe you can buy a quilted puffy vest for Molly to help her retain body heat? [Bernie lives far north -really cold weather and the shelter is drafty.]
I encourage everyone to go back and look at this sweet emaciated dog, most likely a puppy milled dog that’s been discarded.
Comment by Lynn — December 16, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Serjina,
I could write volumes about the “just plain mutts” that I’ve had over my lifetime. I’ve only had two purebreds in my lifetime:
A sweet little purebred shih tzu from an honest-to-goodness-reputable breeder, purchased by a friend for his wife who was divorcing him….but neither wife nor dog liked each other, so my friend gave him to me.
Holly, who was adopted with her puppy, a little snowball [and thusly named]. Both were housewarming gifts to me from my then-husband, purchased from the shelter. The mother was a filthy, disgustingly matted, brown mongrel; her puppy was the cleanest white ball of fur. She kept him that way. He couldn’t bear to adopt the pup and not the mama, so he adopted both of them. Holly spent nearly a whole day at the grooming parlor and they worked on her the whole time. When I picked her up I had a toy silver poodle. Purebred. Who would have figured? Our vet said she was most likely a brood bitch. She was about 12 then and still having litters. Can you imagine?
Comment by Lynn — December 16, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 16, 2007 @ 9:22 am
We think Molly would make a wonderful Christmas gift to you. Don’t give up!
Comment by Nadine L. — December 16, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
I think too many people buy purebreds because it looks better to other people when they are walking them or when taking them to vet , they get plenty ooh’d and ahh’s in the waiting room. Most of them are not into dog shows,just show offs.
It is, of course, inconceivable that anyone would buy a purebred dog because they actually like the characteristics of the breed. That considerations of adult size, probable adult temperament, and coat length and characteristics might actually matter to real dog lovers, who should of course be eager to take in any dog at all, without any regard for whether it’s a dog that they will be able to care for and handle as an adult…hmmm. Might be a logic failure there…
People ooh and aah over my little dog because she’s cute, not because they’re impressed by her breed, which they mostly don’t have a clue about. Lots of people think she is a mutt, because they recognize bits and pieces that seem to belong to other, more familiar breeds. So she really doesn’t have much snob appeal.
What she does have is small size (I cannot, at this stage in my life, handle a large dog), likes to walk (I was looking primarily for a walking companion), is good with cats (I have two), is good with kids (I have none, but my sister and friends do, and there are a lot in the neighborhood), and a long, fluffy, nonshedding coat that requires regular (read daily) grooming (I like grooming my pets, and couldn’t imagine having a wash&wear dog.)
And, while I know it’s not true everywhere, the fact remains that in my part of the country, small, fluffy dogs who are verifiably good with cats are fairly rare and get snapped up quickly.
It is, you know, actually possible to extoll the many virtues of mutts, without slagging off everyone who buys a purebred dog.
Comment by Lis — December 16, 2007 @ 6:05 pm
“It is, you know, actually possible to extoll the many virtues of mutts, without slagging off everyone who buys a purebred dog.”
I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Susan Fox — December 16, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
That’s basically a corollary to the post I wrote earlier.
I hate it when people start feeling like they need to defend their choice of a purebred. Nothing wrong with that choice at all, as long as the dog (if obtained from a breeder) was obtained from a *Responsible* Breeder.
And mutts are wonderful, too. I grew up with one who was my very best friend at a time when those were in pretty short supply.
Can we all just try to remember that they are ALL wonderful, and not start judging people on what dog they have chosen to invite into their home and their heart?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 16, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
“It is, of course, inconceivable that anyone would buy a purebred dog because they actually like the characteristics of the breed. That considerations of adult size, probable adult temperament, and coat length and characteristics might actually matter to real dog lovers . . .”
thank you. my next dog will be the same breed as i have now. a Dalmatian. we work well together. most likely purebred, either from rescue/shelter or responsible breeder, depending. there are prob a couple other breeds/mutt mixes that would work with me also, but i’m hooked on the spotty monsters. i could give you a list of dogs that wouldn’t work for me and very valid reason’s why.
people need to understand what a dog is and their traits and how it blends with their lives. if more people did that homework, we might just have a few less dogs looking for homes. dogs are not one size fit all, and neither are people.
Comment by straybaby — December 16, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
I’m with Pat in that people should not feel forced to choose a dog who won’t fit into their circumstances, or is not a match with their personality.
I like retrievers and herding dogs. I like the responsiveness and the sense of partnership. Christie likes sighthounds. She thinks my dogs are over-the-top with their enthusiasm for life. I think her dogs are gorgeous, good-natured and elegant couch potatoes.
Only one of the five dogs I currently own came to me as puppies. Two of them (Drew and Pip) are rescues.
I make no excuses. All three of my flatcoats are co-owned with my friend Mary, who defines the ideal of a reputable, ethical breeder. We work together to preserve the working abilities of this rare breed we love. (Believe me, I wouldn’t be slogging through bogs in all kids of weather if I didn’t believe in preserving working ability.)
I am absolutely tired of the animal-rights mantra of “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder.” That sort of BS is actually hurting animals, since it causes people to shrug, say “what’s the dif?” and go to the pet-store for a puppy mill dog, order a puppy-mill dog off the internet or go buy a $50 “purebred, no papers” golden pup from a local backyard breeder who doesn’t test for genetic issues and doesn’t know or care about the importance of early socialization. Chances are that dog has double hip dysplasia in his future — or euthanasia.
Far as I’m concerned, the ONLY ethical sources of dogs are responsible breeders (who are few and far between) and a shelter or rescue group.
Make any other choice, and you’re supporting the cruelty of a puppy-mill and/or breeding practices that lead to unhealthy, neurotic dogs who often end up in misery or in a shelter — or both.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 17, 2007 @ 9:10 am
Newsweek claims: “If you bought a purebred dog it probably came from puppy mill.”
Hey Newsweek, some of us don’t need to rely on questionable statistics to know who bred our dogs.
I KNOW where my purebred dogs came from, and in no case was it a puppy mill.
In addition, virtually all of the purebred dogs I have seen in either working roles or in schutzhund came from a reputable breeder.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 9:23 am
I have owned three purebred dogs in my lifetime sofar. All were wonderful. I absolutely donot want to offend owners of purebreds that acquired their pet from a reliable source and for all the right reasons.
I have owned a Samoyed, the sweetest gentlest of them all. A blue eyed Siberian huskie.(we used to howl together at nite) and the biggest clown of all, an Afghan Hound(at least one hour of brushing each day). A real ooh/ahh great breed that I got from a rescue but what a wonderful (quite a handful) dog. Only thing wrong with them, larger dogs donot live long enough and it hurts so much when they pass on.
Noticed another poster has a Dalmatian,another great breed. When 101 Dalmations movie came out, this wonderful breed to a hit(inferior breeding kicked in high gear). Always shudder when a movie comes out that features a purebred dog, wish they would always use mutts. Too many impulsive people end up buying the breed for their kids after seeing such movie and keep the puppy mills humming in high gear.
Anyway did not want to offend anybody ,just pointing out almost any canine is great, with or without pedigree plus mutts quite often have less health problems.
I donot condone cosmetic fiddling like ear cropping/tail docking, however. Barbaric IMO and should be outlawed like in Western Europe.
A Dobermann looks wonderful with floppy ears.
Comment by Serijna — December 17, 2007 @ 11:40 am
RE: The “mutts have less health problems: idea:
Here’s the thing: You can COLLECT DATA for the healtb problems of purebreds. And that’s what breed fanciers do - because the responsible ones want to know what’s out there in their breed of choice in order to do what they can to address the problems. So they document the problems, and make the information public, which is what responsible investigators do.
On the other hand, *how* do you document the health problems of *mutts* in any way that is meaningful? They don’t exist as a discrete population, and there isn’t a group of “fanciers” with a vested interest in the outcome. Consequently, such information is NOT out there and documented in the public sphere.
As a result, we have all sorts of documenation for the fact that “purebreds have health problems” and precious little documenting the health problems of mixed breed dogs (when - in fact - there’s a good chance that any given mixed breed dog has the potential to be carrying ALL the various and sundry health issues inherited from ALL the various and sundry breeds that make up his/her parentage).
The resulting picture this creates in the public eye is that “purebreds have health issues” and that “mutts have none”. And I’m not sure the evidence has ever been gathered to support the latter statement.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
I can certainly appreciate that a certain dog has been bred to fill certain needs of man. I did not teach Scout how to hunt pheasants. He already knew so there are certain advantages to this kind of selection.
But I think there is also a eugenics streak in dog breeding that bothers me a good deal. For me, pedigrees are worthless pieces of paper. What matters are the traits of the individual.
But, let us not forget that for every one of the selected there are perhaps dozens of the unselected refuse. It is these tempest tossed dogs that we are concening ourselves with here, not the chosen few.
I like the line from “Stripes” where Bill Murray makes a new take on what it means to be an American… “We ARE the wretched refuse!” There are more notions of royalty in the so called blood lines of the AKC than good genetics. As a midwestern American whose ancestors “got kicked out of every respectable country in Europe…” I’ll take that wretched refuse and be quite happy with it.
Comment by Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski — December 17, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Not sure what your point is here, but I can GUARANTEE you that a Responsible Breeder cares about providing the best possible home for EVERY dog they have produced - whether that dog is the Best In Show at Westminster, or a mismark who is ineligible to be shown.
Concern for - and *responsibility* for - every animal they have produced is one of the essential hallmarks of a Responsible Breeder.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Bernie, responsible breeders care about every puppy, take great care to place every puppy in a responsible, appropriate home, require speutering of every pet-quality puppy, commit to taking the puppy back at ANY time if for ANY REASON the buyer cannot keep the dog—and stay in touch with the buyer for the life of the dog. Addy was returned to her breeder by her original buyer, and my contract with the breeder requires that I send picture regularly, so that she can see how Addy is doing.
Perhaps you could explain to me exactly how this equates to the pet-quality puppies being “wretched refuse” in the eyes of their breeders?
Comment by Lis — December 17, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
Liz is right: A reputable breeder takes responsibility FOR LIFE for every dog she brings into this world. No matter how many ribbons, no matter how many titles, no matter what the circumstances or age of the animal.
None. Birth to death responsibility for every dog.
My retriever Heather is worth jack squat except to me. She’s 11. If I died tomorrow she’d get on a plane and go back to Mary, where she’d sleep on Mary’s bed for the rest of her life. Heather is gray, spayed and arthritic. And I know Mary will take care of her, because Heather was born in Mary’s kitchen.
This is what we keep saying here.
There is an incredible difference between a good breeder and the others. And the difference is “responsibility.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 17, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
“For me, pedigrees are worthless pieces of paper. What matters are the traits of the individual.”
If you are a loving companion pet owner, then the pedigree CAN be a worthless piece of paper (you have that luxury). However, for a breeder the pedigree is an incredibly important tool. The responsible breeder should be able to tell you the health of every dog in a puppy’s 4gen pedigree (at the very least). They will know which lines carry what genetic problems, and the best ways of keeping them from appearing in the future. Responsible breeders work very hard so that you only have to worry about the traits of your individual companion. However, can you imagine if your puppy came from a less than ethical source (where a male and a female were just thrown together without thought of health testing)? If that puppy then was discovered to have the same health problems as both parents (only amplified), then can’t you see the importance of the pedigree?
Comment by Jess — December 17, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
The other Pat.
You are absolutely right about health issues pedigreed vs mutts,no statistics. I can only go from my own experiences purebred vs wonderful mutts. I did have more health issues with the pedigreed pets but ofcourse my dog volume was not nearly large enough for a statistical sample.
My Samoyed had often skin issues, it improved when moving from Florida to PA. Was at that time too stupid to realize that such dogs donot belong in Florida to begin with. Still I was told by various vets that mutts quite often have a better immune systems,less allergies. However,when reputable breeder, there is probably no difference.
Oh Bernie, your last name suggest Polish heritage. I donot recall Polish people being kicked out of European countries, especially the North West countries(Scandinavia and Holland). However, if Polish and also Jewish,
there were a few shameful time periods.
I so hope , you will get Mollie. Keep on pestering your family to ad nauseum.
Comment by Serijna — December 17, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Frankly, I am tired hearing about those relatively rare “reputable breeders”. A rare breed indeed. And various internet sites(including this one) trying to educate consumers when buying a purebred puppy. And not ending up with a horrible heartbreak.
Many consumers “looking for a purebred” puppy buyers are under the false assumption that
AKC papers means it is all honky dorry. Why not go after the money grubbing AKC and establish some standards/inspections. I donot buy that they there are not have enough inspectors. Albeit, they should be able to get enough qualified volunteers to do those necessary inspections.
If you want to take on puppy mills, take on the AKC and their
rubber stamping of the pedigreed paperwork.
Come up with a new organization if necessary that can be trusted by the consumer.
Just doing a slow burn.
I HATE PUPPY MILLS.
Comment by Serijna — December 17, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Serijna … we’ve given the AKC a fair share of criticism here. But the fact remains that when the AKC tightened its standards (inspections, etc), the puppy-millers created their own paper-mills for their puppy mill puppies.
Many puppy mill dog are from those other registries because the AKC papers weren’t worth the trouble, as far as puppy-millers were concerned.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 17, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Frankly, I am tired hearing about those relatively rare “reputable breeders”. A rare breed indeed.
And yet remarkably easy to find, if you don’t start from the presumption that “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder.”
The problem is that people don’t put the research into buying a puppy that they put into buying a toaster. They fall for a cute face in a pet store or on the internet, and their brains stop working.
The situation is not helped, of course, by people who peddle nonsense such as “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” or that responsible breeders are so rare that it’s not worth anyone’s time and trouble to try and find one.
Comment by Lis — December 17, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
OTHER Pat writes: “how do you document the health problems of mutts in any way that is meaningful? They don’t exist as a discrete population, and there isn’t a group of “fanciers” with a vested interest in the outcome. Consequently, such information is NOT out there and documented in the public sphere.”
Actually, the information has been collected, studied, and published. In some European countries most dogs have health insurance. Mutts included. These health insurance databases have provided a wealth of information about mortality and morbidity of dogs. For example, this research shows that, on average, mutts have fewer health problems, based on health insurance claims.
There are a number of epidemiological studies indicating that mixed breed dogs live longer than purebreds, on average. For example, “The median age at death for all dogs in the study was 10.0 years. Mixed-breed dogs had a higher median age at death (11.0 years) than the entire population, but breeds like Shetland Sheepdog, Poodle and Dachshund exceeded this age (12 years). The Bernese Mountaindog, the group of Molossian types and the Sighthounds had the shortest life span with a median age at death of 7.0 years.”
However, the study with the largest database, Swedish health insurance records of 350,000 dogs, found no significant difference between mixed breed and all breed longevity to 10 years of age. That’s when the health insurance ceases, and with it the record keeping. 35% of both mixed breeds and all breeds lived to 10 years of age in among these 350,000 dogs.
Dogs vary as individuals, a lot. Some breeds live much longer than others, on average. Some lines are longer lived than others, on average. YMMV.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
Laura, look at the size of the dogs that you pointed out. Of course a Bernese Mountain Dog is going to have a shorter lifespan than a Dachshund, just as I would expect a large Mutt would have a shorter lifespan than a smaller Mutt. The information that you posted isn’t proving a point (in my opinion) unless the data was broken down by dog size (using similarly sized purebreds and mutts) in each study. I am by no means an expert on the mixed breed dog, but from what I have seen from friends who have owned mixed breed dogs, they don’t tend to be as large as specific purebreds (which may skew the results some). For example I have never seen a mutt that is as large as a Great Dane or Irish Wolfhound.
Comment by Jessica — December 17, 2007 @ 8:14 pm
LauraS, have you got the cites for those studies?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Serijna, I agree with you that AKC papers are not a guarantee of perfect health. After all, a dog is a living creature and you cannot guarantee the health of ANY living creature. However, I don’t agree with your contempt of the “rare reputable breeder.” Yes puppy mills are horrible places in which no animal should have to live (and I use the word loosely because I don’t think that mill brood bitches have much of a life). If you haven’t ever come across a responsible breeder than perhaps you haven’t been looking in the right places. A responsible breeder can be the greatest asset that a puppy or a dog owner can have. They will be with you for the life of that dog.
The AKC is a registry of purebred dogs, which means through their record keeping you can trace the lineage of a purebred dog back to either the start of the AKC or when the dog’s ancestors were imported to this country. I don’t see how fighting the AKC is going to stop puppy mills. It just seems like a lot of effort in the wrong direction. If you want to fight the puppy mills, look at changing what is acceptable according to the USDA. The government says that it is ok to treat dogs in a fashion that I don’t find acceptable, perhaps that is what needs to change.
Comment by Jessica — December 17, 2007 @ 8:40 pm
Jessica, the 350,000 dogs from Swedish health insurance records includes both purebreds and the mixed breed dogs that result from this purebred population. The data set is large enough that the median size for all dogs and the median size for mixed breeds is probably the same.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Is there a URL where the study details can be found?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Jessica, for starters, I’d like to see the selling of dogs from retail establishments be outlawed. There are some other, trickier aspects to legislating breeding practices, but so far, I haven’t come up with a downside to making it illegal to sell dogs from retail stores.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
OTHER Pat, here are the citations for the two studies I quoted. There are a number of other studies that compare mixed breed and purebred dogs.
A. Egenvall, B. N. Bonnett, Å. Hedhammar and P. Olson “Mortality in over 350,000 Insured Swedish Dogs from 1995-2000: II. Breed-Specific Age and Survival Patterns and Relative Risk for Causes of Death” Acta vet. scand. 2005, 46, 121-136.
Helle Friis Proschowsky, Helene Rugbjergb, and Annette Kjær Ersbøllb “Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark” Prev Vet Med, Vol 58, 1-2, 30 April 2003, 63-74.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
The study of the 350,000 Swedish dogs is available online for free. Here’s Part II.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....obtype=pdf
You can find the “Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark” report online but it’s $30 to download it.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
Serijina said “Frankly, I am tired hearing about those relatively rare “reputable breeders”. A rare breed indeed”
You are not looking very hard if you think reputable breeders are rare.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
I’ve only had a chance to glance through the Swedish paper - but I have to agree with Jessica that lumping all the mixed breeds together as a group could be misleading. Granted - identifying them by parentage could be a daunting task for many, many reasons. But even a breakdown by body size (so they could be roughly correlated to various similarly-sized dogs among purebreds) would make the information more useful.
It’s an interesting study, though. I’ll spend some more time reading through it.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 17, 2007 @ 9:32 pm
OTHER Pat, I agree that outlawing the selling of pets in retail establishments would be the best way to keep puppy mill puppies from reaching the general public (and thus lowering the demand portion of supply and demand). However, it seems to me that the brokers have more political clout than the millers themselves. If one were to raise the standards by which millers had to keep their dogs, as a starting point, then at least the lowest of the low would be unable to sell their dogs. Unfortunately a big influence in ridding the country of puppy mills is the general public, many of whom just don’t care as long as it’s not affecting them directly.
Comment by Jessica — December 17, 2007 @ 10:11 pm
Quoting from “Mortality of purebred and mixed-breed dogs in Denmark”:
“In the study by Patronek et al. (1997), all purebred and mixed-breed dogs were divided into categories according to body-weight, and within each body-weight category, the median age at death was lower for purebred dogs compared to mixed-breed dogs.”
Patronek, G.J., Waters, D.J. and Glickman, L.T., 1997. Comparative longevity of pet dogs and humans: implications for gerontology research. J. Gerontol.: Biol. Sci. A 52 3, pp. B171–B178.
Comment by LauraS — December 17, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Oh, for heavens sake, let’s stop beating on folks who can’t find reputable breeders.
Remember, at this point, blog comments come from all over the country and breeders aren’t evenly distributed — and, depending on where you are in the country, you may not HAVE a reputable breeder for the type of purebred dog that you’re looking for — so you make adjustments.
For instance, I live outside of Philadelphia and I really wanted a Bearded Collie in 2002. Well, couldn’t find a reputable breeder that didn’t live in New England. Since that was too much of a trek to look over sire and dam (I never bought a Persian without seeing both and reading the pedigree), we went with Option #2 which was getting a Border Collie mix from local rescue.
Before I came to this site, I’d never even SEEN a flat-coated retriever, let alone someone who actually knew breeders of this breed. If there is anyone who breeds this dog in Southeastern PA, I’ve never seen them or their dogs (including at the Philly AKC show).
So, let’s not beat up on folks who can’t find reputable breeders — we all agree that the reputable folks are rare and when you’re looking for a specific breed, they just might not be found in the part of the country where the poster lives.
Comment by Dorene — December 18, 2007 @ 6:02 am
Dorene if you were interested in the Flat-Coated Retriever, I would tell you to contact the Mid-Atlantic Flat-Coated Retriever Club (www.mafcrc.org), they handle New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As an alternate you could also contact the Capital Region Flat-Coated Retriever Club (www.crfcrc.org), they handle Maryland, Virginia, and DC. Both of these clubs would be able to give you a list of breeders in the area, while they might not all have puppies available immediately, but it would be a starting point.
I agree with you about the Philly show, years ago it used to be a great show to go to. This year however, there wasn’t even one special in my breed of interest. Looking at the akc website, it looks like there were only 3 Flat Coated Retrievers at the Philly show, but last weekend at the Lehigh Valley show there were 16 entered. Using infodog.com and the akc website to find dog events in your area (as well as the number of dogs entered before you leave your house so it’s not a waste of time) is a great tool for the prospective puppy buyer.
Comment by Jessica — December 18, 2007 @ 7:01 am
>>they just might not be found in the part of the country where the poster lives.
And yet … people will order off the Internet in a half-dozen clicks (purebred or “designer” mix) from a puppy mill and have it shipped across the country.
We’re not “beating up” on people. We’re (or at least *I* am) trying to counter the “breeder is a breeder is a breeder” mantra from the animal-rights people that set up this mess. When the national groups say “shelter good, breeder bad” they’re making no distinctions.
I absolutely, positively belief many people are best served working with shelter and rescue groups. After all, I have a picture of my Pip from the Stanislaus County Animal Control facility in Modesto, in which he was a leggy 5-month-old with the broken belt that was his collar still around his neck. Thank heavens the German shep rescue people pulled him and put him into foster care.
But … if you MUST have that golden retriever puppy (or whatever), there is a reputable breeder who can help. Can you get that puppy today by whipping out the credit card? Nope. That’s why they’re reputable breeders.
But you WILL get a healthy, well-socialized puppy who likely already understands the concepts of house-training, sits for his dish and has proper bite inhibition. And you WILL get a breeder who’ll answer every question and help in every way forever.
And will always take back that dog if you cannot keep him.
The person who interviewed me at the rescue group’s adoption day where I went to meet Pip? A reputable breeder. Could have been at a show, but he wasn’t. He was taking responsibility for the dogs other breeders produced.
By the way … if you get to meet both the dam and sire in dogs, you’re less likely to be dealing with a reputable breeder. The good ones don’t use the male who just happens to live there, but rather choose the one who’s best for the female. In the case of one of my dogs, that sire was in Sweden and the dam was in Texas. My friend took her dog and flew to Copenhagen, where the owners of the sire met them. Believe me, I’ve never met McKenzie’s dad.
An extreme example, but it does show you the commitment of a reputable breeder.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — December 18, 2007 @ 7:21 am
So, let’s not beat up on folks who can’t find reputable breeders
No one was doing that. Serjina decided to make some sweepingly insulting remarks about people who own purebred dogs, and after backtracking a tiny bit when challenged, went on to say that, “Frankly, I am tired hearing about those relatively rare “reputable breeders”. A rare breed indeed.”
And shockingly enough, people who are, were, or have found reputable breeders have been responding to that.
—we all agree that the reputable folks are rare
No, actually, we don’t all agree that reputable breeders are rare.
and when you’re looking for a specific breed, they just might not be found in the part of the country where the poster lives.
Certainly some breeds are more common in some parts of the country than others. But Addy is a Chinese Crested, and although she’s the powderpuff variety, it’a breed known for its hairlessness and which has its greatest popularity in warmer, sunnier parts of the country than New England. Yet I was able to find three highly-regarded Chinese Crested breeders in reasonable driving distance in New England, and another (actually, two more) on Long Island, with some not very onerous research. Yes, the Long Island breeders would have been an overnight trip, if I didn’t want to be driving on total exhaustion, but that was hardly much of an obstacle, considering I was looking for a pet that I hope to have in my life for fifteen years or so.
Granted, of course, that it’s more work than buying from a pet store or an online puppy mill.
Comment by Lis — December 18, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Dorene wrote: “So, let’s not beat up on folks who can’t find reputable breeders—we all agree that the reputable folks are rare and when you’re looking for a specific breed, they just might not be found in the part of the country where the poster lives.”
Dorene, we do NOT all agree that reputable breeders are rare. I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. The Animal Rights extremists spread that propaganda in an attempt to vilify all breeding.
I have a rare breed. Most people have never even HEARD of the English Shepherd breed let alone seen one (no, they are not English Sheepdogs). There are no English Shepherd breeders in California, where I live. But once I became connected to the English Shepherd breed community, I networked with a number of reputable breeders across America. When it came time for me to get a puppy, it was not difficult to obtain one from a reputable breeder. My puppy was flown in from Oregon. He grew up to become my certified search-and-rescue dog.
Sure, if somebody wants to treat the purchase of a puppy like they would the purchase of a refrigerator, where all they need to do is check the recommendations on Consumer Reports, then yeah, obtaining a well-bred puppy is more difficult than that. But that is true for any breed, even the very common breeds. That doesn’t mean that reputable breeders are rare. It means puppy buyers have more homework to do.
My “other breed” in working line German Shepherd Dogs. While GSDs are common, working line GSDs constitute less than 5% of the breed, so they are not common. Still, it is not difficult to find a reputable breeder of these dogs. I’ve recommended breeders of these dogs to others. But again, I’m connected to this breed community.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 8:19 am
Comment by Jessica — December 18, 2007 @ 7:01 am
“Using infodog.com and the akc website to find dog events in your area (as well as the number of dogs entered before you leave your house so it’s not a waste of time) is a great tool for the prospective puppy buyer.”
I’d like to expand on Jessica’s advice here. For starters, the best place to begin your search for a Responsible Breeder is at a dog show. Now before folks begin jumping me with all their stories of irresponsible show breeders they have encountered, let me say this: Not all show breeders are Responsible Breeders. However, all Responsible Breeders prove the worth of their breeding programs (to someone other than themselves) and most commonly, this is done in the show ring and/or Performance Events (if applicable to your breed). Earlier I spoke about the “Responsible” part of “Responsible Breeding” that has to do with the (lifelong) responsibility for the *individual* dog. Now I’m going to talk about the part that has to do with the shared responsibility for the breed as a whole. Both parts go into making up a Responsible Breeder.
The fact is, most breeders you meet will tell you that THEIR puppies and dogs are really outstanding representatives of the breed. But then, most parents will tell you that THEIR kids are really talented and intelligent. It is a part of human nature to take pride in what you have produced (and what you love). So the real test is who ELSE agrees with that assessment, and how that is established.
In the case of dogs, the means of establishing how well a breeder of - say - Great Danes is doing at producing really nice Great Danes is for that breeder to put the animals s/he has produced into a ring alongside animals OTHER breeders have produced and have an objective third party (the judge) compare each dog to a theoretical “ideal” (embodied in each breed’s written Breed Standard). Again, folks will come up with all sorts of stories about how imperfect this system is, but no one ever seems to suggest in its place a better one.
Ask any breeder you talk with what the goals of their breeding program is. If the gist of their answer is “To have lots of nice puppies to sell to people like you” then run - fast! - the other way. They’re not in it for the good of the dogs. They’re in it for the good of their pocketbook.
However, if the breeder launches into a detailed explanation of a plan that includes several generations of anticipated breedings, what s/he is striving for in each generation, how that constitutes an improvement over preceding generations, what strengths s/he wants to strengthen, what faults s/he is working to eliminate, and what dogs s/he is looking at bringing into his/her program to accomplish this (as well as - specifically - what each of these dogs brings to the program) then that’s a good start. Still not a guarantee that this person embodies everything that goes into the makeup of a Responsible Breeder, but a huge step above the breeder who has a boy dog and a girl dog and just throws them together to make puppies to sell.
So start at a dog show. Do some homework first. Be prepared to ask a lot of questions, and to BE asked a lot of questions in return. And be willing to put some time into it - after all, you’re looking at the potential of a companion who could be with you for ten years or more. Isn’t it worth a little time spent up front?
And this - folks - is how you begin the journey towards finding a Responsible Breeder if you’re looking for a breeder to get your next dog from.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 8:44 am
The OTHER Pat wrote: “I’d like to expand on Jessica’s advice here. For starters, the best place to begin your search for a Responsible Breeder is at a dog show.”
If you want a show dog, a dog show is certainly the place to look. But that’s the last place you want to go if you want a dog for work.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 10:18 am
If you want a responsibly bred dog, dog shows, obedience trials, field trials, lure coursing events, herding trials are the place to start your search. People who aren’t competing their dogs somehow, putting them up to the judgment of third parties, are not breeding for the good of the breed.
And if you’re looking for “just” a pet, not a show dog, conformation shows are a great place to start.
Comment by Lis — December 18, 2007 @ 10:25 am
The OTHER Pat wrote: “Again, folks will come up with all sorts of stories about how imperfect this system is, but no one ever seems to suggest in its place a better one.”
“Better” is in the eye of the beholder. A “better” system for breeding functional dogs was invented thousands of years before the first show ring existed. It’s breeding proven working dogs to proven working dogs. It’s still the best system if one wants a healthy bred-for-function dog.
If one’s goal is to have a dog who can do well in the show ring, then breeders who prove their stock in the show ring is undoubtably the best place to look.
If one’s goal is to obtain a working dog, then the place to look is among working dog breeders.
If one’s goal is a sound healthy pet, then those who place companion dog traits as their top priority in breeding is where one should look.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 10:34 am
“If one’s goal is a sound healthy pet, then those who place companion dog traits as their top priority in breeding is where one should look.”
Health should always be the top priority when breeding, whether for show, work or play.
LauraS, it really does depend on the breed you have in mind. Some show dogs are also field and working dogs. I do agree that some breeds have split into conformation or working though. I think that the people who are interested in obtaining proven working stock are not the people that my advise or OTHER Pat’s advise or Lis’ advise are aimed at. Rather I was speaking to the general population of companion pet owners (or want to be owners) that do not know where to start in looking for a companion animal (non-show, non-working). Dog shows are great places to meet responsible breeders. Most hobby breeders that I deal with will keep the best puppy in a given litter and place the rest in companion homes. And not because they don’t want the competition, but rather they don’t see the point in showing or breeding a conformationally lesser dog. Sometimes there will be exceptional litters that have more than one puppy that should be kept, but for the most part breeders also agree that a pet home is usually a better home than a show home. Most of the breeders I know are looking out for the best interest of the puppy, and will place a dog that might be “show quality” in a great pet home without a giving it a second thought.
Comment by Jess — December 18, 2007 @ 11:21 am
If one’s goal is a sound healthy pet, then those who place companion dog traits as their top priority in breeding is where one should look.
Um. Yeah. Obviously.
And that’s far more common among show breeders than people who, for instance, actually need their Austalian Cattle Dog to herd large numbers of cattle.
Most (not all, by any means, but most) successful show dogs are family pets. The breeders have kids, other pets, need their show dogs to be calm and friendly, or at least calm, in the hustle-bustle of a show, willing to be handled by the judge, not over-reactive to other dogs in the ring.
Also, not a minor point, many of those dogs have dual titles, conformation and obedience/field trial/whatever the breed was created for. Yes, some breeds have split into conformation and working/field lines, but others have not.
Comment by Lis — December 18, 2007 @ 11:37 am
There are many who breed dogs for success in the show ring who place a high priority on companion dog traits and health.
Yet one can see entire breeds that have been damaged by show ring selection, so the buyer needs to be careful. The American cocker spaniel breed went from a great family dog, bright and highly trainable, with no reason to be aggressive toward anyone, and was transformed into the breed that many dog groomers say is most likely to bite and many professional dog trainers say is unsuitable for homes with young children.
You get what you select for. Some breeders place success in the show ring above all else, and will breed unhealthy dogs, or will breed dogs with spooky, unstable, or otherwise unsound temperaments. Other breeders of course do not do this. It’s not rare though, judging from the degradation of breed temperament and health in many breeds.
In general, your odds of obtaining what you want are highest if the breeder is selecting for the traits that you want as his or her HIGHEST priority. Any time something else is selected for as a higher priority then compromises are likely to be made. Sometimes the compromises go too far. It depends on the breeder, and it does vary by the breed.
I would not, for example, recommend that anyone who wants a German Shepherd Dog as a pet go to an AKC show ring to find a breeder. IMO the health and temperament of this dog population has deteriorated too much.
Based on the seriously overweight dogs favored in the show rings for some breeds, I’d tend to steer clear of those too. I cannot trust the judgment of a breeder or breed community that believes that “correct” dogs should be borderline obese.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
I never suggested a buyer should suspend his or her capacity for critical thinking when starting their search. But as you, yourself pointed out earlier, you’re in touch with the dog community. Many, many pet buyers are not, and don’t have a clue where to start.
I suggest a dog show (or a Performance Event - you DID notice that my post included that, didn’t you?) as a *starting* point. I get asked all the time how people can GUARANTEE that they will succeed in finding a Responsible Breeder in their breed of choice, and I can’t do that (without spending all my available time holding their hands as they go through the process). But I CAN direct them to a dog show as a great *starting* point - armed with knowledge gained through homework done in advance, prepared to ask questions (and be asked questions in return) and - MOST OF ALL - to be wearing their “critical thinking hat” and trusting their gut in that if something doesn’t look or feel right, then they should keep looking.
But chances are it’s a big show, and they’ll have plenty more places to look.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Absolutely, if one wants a performance dog then in some cases performance events can be a great place to look. As I wrote: “In general, your odds of obtaining what you want are highest if the breeder is selecting for the traits that you want as his or her HIGHEST priority.” Depends on what one’s goals are.
If one wants a dog to do agility? Sure, go to agility events.
For a livestock guardian dog? AFAIK there are no performance events.
For a healthy, temperamentally sound, low maintenance couch potato pet dog? I’m not sure performance events are the place to look. Many of those dogs are too much dog for the average pet owner too. And contrary to what many think, they don’t train themselves ;-)
It’s easy for people to get enamored by a dog doing beautiful work in a performance event. My husband has had strangers approach him when he’s doing obedience training with his GSD, saying they want a dog just like that. They don’t realize that (1) this dog is unsuitable for 99.9% of pet homes, and (2) it took more work to train this dog to do what they were enamored by than 99.99% of pet homes will ever be willing to do. This GSD was, BTW, the “pet quality” pup in a performance-bred litter. He surprised everybody and grew up to be a top national-level schutzhund competition dog.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
Lis,
I live in PA about 45 minutes drive from Lancaster County, home of many horrible Amish puppy mills. Many are sold with AKC paperwork, although lately (due to bad publicity) there are not that many farms selling pups along the road/farmers markets like they used to(and not cheap either $1000.00 and up, mostly smaller dogs though). But they are still there, selling to middlemen, who in turn sell them to pet stores.
Pa at state level(have more faith in state level legislation than the Fed. USDA).
has various bills in the works to improve the situation for the dogs, but they are constantly being revised/watered down at the request of the AKC and breeders/kennels.
Maybe that is why my view on purebred dogs is slightly askew since this whole businesss is such a stinking cesspool. Another result of puppy mills are those horrible dog auctions.
I also sincerely doubt if there are enough bonafide breeders that could satisfy the public demand for purebreds without a long long waiting period.
As far as I am concerned , pet stores should only have dogs/cats placed there by local shelters/rescue groups.
Anyway, I am entitled to my opinion.
http://petloverstips.com/ForTh.....e-dog-laws
.
Comment by Serijna — December 18, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
I put the primary responsibility for the existence of deplorable puppy mills not on the federal government, not on state government, not on local government, and not on the AKC.
I put the primary responsibility on the consumer who purchases puppies from pet stores or from Internet puppy mill outlets.
It seems for almost any ill that faces society that derives from consumer choices, the consumer invariably wants to pass the blame off on somebody else. Sorry, but IMO the blame is squarely on the consumers’ shoulders.
This problem cannot be legislated away. Ban the selling of dogs and cats at pet stores and we’ll see the Internet puppy mill outlets grow in size. Ban both of them and it’ll increase smuggling of underage, unhealthy puppies from other countries (even worse than puppy mills). Ban puppy smuggling… uh, it’s already illegal. The government cannot come close to stopping the smuggling of illegal drugs. There’s no way they can stop puppy smuggling either. Not as long as there is consumer demand.
Until the consumer takes full responsibility for his own actions, the puppy mill problem will not be solved.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
LauraS, I’m confused here.
You don’t want someone looking for a pet to go to dog shows. You don’t advise they go to performance events. You warn them against looking at working stock.
Just where - then - are you advising someone who wants a purebred and who has no background or “connections” in the dog world to start their search?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
The OTHER Pat, you are mistating what I’ve said. Again…
If you want a show dog then by all means go looking for contacts at dog shows.
If you want a performance dog then by all means go looking for contacts at performance events.
If you want a working dog then by all means get one from working stock.
As I said: “In general, your odds of obtaining what you want are highest if the breeder is selecting for the traits that you want as his or her HIGHEST priority.”
So it depends very much on what a person wants in a dog. Not everyone has the same goals. Not all pet dog buyers want the same thing. I’m not going to recommend any “one stop shopping” location for everyone’s pet dog needs, if that’s what you are aiming for.
To those who have no background or connections into the dog world but who want a purebred dog, I suggest that they develop them. Ask trusted contacts for references. Contact breeders. Join breed email lists. Ask questions about the breed. Get educated. Make a commitment.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
And a good place for them to START that commitment to getting educated is at a dog show.
Even if they are NOT looking for a “show dog”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 6:04 pm
A great event to educate people on the plight of puppy mill dogs. Please spread the word!!
http://www.puppymillrescue.com/bark.htm
Comment by thomas — December 18, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
I became totally turned off toward the German Shepherd Dog breed when I went to an AKC show to see them. I formed a similar opinion about a number of the breeds I saw there. It wasn’t until many years later, when I learned about different bloodlines within breeds, that I overcame my earlier opinion.
More recently, the Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers I saw in the show ring were seriously overweight and unfit.
I know what fit and structurally sound German Shepherd Dogs, Labrador Retrievers, and Rottweilers look like, because I work with them on a regular basis in SAR.
These are popular breeds, and breeds that I happen to like. I cannot recommend a dog show for people to learn about them.
Comment by LauraS — December 18, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
While you dislike dog shows, not everyone shares that opinion. And I can’t think of an other place where a person - still learning about dogs - is likely to actually *see* so many different kinds and breeds of dogs in one place.
Those of us who have been deeply involved in dogs can easily forget how easy it is for us to “find the connections” and “locate information” and so on. For folks just getting started, it can be a daunting task.
So I know you disagree with me, and that’s not likely to change. But I happen to believe that a dog show is a great resource for people who are really at a loss as to how to get started. (And “show breeders” are ALWAYS looking for good “pet” homes. Any show breeder who thinks that every dog out of every litter they produce is always going to be a “show dog” is deluding themselves.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — December 18, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
Bernie, any news on Molly? Hope that she’s in a brand new forever home before Christmas.
catmom5
Comment by catmom5 — December 19, 2007 @ 7:11 am
Serija, just a couple of comments. Most of the objections I’ve heard to the PA proposed laws are not attempts to “water down” anything - they’re attempts to not force a hobby breeder square peg into a commercial breeder round hold.
Some examples of the things I’ve heard objected to include that the qualifying number of dogs is set at the number of dogs on your property over a year - not the number of dogs housed there regularly - at 25 dogs over the course of the whole year.
The regulations needed to protect commercially bred dogs in mass kennels do NOT apply well to small hobby kennels. A small hobby kennel may have 25 dogs over the course of year, when you add up rescues, residents, and puppies - but at the same time it may NEVER having more than 10-15 dogs in residence at any one time.
Does it make sense to you to apply the rules for 1000 dogs, breeding thousands of puppies, to a person with 10 who breeds one or at most two litters per year? It sure doesn’t to me, and the biggest screaming I’ve heard is that the rules for big commercial breeders are a poor fit for hobby breeders and hunters.
Instead of watering down the commercial standards to accommodate hobby breeders, why not draw the dividing line in a more sensible way?
As far as specific requirements, if you cross that dividing line, the requirement I heard the most objections to was to separate male and female dogs, even if not in heat, even if one was spayed or neutered. What on earth is the point of that, other than to deprive our dogs of company and socialization? A similar, and equally stupid, law just passed in a county in NM.
I also heard a ton of objections to the rule that you must exercise your dog daily “in accordance with regulations.”
Being out in the yard not only does not count, it’s forbidden if the dog could get wet or muddy - it has to be on a waterproof surface. Hunting a hunting dog does not count. Working a working dog does not count.
I would love to see a rule that commercially bred dogs were let loose in a yard daily to run, but apparently that doesn’t count. You have to have a waterproof, mud-proof, weatherproof area. Setting up a large cement yard probably makes sense for commercial breeders. It doesn’t make sense to concrete up your back yard when you are not a commercial breeder and if your dogs get wet, you take them inside and DRY THEM.
There are more examples, but these are the most annoying I can recall offhand. Wouldn’t it be better to make the regulations reflect the reality just a teeny bit?
Can’t you understand how non-mill breeders might object to having to isolate their (not in estrus) dogs into gender groups and having to concrete in their back yards for no good purpose?
Comment by Sallly — December 19, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Basically, the PA proposed law comes from the “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” mentality, that is willing to make deals with puppy millers, but would like to completely eliminate responsible hobby breeders.
And that, of course, is why some people support it, and decry all attempts at making it more rational.
Comment by Lis — December 19, 2007 @ 11:05 am
I know all these posts are old, but Bernie forgot some wonderful dogs his family has had. He forgot my, his sister’s, purebred shetland sheepdog and our bassett/collie mutts (herman’s children), snoopy and the red baron.
Happening upon this page and seeing the list of names made me miss them.
Comment by Donna — June 3, 2008 @ 2:36 pm