Oprah: Making people see the cruelty of puppy mills
By Gina Spadafori
April 3, 2008
The preview for the Oprah puppy mill show is fantastic! Looks like she’s really going to expose these horrible puppy factories. Way to go!
Check it out and then tell us what you thought of the show after.
And add your favorite links to more information on this issue, too.
Here’s Oprah’s list of resources and here’s her message board link.
I won’t see the show for hours here on the West Coast, since it’s on just before the evening news in my area.
And in the credit where credit is due department, check out the resources at The Humane Society of the United States. They have always, always been in the forefront of investigating and exposing puppy mills, all the way back to a 1962 Life magazine expose — “Not Fit for a Dog.” In the 1980s, the courageous Bob Baker of the HSUS exposed puppy mills, leading to the passage of “puppy lemon laws” in many states.
The “you’re either with us or agin’ us” stuff that makes me crazy: John Yates, writing for the American Sporting Dog Alliance:
Dog owners might be in for another bashing on Friday, when ultra-liberal talk show host Oprah Winfrey does a special program on “puppy mills.” Winfrey’s star reporter, Lisa Ling, went undercover in commercial breeding kennels to do an expose on the pet store trade.
Although the commercial trade in pet store puppies has nothing to do with the vast majority of dog owners and breeders, sensationalistic news coverage tars us with the same brush. To the liberal animal rights mindset, all breeders are either “puppy mills” or “backyard breeders,” and this always translates into more laws that harm only the innocent. Moreover, the hidden agenda of the animal rights movement is the ultimate elimination of animal ownership, and their strategy is to pick us off one group at a time.
Wow, here I am threatened by PETA one week, and calling BS on a hunting-dog advocacy group the next. I refuse to give puppy mills a free pass because I just happen to be on the same side as animal advocacy groups on this one. I want to see the end of commercial puppy factories. But I’m also against breeding bans, and I’m also against gun control.
Many animal activists do believe “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” and that all are scum. But that has nothing to do with “liberals,” and I know all kinds of people who vote all kinds of ways on other issues who don’t understand the distinctions between a clueless, greedhead backyard breeder, a commercial puppy factory and reputable breeder.
Instead of slinging insults and jumping in bed with the puppy-millers, why not fight this battle with the truth?
If Oprah can keep some ninny from pulling out a credit card to get a puppy-mill purse dog, I’m all for it. And then those who believe in ethical, responsible breeding can make our own point.
I’m not as much of an Oprah fan as I used to be, but she does have a huge amount of public influence, and I only wish she had done a story on this problem sooner, but better late than never, I suppose.
Comment by KelliAmanda — April 3, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
I just hope they also mention that there ARE good breeders out there too!
Comment by Pai — April 3, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
I think the upside will be that Lisa Ling did the investigation. I’ve been seeing the promos for a few days. Looks ‘real’. Aka, oy, hard for me to watch.
I don’t think most of the ‘average viewers’ will need breeder and puppy mill spelled out if the point is made these pups go to pet stores and brokers. And even if they don’t spell out good breeder from byb,more questions will be asked by the buyer that sees this (based on the few bits I’ve seen). And any ‘customer’ out to purchase a dog that goes to a ‘breeder’ will be aware of ‘bad conditions’ even if they aren’t as bad as the puppy mills. It may give a new ‘red flag’ to puppy buyers. And raise questions about some of the online puppy buying sites.
The promos have been good, imo. They are saying to have anyone you know who has/loves pets to watch. Hell, I’ll take that kinda promo against puppy mills. Especially judging by what I’ve seen. Heck, the footage in the promos is a darn good start for the size of audience she has.
Here’s hoping this goes where we hope it does.
Comment by straybaby — April 3, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
The next pet show Oprah needs to do is the one where she exposes PETA.
Comment by Nadine L. — April 3, 2008 @ 11:18 pm
Yes, but will they make a key point — that the AKC is four feet and snout in the feeding trough with the puppy mill folks … and the breed club leadership has known about it for years … and done nothing?
A simple fact: all those dog shows cost more than they generate in income. They are subidized. And it’s to subsidize rosettes that the AKC itself says it has to register puppy-mill puppies — about 666,666 of them a year to make up the deficit.
Patrick
Comment by PBurns — April 4, 2008 @ 5:17 am
There is a link on Oprah’s website where we can respond to this show, this topic and suggest further shows.
I am happy to see that this show is going to happen. Oprah has a huge following and great deal of influence. If she can open some eyes and prevent even one family from taking a puppy mill puppy then it will have been worth it.
AKC, Amish puppymillers, “euthanasia” by gas, violence to animals/violence to people connection, etc . . . there’s a lot to do.
I understand there are responsible breeders out there, but many more are irresponsible backyard breeders and millers and that has to stop. I think Oprah’s show can help make that happen.
Blessings
catmom5
Comment by catmom5 — April 4, 2008 @ 5:30 am
Good point Patrick and I would like that too but I don’t hold out much hope for any sort of subtleties. I imagine it will be a rather broad brush type piece.
Comment by slt — April 4, 2008 @ 5:36 am
I think that within the context of the single hour of this *one* show, a more useful point for the general public would be to make the point that “AKC papers do not a guarantee of quality make”. Nor any OTHER “papers”, for that matter.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 4, 2008 @ 5:38 am
I hope that after this show she does another show on what GOOD breeders are like and why it is necessary that they be free to do what they do for their breeds.
Comment by Ana — April 4, 2008 @ 5:49 am
From the AKC:
**Permission to Cross-Post Granted**
Dear Fancier:
As you probably know, Oprah is airing a show tomorrow (Friday, 4/4) on the
topic of Puppy Mills. While the show was previously taped, we have been in
touch with the producers about our desire for responsible breeders to be
represented, and they have allowed us to submit a 2 line statement which
they said will be incorporated into the show. They have also stated that there
is no specific intention to malign purebred dogs or the AKC.
We will be watching the show along with you and, if warranted, we will
respond publicly. However, it is our hope that Oprah’s interest in animal
welfare will help open up a dialogue on the issue and that AKC and the dog fancy
will continue to be engaged.
Please direct all correspondence on this issue to _communications@akc.org_
(mailto:communications@akc.org)
Thank you!
AKC Communications
Comment by trucorgi — April 4, 2008 @ 5:54 am
It looks as though she’s going to be concentrating on the puppy mills in Lancaster County and elsewhere in Pennsylvania:
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/219290
Hopefully Andrew Hunte and his commercial puppy-farming ilk won’t get off scott-free . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 4, 2008 @ 6:09 am
A group taking credit for inspiring the show (Main Line Rescue) is in PA and active in anti-puppy mill activity there. They seem to be extremely well funded as I don’t know many rescues which can afford billboards along the PA Turnpike or near Harpo Studios.
http://www.mainlinerescue.com/
Comment by slt — April 4, 2008 @ 6:19 am
Patrick, that’s actually not a “key point” to make in a show like this, for the general public. It’s an irrelevance and a distraction, in this context.
The key points are:
1. Puppy mills are really bad—even “USDA licensed” ones.
2. All pet store puppies are from puppy mills or the worst of backyard breeders, no matter what the pet store claims,
3. “Papers”—AKC or otherwise—are not a guarantee of quality and don’t mean your puppy didn’t come from a puppy mill.
4. Either shelters & rescues, or good breeders, can be a great source of a great pet.
5.It takes research to find a good breeder. Visiting the breeder’s home to see how the dogs really live is an essential part of that research.
Your concern about the evils of showing is blinding you to the fact that that issue is way over the heads of people who, right now, don’t have any idea what a “puppy mill” is.
But if enough people have their eyes opened to the above points, they’ll both know not to buy from pet stores, and have some idea about what to do instead. Which will hurt the puppy mills, which will hurt AKC revenues, and undermine those dog shows you disapprove of so strongly.
Comment by Lis — April 4, 2008 @ 6:21 am
Patrick says:
“A simple fact: all those dog shows cost more than they generate in income. They are subidized. And it’s to subsidize rosettes that the AKC itself says it has to register puppy-mill puppies”
Patrick, can you cite your source for this statement? I think you might have used some information to come to a conclusion that’s just not true, one that taints dog events, trials, tests and shows.
Local clubs (inc. Westminster) put on dog shows, trials and tests, not AKC. We pay AKC for sanctioning privileges, usually per entry. We pay for all show expenses, including rosettes. If a local club wants to seek sponsorship, that’s their business. And I’m not ashamed to say that we make a reasonable amount of money on these shows. It’s how we make money to maintain our club facilities so we can provide community service like dog training classes. (And even if we didn’t make money, it’s the local clubs who would suck up the loss, not AKC.)
The only show AKC puts on is the AKC National. And, yes, it is sponsored by Eukanuba.
It is indeed true that AKC has been whining about revenues for a few years now and that they have pursued puppy mills puppies as a source of registration revenue — *against the wishes of AKC’s member clubs.* AKC is a club of clubs, if that makes sense. (When AKC gets rid of their NYC offices, I’ll know that they are really serious about staying in the black!)
There’s so much misunderstanding out there about dog showing that I thought I’d clarify this point rather than passively agree by saying nothing.
:-)
Comment by Deanna — April 4, 2008 @ 6:25 am
Patrick, couple of points.
(1) The AKC doesn’t pay for rosettes. The show giving clubs do (along with the rest of show expenses.) Are you thinking of stuff like AKC central office overhead for things like event tracking and such?
(2) The pushback against things like Petland and puppy mill puppies - the pressure from within for AKC to reform - is coming from the breed clubs and the member clubs. They aren’t as passive as you seem to think they are.
Finally, a question -
(3) Out of curiosity, how would you get rid of puppy mill puppies from a registry? What would define a puppy mill and eligibility for registration? Right now it’s just 2 purebred parents of the same breed. What change do you think would help?
Comment by sally — April 4, 2008 @ 9:26 am
Having watched the episode this morning, I feel they did an excellent job of covering such a broad topic in the short one hour(40min sans commercials) time slot available.
They were able to:
~Expose the horrendous conditions of puppy mills
~Highlight a few of the animals that were saved from the mills and demonstrate the basics of how a rescue steps in to rehabilitate and rehome an animal
~Bring to attention the unacceptable numbers of animals being euthanized in shelters (even showing the euth. selection & process)
~Stressed the importance of all pet owners personal responsibility to spay and neuter
~Stressed adoption
AND
~Gave credit to responsible breeders (multiple times)
If nothing else, this episode will get the general public thinking and asking more questions….allowing those of us who may have more information to share on the subjects to do so freely.
I often think of Oprah as the gal who opens the door. For example, I have encouraged my folks for years to consider recycling and using more earth(and animal) friendly products in their home. As soon as Oprah had her “eco-show” both my folks jumped on board by recycling, using less paper, chemical-free cleaners, etc even though I could have talked myself blue in the face and still they wouldn’t listen. Sometimes it just takes hearing something from someone they look up to.
The Oprah episode might not be everything to everybody who might know a bit more about what is going on thanks to great sites like this one and Nathan W’s, etc. but it certainly is a really great start to opening the door to further conversations.
We give the show the a “Four Paws Up” rating for effort.
Comment by Keeper of the Catnip — April 4, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
First, I couldn’t agree more with you Keeper of the Catnip. The average American does not know what we, the readers and contributors to this blog and others of the same ilk know. Contrasting this production of Oprah’s versus Ellen DeGeneris’s public weeping spree last year, it’s no question which talk show host actually addressed the problems of mills, no kill shelters, low kill shelters, high kill shelter, the huge numbers of dogs dumped and the importance of speutering.
I of course would like to see Oprah develop further themes. No being a tv watcher, I am always astounded at how superficial all the offerings are. However, now that she has gotten her feet wet, I think a letter writing campaign is in order to Oprah, praising her first efforts, her fair reporting, and urging her to continue with the topic. An expose of AKC and it’s relationship with the Hunte corp would be cool. Handsome Wayne versus cuddly Nathan would be equally cool(lol). Nathan versus the loose cannon that is Ingrid Newkirk would be even better!
However, I found it amusing that even Wayne Pacelle managed to get out the words “responsible breeder” more than once, though I suspect he was choking on them. Oprah’s show did not dwell on the antagonism between AR and AW, it focused on the dogs in need, and that is where the attention ought to go, IMHO. The listing on her website of organizations to contact to help a dog went from HSUS and Maine Line, Bill Smith’s shelter down to Best Friends. And that’s a good start. I think she needs some positive rewards and suggestions for further shows. The more national exposure, the better for the dogs, cats, ferrets, birds and other species we want to share our lives with.
Comment by Deb — April 4, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Okay, saw the show — it was very weird seeing places that are so close to my house on a national TV show! Main Line Rescue is about 5 miles from where I live — the only reason we didn’t go there to get Pepper is that they had lost their lease on their old location and were in the process of moving to their current location.
Bill comes from old Philadelphia money (hence the name, Main Line Rescue), lives on a trust fund and knows lots of folks who can write checks. But even with all that money, he’s got his work cut out for him in PA. I don’t agree with him 100% on all issues, but he does the best he can with what he has/can get, so he’s got my respect.
Comment by Dorene — April 4, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Lots of misinformation in the show but considering it was made for the general public, overall I give it a big THUMBS UP!
Comment by slt — April 4, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
Agree with Keeper of the Catnip. Think Oprah attempted to cover every aspect. For once she did not dominate the show. I too would like to see her do more shows on this and similar subjects regarding how animals (specifically dogs and cats)
are treated by the greedy millers. My lady friend in Florida called me during to show to see if I was watching and we were both crying our eyes out.
Oprah’s staff did a very nice tribute to Sophie, also.
Comment by VJ — April 4, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
I watched Oprah and did not see any misinformation. I have been in puppy mills and they are horrible. Having been involved in rescuing I have seen the damage done to the physical and mental health of these prisoners. The mill operators spend minimum amounts on vet treatment for these dogs . If one dies another is kept to take its place. I picked up a lovely little dog last week , he has sores on his testicles from spending his life sitting on wire. He had never walked on ground and acted just like the dogs Oprah had filmed. His teeth are bad from drinking out of lickets. He didn’t know what a bowl of water was for. I thought I was going to have to buy a licket to get him to drink water. He had puncture wounds on his back.
The mill operator had been selling his puppys as purebred , yet he told me of a pet store owner who tore up and threw away the pups paers and sold them as mixed breeds. Possibly selling them as designers dogs brought more money to the store owner. Does this dog lokk like a purebred ? Absolutely not and if we DNA tested him I am sure he would be a mix. Will he ever be bred again ? No! He is going to be a pet , loved , trained, allowed to run in grass, go for long walks and get lots of LOVE!!!!
Comment by thomas — April 4, 2008 @ 3:30 pm
I also watched the show and saw no misinformation. I’d like to know exactly what that might have been. It was a powerful, well documented show about some of the horrors of puppymills. I also thought the sequence on the selection and actual euthanasia was something everyone needs to see. Those statistics were once living beings. I hope that we can support what she’s done and encourage her to continue with her fight against this barbaric and inhumane treatment of dogs (and cats). Responsible breeders were mentioned lots of times, let’s get the word out about what these millers are doing and how they’re doing it so we can stop them. Let’s not allow our personal agendas cloud this issue. Nobody is going after the responsible breeders. We should all be going after the millers and backyard breeders. The more we fight among ourselves the less beneficial we are to the animals we all care about.
Comment by catmom5 — April 4, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Nobody is going after the responsible breeders.
But they ARE. Not on Oprah, but in general.
Everytime one of the spokespeople intones “a breeder is a breeder,” they are going after responsible breeders. Everytime they say, “Don’t breed or buy while shelter dogs die,” they are going after responsible breeders.
And then when those same people, who have been crystal clear in their opposition to the breeding of dogs announces their new legislation requiring mandatory spay/neuter or breeding bans, then magnanimously relents that “responsible” breeders can continue to breed as long as they register with the government, get a business license, allow inspections of their facilities, and meets a long list of requirements that sound reasonable but are literally impossible — such as exempting dogs being shown before 4 months of age when dogs can’t be shown until they’re 6 months old, and hardly anyone shows puppies that young in the first place — they are going after responsible breeders.
Why would any dog breeder, no matter how responsible, register with a group that has announced its opposition to dog breeding? Give them their address and actually list their dogs? Agree to let them into their home — the “facility” that sounds so innocuous in the regulations. Agree that occasional dog breeding is a business, when it’s not; it’s exactly like a garage sale held once or twice a year, which is not considered a business and thus, not prohibited in residential areas.
If all home dog breeding, however small-scale, is forced to register and be licensed as a business, then for all intents and purposes, any area that disallows businesses will disallow that activity.
And this happens all the time. It’s happened in two counties I’ve lived in already.
It’s just not true that “no one” is going after responsible breeders. They really are. And that means small home-based breeders go underground, and keep a low profile, and don’t fight these laws, and stop volunteering at shelters (if they’re welcome at all — often, shelters don’t want dirty breeders to set foot in their doors, until, that is, they want someone who knows something about reproduction from life instead of a book to come supervise a whelping).
I’ve talked with so many breeders who are so terrified of losing their dogs and the lines they’ve worked so hard to develop and preserve that they won’t even talk about fighting legislation, believing it will just make them targets.
And it will. When I was fighting unfair proposed legislation in San Mateo County, I had problems with animal control. Fortunately I knew my rights and fortunately I wasn’t doing anything against the county’s current rules. But a few months later I inherited a cat from my friend Mark, who died, and at that moment I was, indeed, a lawbreaker, and technically became a “kennel,” which wouldn’t have been allowed in my zoning, and even if it were, would have required concrete kennels with chain link and drains and all kinds of idiotic things for someone whose dogs sleep in her bedroom.
And why? Because I took in a 5 year old cat? A spayed cat?
Fortunately we battled that law back and in the process got that regulation changed, but until you’ve lived through it, don’t believe for a minute it doesn’t happen.
And I couldn’t agree with you more that “the more we fight among ourselves the less beneficial we all are to the animals we all care about.” But that goes both ways.
If people don’t realize why responsible breeders feel targeted, that’s why.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 4, 2008 @ 4:08 pm
Or my friend the hobby breeder who bought a home in community and was told that all she needed to do was apply for a kennel license because she had more than 3 dogs. So she did. Without realizing that this community had never actually GRANTED a kennel license - they just used it as a means to locate and get rid of breeders.
She fought that one for almost 2 years, then finally gave up, moved to a new area with no limit laws, but just to be safe she now uses a P.O. box for an address.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 4, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
Things I regard as misinformation from Oprah’s show (which I still think did a very good job educating the general public!) -
‘6 months of age is a good age to neuter a Labrador.’ (not an exact quote)
‘Bitches spayed before their first heat have a 90% reduced risk of mammary cancer.’ (not an exact quote)
‘Many mill bitches get mammary tumors caused by nursing litters.’ (not an exact quote)
Also, the mill dogs in the video appeared to be in compliance with USDA cage size requirements.
That was never mentioned but rather it seemed to be portrayed as a cruelty invented by the millers.
Chicken wire flooring in the cages was mentioned but what was shown did not look like chicken wire to me.
The dogs that were supposedly unable to walk because their feet had never touched the ground appeared to be simply balking the leash, which is to be expected.
A statement was made something to the effect of (I’m just going off memory here) “You can find any purebred dog you want in a shelter”. This is untrue and one of the primary reasons pet stores do such good business is precisely because there are not enough pets produced of the types people want (i.e. Papillon, etc.)
Another statement was something like “Pets in shelter have to be euthanized and the reason is because we aren’t all neutering our pets” (again, just on memory). Pets in shelters do not HAVE to be euthanized and the reasons why they are euthanized are far more complex than a simple “We aren’t neutering our pets.”
And lastly, while we may despise the practice, some puppy mills are clean places where the dogs receive regular veterinary care. No mention of that.
I’m sure somebody taped it and will go back and correct me if my memory has gone wonky, haha.
Comment by slt — April 4, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
The big one I picked up on was her repeating the statement that dogs need to be euthanized because there are not enough homes. But again - she’s going with what people are telling her.
So maybe we all start sending her copies of “Redemption”. She’ll get way more copies than she needs (and can re-donate them so it won’t be an effort gone to waste) and maybe she’ll be moved to invite Nathan Winograd onto a future show!
By and large, however - I thought it was a fairly well done program.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 4, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
If memory serves me I don’t think they ever mentioned these were USDA class A licensed breeders . The wire I saw was plastic coated , still very hard on dogs feet. How could you possibly measure the cages by looking at a video? The cage sizes in my opinion are cruel and were much to small.. No dog should be kept on wire and one of the things we should do is insist that keeping dogs on wire be outlawed!!
Having read many APHIS inspection reports available under FOIA these mill operators receive numerous citations for lack of medical care , no vet plan of care in place, filth, puppys with their legs falling thru the wires. Dogs with missing toes getting them cut off from the wire! Many puppy mill operators are unlicensed! Many times inspectors do not lokk at every dog on the premises. ( this according to the mill operators in my area)
Many pure bred dogs do wind up in shelters! I see them constantly. je reason pet stores do a good business people do impulse buying and see acute puppy face and buy it!!They are unaware of the fate of the mothers bred every time they are in heat until they die!!
The dogs IMHO did not appear to be balking at the leash but seemed to be unused to being on the ground or floor.
Most vets I know reccomend spaying and neuturing at the same age as Oprahs vet.
Comment by thomas — April 4, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
Comment by thomas — April 4, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
I agree - the cage sizes appeared to me to be cruel and much too small - and in compliance with USDA regulations. That’s all I’m saying.
As for other Vets making similar recommendations regarding age for neutering - that doesn’t change the fact that it’s incorrect. Many Vets recommend feeding only commercial kibble (and especially no table scraps!) for the entire life of a dog. Doesn’t mean that’s right either. Not to sound like I distrust Vets - I like mine!
Comment by slt — April 4, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
What I saw was dogs who were suddenly in a completely new-to-them environment. Whether they were balking at being on lead, unsure of the feeling of something other than wire beneath their feet or whatever was far less tragic, IMHO, than the fact that they were simply overwhelmed at being surrounded by care and concern.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 4, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Other Pat very well put!! I have rescued , the most recent kept looking at us, his eyes seemed to look into our souls as if he were searching for what is fate was going to be . He seemed very unsure of his footing on new turf that he wasn’t used to. The mill operator told us he had never walked on ground . Now he walks , he sniffs he seems to be exploring and testing his new world and LOVING IT!!!
Comment by thomas — April 4, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
I live in York PA which 40 Mins frm Lancaster where the Amish make their living by using dogs as comodities! I have heard frm people that went to get a puppy not knowing it was a puppy mill, and the dogs/puppies were in rabbit hutches in horrible conditions so they took a puppy home to get it out of the mess and a few thousand dollars later at the vet they are trying to hang in there with all the cost of getting it well. I dont understand how these people get away with the conditions they make these dogs live in. Are the inspectors getting paid off to allow this? The bad thing is we have a store going in our small town frm Ridgewood kennels (puppy mill)?in lancaster selling “designer puppies” 5 miles down the road the rescue is so overrun with dogs and cats they can not get adopted,it makes me so angry,What is the answer to this? why are humans continuely producing more and more dogs and cats? There are not enough people to take all of them or the shelters would not have every cage filled. Pennsylvania’s laws suck when it comes to animals.
Comment by sharon J — April 4, 2008 @ 6:48 pm
All the things you guys are talking about are true, but I think you are missing the point. Oprah’s show was geared to the large segment of the US populations who doesn’t know what we know. Now it’s up to us to continue to educate Oprah and thus her ignorant viewing public, about the truths of puppy mills, kill shelters, responsible breeders and the cruelty and abuse problems pets in America face.
Comment by Deb — April 4, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Deb Do you know how long people have been trying to get Oprah to do a show on puppy mills? Thankfully the bill board got her attention!
Comment by thomas — April 4, 2008 @ 8:04 pm
Just saw the show. Puppy mills need to be outlawed. Period. Wish I’d taped the show. Was too busy sobbing to write down significant points. Like HOW MANY? puppy mills in the U.S.? It’s insane. Oprah did a good job of covering major points and her presenters were believable. It’s a place to start. Next .. Nathan Winograd and others doing the same work. Oprah’s mind is opened. The time is NOW.
Comment by Nadine L. — April 4, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
The bad thing is we have a store going in our small town frm Ridgewood kennels (puppy mill)?in lancaster selling “designer puppies” 5 miles down the road the rescue is so overrun with dogs and cats they can not get adopted,it makes me so angry,What is the answer to this? why are humans continuely producing more and more dogs and cats? There are not enough people to take all of them or the shelters would not have every cage filled.
I always believed this too, until Nathan Winograd pointed out that it’s illogical. There ARE enough people to take all the pets, that’s why pet stores and internet puppy sellers and commercial breeders are in business.
The problem is that so many shelters get on their high horse about their mission of
judgingscreening pet homes, or have limited hours or are in inconvenient areas or are dirty or badly run.For instance, some shelters have rented storefronts in malls where there are successful pet stores. They offer puppies and kittens for adoption that are already spayed and neutered, plus a “starter kit” of food, collars, etc., plus they price their pets lower than the pet store (since they’re non-profits, they can do this).
Plus shelters have something no pet store on earth has: The feel good factor. All they have to do is make someone feel they’re not just getting a new companion they’re SAVING A DISADVANTAGED PET. It’s such a powerful marketing strategy!
But instead of seeking innovative ways to market their animals, shelters are often very restrictive about their placement policies, and are so absorbed in pursuing other agendas they end up being truly lousy at the adoption game — which IMO, is the most important game in town.
Absolutely, reducing intake numbers by low cost speuter is part of this picture, but the dichotomy you describe is a false one. There are enough homes, and the fact that pet stores are in business proves it. Shelters just have to change the way they think and get rid of this obsession with “my way or the highway.” Of course they need to screen placements, but rationally and no more than necessary to prevent bouncebacks and animal suffering.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 4, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
well, hearing WP say “No responsible breeder (heh!)would ever sell their puppies to a pet store” was a very nice touch for me. He was pretty solid in his opinions and the ‘masses’ have a positive opinion about the HSUS. I have been in pet stores asking where the puppies are from to hear the answers, and they do assure you they have ‘private breeders’ etc. He planted a nice seed of doubt for the next person that hears that, imo.
I’ve dealt with dogs raised in cages, walking was an issue aside from the leash. also, going to the bathroom. we named one long haired dog Alex because we didn’t know if she was a girl or a boy and ALL of the 28 dogs we got squatted to urinate. Male or female, no matter the age. There is the issue of new surroundings and lack of socialization, but some did have problems walking, and it was physical. I remember the last one that finally got good and steady on his legs from that group. These were all larger dogs and it’s not only the cages, but the lack of muscle. We were all quite happy when he felt confident enough to lift his leg. My dog is a basement dog, she could walk, but turned to stone outside due to the fact she had never been outside before. She was raised on solid ground, but tethered to a radiator and was terrified of the outside world.
anyway, I think the show was a good overview that hit a wide audience. I personally can’t get the houndy looking dog out of my head that was euthed or the Dal that was in South La. :( And the euth segment is coming up now, so off to turn the channel!
Comment by straybaby — April 4, 2008 @ 10:48 pm
Comment by Thomas:
If memory serves me I don’t think they ever mentioned these were USDA class A licensed breeders . The wire I saw was plastic coated , still very hard on dogs feet. How could you possibly measure the cages by looking at a video? The cage sizes in my opinion are cruel and were much to small.. No dog should be kept on wire and one of the things we should do is insist that keeping dogs on wire be outlawed!!
Comment by slt:
Also, the mill dogs in the video appeared to be in compliance with USDA cage size requirements.
That was never mentioned but rather it seemed to be portrayed as a cruelty invented by the millers.
They didn’t say specifically, “USDA class A licesnsed breeders,” but they did emphasize repeatedly that these appalling conditions were legal.
I winced a bit when WP said that “1/3 to 1/2” of the dogs in shelters are purebreds, you can get any breed you want in a shelter” (not exact quote), but then Oprah jumped in and said, “if you can’t find the breed you want in a shelter, there are breed-specific rescues” (again not exact quote), for which I was very grateful. Because yes, purebred dogs do wind up in shelters, but creating the impression that the selection at a shelter is going to be just like the selection in a pet store is one of the most perniciously counter-productive things that shelter workers and supporters do in an attempt to encourage shelter adoptions.
How many purebred dogs there are in shelters near you, and which breeds, is highly dependent on where in the country you are. I’m in the northeast; small dogs who are also young, healthy, socialized with cats, and of the right energy level for a middle-aged woman with a bad knee, are not the dogs crowding our shelters here. My friend, on the other hand, who moved back here from Florida, has two dogs our not very common breed who came from Florida shelters and were running out of time because, in fact, cute little dogs of various pure breeds and popular “designer mixes” are much more common in their shelters.
Instead of claiming that “you can get any purebred you want at a shelter,” it might be more productive and helpful to tell the truth, and, like Oprah gently correcting WP’s whopper, tell people that there area lot of great dogs in shelters, and if they really want a specific breed and don’t find it in a shelter, there are also a lot of great dogs in breed-specific rescues.
Comment by Lis — April 5, 2008 @ 3:32 am
If all dogs were created equal, then I might agree with you (and Mr. Winograd) that there are homes for all dogs. But somebody going to Ridgewood Kennels, or Awe Puppies which doesn’t breed anything but little tiny lapdogs and mutt puppies is not necessarily going to want the adolescent, untrained Lab mixes, Huskies, and Pit bulls that fill the shelters here. The only dogs on the Lancaster shelter’s website right now are pit bulls, pit mixes, GSD mixes, labs, and a border collie. That’s a far cry from the shichons and bitchypoos that people drag into our office on a daily basis.
Comment by katie — April 5, 2008 @ 4:12 am
Which is why the policy that some shelters and rescues have of not adopting “out of area” is counter-productive. If the demographics to place the dogs you have exist in a different area than where you are, then by all means, ship the dogs there - to where they can find homes. And trust that the rescue and shelter personnel there will do just as adequate a job in placement and screening (as Christie said, “rationally and no more than necessary to prevent bouncebacks and animal suffering”) as you would in your area.
Send the dogs to where they can be homed, and THAT will help save more lives. (I’m starting to get very impatient when I see PetFinder ads that state “We do not adopt out of area”.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 5, 2008 @ 6:32 am
I just watched it. I thought she did a spectacular job. All the important points were hit and hit hard. Such things as spaying-neutering at six months not, well, there certainly is evidence that makes this not as “automatic” as once held, but you cannot fault Ophrah’s staff for not being on the bleeding edge of every discussion, as we tend to be here. Especially when almost every veterinarian, veterinary organization, shelter and animal-advocacy group pushes neutering-spaying, the earlier the better, and with good reason to help with population control.
I even appreciated the HSUS making the distinction between puppy mills and reputable breeders. You know I’m always pushing for common ground and mutual solutions, when they can be found.
Later today, after I get some parental permissions, I’m going to put up an e-mail from a 12-year-old girl who watched that show and is asking for our help. (If her parents say OK, I’ll post it without name or e-mail address.) Her e-mail truly shows how important it is when someone like Oprah takes an interest in a subject.
In short: Oprah and her folks did a spectacular job, and you may rest assured the puppy-mill industry will be working for months on fixing their image. Watch for “model” “USDA-licensed” and “showcase” kennels.
A clean puppy factory is still a puppy factory. A pox on all their houses. They will not go away until the market dries up.
Don’t buy from a pet-store or an Internet ordering site. Don’t. Do. It.
Shelters. Rescues. Reputable breeders.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 6:55 am
Katie, I’m not sure exactly where you are (Lancaster County, PA, maybe?), but I trust it’s nowhere near me, so that I can’t make the mistake of bringing my little dog to someone with such manifest contempt for little dogs.
There are more than enough homes for the dogs in shelters, if more shetlers (and, it’s important to note, communities as a whole) ran their adoption programs on a more rational basis, incorporating what’s worked well elsewhere. It isn’t necessary to get everyone to adopt rather than buy. Currently, something a bit over 20% of “new” pets come from shelters. Bump that up to 30%, and the shelters would be nearly empty.
And yes, there’s often a geographical mismatch between the dogs available for adoption, and the dogs wanted for adoption. So move the dogs! There are already programs operating that transport dogs from areas where they’re in excess supply to places where there’s a shortage. We need more of them. Some shelters won’t adopt animals “out of state”—even if the “out of state” adopter lives twenty minutes from the shelter.
Meanwhile, the Chinese Crested rescues screen adopters where they are, ask for help from other rescues for home checks etc. if they don’t have someone local to do it, and adopt dogs to the right person even across country.
I bought my Crested, and got hooked into a community of breeders and rescue workers (often the same people, of course), and now I’ll feel a lot less intimidated and discouraged by the prospect of looking for a rescue Crested when I’m ready to add a second dog to the household. Because to Crested rescue, it doesn’t matter if you’re in another state or across the country, if you’re the right person and they can find someone reliable locally to do the home check.
Why can’t more shelters work with other shelters, to help find more dogs the right homes?
Comment by Lis — April 5, 2008 @ 7:05 am
Not all programs are so reluctant to work together.
Best Friends in rural Utah has long had a program where they send their adoptable animals to urban shelters where they can have access to a bigger pool of potential adopters — and urban shelters and rescue groups in return send animals in need of permanent sanctuary to Best Friends.
But truly, some groups need to be locked in a room until they agree to work together. I once attended a two-week session on counseling people through pet-behavior issues. All the other people were from shelters. Two were from competing shelters in the same city — and they wouldn’t hardly speak to each other socially away at a conference away from their respect jobs!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 7:14 am
Lis, I know katie from another board, and take my word for it - she does NOT have contempt for little dogs. In fact, she lost a dear little one of her own a bit over a year ago after lots of work and care spent making her last days as wonderful as they possibly could be.
What she was expressing contempt for was the fad of “designer mixes” and those who breed them. Katie’s current dogs fall into the category of the kinds of dogs she’s seeing die in her shelters each day, and that’s why it hits her so hard.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 5, 2008 @ 7:16 am
Let’s not just smack on PA. Kansas and Missouri are prime puppy-mill territory, and puppy mills exist in many, many other places.
Almost four years ago, I blogged a reason a day not to get a Christmas Puppy from Thanksgiving until Christmas. Here’s the series.
I haven’t repeated this effort, because by Christmas that year I was so low on “goodwill to all” that I was afraid I might hurt someone — a puppy-miller, ideally.
If you wonder what kind of people run puppy mills, check out this little gem that was posted on Craig’s List in December of 2004, by a woman in Missouri who was breeding pugs and puggles (among others) and promising breeder-direct prices and cut-rate shipping right to your closest airport. She was posting on CLs in all the major cities up and down the coasts and also to Chicago, Minneapolis, etc., so you know she was a miller with a butt-load of “merchandise” to move. Every time she’d post, someone would post immediately after her and warn people that she was a sick-jerk puppy-miller. This wasn’t making her happy, and she finally blew a gasket on the L.A. CL.
And note: Craig Newmark no long allows puppy-millers to promote sales directly on Craig’s List — no animals for sale. So the hump-and-dump breeders and puppy-millers have to be a lot cagier to sell to people who don’t know any better. Or didn’t, perhaps, before Oprah.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 7:39 am
Just checked Oprah’s site and currently there are 117 pages of comments about Friday’s show.
Comment by VJ — April 5, 2008 @ 7:57 am
Oprah might have had her “life changing” moment a year ago if she had paid any heed to the hundreds of truly heartbreaking pleas for her help during the recall.
I can’t join the cult of Oprah just because she did this one show but anything that helps stop puppy mills is good.
The people who do their research when getting pets and pet products don’t need Oprah to tell them what to do.
Many people do need such assistance. Most of them are the very reason there IS a problem.
It is my fervent hope that every person who wants a “fashion accessory” or “starter baby” or “just one litter” watched that show and wept.
Right now, I have to prepare for the siege that is starting, as it does every year around this time, global warming be damned, of unwanted kittens and “free” puppies and all the rescue work that means. If people are watching Oprah and not buying there will be many fragile and very ill pups added to the mix this year.
Comment by Duaneisadork — April 5, 2008 @ 8:41 am
oh c’mon. This has nothing to do with being in a “cult.” Give credit where credit is due: Oprah done good.
You sound like a burned-out rescuer. Remember to take care of yourself, too. You may need a break from this work for a while. Better to take a break and care for yourself than drop the work completely and forever because you’re tired, frustrated and angry.
There will be plenty to do after you take care of yourself. Go smell the roses for a bit.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 8:54 am
If all dogs were created equal, then I might agree with you (and Mr. Winograd) that there are homes for all dogs. But somebody going to Ridgewood Kennels, or Awe Puppies which doesn’t breed anything but little tiny lapdogs and mutt puppies is not necessarily going to want the adolescent, untrained Lab mixes, Huskies, and Pit bulls that fill the shelters here. The only dogs on the Lancaster shelter’s website right now are pit bulls, pit mixes, GSD mixes, labs, and a border collie. That’s a far cry from the shichons and bitchypoos that people drag into our office on a daily basis.
This is still a marketing problem.
First of all, grasp the demographic: The number one most popular dog breed in America for years now is the Labrador retriever, followed closely by the Golden. A combination of outreach and advertising with basic socialization and training will get those Lab mixes (and Labs!) into homes.
“America’s most popular dog for X years running! And we have 34 of them for adoption today!”
Home breeders will have a much better time breeding small dogs, as they don’t need the space and land that large dogs do.
The issue of pit bulls and pit mixes is much, much larger, but it, too, is a marketing problem.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 5, 2008 @ 11:05 am
She needs to also expose HSUS & PETA !
Comment by janelle yates — April 5, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
Exposed because they’re cutting into your little puppy-factory profits, Janelle? Sorry, but in this case they’re on the side of the angels, and you’re not.
You’re not finding any support for your “clean” “USDA-licensed” puppy factory here, lady. Take it somewhere else.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 5, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
“they’re on the side of the angels”
yup. What was interesting yesterday was the co-operation of opinion from the HSUS and animal welfare groups. They mentioned the ASPCA several times and also Best Friends. Now that the issue is ‘out there’, these groups will have more support on the puppy mill problem. Maybe now, their (PM’s) money won’t talk as loud when it comes to legislation. We have some Lemon Law protection here, but could stand to beef up legislation and educating the public. Many are still unaware of the Lemon Law and how it can help them when they unknowingly buy the sick mill pups. It has arms that reach back to the mills with the help of the Transport regs etc. I saw one person use the laws very effectively all the way back to the breeder and transport, which happened to be another mill, so it was a 2fer.
Comment by straybaby — April 5, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
I would like to ask everyone on this blog to check out if/where puppy mills are in your state and to write to your state representatives about the problem. Even better, if you can get a group of like minded people together you can start an campaign to end these practices.
As it stands, I don’t think anyone is doing much on the state level to regulate puppy mills. So the only folks putting pressure on the legislatures are the puppy millers.
There’s a lot more of us than them, let’s see if we can’t get our voices heard.
I’m going to use the magic of the Internet to see what I can find in Illinois. I’m sure I won’t have to look to far to find some bad breeders.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 5, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
Wow after reading all the comments I have to say I am so proud of my own local shelter! They work well with others, take in dogs from other areas that are hard for that area to adopt out, and have satelite adoption locations for cats among the work they do. (and don’t euthanise for lack of space)
I have to point out that some might consider the overpopulation problem not a problem of lack of homes available, (as seen by the number of buyers of pets) but a lack of cage space at their local shelters. It is overpopulation at the shelter that is the issue. If all the cages are full what happens next? Can you imagine a large city that said, sorry we can’t take your pet in. Or sorry we can’t help that stray or seized pet? So whatever you call it the basic problem is still there.
(Ok I haven’t read Redemption yet so perhaps I am missing the solution.)
I agree that shelters and rescues should have to work together. I never understood the animosity. I mean, we’re all fighting the same battle aren’t we?
And I do believe you can find most breeds in shelters, PROVIDED you are patient and look outside your own area. Patience seems to be the biggest hangup for people wanting a specific pet from what I have experienced. I too am annoyed by the we won’t adopt outside of our area rules of some breed rescues. When I was looking for a pug I ran into this alot. They didn’t even care that I was (I think) a pretty good home. (I tried not to take it personally.) I think it is hard for some people to relinquish that control though. They feel if the dog is close to them they will be able to keep tabs on everyone easier.
I thought Oprahs show was a great start to educating the general public. I can’t wait to see how it pans out in the long run.
Comment by Marie Finnegan — April 5, 2008 @ 6:46 pm
2CatMom-
This is a followup to your post and an expansion of an earlier email I sent to Gina.
The puppy mill industry will not just go away because people boycott the pet stores, internet sources, etc. Because the industry is so much part of the economy in some areas (MO for example, where the State Ag Dept supports “blue ribbon” kennels), those areas will need to have alternative economic programs to wean the communities off of the puppy mill industry. Otherwise, there will be no substantive change. The analogy I like to use is that the “puppy mill industry” is like the Afghan poppy fields. Hard to make people stop growing poppies, when there is no other agricultural source of income. So when you ask the legislatures of your respective states to take on the “puppy mill” issue, they will also have to look at the economics behind the industry and deal with that as well. In some cases, they will need to talk ” economic redevelopment” — and that is not an easy task.
Comment by glock — April 5, 2008 @ 6:55 pm
We have around 100 puppy mills in my county in New York State. In my county most are Mennonite , in other neighboring countys most are AMISH. We are trying to do something about it. One of the events being planned is “BARK HEARD AROUND THE WORLD” to learn more about this event go to http://www.puppymillrescue.com and click on bark. One of the main speakers is a vet from BEST FREINDS in UTAH!
It is difficult getting group to work together but it can be done!
Comment by thomas — April 5, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Hey Thomas,
Anyone in your area there running in the current elections that are against puppy mills, or have any thoughts about the issue that would be worth looking into/supporting? I’m looking into Nyer’s to support, so if you know of any that I can check out ;)
Comment by straybaby — April 5, 2008 @ 9:30 pm
Comment by glock: The puppy mill industry will not just go away because people boycott the pet stores, internet sources, etc.
If they can’t sell their product, they won’t be getting any economic benefit from producing it. We can’t get the Afghan farmers to stop growing poppies, because we haven’t eliminated the demand. If they weren’t able to get money for growing popppies (or puppies), the only motive they have for doing it would go away.
They’ll be slower to accept that they can’t make a profit at it anymore, if we don’t address the need for something to fill that economic need, and it would be foolish both pragmatically and humanely to ignore that side of the problem. But, yes, eliminating the profit from something people do only for profit, will kill the activity.
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 5:58 am
Lis-
If you are from the Sacramento area, here is some information for you.
In the Sacramento area, there are at least two pet shops that sell puppies from puppy mills (The puppies are generally from MO, KS, OKL, etc. To confirm the puppy sources, give them a call sometime or visit them.) They are: 1) Sunrise Pet Center, 8141 Greenback Ln.,Fair Oaks, CA 2) Pet Connection, 4534 Auburn Blvd. Sacramento CA http://sacramentopetconnection.com/
This information has been provided to the HSUS (local and national offices).
Comment by glock — April 6, 2008 @ 11:41 am
Glock, since I am well aware that there are pet shops that sell puppies, all over the country, and that the puppies come from puppy mills, I’m not sure what your point is. Are you saying that they are not making a profit, and that the puppy mills are not making a profit, but continue to do it anyway?
Comment by Lis — April 6, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
puppymill exposes are not new. I assume they go to the puppymills that are in violation of the applicable code. despite years of trying, the mills are not, nor likely will they be shut down. even if O convinces people not to buy from a pet store that’s fine. however with CA legislature attempting to MSN 98% of the dogs/cats,(which will not affect mills),any breeder is pretty much considered evil, thanks to the constant mantra of no breeding… then HSus with its MSN for dogs will expand (as already planned, starting w/pitbull types) and just wait. when the average family wants a dog down the line, they won’t have a choice, or the choices will be limited. it’s a given that a majority of the people looking for a dog want a young, female, small breed. and that is not what is in most sheters or rescues. the puppymill situation is a fed deal, and that’s who made the rules. if people want the fed rules changed, good luck. they have been trying for decades. all you have to do is look at the bichon so-called “rescue.” they buy puppy milled dogs, sell them, and bring in at least a half million. people WANT the dogs that come from mills. that is not going to change. oprah or no oprah.
Comment by s kennedy — April 8, 2008 @ 12:23 am
Thirty years ago, you couldn’t go anywhere without inhaling cigarette smoke, and it was considered rude even to tell guests that they couldn’t smoke in your home or car. Now, smokers huddle outside, even in the rain or snow, in order to smoke. And attitudes didn’t change because the laws changed; the laws changed because attitudes changed.
People aren’t in favor of dogs and cats being treated the way puppy and kitten mills treat them; they just don’t realize that that is where the cute kittens and puppies in pet stores come from. And Oprah can have an enormous impact on that, especially if this show isn’t just a one-shot.
Comment by Lis — April 8, 2008 @ 5:01 am
People want what they want, and they want it now. They haven’t yet connected that with the commercial farming of puppies, but over time, if the message continues to be hammered home, they will.
And since Oprah, I’ve run into at least three people who have said “I thought they got rid of puppy mills back in the 70s!” That’s because that’s when an early expose - I believe it was called “Prisoners of Greed” - ran in one of the Sunday magazines and got a lot of attention. Lots of people out there think that took care of it and that the puppy mills are gone. So there’s a population we need to re-educate.
But we have to come to terms somehow with the “instant gratification” society we live in. There have been previous discussions on this board about how counterproductive it is when breeders and rescues get TOO particular about the homes they’ll place their animals in. It’s easy to see how that alienates those of the “instant gratification” mindset.
But the other extreme - selling to whoever has the cash or the plastic - isn’t the answer either.
The public has to be educated about the responsibility they take on with a pet, and frequently that education is best provided by the person or entity they go to get that pet from. And the education mustn’t take on the guise of “You have to be nigh-unto perfect to get a pet from me”. But it does need to be truthful and pragmatice.
Not that many years ago, talking about “health testing” for breeding stock and their offspring was the exception rather than the rule - something you only heard from crazy-serious dyed-in-the-wool dog people. Now you don’t have to get too far into any discussion with relatively unknowledgeable people before it is mentioned. Heck - it’s on a list on the Oprah website, and you don’t get a whole lot more mainstream than that.
So just as Lis’ example of changing expectations over time with respect to smoke-free environments, we can also change people’s expectations about how easy it should be to get a pet. Create the expectation that the prospective pet owner needs to demonstrate some level of commitment to the idea of what will be involved in obtaining and caring for a pet, and get the idea of that expectation to be commonly accepted.
The more it is talked about, the more it will be taken for granted as normal and expected, and eventually the puppy farmers and pet shops will be seen as the money-hungry shills who don’t care anything about the animals that they are.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 8, 2008 @ 6:37 am
“The puppy mill industry will not just go away because people boycott the pet stores, internet sources, etc.”
If no one buys your widgets, you will stop producing widgets.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 7:45 am
“people WANT the dogs that come from mills. that is not going to change. oprah or no oprah.”
Right. But those dogs which people want can be bred responsibly. Many breed clubs look down their noses at any responsible breeder who breeds for the pet market but that is just wrong thinking to my mind. We know people want certain breeds. We don’t want people going to pet stores to get these breeds. But many of these breeds have very small litters and the breeders keep one pup and try to place the other in a “show home” turning away all pet inquiries. Ask a responsible breeder of a popular breed how many pups they have for sale to pet buyers each year vs. the number of pet inquiries they receive. There is a disparity there and if we tell people not to go to pet stores then we must offer them an alternative. Pets which are in demand and unavailable at shelters, bred responsibly, are OK by me.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 8:14 am
slt, there is a slight re-orientation to your thinking required here. It’s not so much that breed clubs “look down their noses at any responsible breeder who breeds for the pet market” so much as that a RESPONSIBLE breeder is breeding towards the objective of creating the best possible (insert breed name here) first and foremost. That is THE reason for breeding - for selecting the best representatives of healthy, typey stock you can find and combining their genetic heritage (i.e. breeding them) so as to perpetuate, and hopefully improve upon, the breed you love.
Normal statistical variability, however, says that out of any given litter, you will have a range of outcomes (translation: every puppy isn’t born identical - some will be closer to the ideal you’re shooting for, some will not quite make it, and so on). So the Responsible Breeder hopes for at least one puppy out of the litter who represents that “improvement on type”. The others - all of whom have benefitted from that breeder’s experience and care and careful selection and upbringing - will also need to be placed. And those are the puppies generally placed in pet homes. It doesn’t mean there’s anything wrong with them. It just means that almost every breeding includes animals who do not meet the criteria that breeder needs in his or her breeding program. But I can guarantee you that a Responsible Breeder loves all those “other puppies” just as much and is just as concerned about placing them into good homes where they will be treasured companions.
So a Responsible Breeder aims high, hopes to “hit the mark” with at least one, and responsibly sees to the future of all those who didn’t quite make it.
Breeding “for the pet market” is something else entirely. In that case, the objective has nothing to do with preservation and improvement of the breed. In that case, the objective is simply to generate lots of little furry bodies to sell. Without any kind of focus to the effort, the results are likely to be all over the map. Take that normal statistical variability that occurs in a litter where the breeder was “aiming high”, and make it several orders of magnitude worse.
This is why I’ve had the experience - for example - of seeing a dog that I literally couldn’t determine whether it was a scrawny Sheltie with prick ears or an oversized Papillon. A large Pomeranian or a small Keeshond. And so on. When you just start throwing dogs together to make more of “the same kind of dog” to sell, you soon lose type and the distinctions that separate one breed from another, and although they’re almost certainly all lovely and loving dogs, they do NOT represent the Responsible Breeder’s objective of preserving and improving the breed.
It might sound snobby, but it’s really not. If you are a person who loves breeds of dogs, and wants to be sure they never die out, then you really need to understand the importance of what Responsible Breeders do and the way they do it. And why - especially - breeding dogs just “for the pet market” would ultimately be the death knell of breeds as we know them.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 8, 2008 @ 8:54 am
I used to think that way too until I had a ‘slight reorientation’ to my thinking. ; )
And for the record, I consider myself a responsible breeder although I’m sure no one says “I’m an irresponsible breeder” so I guess you’ll have to consider the source hahaha.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 9:11 am
So you think its okay for breeders to breed just to make pets with no attention paid to the preservation of breed type?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 8, 2008 @ 9:16 am
My experience (on the cat side) is that the good breeder will classify littermates as show or pet quality and they will be priced accordingly. The main difference is that if you adopt a pet quality animal you will have to sign a contract promising not to breed it. And that makes sense since you only want the dog or cat that is the best of the best to be bred. That way the line improves and folks can still have a good pure bred dog who’s body conformation does not quite come up to standard.
Comment by 2CatMom — April 8, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Sorry if I gave that impression. What I mean is that most/all the things we use to classify “responsible breeders” can be implemented in a program for producing pets. Proper care of breeding stock (and I’m not talking about USDA cage size minumums here but rather daily exercise, training, veterinary care, human companionship, quality diet, etc.), screening for health disorders and evaluating temperament, screening potential buyers and developing a relationship where the breeder is a lifelong source of support and a guaranteed home for the dog if things don’t work out, etc - all these things can be employed by a breeder who is breeding primarily for pets. Breed type has an important place but for me it doesn’t rank above the things I mentioned.
I think there is a negative attitude when anyone mentions breeding pets, and it usually results in a question that starts with “So it’s ok to breed for pets with total disregard for XXX?” That’s not what I’m saying at all. No total disregard. No puppy mills. No mass production. Just healthy, well cared for animals bred to be pets. If we had a good number of breeders like that, we’d have a true alternative to offer people who want the mill dogs and can’t find them outside of pet shops. Right now, pet stores seem to many people to be the only way they can get the dog they want in a reasonable time frame. I would like to be able to say to someone, “There are many responsible breeders out there who have pet pups available for the breed you want. You need to get on a waiting list (of a reasonable length) for one of those and NOT go to a pet store.”
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 9:38 am
It is incredibly easy to lose breed type. It can happen in 3 generations (I’ve seen it firsthand where a breeder had a dog who was a marvelous representative of the breed, made poor breeding decisions, and the grand”children” of that original dog were no longer typey at all). And with dogs, that third generation down can be as little as just a few years down the road. It happens FAST.
I agree that someone can potentially do a lot of the things we commonly include on that “Responsible Breeder” list without doing ALL of them. But if they’re not aiming high for breed type, then type will be lost. It just will.
Do you know of another way to avoid losing breed type when you’re not aiming high?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 8, 2008 @ 9:46 am
A responsible breeder wouldn’t include a dog in the breeding program if the dog didn’t look like the breed it was. Variations in breed type which occur as a result of giving a higher priority to other considerations (such as health, longevity, and proper temperament) are to be expected. Not to the point where the dogs in the breeding program no longer look like their breed though. A responsible breeder continually evaluates all aspects of a breeding program and brings in new blood when needed, eliminates hopefuls if necessary, etc.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 10:06 am
But genotype doesn’t necessarily always go with phenotype. I remember years ago seeing a lovely Sheltie who appeared very typey. This dog finished his Championship, and this dog was a pet shop dog.
But he did not produce anywhere near as good as he was. He did not have the genotype to go with the phenotype. So as far as his use as a breeding animal (for maintaining breed type) he should never have been used.
What you have just written in your post above (“A responsible breeder continually evaluates all aspects of a breeding program and brings in new blood when needed, eliminates hopefuls if necessary, etc.”) is a description of a breeder who is doing a lot more than just breeding nice dogs to sell as pets. So we’re back to being closer to the ideal of one who breeds for the sake of the BREED first and foremost.
I don’t really see where you can get away from that, if your interests include maintaining breed type at all. Which brings me back full circle to my original statement that it’s not so much snobbery that makes “breeding just for pets” be frowned upon as it is the danger to the preservation of the breed type.
I don’t believe you can maintain that without aiming high when it comes to the artificial selection that is the stock in trade of a breeder.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 8, 2008 @ 10:23 am
“So we’re back to being closer to the ideal of one who breeds for the sake of the BREED first and foremost.” I can accept that wording and would simply add to it “and sells them as pets”.
The main thing being, if responsible breeders felt they could breed pets without being ostracized by their peers, we’d have a good alternative option for buyers who are set on certain breeds of pups not generally available outside of pet stores.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 11:47 am
I would have no problem with a small core of fanciers breeding to preserve true breed type and a larger pool of pet people responsibly and lovingly producing companion animals with less attention to breed type. Look at Labs and Goldens. HUGE variety of type, but the show and field dogs are still clearly recognizable from each other, and from pet bred dogs, and while there are some outliers, most of us can reasonably accurately identify a Lab and a Golden.
The existence of non-typey pet dogs doesn’t mean typey dogs cease to exist, as long as fanciers stick to their goal of preservation and improvement.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 8, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Here’s my proposed (fictional) scenario:
I am a Papillon breeder who has bred and shown for a few years but has always received far more inquiries from pet people than I can supply. These people typically ask for referrals to other sources but I have nowhere to refer them because all the other responsible breeders I know are in the same position as me - maybe one or two pet pups available per year vs. a whole bunch a pet inquiries. I try to refer them to Papillon rescue but some people don’t want an adult or don’t want a rescue or simply aren’t willing to be placed on a waiting list which is likely to be unreasonable in length of time. I try to educate them about the joys of mixed breeds and how sometimes very small dogs are available in shelters even though they may not be exactly what they’re looking for. In the end, at least some of these folks get puppy mill Paps because I could offer them no reasonable alternative to meet their desires.
Soooooo I decide to stop showing and invest the money I was spending there on breeding more often and to place any pups I don’t keep for myself as pets. I will continue my traditions of health screening, taking good care of my adults, screening homes, willing to take dogs back if things don’t work out, etc. I will do basically the same things I did as a show breeder but instead breed more often and not for show - for pets.
Some other Papillon breeders will follow my example and do the same for their own various reasons. Eventually we will build a network of responsible Pap breeders who breed for the pet market. That network will be there to absorb the pet buyers who previously had nowhere to go except pet shops. I feel good about what I’m doing and other Pap breeders who breed for show (or whatever) feel good about having a responsible breeder to refer pet buyers to. So now it’s no longer a case of telling people “Don’t buy from a pet shop and no, I don’t have anyplace to tell you where you CAN buy from”.
Did anyone actually read my whole story? ; ) It was fun to write!
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 12:18 pm
I read it. There was a time I would have drawn back in horror, and now I think it’s exactly what you should do.
And there are still lots of people who would love to stone me for that, I’m sure.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 8, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
Me too. I was taught that breeding for pets=bad. But eventually I came to believe that breeding carelessly=bad. And that there are some pet breeders who breed carelessly. And some show breeders who breed carelessly. etc.
‘Everybody must get stoned’
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
My friend’s cocker spanial, from what I can tell, comes from just this sort of breeder. Used to show, no longer does, still health tests, screens buyers, etc., but her goal is to produce good pets.
I strongly believe that if you breed you ought to compete your dogs in something, because it provides an outside reality check on the quality of your dogs. But “good household pet” is a real need that people have, and what do you compete your dogs in to test their quality as pets? Conformation showing isn’t it, competitive obedience is close but no cigar. And that’s a big expense, for something that’s not testing what you really want to test for. CGC and Therapy Dog certification as minimum requirements for breeding dogs for the important job of Good Pet?
I know this probably sounds a bit flip, but it isn’t meant to be.
Comment by Lis — April 8, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Not at all. I agree that in every endeavor, outside perspective will always prevent tunnel vision. :)
What about this?
http://www.atts.org/index.html
Comment by Christie Keith — April 8, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
CGC I think is a good AKC program. Therapy Dog certification may be appropriate as a tool for measuring what you’re looking for as well. If I expand beyond my fictional Papillon scenario, one could include ‘family hunting companion’ as a non-title awarding means of evaluating appropriate temperament for Sporting breeds. Also maybe use as a demo dog in obedience classes or school presentations would be an indicator. It’s an interesting idea and I’m glad you brought it up.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
O yeah - TT - that’s another good tool for the box.
Comment by slt — April 8, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
Christie, yes, temperament testing! An excellent requirement!
Comment by Lis — April 8, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Another point,
If you are breeding mentally, physically sound dogs who conform to their standard, then even if you are not showing, some of them may be shown by other fanciers or competed with or employed in other venues.
There have always been breeders who enjoyed breeding but not showing, working, competing etc.. and they have been the source for many excellent and influential dogs.
The attitude of “if you don’t show, work, hunt etc… you must be a back-yarder or puppy mill” is relatively new. Part of it was the willingness of most of us to accept the AR line of “massive pet overpopulation” and regrettably a certain component of it has been the occurrence of witch hunts within the ranks of dog breeders for less than noble reasons.
We now know better I hope. But it is going to take effort to educate the public, the dog/cat community and legislators. If we have no alternative sources for the pet buying public, they will continue to support the puppy-mill web-mill industry in some guise or another
Comment by JenniferJ — April 8, 2008 @ 8:49 pm