Finding a nice puppy should not be this hard

Do you like this story?

Finding a nice puppy should not be this hard

By Christie Keith

January 22, 2009

It came across one of my dog lists, a little rant about the breeder from whom Joe Biden got his German Shepherd puppy, and how Biden had made a bad choice.

The person who posted it meant well. Our readers have commented about this subject on Pet Connection before. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that I might have written something like it if this had taken place two or three years ago. But no more.

Joe Biden reached out to an experienced law enforcement canine handler to help him find a German Shepherd puppy. He in turn researched local breeders, looking for someone who specialized in breeding family pets rather than working dogs. It’s not like he picked up a dog from out in front of the local flea market. And yet this breeder turned out to be one most of us wouldn’t have recommended, and probably could have told fairly easily wasn’t the best choice.

If the Vice President-elect of the United States and a U.S .Senator, who is a previous German Shepherd owner to boot, with the services of a top law enforcement German Shepherd handler, cannot successfully find a good family dog from a responsible breeder … it’s too hard, folks.

We’ve let the quest for a good breeder and a good family pet become an insider’s game, where you have to be able to decipher codes, know the secret handshake, and keep Sauron from finding the freaking ring before you get a nice puppy. And even then, half the dog fancy and the entire rescue community will be ready to jump down your throat for all the ten thousand ways you could have done it better.

And that’s not good for dogs. Because there are plenty of people who could give dogs good, loving homes out there who are going to outlets that sell puppies from high volume commercial breeders. They’re buying puppies meant to live as members of their families but have never in their short lives been a part of one, because they’re being raised like livestock.

Most of those people are not doing it because they’re stupid or careless or impatient; most of them are doing it because the alternatives are invisible to them.

One reason breeders are so hard to find is pretty easy to figure out: fear. Fear of aggressive anti-breeding activists in their local animal control and shelter. Fear of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Fear of breed bans, limit laws, and even sting operations. This whole bizarre idea that we should register and license people who breed a litter or two a year or less… why? It’s no more a business than an occasional garage sale is, and all it does is create a database of people who have intact animals. In the current climate, can anyone really fail to understand why no one who breeds or shows is likely to go along with that?

But that’s not the only reason. Breeders have also allowed themselves to be made to feel ashamed of breeding dogs, of being devoted to their breeds. They’ve been convinced that they have to rationalize and explain what they do, have to point out they do rescue and donate to shelters and really care about dogs in order to… what? Justify bringing a carefully bred puppy into the world and placing him or her into a loving home?

The “don’t breed and buy while shelter dogs die” mantra was way, way too effective, but that doesn’t make it true. Its premise is that there’s a connection between the puppies of small, careful, home-based breeders and the deaths of dogs in shelters. But if we have learned anything in this post-”Redemption” era it’s that dogs die in shelters not because of “irresponsible pet owners” or “greedy breeders” but because of the shelters’ own policies and actions.

This repressive, white-lipped scorn of breeders springs from exactly the same ideology that gives us rescue groups and shelters that can barely find a home they consider good enough to adopt a pet to. Which are usually run by the exact same people who mourn and lament and rend their garments about how all the irresponsible bad pet owners are the ones making them kill all these poor dogs and cats, and swearing we cannot adopt our way out of “pet overpopulation,” and wielding shelter kill statistics like a club to punish pet owners who don’t treat their animals in exactly the way they’d like them to.

The whole thing is just a big huge heap of propaganda. Owning dogs is not a zero sum game. People often have dogs from breeders and shelters or rescue groups at the same time. Dogs are like potato chips to most of us, and once we have one, wherever we get her, we’re likely to get another. If we want to increase the number of shelter adoptions — and I know I do — we’d have a lot more luck doing that if we promoted shelter dogs instead of telling home-based breeders they’re bad and wrong for doing what dog lovers have done for thousands of years, breed their dogs.

How is it good for the future of dogs if those breeders who should be the source of the happiest, healthiest family companions are instead driven into hiding by a combination of punitive regulation and shame? All the breeders I know support and volunteer for and refer people to their breed rescue; what will happen to the good they do if they’re driven so deep underground no one can find them?

And then, what will be left except the very USDA-approved high volume commercial breeders we decry?

Maybe if the “responsible breeders” weren’t hiding, Joe Biden could have found one of them. After all, people who breed dogs are just like everyone else. Some are wonderful, some suck. Some are good to their dogs, honest and careful; some are greedy and mean. It is, amazingly, the exact same ratio of good to bad as you’ll find among shelter directors, airline pilots, and pet writers.

Finding the good ones is truly no more or less difficult than finding a good hairdresser, doctor, dentist, or person to plan your wedding. You don’t need a secret decoder ring. Gollum will not help nor betray you. You might get ripped off — it happens. But it’s not a mystery. The exact same set of skills that allow you to find a good day care center, or the lack of skills that gets you suckered at the car repair shop, will be in play when you look for a dog breeder.

If the playing field were leveled, and the propaganda, fear, and shame taken out of the picture, it would increase, not decrease, the number of good vs. bad breeders. Those small, home-based breeders we’ve condemned with the term “backyard breeder” and equated with puppy mills (talk about propaganda) would be forced to improve their practices if they had to compete with the kind of breeder we all want to get a puppy from: ethical, honest, caring, knowledgeable about genetic and temperament issues in her breed and lines, committed to improving and preserving her breed, providing a lifetime safety net for the puppy in case things don’t work out.

But those are the very ones hiding in the shadows. I think it’s time to come out.

Filed under: animals: pets — Christie Keith @ 5:00 am

Comments (184)

184 Comments »

I kind of had the feeling that the person who did the choosing of the breeder of Biden’s pup picked that breeder because she was “a friend of a friend,” or something along those lines. That he picked her on the basis of her reputation among law-enforcement people.

They underestimated the amount of interest their choice would generate in the pet world, imho.

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 7:07 am
You took the words right out of my head and rearranged them so they sounded better. As usual,

A lot of the criticism really boils down to simple snobbery. Other people just like to criticize.

If it was that hard to get a dog, there wouldn’t be any dogs.

Besides, if there’s no breeder good enough, no matter how experienced or honest they are, then isn’t getting an unknown from a shelter rather, er, risky?

Negativity is not the way to encourage shelter adoption. Duh.

I have two purebreds from a great breeder/judge/now friend but I got one at 2.5 yrs for free in exchange for a good home, the other was supposed to be temporary guest and ended up staying. The third looks like a purebred but he was an SPCA release because he’s a Wiener dog from ‘working lines’ if you know what I mean and they didn’t want to put him up for adoption. My two previous dogs were both from the SPCA.

See? No dogs died because of me but then, I’m not the one killing dogs and looking for scapegoats.

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 7:09 am
First, the number of people able to provide good homes far exceeds the number of puppies produced by good breeders. Since this imbalance is unlikely to disappear we should accept the reality of commercial breeders and focus on improving their operations. We should also hold pet stores more accountable for the health and welfare of the animals they sell. If the pet stores are truly held accountable, their suppliers will have to comply as well.

Second, my family got a puppy a few months ago from a breeder (and we’re happy with our choice) but I might have gone in a different direction if I had been more aware of (1) resources like Petfinder and (2) the many genetic problems with purebred (and “designer”) dogs.

Comment by PN NJ — January 22, 2009 @ 7:14 am
Since this imbalance is unlikely to disappear we should accept the reality of commercial breeders and focus on improving their operations. Comment by PN NJ — January 22, 2009 @ 7:14 am

NO.
NO.
and NO.

I will NOT EVER accept “improved” puppy-mills. A “clean” high-volume commercial kennel is still a livestock operation, not a way to care for dogs and produce puppies that will be good pets.

Why should *I* get a healthy, well-socialized, nearly already house-trained 8-week-old pup who already knows how to sit and how to learn just because I know the “secret handshake” Christie mentions?

And why should my next-door neighbor, who doesn’t know that secret handshake, end up with a crippled, sick, unsocialized pup who is difficult if not impossible to house-train because the minimum wage kennel staff in your “improved” high-volume puppy mill didn’t keep the cages clean enough so that the babies didn’t learn that standing in poop isn’t normal?

And finally, why should hundreds of thousands of dogs be denied a life of love and companionship, spending their entire lives in “improved” cages cranking out litter after litter until their “value” as “productive lifestock” is over, at which time they’re killed, auctioned to other millers or tossed to rescue?

High-volume commercial breeding is not good for pet-owners or pets.

I do NOT accept the widely held view among those of us who fight for our heritage breeds that because we are against the animal-rights extremists march towards pet extinction, we must side with those who treat dogs like livestock. The days of “you’re with us or agin’ us” are OVER for me.

I also do NOT accept that “ordinary” pet-lovers should have to settle for sick and maladjusted pets because they are not as informed as we are.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 7:31 am
Instead of accepting the reality of commercial breeders and improving their conditions, I would offer we could accept the reality of “backyard breeders” and breeders of mixed breed dogs and work on improving their conditions. There are a lot of people who are branded BYB because for various reasons, they aren’t up to snuff with the in-crowd. But honestly, if we’re talking shortages of pups, I’d rather extend a hand and some education to people who breed dogs they treat as pets than those who regard dogs as a commodity.

Comment by slt — January 22, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Christie, thanks for beautifully articulating a conundrum that’s been teasing around the edges of my consciousness for quite some time now.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 22, 2009 @ 7:41 am
Philosophically, I don’t have a problem with commercial breeding. When I was a kid back in the Neolithic, most dog breeders were out in the country and those with large breeds used a kennel situation much like a boarding place. The dogs seemed happy, healthy and cheery.

The reality of it these days is what bugs me.

I actually don’t have a problem with people buying dogs at a pet shop - philosophically.

The reality of it is what bugs me.

So, if commercial (ie, actually making money instead of losing money or breaking even like most breeders I know) breeders were held to standards that would exceed (or at least match) those of a good boarding kennel, I wouldn’t have a problem with it.

If pet shops were obligated to provide the name and address of the breeder of the pup, proof of veterinary attention, etc and if pups couldn’t be placed in pet shops until the age of say, three months, had some training and socialization and were nearly past the worst fear stage and if the whole litter had to go together and stay together in a roomy playpen situation with clean straw, it would certainly ease my mind.

People who criticize breeders who breed for profit should be equally critical of many shelters and SPCA type facilities, since dogs often stay there for years (such as ‘pit bulls’ in Toronto, for example). Certainly many private ‘rescues’ aren’t much better than substandard breeders and hoarding situations, based on what I’ve learned.

So, is ‘rescuing’ as bad as commercial breeding? Is ‘sheltering’ as bad? In some cases it’s much worse, in others much better.

Dogs are animals, albeit very mysterious and unusual ones. They are a lot like humans. They are extremely adaptable, hence their success at tricking us into looking after them and obsessing over them as we seem to do today.

It’s all part of their master plan for world domination - and it’s working!

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 7:59 am
Selma, to be clear: I’m not having a problem with the “profit” but with the scale of the operations and the “livestock” attitude — and with the fact that breeding stock will never know the lives their offspring will, as part of a family.

That said, I do know breeders of hunting retrievers (typically breeding-training-hunting grounds businesses) that keep a kennel full of dogs. But they breed one litter at a time, and raise that litter in the house with the family. You could raise maybe six litters a year that way, which is a far cry from a high-volume commercial operation. (And they’re also selling the pups themselves, not sending them to pet-stores where they’ll be sold to anyone whose credit card clears.)

Those kennel dogs aren’t just stuffed in runs for life for the purpose of cranking out puppies for sale — they work for a living, and enjoy what they do. And many of them rotate as house dogs as well.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 8:16 am
To me, an important difference is:

you are my pet whom I train and exercise and love and if I make a profit off your litter, yahoo for me.
vs.
you are a thing that exists for the purpose of making me money. You will receive no training, exercise or love from me and if you fail to bring me profit, you will meet a horrible end.

Comment by slt — January 22, 2009 @ 8:22 am
Those kennel dogs aren’t just stuffed in runs for life for the purpose of cranking out puppies for sale — they work for a living, and enjoy what they do. And many of them rotate as house dogs as well.

The breeder of my sister’s Lab has a strict schedule to ensure that every adult dog spends significant time in the house with the family. And of course, pregnant or new mamas and their litters are in the house.

The result in my sister’s case was a fourteen-month old dog that hadn’t panned out for show or hunting, who well-socialized, child-proof, and great with their cat, when my sister got her. She’s five now, and a joy to be around.

Very different from getting a dog who’d spent a year of her life in a commercial breeding operaion!

Comment by Lis — January 22, 2009 @ 8:34 am
It’s not kennel living per se that’s the problem. Lots of breeds do really well in an appropriate kennel situation, like foxhounds and sled dogs.

But the idea that high volume commercial breeders run those kind of kennels, or could make the kind of money they need to make to stay in business if they did, is a fantasy.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Hey, I agree with you.

It’s the reality of it that’s wrong, not the concept.

It seems to me that if these ‘people’ are making the kind of money we think they are making, they could well afford to improve conditions.

So could their partners in crime at the retail end of things.

So, if I opened a pet shop and followed my own principles, only obtained puppies locally, refused to use middlemen, made no secret of the source, insisted on certain standards from my ‘suppliers’, kept my puppies clean, happy and socialized and still managed to make some money out of it, would you support it?

(Trust me, the last thing I want to do is clean after puppies all day long like my friends who breed dogs have to do, it’s just a what-if question).

My point is that in addition to counselling people to avoid pet shops as is widely done, maybe pet shops should be insisting that the suppliers/breeders to meet certain standards or they won’t take their puppies.

Would that help?

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 8:45 am
PS, I’d screen homes as well, insist on references, if they rent a note from the landlord, etc. It wouldn’t be easy to get one of my little guys.

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 8:46 am
Selma, the problem is that, while you wouldn’t use a middleman, you’d be a middleman.

And if you’d be really screening potential buyers, well, sorry, you’re not describing a successful consumer retail operation. You’d have all the overhead of having a store, but you wouldn’t have the volume of sales moving through to pay for it.

Or you would have that volume, and you wouldn’t be able to really screen people.

Or you’d be doing the screening, having high standards for you suppliers AND high standards for your customers, and you’d be charging enough to be profitable and getting the kind of clientele that can pay those prices—and you wouldn’t be selling to the average person who wants a nice puppy, but doesn’t have the knowledge required to send them looking for a responsible breeder.

There’s a reason most responsible breeders never really make a profit.:(

Comment by Lis — January 22, 2009 @ 9:06 am
I don’t think so, Selma. Because in fact the pet store IS the middleman, between the breeder and the pet-owner.

No caring, reputable breeder wants someone ELSE placing/selling the puppies they raised … not to mention reputable breeder is there for the life of the dog to advise/support on problems, and take back if need be.

Retailers should not be selling puppies. No condition I could personally think of can make a pet store an optimum situation for a puppy or a puppy buyer.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Selma’s puppy shop goes down in flames - O noes!

; )

I can’t imagine turning over my puppies to anyone to sell - even if they kept them clean, socialized them, screened buyers, etc. Even if they were my BFF. No one is ever going to be as perfect as me (heh) and can you imagine the very first problem that arises - which it inevitably will. The pet shop owner would be blaming the breeder and vice-versa and the buyer would probably be threatening both with lawsuits.
Pets are a HOME thing to me. Better to keep the joys, as well as the difficulties, at home. One “buck stops with me” person.

Comment by slt — January 22, 2009 @ 9:21 am
I’ve had German shepherd dogs for 18 years.

I can tell you where you can get a fine working dog, if you are a SAR handler or police officer or serious dog hobbyist who wants to do Schutzhund or obedience.

I am completely at a loss about where to get a good, healthy, well-balanced, sane GSD with a pet temperament. The kind of dog Biden was looking for.

I come up helpless against this question time and again. You are right — if I can’t answer that question for a client or friend, it is too damn hard.

I cannot recommend the show-ring wrecks (whether American wrecks or German wrecks.) This is the usual advice of those who know it’s a bad idea for someone to try to make “just a pet” out of a dog bred from working lines. So instead of “too much dog,” the pet owner ends up with a slinking spook and a stack of vet bills. Better?

So I’m on the verge of concluding (please note, I do not say that I have concluded) that the German shepherd dog genome is not well-suited to selection for pet qualities. It’s a working dog or nothing. Trying to “tone down” the drive to work just ends up with shy, skittish, cowardly, insecure, potential-fear-biting animals who still try to take over the household.

That said, Biden could have done a lot better than he did.

The Googles is our friend.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 9:26 am
The Googles is our friend.

True, but knowing how to decipher what you read on the Google is part of the “secret handshake” thing, too. I mean, if Joe Biden believed what he read on Google about Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or even, you know, HIMSELF… he’d lose his mind.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 9:32 am
hee hee, yeah that’s a problem. No one advertises their puppies as “Unsocialized, unhealthy and too young to be taken from their litter” even if that’s the case.

“Standardless Kennels - We’ve got a credit card machine!”

Comment by slt — January 22, 2009 @ 9:40 am
Not trying to start a war, but it still comes back to the math. The demand for dogs, especially puppies, is large. Purebred breeders and backyard breeders are basically small volume boutiques. How do we bridge the gap in a responsible manner?

Comment by PN NJ — January 22, 2009 @ 9:49 am
I think one way to look at Selma’s hypothetical ethical pet store is to compare it to the way that some of the large national chains make their space available to rescue and adoption groups.

Is providing a central, clean, well-publicized place to find new companion animals a useful and positive thing? Yes.

But the success of the individual adoptions will depend on many variables that are difficult to untangle. Not all rescue groups are equally good at screening homes or evaluating animals, and not all rescue groups are flexible enough to know a good home that falls outside their often rigid guidelines. Not all rescue groups are good at follow-up and support, either.

Another variable is the pet himself, which is related to the ability of the rescue group to evaluate animals, but also to qualities particular to the pet and the person: experience level, lifestyle, available resources, personal tastes, the pet’s personality and history, etc.

Obviously, these are still worthwhile and pro-animal events, but they do have their ups and downs.

Now, take that model and apply it to purpose-bred dogs.

In some parts of the country, there are stores that hold breeder fairs. They’re usually not pet stores but stores that supply hunters, and they invite hunting dog breeders to set up in their parking lots so their customers can look for a dog. This is about as close to an adoption of that model I can think of, and I think it has pretty much the same pitfalls and advantages, with the exception of the “good deed” factor.

Could something like that work? I don’t think it’s unethical, but do think it’s problematic on a number of levels.

I don’t think it’s ideal for puppies to be brought to a store, center, fair, or parking lot to be looked at. I don’t think it’s necessary, either. At this stage, it’s the breeder you’re evaluating, not the puppies per se. But every time a breeder goes to a pet fair, an expo, or a similar event — for instance, Scottish Deerhound people often go to Scottish festivals and fairs — they are in essence doing just that: introducing their adult dogs, their breed, and themselves to potential owners of those dogs. I doubt too many deerhound breeders use the fairs this way, as there are so few people who want a deerhound, but I would imagine those who breed the more popular Scottish breeds find a lot of puppy buyers that way.

But a true retail situation to me is as fraught with problems, and as unworkable, as PetCo going into the animal shelter and adoption business on its own. Puppies are not widgets or gadgets, and treating them like stock is intrinsically flawed, not because it’s wrong per se, but because it just won’t work.

But if we stop demonizing home breeders, bring “backyard breeders” into the fold, fight like hell to stop repressive legislation, breeding bans, BSL, mandatory S/N, punitive limit laws, and registration and licensing for small, home-based breeders when they rear their heads, and refuse to be shamed, cowed, or forced into the shadows, and in fact, start proudly promoting good, dog-positive, dog owner-positive breeding practices, and standing up proudly for the preservation and improvement of dogs in all their forms and functions including companion dogs, then there won’t be a need for pet stores to sell puppies at all.

People can go back to looking in the classifieds of their local newspaper without shame, and breeders can go back to advertising there. Same with the very online classifieds I’ve fought against allowing live animal ads for years; I still oppose AUCTIONING live animals, but I no longer agree with blanket prohibitions against simple listings of available puppies on things like Craig’s List.

Part of the reason internet puppy mills have gained a foothold is that home-based breeders have ceded that ground to them without a fight. It’s all part of the same problem. It has the same solution: stand up and speak out.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 9:52 am
Not trying to start a war, but it still comes back to the math. The demand for dogs, especially puppies, is large. Purebred breeders and backyard breeders are basically small volume boutiques. How do we bridge the gap in a responsible manner?

I was already writing my previous comment when this was posted, and part of my response was covered there.

My answer is simple: Stop demonizing small home based breeders. Encourage good breeding practices. Educate conumers. Stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Stop letting your enemies define you. Stop sticking your heads in the sand instead of standing up and fighting repressive and unfair legislation and regulation.

Stop being defensive about shelter dogs and embrace them; they’re not “the competition,” they’re dogs in need of homes and there are plenty of homes to go around. One of the lies that the anti-breeding crowd uses to bludgeon breeders is that there aren’t enough homes, but obviously that’s a lie. There are more than enough homes, but both shelters and good breeders have done a terrible, horrible job of getting their dogs into them.

If the stigma that’s become attached to home-based breeding — I mean, how in the name of hell did anyone ever get the idea that “puppy mills” and “backyard breeders” were comparable? — was reduced or turned around, then there would be more dogs being purpose-bred as companions, particularly the very small dogs that are most desired, because more people would be able to breed their dogs and supply that market.

Who needs to be squeezed out is the ONLY entity in this scenario that is producing dogs like widgets instead of future family members, companions, and working dogs: high volume commercial breeders.

Will all bad outcomes be avoided like this? Of course not. But THEY NEVER CAN BE. We live in an imperfect world with imperfect people in it. Greed exists, but so does compassion. The existence of bad breeders doesn’t mean all breeders, or breeding itself, are bad any more than the existence of bad shelters means all shelters, or sheltering itself, are bad.

If good breeders advertised themselves proudly and competed head to head with the ones who are something less than good, it would create market pressure for better practices by all. I actually believe under this scenario there ARE enough people who’d like to breed companion dogs to fill the demand for companion dogs, and no one has ever convinced me otherwise.

I mean, the millers and their apologists SAY home-based breeders can’t supply the demand for puppies all the time, but offer no proof. Neither do I have proof of my opposite belief, of course, but I think this is a more viable strategy and one infinitely better for dogs and society than tolerating the high volume mass farming of companion animals.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 10:05 am
To a certain extent, at least in MY breed, a lot of the popularity of the mills and volume breeders comes down to customer service.

Those big volume breeders LOVE to talk to potential buyers, and they know ALL the right things to say. They sweet talk, agree with everything, ask no questions, require no references, make no judgments. They’re sweet, friendly, folksy, and (in far too many cases), pepper their conversations with declarations of their godliness.

It all sounds *so* good to buyers, that talking to an ethical, small volume breeder - one who’s juggling the phone after getting home from work, with dinner to cook and five dogs to feed - can come across are brusque, or even rude.

Plus, we’re pushy! We ask questions, require stuff of buyers, have long and complex contracts. We’re *invasive*.

I don’t know the answer. I do know that while crappy, sickly puppy mill bred pups are selling in droves, there are good breeders with litters out of health tested, champion parents who are dropping their prices for lack of buyers.

I think a lot of it comes down to marketing — volume breeders know how to do it, small hobby breeders don’t.

Comment by FrogDogZ — January 22, 2009 @ 10:08 am
FrogDogZ, I have to do an interview right now, but I have something to say about that… and it’s a problem with shelters and rescue groups, too.

Okay, I’ll be back!

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Yes, that’s kind of what I was trying to do. Think about possibilities, sidestep the animal liberation propaganda and improve life for the dogs and the pet owners.

All breeders got sullied by groups who want to end the breeding of animals. Period. That’s why you’re right, Christie, we have to stop letting them define the terms.

I don’t use ‘puppy mill’ anymore. I say ‘substandard breeder’. It’s not a big change but it’s less emotional.

The thing is, it isn’t illegal to buy and sell dogs - yet. Do we want to make it illegal? Then we are playing into the hands of the liberationists and helping them to fulfil their goal.

We need a sea-change. We need to stop pet limit laws and stop making breeders fearful through these kinds of laws. If somebody wants to breed a couple of litters a year (usually they are looking for dogs for themselves that have potential) and sell a few pups - or even a few dozen - what’s the big deal?

Don’t let the liberationists tar everybody with the same brush because while they talk about welfare, that’s not their goal.

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 10:16 am
Amen.

Comment by Lori — January 22, 2009 @ 10:16 am
FrogDogZ said:

They’re sweet, friendly, folksy, and (in far too many cases), pepper their conversations with declarations of their godliness.

Yeah, that Jehova tells me how to breed dogs thing,what is up with that?

Sorry, I see a Jesus fish on a website that is selling something other than Bibles and nice religious jewelry for my mother-in-law, I clear out. Same with it on the side of a plumber’s truck, the window of a greasy spoon, whatever. Or once, the sign over a USED CAR DEALER. I got out of there — don’t wanna be close when the lightning bolt comes through.

And it does seem to be a persistent feature on the websites of many of the direct-to-sucker internet millers.

Many ethical breeders are people of faith. They don’t make a big public deal out of it, much less try to use it as a marketing ploy. Maybe something about taking the Lord’s name in vain?

Most dangerous dog I ever worked with was a genetically screwed-up golden retriever who specialized in biting neighborhood kids. The owners had a LOT of issues of their own, too, but this was a dog whose parents should have never been introduced, ever. The owners were incredulous when I suggested that the local puppymiller they had bought from might not have been the most knowledgeable dog breeder out there. “But she’s a minister’s wife!” objected the female owner.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 10:26 am
Comment by FrogDogZ — January 22, 2009 @ 10:08 am

As far as salesmanship goes, again it comes down to how the whole transaction is regarded from the seller’s perspective. One view:

I train, exercise and love my pet and I want to make the best possible match between her pups and the buyers I have put through the screening process. I desire a relationship with the buyer for the life of the pup and would want to assist in rehoming or take the pup back myself if that ever became necessary.

Another view:

I want to cater to whatever needs I can sense from you that need to be met in order to finalize this transaction. I want to make sure your credit card gets authorized before you leave the store with that pup. I hope to never see you again because if I have to talk to you, that takes away from time I want to spend selling more pups and authorizing more credit cards.

Depending on the seller’s desired end-game, the tactics are going to vary. Although the pet breeder sees a benefit in asking probative questions and following up on the answers, that approach is likely to put off at least some buyers. Even if the pet breeder senses that the buyer’s comfort level is sinking, he presses on because that’s what it takes to do a good job.
The profit-only driven breeder will sense the buyer’s comfort level and bring them a La-Z-Boy so they can feel absolutely at ease about opening their wallet.

Comment by slt — January 22, 2009 @ 10:30 am
I don’t know why everybody insists on purebred dogs, when you are better served by getting a mixed breed. Especially if it’s a family dog. We have had dogs for the last 40 years in this house, and - with one exception - they have been from the local pound. In fact, most have been shepherd mixes - GS/dingo, GS/chow, AS mixes - and have been the best dogs you could want.

I agree that finding a decent breeder shouldn’t be that hard. But I also think it’s not necessary at all.

Comment by Kirsten — January 22, 2009 @ 10:43 am
Here’s a variation on Selma’s “pet store as middleman” concept that I’ve mulled over from time to time:

Since so many members of the public looking for a dog think the place to go is a pet shop (and have trouble locating and assessing other potential sources), how about if we make that pet shop outlet a good resource without getting it into the “puppy selling” business. And how about we do that by having pet shops mainting listings of local breeders that buyers can contact?

The pet store could make its money by charging a nominal fee to breeders who list with them. The breeders still get to have final say over vetting potential buyers. The pet-seeking public mostly has their need for “one stop shopping” fulfilled, and is not required to become an expert on the “how to find a dog breeder” subject (although they still need to exercise their critical thinking during the reciprocal process of breeder/buyer evaluation).

I’m sure there are problems with this idea as well, but I just thought I’d toss it out there for discussion.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 22, 2009 @ 10:48 am
I have no problem with that. My friend Pam, who runs a pet-supply/grooming retail business, often suggests service providers (trainers, pet-sitters, etc.) that she has had good experience with or has had customers recommend.

This would be similar, no? In fact, here in Sacramento, it would even be simple: Just keep the annual directory of the Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs near the register, along with a list of rescue groups and shelters. Maybe the dog club bunch could even be convinced that putting “best practice” breeders of Labradoodles, etc. — and they DO exist — in the directory would be a good move.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Comment by Kirsten:

I don’t know why everybody insists on purebred dogs, when you are better served by getting a mixed breed.

I don’t know why some people are so damned sure that they know what is best for everybody.

Glad you like your mutts. Happy when anyone is happy with their dog, and the dog is happy with them. Hey, we are all happy.

Telling people you don’t know that they shouldn’t want, don’t need, and are wrong for having a purpose-bred dog is no less snobby than the decades of show-dog propaganda about the inferiority of mutts.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 11:02 am
Yeah Pat, you pretty much just described the vanishing breed of small local pet-supply stores that used to be in so many towns. (Usually with a grooming parlor in back.)

Just as with food, there’s no substitute for knowing — in person — who you are buying from.

Unfortunately, “modern” referrals are usually through internet websites.

Some are breed club or other nonprofit sites that may require some criteria of those who get a listing, but still can’t offer a personal reference in the same way as a real person.

Most are puppymill-listing-for-pay sites.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 11:06 am
Kirsten—

Mainly because your life doesn’t match every one else’s life. Also if no one bred GSDs then your dogs wouldn’t exist either.

I’m glad you had good experiences with your mutt. I love mine too. But you can’t just paint everyone (or their motives) with the same brush.

Comment by Lori — January 22, 2009 @ 11:14 am
The breeders themselves are a huge part of the problem. I was looking for a standard poodle pup last year, and I scoured the internet looking for a good breeder. I was very disheartened by the requirements that most breeders have for their puppy buyers. I encountered breeders that refused to sell you a pup if you didn’t have a gigantic fenced yard, if you had to leave the dog alone while you work (which eliminates 90% of the adult population of the country), or if you had never owned a dog of that same breed before. Basically, if you weren’t filthy rich, retired, and possibly psychic, you weren’t getting a dog.

I understand that breeders want good homes for their pups, but this is ridiculous. EVERYONE HAS TO WORK DURING THE DAY. Not everyone can afford a house with a gigantic fenced yard—there are plenty of other exercise options. Not everyone can be the absolute 100% perfect specimen of pet-owning perfection. That doesn’t mean they won’t give the dog a wonderful, loving forever home.

How many people go looking for a good breeder, but get turned down for some silly reason over and over and over? How long do you think they’re going to try before they turn to a puppy mill or pet store instead? How would Joe Biden have fared if the good GSD breeders found out that he didn’t feed his dogs out of golden dishes or whatever other over-the-top quality they decided was required?

I finally lucked out and found a good breeder who sold me a beautiful pup. He is now a year old, and is happy, healthy, and enjoying life. There are plenty of great homes out there, even if they aren’t 100% perfect. Breeders need to learn this.

Comment by Karen — January 22, 2009 @ 11:19 am
I wasn’t necessarily talking about purebreds. Around here the farmers sometimes (but not often) have oopsie pups that are beautiful. They usually put notices up at the vet clinic(s), which isn’t a bad idea since you’re targeting people who go to vets. They ask for about $50 a pup because they know most people take better care of things they have to buy. :>)

Re: changing the terms so the enemy isn’t framing the argument.

Animal rights - I don’t use it anymore, it’s misleading and too positive. I’ve switched to animal liberation - easier for people to understand.

Puppy mill - did that. Substandard breeder.

Pet overpopulation - myth. I refer to a pet retention problem or shelter killing instead.

There are a few more that come up but I can’t think of them right now.

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 11:27 am
Excellent post, Christie. I just have one question, because I feel kind of out of the loop — did something happen with/to the puppy? Or am I just misreading the statement that Biden “cannot successfully find a good family dog from a responsible breeder”?

Comment by Liz — January 22, 2009 @ 11:42 am
Yeah, that Jehova tells me how to breed dogs thing,what is up with that?

Why, that’s part of the puppy mill trifecta — I found a Venn diagram that interprets it perfectly -

http://bullmarketfrogs.com/blog/?p=468

We decided it leaves out that other important element, over use of blinky text and animated graphics, but otherwise it’s spot on.

Comment by FrogDogZ — January 22, 2009 @ 11:48 am
I don’t know why everybody insists on purebred dogs, when you are better served by getting a mixed breed.

I would not have been “better served” by getting any mixed breed actually available at any shelter in reasonable travel distance for me.

I agree that finding a decent breeder shouldn’t be that hard. But I also think it’s not necessary at all.

Would you prefer that all dogs came from puppy millers, the laziest, greediest, most ignorant BYBs, and the people who just didn’t get their pets fixed before they had an oopsie? Do you think that that would serve the dogs better?

As for the people looking for pets, no, not everyone is best served by a Shepherd mix, a Lab mix, or a pit mix. People are different, live different lives, have different needs.

Comment by Lis — January 22, 2009 @ 11:59 am
How many people go looking for a good breeder, but get turned down for some silly reason over and over and over? How long do you think they’re going to try before they turn to a puppy mill or pet store instead? How would Joe Biden have fared if the good GSD breeders found out that he didn’t feed his dogs out of golden dishes or whatever other over-the-top quality they decided was required?

I finally lucked out and found a good breeder who sold me a beautiful pup. He is now a year old, and is happy, healthy, and enjoying life. There are plenty of great homes out there, even if they aren’t 100% perfect. Breeders need to learn this.

Comment by Karen — January 22, 2009

Karen … you didn’t “luck out.” You kept looking. There’s a difference. Your home is 100 percent perfect, even if your 100 percent perfect isn’t the same as someone else’s idea of 100 percent perfect.

But yes, many breeders, rescue groups and shelters are over-the-top unreasonable in their demands of buyers/adopters.

These are issues that can be dealt with. For example, when I was running a breed rescue, we had “guidelines” — fenced yards, etc. But when we saw good people and a good match, we placed the dog. And I can say without hesitation that some of those placements — one to a woman who lived in an apartment, the other to an couple considered by other groups “too old” to take on any but an elderly pet — were my BEST placements.

Reputable breeders, rescues, shelters … we all need to STOP presuming someone who wants a pet is “unworthy until proven otherwise.”

We need to work with people, people.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
I share Kirsten’s concern if one phrases “everyone” as “the general public”, not those who are looking for a dog with a specific purpose. And I completely agree with Christie that finding a good dog just shouldn’t be this hard.

I had a TERRIBLE time making the jump from the cat world (from 6 years old) to the dog world (at 40) to get Pepper. I hang out here because since I put together the funding for the local dog park, everyone figured I must “know all” about dogs and therefore, can help THEM with the secret handshakes to get a dog.

Terrierman’s “dog health” section on his blogroll has made those requests a whole lot easier to deal with, but far more people than I, or the rest of the dog park board, would like, end up throwing up their hands and going to the puppy mills because they just want a family pet and separating the wheat from the chaff just takes way too much effort (and it really does — I’m just nasty-stubborn, which is why I have a great dog, but if I had known more, I definately would have saved some time and gone in a different direction).

Without good guidelines, well-meaning people are turning to the breeds as brands. My husband’s friends are professional men who want a good dog for the family — to them, that means they want a purebred Lab or Golden because it’s a “brand” — what you get when you want a family dog.

After all we went through to get Pepper, my husband tries to convince them to get a Lab mix from a shelter and goes into the genetics on why that will probably be a better bet. They are convinced they need a purebred because then “they know what they are getting” and “it’s meant to be a family dog” etc. Then, once they start having the problems that Retrieverman talks about in his blog, my husband has to bite his tongue so he doesn’t say “I told you so! to them — although when he comes home, I get the full “my friends are idiots because they think they went to the Dog Store and bought X pounds of Dog Brand Y!”

There has to be better marketing for the family pet market and the “breed is brand” myth MUST be exploded. The purpose-bred dog breeders need to take back their turf, but the general public definately needs some help/nudges to make better decisions so that everyone — “purpose dog” people, “family pet” people and dogs can have happier, more contented lives.

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009 @ 12:45 pm
OT but related to Dorene’s comment above: Terrierman gets a lot of kudos and credit around here. I stopped reading his site when I couldn’t get past his derisive remarks (and photos, if I remember correctly) about overweight women. It sounds like I’m missing a lot of good information, but that just rubbed me the wrong way, personally. Maybe I need to be a bigger (haha) person and take the info and blaze past the rest.

Comment by Lori — January 22, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“I agree that finding a decent breeder shouldn’t be that hard. But I also think it’s not necessary at all.”

“Comment by Kirsten — January 22, 2009 @ 10:43 am”

Kirsten, I respect your opinion, but I have to tell you that even though I am a long-time animal shelter employee, I totally disagree with you.

Everyone has the right to choose the breed of dog they want to be part of their lives. From what I have seen in my time in animal welfare, I have come to the conclusion that I would rather people responsibly choose the dog they really want and do right by it (give it proper care, training, affection, etc.) than to just take “a pig in a poke” and get rid of it because they are unhappy with it.

Dogs are not interchangeable — one dog does not equal another. People who aren’t particular about which dog they live with, and who are willing to do what it takes to make the relationship work with whatever they have, are few and far between. It’s wonderful when this type of person comes along and wants to adopt the dog that nobody else wants, but in most cases, this is just not the way it works.

When we have someone come to the shelter who has their heart set on a Yorkie — and they may have very legitimate reasons for wanting a Yorkie — they are hardly going to be happy with — not to mention be an appropriate home for — a Pit Bull / Lab mix, just because it’s there. And while there may be Yorkies available through rescue groups, adopting a rescue dog can also be difficult for many people. So many other people are already waiting to adopt the dogs that don’t have all the baggage — health, temperament, age, whatever — that many rescue dogs come with. I hate it when people say “you can find any dog you want in rescue groups.” That just isn’t true, no more than saying you can find any breed of dog in a shelter.

I have never bought into the “until there are none, adopt one” mentality, because aside from the frightening extreme possible definition of that statement, I just don’t believe that dogs are one-size-fits-all. I believe that people are far more likely to make a long-term commitment to the dog they really want.

The thing is, we all need to think of ways to encourage responsible acquisition and ownership, and to discourage people from getting their pets from bad sources. If we can come up with that happy medium, maybe we can reduce the number of homeless animals that are out there in the first place.

I’m glad you love your mixed-breed dogs. I, too, have loved many mixed-breeds in my lifetime. But I have also loved my purebreds, and I firmly believe that there is room in this world for both. It’s the people who need to do more serious thinking before they get one or the other.

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
“I don’t know why everybody insists on purebred dogs, when you are better served by getting a mixed breed.” With no disrespect to all the other lovely dogs out there of pure and mixed lineage…

Sometimes all you want is a well-bred German Shepherd and no other dog will do.

Comment by Dutch — January 22, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
I’m back!

Re: FrogDogZ’s comment on how small hobby breeders suck at customer service, and how sometimes the high volume breeders are great at it, reminds me of the situation right now with shelters. Many of them fail to “market” their animals and fail to train their staff members in good customer service, or implement any concept of “customer service” in their operations, because they resist being seen as a “business.” It offends them, because they do not operate a “business” as they understand a business; they are more like a cause, a charity, or a church.

And of course, that’s true, but it’s also completely naive.

Charities do market themselves. So do churches, schools, and causes. If you want to attract people in your doors or to your cause, you have to market to them. That’s just reality.

Sitting back and being smug, judging everyone who shows up at your shelter desk, letting your staff reinforce each other with negative messages about how irresponsible and bad most people are… these things drive away potential adopters, antagonize the very members of the community who need to be your donor and volunteer base, and prevent the animals in your facility from getting into a happy forever home.

The same thing is true of breeders.
It’s not just that hobby breeders don’t know HOW to give good customer service, or that they don’t know they’re supposed to; they’re actively opposed to doing it, take pride in NOT doing it, and positively reward other breeders who refuse to do it.

They’ve bought the same message that most people suck, most people shouldn’t have any dog let alone one of your breed let alone one of YOUR dogs. They make it hard for them to find them, hard for them to squeeze through their screening process, and they’re usually not very friendly or welcoming on top of it. Then they run back to the Internet and brag about the idiot they smacked down on the phone or at the pet store.

Just like the shelters, they have to accept reality. It’s not just about placing YOUR puppies; it’s about protecting your right to own and breed dogs in the first place. If you can do that with a spoonful of sugar instead of vinegar… just as I’ve suggested for shelters and rescue groups… it costs you nothing but the wilingness to do it and a little practice at different messages and a different tone of voice.

It doesn’t mean you let all comers buy your puppies any more than shelters should hand over pets to anyone who asks for one. It just means that there’s no reason to make people feel stupid or irresponsible or judged, and plenty of reasons not to.

Shelters and small breeders alike need to think in terms of overall message and support for their “industry,” or “cause” if you want a word with less negative connotation. That is what marketing is, and it’s not a bad thing and shouldn’t be turned into a bad thing.

We market this blog. I market my column. We market the pet feature. Gina markets her books. We both market ideas, even ideas that don’t make us a penny, such as our belief in no-kill and food safety reform.

The American Red Cross markets its rescue efforts. Churches, schools, politicians, people selling their houses, the guy next door trying to sell his car, a kid selling his bike on Craig’s List, Bad Rap asking for toys and cases of canned pumpkins for pit bulls it’s trying to place… all these things are forms of marketing and they are not evil.

If you believe in something and want to spread the word and get other people to believe it too, you must learn to think about what your message is and how to successfully deliver it. There’s really no point in being right if you aren’t also effective.

Now, I say all this, but I sympathize with everyone who just can’t do it. We’ve all seen pet owners who really shouldn’t have pets, and some of us have seen true abuse that’s tainted how we view the general pet-owning public. The reason I sympathize so deeply, though, is not that; it’s because I keep finding myself drawn back to anger and “being right” in a very different argument — the one over marriage equality. It fills me with resentment, even rage, to have to try to win people over to the idea that I should be treated the same under the law as they are. I literally shake with it sometimes.

And that is why I am a hideously ineffective advocate for my cause.

My feelings are valid, my position is morally, ethically, and legally unassailable, my anger righteous.

And none of that changes a single mind nor advances my cause one inch.

So I get that it’s hard to lay down the idea that you’re the one on the ethical high ground and all those other people are mean-spirited idiots. I do get it.

But those of us caught in that struggle also have to realize we have two choices: stand on our tiny mountain shaking our sword in the air, or climb down and talk to the people we’re so pissed at, and see if we can’t change a few minds.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Dear Dog, save me from the well intentioned who think that they know what’s best for me, whether it’s a mongrel from a shelter, mandatory seat belt usage, trusting the FDA for food safety or getting rid of my cat because it might suffocate my baby!The only mutt I might EVER consider is a lurcher and I deeply resent being told ad infinitum that by loving a particular breed, I am anathema! Arrghhhh!
Alas, getting a quality dog from however you define a good, responsible breeder is as Christie says in her excellent post, a difficult feat, but if you the buyer are committed and persistent, you can break through the safety barrier the breeder has placed around her/his dogs.
Most of the difficulty arises because breeders want to protect their animals from the average impulse buyer/uninformed public. Responsible breeders want to make as certain as possible that their puppy placements are in forever homes, and not thrown out in the trash like everything else in this disposable society of ours. When people stop and ask me questions about my dogs, I tend to pontificate at length on all the reasons one shouldn’t get one! I don’t want my breed any more popular than it is, as our National Club Rescue and private breed rescues are full of puppy mill rejects bought by people who couldn’t deal with the dog once it became a teenager and lost it’s fat puppy appeal.
I see this as a two fold problem; how to get a well bred dog if you are looking for a pet/companion and how to protect your dogs from the ignorant, knowing that you “can’t fix stupid”. It may be American to own a dog, but every American should not own one!

Comment by Anne T — January 22, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
The Googles is our friend.

True, but knowing how to decipher what you read on the Google is part of the “secret handshake” thing, too. I mean, if Joe Biden believed what he read on Google about Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, or even, you know, HIMSELF… he’d lose his mind.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 9:32 am

True enough, but my understanding is that this particular breeder had been cited for kennel health and welfare violations — so that’s a little more concrete than the rabblings of a right-wing blogger, say.

Before I went to Billings, the wee stat counter on my blog revealed that a LOT of people in Montana were googling my name, and my NESR colleague’s name, in conjunction with different other terms. I sure don’t blame anyone for being curious about these strangers coming from out of town, and what their agendas might be.

I checked all those google search results myself, and found “Eh, nothing here to be ashamed of or that makes either of us look bad to a reasonable person.”

Not that my pronouncements on cave conservation or backyard composting, say, have anything to do with anything in this context.

If someone is a good breeder, I expect to find mostly good stuff about them when I use a search engine. And if there’s a disgruntled turned-down buyer or something out there spreading bile, I’ll ask the person it’s about whassup.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
‘These are issues that can be dealt with. For example, when I was running a breed rescue, we had “guidelines” — fenced yards, etc. But when we saw good people and a good match, we placed the dog. And I can say without hesitation that some of those placements — one to a woman who lived in an apartment, the other to an couple considered by other groups “too old” to take on any but an elderly pet — were my BEST placements.

Reputable breeders, rescues, shelters … we all need to STOP presuming someone who wants a pet is “unworthy until proven otherwise.”’

Totally agree with you on this, Gina. It’s easy for people to get so stuck in absolutes that they forget that each situation is different.

We had a real AR-oriented guy who worked here years ago when I first started, and I would drive him crazy because I never did things “by the book.” (Thankfully the management gave me a lot of leeway because they knew I had a lot of years of experience with animals and I had a pretty good idea of what I was talking about.)

One day he read me the riot act because he had heard me discussing keeping cats indoors with a potential adopter. I told the adopter that it’s really not fair to let cats outdoors in Tucson because there are so many coyotes in the area. I told them, truthfully, that I had lost three cats to coyotes — one because of complete ignorance of the problem, and the other two due to letting my guard down and letting them outside because they wanted so badly to go out in the yard, and I felt they were safe in our yard.

This staff person freaked out and told me that he felt I sounded very irresponsible to the adopter. I told him, no — I sounded HUMAN by telling them about my own experience and what I had learned the hard way, which was a lot more honest than just preaching why they shouldn’t do this or that just because I said so. I have never had a cat that wasn’t an indoor-only cat since, and I think I conveyed the danger to these people very well.

We often fall into thinking absolutes like a dog needs a fenced yard, and someone with an apartment shouldn’t own a certain breed. But often the home with the fenced yard will be the one to stick the dog out in the yard alone without interaction or exercise, while the apartment dog will get regular walks and attention from its owner.

I think it’s always better to just listen to the potential home and take time getting to know where they are coming from and how sincere they are about the adoption than it is to just “go by the book.”

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 1:23 pm
I don’t know why everybody insists on purebred dogs, when you are better served by getting a mixed breed.

I don’t know why anyone would live in the suburbs, have kids, or eat at McDonald’s. I don’t know why cilantro has not been banned from the agricultural fields of the planet, nor why wearing Crocs isn’t a capital crime.

I don’t know why anyone on earth doesn’t love Xena: Warrior Princess, why everyone who wants to lose weight doesn’t go on Atkins, why people collect stamps, why people believe certain elements of religious dogma, or why anyone would ever join the army.

I can’t imagine who watches American Idol, or listens to Celine Dion. It completely bewilders me that NASCAR exists.

Do you see where I’m going here? It’s not about me. And it’s not about you. People have the right to pursue happiness, and while there are things we don’t permit in that pursuit even in a free country, the default is and must always be towards liberty and doing what brings us happiness. That’s the foundation of this country.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I’m with you on Xena!!! (and on Celine Dion - ack!)

;o)

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 1:38 pm
Off topic warning

“I don’t know why cilantro has not been banned from the agricultural fields of the planet”

Christie, sounds like you ought to read this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/s.....d=98695984

Comment by Anne T — January 22, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Cilantro and Crocs? You don’t like cilantro and Crocs?

Chrisite … I’m not sure we can still be friends. Do you hate coriander, too?

What next? Are you going to tell me my retrievers have too much energy and give you a headache when you’re around them?

:)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 1:59 pm
ROFL Anne… I love it. I was familiar with IHateCilantro.com, but the comment thread on that post was HYSTERICAL.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Cilantro makes me gag even just to smell it… I can’t even walk into an Indian restaurant.

And shoes, well… you know me and shoes, but yeah, I think Crocs are teh evol. ;)

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
More off-topic cilantro bashing:

Great article, Anne T! The worst part of my life is that I run a community garden, so what do all the newbies want to grow? That awful, awful herb!

Hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE IT and with our cold springs and then 100 degree summer days, it bolts like crazy. Nasty, fussy, should-be-worthless little herb!

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Christie writes:

If you believe in something and want to spread the word and get other people to believe it too, you must learn to think about what your message is and how to successfully deliver it.

Amen. Lately, we’ve been discussing why so many breeders, when approached at shows, are ignorant jerks. Considering that we hammer home to potential owners that shows are one of the places they should go and look for breeders, this seems rather counter productive, don’t you think?

Of course, I also object to the often stated claim that ‘to find a good breeder, find a breeder who shows’. I think we all need to ask a lot more of breeders than that.

Maybe we need a new book - ‘Dog Buying for Dummies’, maybe?

Comment by FrogDogZ — January 22, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
I finally acquired a taste for Cilantro because it kept popping up in Indian restaurants and elsewhere. I grew one for a friend who likes it and it reseeds like crazy here in the Frozen North so I have lots to give away. Pretty flowers too.

It tastes like turpentine mixed with paraffin to me but I’m well able to tolerate it now.

Tarragon, on the other hand….

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Still O.T. I much prefer Chervil ( Anthriscus cerefolium) to Cilantro/Coriander ( Coriandrum sativum) myself. I made the mistake about 3 years ago of planting a C. sativum seedling in my garden because I wanted the coridander seeds to use in Xmas baking. Never ever ever let a cilantro go to seed.
okay, back to the regularly scehudled program lol!

Comment by Anne T — January 22, 2009 @ 2:30 pm
Who knew cilantro was so controversial? Not me!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
“Amen. Lately, we’ve been discussing why so many breeders, when approached at shows, are ignorant jerks. Considering that we hammer home to potential owners that shows are one of the places they should go and look for breeders, this seems rather counter productive, don’t you think?”

“Comment by FrogDogZ — January 22, 2009 @ 2:24 pm”

I always warn people to never approach someone standing outside the ring with their dog because odds are they are either waiting to go in, watching their other dog being shown, or waiting for a photo, and they aren’t going to be in the mood to start answering questions. I don’t think that’s always fully explained where people are told to speak to breeders at shows.

I usually wait until I see them come out of the ring and try to be sure they don’t look rushed, unless I just see them relaxing at their rig at some point. A lot of people are just too stressed out to talk to anyone at shows, let alone strangers.

I used to show with a friend who would get so stressed out, I wouldn’t even try to talk to her unless absolutely necessary. I’d just stand close by with a brush and a bottle of water until she was done.

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
That advice is out of date and used to apply when there were bench shows - as most were when I was a kid. That’s where the breeders sit there with their dogs all day. The only one left, I think, is Westminster - and its bench area is hellish.

The usual shows now are not the place to get into a chat about dogs - the handlers are on a tight schedule, the breeders often aren’t around, etc. At some of our shows, such as the Purina National, breed clubs have booths for meet n’ greets with the public. I’d like to see that expand because I think it’s a great idea.

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
I think there are four benched shows:

Westminster, Golden Gate (SF), Detroit and … Chicago or maybe Philly.

Crufts is benched. I think some other UK shows are as well.

But I bet others will jump in for sure. I have personally been only to Westminster (as a journalist) and Golden Gate (as a competitor). With regard to the latter … it’s a long freakin’ day, so you may as well talk to people who ask about the dogs!

Yes, I am a font of useless information …

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
Cilantro tastes like lawn clippings soaked in Lysol.

OMG.

I thought I was the only one.

Waiters always look at me like I’m a freak of nature when I specify NO EFFING CILANTRO.

And don’t even get me started on unripe bell peppers.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 22, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
I remember Golden Gate being a long weekend.

We used to get there really early on Saturday and I would always think I would have a chance to get a nap on the bench before things got started, but invariably we would end up on the back side of the B&T Coonhounds, and they would “baROOOO” their brains out and I thought I would lose my mind.

Then I would go inside thinking I could catch some shuteye during early judging and they would be sparring Scotties in the ring, and the sound would echo throughout the empty hall.

Fun times, those were!

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
It was at a bench show back before most of you were born that I made contact at 12 years old with my first breeder. I had read everything I could get my hands on about Drew’s breed ( shelties) and had convinced my not terribly dog loving parents to let me get one. Finally.
It was about 4 months later the breeder wrote me that she had an Oops litter. The bitch was with her to be bred to another of her boys, but Daddy, being a sheltie, was too clever by half and managed to nail his daughter. She didn’t want to keep the litter, nor did the bitch owner. I picked my puppy, and the rest is history, until cancer claimed her at 13 1/2 years.
The first dog is always special, and she was!
However, this was 1959, and times have changed. I doubt if any breeders today would be that welcoming to a 12 year old child with non dog savvy parents and not a clue in the world about dogs but the best will in the world to do the best for the dog. My dad and I even *gasp* built her a crate out of wire and plywood, which became her safety zone all her life, when she couldn’t escape to my bedroom, that is.
But I digress. Breeders have become so threatened and viewed as the Enemy and placement of puppies such a mine field, it’s no wonder it’s so difficult to obtain a quality dog!

Comment by Anne T — January 22, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
“t’s that dogs die in shelters … …because of the shelters’ own policies and actions.”

Can you explain this statement?

Comment by Julie — January 22, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
I think many breeders do not realize the importance of a well made website towards getting the word out there. I’ve looked at hundreds of breeder sites when I was looking to get a dog, and many of them are poorly made, with very little info (some even do not tell you what STATE they are in!) and are not good advertisements of their lines or dogs at all.

In this day and age, being on the web in a visible way is a MUST, imo.

Comment by Pai — January 22, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
I agree with Christie, that it shouldn’t be so hard. How about if it worked like this: the AKC website refers to the parent breed club site. The parent clubs hold the referrals to people who are club members and who adhere to their code of ethics. The codes of ethics should include a requirement that the breeders screen their dogs per the CHIC (Canine Health Information Center (www.caninehealthinfo.org), which lists the health screenings recommended for each breed. Owners who get dogs that way will know that they are getting dogs that have received appropriate genetic screenings from breeders who agree to follow the code of ethics. As it is now, the AKC has completely abdicated their responsibility toward pet owners, who have drifted away from purebred dogs because they don’t see the benefit to them. The Newfy that won Westminster in 2004 did NOT have elbow or hip clearances, and is not listed on the CHIC site as having ANY of the many genetic screenings recommended for that breed. The AKC recognized that breeder as Breeder of the Year for 2006, and all I can think of is wondering how many Josh puppies are out there with terrible hips, bad elbows, and cystinuria?

What if the AKC refused to allow dogs to be put up (or finished) without these screenings? If the AKC put value back into having a purebred dog, then people would flock toward getting a purebred dog again. The breeders who aren’t getting approved for referrals through the AKC site because they don’t do the health screenings would hopefully see value in doing that, because they’d have a better market for selling their puppies.

I’m so sad to see all the anti-shelter rhetoric here. It’s so discouraging. Shelters are staffed by people who love animals, and we should all be in this together.

Comment by Becky — January 22, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
Re: Sending puppy buyers to shows to meet breeders: I do this, but I always include a couple of caveats. One is to NOT check your common sense and gut feelings at the door, because there are certainly some show breeders out there that NO ONE should buy a dog from. The show is a place to BEGIN your search, because where else can you find so many serious dog people (not to mention examples of dog breeds) in a single place at a single time?

And the second is to open each conversational overture with “Is this a good time for you to talk?”. Because frankly, some people LOVE to talk while they’re waiting to get their minds off the pressure, while others are too distracted, and may ask you to find them later.

The problem with telling people to wait until AFTER their breed has shown is that generally everyone who didn’t win the breed scatters to the four winds to either get on the road for home or start resting up for the next day. So if you want to find a lot of people in a given breed at a show, the best time to start looking is about an hour before that breed goes in the ring.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 22, 2009 @ 6:15 pm
Becky, it’s not quite “anti-shelter rhetoric”. Rather, it’s a reaction to the number of shelter staff who make a habit of bashing the general public rather than making themselves available to help them. I think almost all of us have seen that dynamic in action in some way, shape or form at some time or another.

Pair that with our awareness of the number of shelters who kill for population control rather than seeking to find ways to enact good ideas such as Nathan Winograd’s No-Kill Nation, and you’ll get a little better understanding of what you’re interpreting inaccurately as “anti-shelter rhetoric”.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 22, 2009 @ 6:20 pm
Who knew cilantro was so controversial? Not me!

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

There’s one gene that, depending on which version you get, determines what cilantro tastes like to you. And if you got the IHateCilantro version of the gene, nothing is going to make it taste anything other than vile to you.

I share Kirsten’s concern if one phrases “everyone” as “the general public”, not those who are looking for a dog with a specific purpose.

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009 @ 12:45 pm

My “specific purpose” was to have a pet who was a good fit for my needs and preferences, including the fact that I wanted a walking companion, not a running companion.

And my “specific purpose” is just as legitimate as the more high-falutin’ purposes of the working and hunting breeds.

Comment by Lis — January 22, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Other Pat— I’m familiar with Winograd and don’t think he has all the answers. It’s not simple or easy, unfortunately. Bashing open door shelters isn’t the answer. When you come up with a solution for dealing with 1,500 cats surrendered monthly to a shelter, I’m all ears.

Comment by Becky — January 22, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
Cilantro used to taste terrible to me, but now I adore it. Hmmm…..

Comment by Becky — January 22, 2009 @ 7:16 pm
When you come up with a solution for dealing with 1,500 cats surrendered monthly to a shelter, I’m all ears.

Stop accepting feral cats. And if your community has FIFTEEN HUNDRED OWNED CATS being surrendered monthly, you have a speuter problem. Implement the policies and procedures that have worked in communities all over the country to provide free and accessible speuter for cats. Even rural, poor, and Southern communities have done this successfully.

And also, stop confounding the cat and dog problems. They’re entirely different problems and they require different solutions.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Gina —

Philadephia is benched — and marketed as a place for the public to meet breeders. In 2002, I met one man who bred Welsh terriers that I would have given a blank check to if I was looking for terriers because it was obvious that he and his dogs absolutely adored each other (and I don’t give blank checks to anyone) and a woman with Duck Tolling Retrievers that wanted my husband to apply to their rescue since they had a backlog of active adult dogs she felt would be perfect for a marathon runner (unforunately, no one ever followed up on our application). The rest of them were the nastiest people I have ever met anywhere, ever. You couldn’t pay me to go back there.

Lis —

A purpose is a purpose. I completely agree that your purpose is just as legitmate as anyone elses.

Being on the board of the local dog park, I get lots of what I would call “general public” requests where people just want a “nice family dog” that will be good with their kids, they can take places, etc.

For a lot of these people, the differences just aren’t that great — if they feel a Lab is the perfect family dog, they might do just as well or better with a Lab/Golden mix from a local shelter than provides them some references on dog behavior than a breeder who lives in another state. The vet bills will probably (not always, but the numbers are in your favor) be lower for a mix, the local group should have a better knowledge of support (vets, trainers, etc) and a size difference of 20 pounds either way often doesn’t make that much of a difference.

However, many of these folks think they need a purebred dog because they think they are buying a “brand” — they are getting a specfic health and temperment — which, those of us who read these blog, know is completely false.

We need to get the truth about health and temperment out there so that the “family pet folks” — who are ONLY buying purebred dogs because they THINK they are getting guaranteed health and temperments, don’t have to jump through so many hoops to get a dog that will fit their needs — and they can EASILY find the information that will let them make an informed decision in a reasonable amount of time (say, hours instead of months!)

And those of us that want dogs for specific purposes should be respected for that purpose. Heck, if I was just looking for a dog that positively glowed with health and affection, in 2002, I’d have handed the Welsh Terrier breeder a blank check and answered whatever questions he put to me. But I needed a dog that could go on training runs with my marathon-running husband and could be my right hand in urban sustainable agriculture. In my case, that ended up being a 5-month-old rescused Border Collie/possible Shiba Inu from West Virginia. Everyone’s mileage varies — that why we need good, easily accessible information so that everyone, no matter how long or short their “purpose list” is, can find the dog that best suits them.

And it shouldn’t take them as long it takes to read this post! ;-D

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
However, many of these folks think they need a purebred dog because they think they are buying a “brand” — they are getting a specfic health and temperment — which, those of us who read these blog, know is completely false.

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009

I’m looking for a copy of the first book I wrote: “Dogs For Dummies” (first edition 1996). I made that specific point in it, that a breed wasn’t a brand, nor was the AKC. To show how dated the reference, I think I used the example of probably the most desirable brand at the time — Sony! — and said getting a purebred dog wasn’t about figuring out which model and brand you wanted and then buying your merchandise based on price and convenience. I may even have reference the Sony Walkman!

Funny … I can find the second edition, and the French, Italiam, Serbian, Japanese and Turkish editions, but the first English edition of “Dogs For Dummies”? Nope.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
But maybe Becky is looking for excuses, not solutions.

“Familiar” as in “I saw a copy on a table at my local bookstore.”? Or have you actually read it, which seems unlikely.

The killing stops when the people who run the shelters DECIDE to stop it. Simple as that. And then implement the programs described in the book.

Our rural open admission county shelter does it. It’s not rocket science. But whining ain’t a part of the program.

Comment by Susan Fox — January 22, 2009 @ 7:31 pm
Bashing open door shelters isn’t the answer.

Comment by Becky — January 22, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

We’re not bashing “open door shelters.” After all, there are open admission shelters that are part of the no-kill movement. “Open door” in the context you’ve used it is nothing more than PR-speak.

We’re talking specifically about shelters that choose killing for population control over proven community-wide strategies that increase the placement rates of pets in need of rehoming to 90 percent or better.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 7:37 pm
“t’s that dogs die in shelters … …because of the shelters’ own policies and actions.” Can you explain this statement?

Sure, but it would be easier if you followed the link and read the book “Redemption,” because it lays it out in much greater detail than I have room for here. Plus, why reinvent the wheel?

I’ve been writing for a long time now on the failed paradigm that says that shelters “have to” kill animals because “bad pet owners” make them. But it’s not true. No one is “making them” kill animals. It’s the legacy of a sheltering system that went off the rails when shelters, which are supposed to be for the welfare of animals, started doing the work of animal control, which is for the welfare of people.

It was solidified in concrete in the 70s when the Phyllis Wright/HSUS school of thought that we weren’t killing but “euthanizing,” and that dogs and cats are better off dead than alive in most cases gained primacy.

Today, numbers of animals entering shelters have hit all time lows. Nearly all dogs and nearly all owned cats are already speutered. If just a couple percent of new pet acquisitions were from shelters, it would be enough to put every dog and cat being killed in American shelters today into a home EVERY YEAR.

Many communities have decided to end the use of killing as a tool of animal population control or for shelter space. These communities are northern and southern, rural and urban, rich and poor. They’ve all done it pretty much the same way.

Other communities are still dominated by the old school mentality that shelters have to “hit irresponsible pet owners over the head with a two by four” by lecturing them, killing their pets, and in general making them feel like crap for thinking shelters should, you know, SHELTER animals instead of killing them.

Every dog and cat killed in a shelter should be one who was euthanized for the same reason that an own would euthanize: because they’re ill or suffering and can’t be treated, or have a dangerous behavior problem. Killing for shelter space, killing to teach people a lesson, killing because you don’t bother to implement foster programs, TNR programs, free/low cost accessible s/n programs, satellite adoption programs, or any of the other things that have worked in all kinds of American communities to end animal population control killing should be unacceptable to communities and the animal welfare agencies that serve them.

Nathan Winograd said something to the effect that it’s people who surrender their animals to shelters, but it’s the shelters that kill them. And not all do; many communities really do provide safe harbor for the animals that come into their shelter system. But if you don’t believe you can, or you should, you never will. You won’t even try.

And that’s what I meant.

If you want to know more, read the “No Kill” category on this blog and see where we’re coming from.

http://www.petconnection.com/b.....y/no-kill/

ETA: I misread the line about “bashing open door shelters.” I didn’t actually know what you meant because I thought you said “bashing open shelter doors.” Sorry about that, so let me clarify: this isn’t about shelters, it’s about communities, and open door shelters are not just a possible part of how communities end population control killing, they’re essential. But there is no reason communities have to kill because they have an open door animal control facility, as is evidenced by several communities in the U.S., including Washoe County, Nevada and Charlottesville, Virginia.

The idea that no-kill means “cherry picking” adoptables is propaganda put out by its opponents. All you have to do is read what is actually being advocated in the no kill movement to see that’s not the case.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 7:46 pm
I try to keep an open mind about Nathan Winograd, but I find him to be a very frustrating person because he speaks in so many absolutes and doesn’t make it clear who he is attacking at times. It’s very hard to feel like you are under constant attack by someone who is supposed to be on the same side.

It’s like if you don’t totally embrace his philosophies, you’re one of the bad guys. But a lot of his ideas don’t work for everybody — they are not universal truths, and that’s how he presents them. I keep wondering what his suggestions are for an area like ours, where there are so many pit bulls and pit bull mixes. They have to make up at least half of our dog population in the shelter at any one time — at least.

When I first started working there, the shelter did not adopt out pit bulls at all because they were so concerned about liability. Now we work with numerous rescue programs and do lots of promotion, foster care and training of our pit bulls, and we get a lot of them adopted, but realistically, there are just not enough people in a position to adopt that type of dog, for many reasons — not the least being landlord permission and insurance issues. And how do we convince someone who really wants a toy poodle or a cocker spaniel that they should adopt a pit bull mix? Or how do we convince other shelters in other areas to do an exchange program with us — our pit bulls for their more adoptable animals? That’s not going to work. (Although every shelter in the universe was beating down our doors to help us out by taking some of the nearly 800 toy dogs we took in from a puppy mill earlier last year.)

We have one of the most progressive spay/neuter programs in the country, and do lots of free surgeries through several different programs each month. We have regular free Pit Bull spay/neuter clinics, free low income clinics, feral cat colony sterilization programs, and more. We work cooperatively with numerous purebred and general rescue programs. We see our intake numbers and euthanasia numbers dropping each year, and overall, more animals are being adopted. No, we’re not perfect, but we are working on getting better all the time.

One of the things Mr. Winograd doesn’t seem to consider are the changing demographics of many areas. My boss is a real numbers person, with a degree in economics. She attended one of his seminars here last year and found that while she also agreed with a lot of what he had to say, his figures were lacking in many areas. She spent a lot of time before going to that seminar working up statistics and comparing them to some of what he had suggested, and wanted to ask him questions about some of the things she felt he had overlooked, but it was impossible to get a chance to talk to him. He said he would take questions from the audience afterwards, but he only answered a few questions then left, and she never even got an opportunity to get close to him. She felt that he spent more time talking about his book than he did answering anyone’s questions.

What was worse, when we knew he was going to be here, we invited him to come to our shelter for a tour, and he accepted, weeks before. The shelter staff were excited to have the chance to show him how we did things and to show him how many animals we have been saving. They worked to have the place spotless and to have everything in tip-top shape. Our education department had a presentation and lunch set up for him and his group. Everyone was ready and waiting, and RIGHT at the time he was supposed to arrive one of his people called us to cancel! They said he was just too busy to make it to our shelter.

Of course that did not go over big. It was very disappointing, and very rude. I keep reading how he drops in at all these shelters just to catch them in the act or whatever — yet he couldn’t be bothered to follow through with an appointment to visit a shelter that was doing something right, presumably because we weren’t one of his followers.

I feel that while he may have good ideas, he has also alienated many good people who have done a lot of good things for animals, and that bothers me. And now he’s crying that he’s the victim of a “smear campaign.” I have to think a lot of that is “what comes around, goes around.”

It’s ironic that you can’t even comment to anything on his blog, good or bad — it seems he can dish it out, but he can’t take it.

Comment by stellaluna — January 22, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
Nathan Winograd has moved this debate further in the last year and a half than anyone did in the decade before. He did that BECAUSE of his bombastic style.

That doesn’t mean it’s an ongoing virtue. But it’s what we all needed to get our butts going in a new direction.

There is an all-day seminar on April 6 at the HSUS Expo this spring in Las Vegas featuring nine shelter directors in no-kill communities, on how to make the transition. It’s being presented by Maddie’s Fund. I suspect you’d find what you’re looking for there.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 22, 2009 @ 8:44 pm
stellaluna … thanks very much for your comments.

Personally, I don’t understand bloggers who don’t allow comments, or only allow those that agree with, support or promote their views. As I’ve mentioned before, I have learned, grown and changed based on many of the comments of the readers here. And I hope that has been the case with some of the folks that come here spouting dogma they haven’t thought through themselves but who are challenged to support their views once they’ve posted them.

As for Winograd, I have no doubt he can be a complete ass at times. I have also been extremely uncomfortable with some of his personal attacks on people who seem like they could become allies, such as Dr. Kate Hurley of UC Davis.

I’ve never met Winograd, but for me this isn’t about him personally or his charm factor or lack thereof. It’s about the power of ideas, and how his book “Redemption” took something that was not really getting much traction — the ideas of the no-kill movement — and made the case in so powerful a way that it changed everything about how I looked about sheltering and rescue, and how I felt about people who needed to give up pets.

I remembered with guilt and discomfort how superior and judgmental I felt in dealing with people who reached out to my breed rescue group for help, some 20 years ago. And I started realizing that in my work now I truly am here to help both pets AND people. And that if I helped people, pets would benefit. And that when we ask pet-lovers for help, we get help.

Those are powerful, life-changing ideas. The fact that they were argued by a person who can be an ass in a book that had holes and needed editing says even more about the strength of those ideas.

In other words, it ain’t about Nathan Winograd. It’s about changing the shelter industry so it’s about “sheltering” not killing and blame.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 22, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
However, many of these folks think they need a purebred dog because they think they are buying a “brand” — they are getting a specfic health and temperment — which, those of us who read these blog, know is completely false.

Comment by Dorene — January 22, 2009

Are you sure it is “completely” false? I understand the extrapolation from PDE and old points about working ability, but surely, there is still some wisdom behind *not* recommending a border collie in a sedentary, apartment home, *not* recommending a rottweiler for a first-time owner, and so on.

Comment by Ann — January 22, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
The more I see of dogs, the more convinced I am that there is a greater difference among individuals within a breed than there is among breeds.

Field types (I include the BC) will tend to have better senses, higher energy/drive, may react more quickly, etc, all of which might be a pain for a pet owner.

But I think the whole ‘breed’ thing is way overblown (I say that as someone who has been fascinated by breeds for decades) and that handling is much more important, as is matching owner and dog in terms of personality.

For example, if a weak or nervous person chooses a super-pushy, hard-headed dog that will be big, such as a Rott or Bullmastiff, it’s a bad match. A loud, aggressive person should not get a sensitive, nervous, retiring type of dog either. The best owner for most types is easygoing, confident and gently firm but that takes experience.

Therefore, if you are a first-time owner and like Rottweilers, choose one of the big softies that they don’t advertise - best lap dogs in the world.

Oh yeah, and go to obedience school :>)

Comment by Selma — January 22, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
I wanted to follow up a bit on what stellaluna said, because I generally agree with this blog’s view of the no kill movement, and have even referred multiple people to Nathan Winograd’s book, but I get stuck on the same point she has, that I haven’t really seen addressed by Winograd (or here that I recall, but I may have missed it).

It may be that shelter adoptions only need to be increased by a few percentage points, and that in general there are some common steps traditional shelters can take to dramatically improve their adoption rates. However, on the one hand, I hear a lot of “shelters can take simple steps to raise their adoption rates”, and on the other hand a lot of “not everyone wants a pit bull or shepherd mix”. I live in another community like stellaluna’s, with aggressive community outreach, low cost spay neuter, tons of foster and volunteer programs etc, and a shelter where the vast majority of the dogs coming in are pit bulls and mixes.

Even if we can get past the question of whether there is an upper limit to the number of people in a given community who will adopt large, adult, high energy dogs, as stellaluna touched on, getting more pit bulls adopted is more than just a marketing problem and more than just an individual shelter problem, because it involves housing, insurance and legal issues among other things. A shelter can contribute to the societal change required to shift landlord and insurance company biases against pit bulls, but I think it’s hard to blame them entirely for the difficulty of adopting these dogs out. Like stellaluna I know some fairly frustrated shelter workers and volunteers who see the No Kill movement as a rising chorus of “shelters just need to buck up and work harder. If you are awash in pit bulls and landlords who won’t rent to them, and people whose definition of ‘family pet’ is ‘not a pit bull’, you only have yourselves to blame!”. At times it does seem like a bit of an excuse for everyone else to not bother worrying about structural issues, or personally working towards greater shelter adoptions.

Again, I realize that there is a lot shelter killing that goes on around the country that comes out of poor practices and attitudes and that that is the bulk of what Winograd is addressing, this has just been gnawing at the back of my mind for awhile.

Comment by monkeypedia — January 23, 2009 @ 12:31 am
I wanted to add quickly that I didn’t mean that this blog has never addressed issues surrounding pit bulls - you guys have done that wonderfully. I was specifically thinking about the particulars of shelters who have a disproportionate load of dogs that are considered undesirable or even actively discriminated against.

Comment by monkeypedia — January 23, 2009 @ 12:33 am
Unfortunately, it is just not true that people know not to buy from puppy mills and pet stores.

Also not true: “don’t breed and buy while shelter dogs die” mantra was way, way too effective.

I see new dogs/puppies all the time. It’s in my job description. I have heard countless people say, “I would have adopted if I had known.” I don’t even ask. They come out and tell me this when I ask what kind of breed they have.

They are not people looking for purebreds. They are not people who are being intentional. In some cases, they just wanted a dog. So they went to a dog store. In one case, they wanted to adopt, but the dog they had their eye on was adopted before they got there. So they got upset and went to the worst store in town because it could happen that day. They felt ok about it, because they were getting that puppy out of there. Another fell in love with the one in the window, even though he would usually adopt. He wanted to take that one out of there. Another said she had no idea until someone asked her if she adopted her puppy and then told her a number of the stores in town have mill puppies.

I could go on and on.

You are giving the general public WAY too much credit.

People frequenting this blog are likely more informed. And they’re also likely to be people who would seek a reputable breeder if they are looking for that option, whatever their reason.

I do think reputable breeders need to be allowed to do their thing and not do so underground. However, the majority of the general population really doesn’t know. Really. It seems crazy, but it’s true.

I see dogs purchased from mill stores ALL the time. And not because people are even looking for something specific. They just don’t know.

Comment by Amy — January 23, 2009 @ 1:02 am
Thanks for a great post.

We are fixing to be in the market for a dog (just waiting on Hubby to finish the fence) and while we would like a dog from a rescue or a shelter; sometimes it seems that it would be far simpler (and sometimes cheaper) to buy from a breeder.

The local animal shelter isn’t an option as they do not bother to vaccinate their dogs and are notorious for sending sick dogs home with people.

Some of the rescue groups are ridiculous in their demands and even though I would probably meet the criteria of most of them their attitude and demands are a real turn off. One rescue wouldn’t even consider people who didn’t have a household income in 3 figures. Since when did having MONEY determine if you would be a good pet owner. Some of the best pet owners I have know have been low income, but they always made sure their pets had food and the proper care. Some of the worst pet owners I have known have been wealthy people who treated their dog like an accessory. And once it was out of style wanted to move on to the newest “in’ dog. Others demanded you feed a certain food (what if it winds up on a pet food recall list one day? Am I suppose to keep feeding my dog, dog food X, because I signed a legally binding contract saying I would because some rescue thought it was the best dog food?). Rescues need to learn to let go of the dogs and let their new families make decisions for them. If they did a good job picking the family they should be able to trust the family will make decisions in the best interest of the dog. Presenting potential adopters with a list of demands is a real turn off, and encourages people to buy from breeders rather then rescue dogs.

Comment by Alasandra — January 23, 2009 @ 6:29 am
“However, many of these folks think they need a purebred dog because they think they are buying a “brand” — they are getting a specfic health and temperment”—Dorene

I think you’re partially right about some people but I wanted to add another consideration/reason why people (read: me, at least) would go for a pure bred: the sense of community with the other owners of that breed.

I think I’ve mentioned before that after I got my mutt I felt instantly a part of the dog-owning community. But my friends who are all Irish Setter all the time, they have “Setter fest” and the Nationals, and the Setter rescue parade, and Setters Today Magazine (I made that up, but you know what I mean), listservs, and the monthly AKC magazine with the advertisements for bitches and studs, Irish Setter calendars, Irish Setter bumper stickers. I could go on and on.

Maybe that’s part of the brand thing? But sometimes I really envy that sense of being part of a larger community who knows what it’s like to train a dog like yours, or knows your dog’s great-grandfather, or has a place to go once or twice a year to gather and admire how great your breed is.

I think there’s definitely something to be said for that.

Comment by Lori — January 23, 2009 @ 6:47 am
Hmmm, actually…maybe I should organize a Mutt Meet 2009. :O)

Comment by Lori — January 23, 2009 @ 8:11 am
The “tribal” aspect of owning a particular breed can be a significant life-enhancer. I know some of my best friends now are people I met through having my retrievers.

And think of all the breed-specific merchandise people buy! (Hands up here, me with my “My Flat-Coated Retriever Can Lick Your Honor Student” license plate cover.)

That said, I think people can group around activities instead of breed, and do. That can be dog-park friends, agility friends, etc.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 23, 2009 @ 8:24 am
monkeypedia (by the way, I love that name!) …

Pit bull types and mixes are indeed a special and unique challenge, as are feral cats. Both require programs that target them specifically. And, in the case of both, that are clearly about reducing numbers, not extermination.

In the case of pibbles, spay-neuter outreach is key. For many inner city or poor rural people who have these dogs, transportation and money are major barriers to keeping the dogs from making more dogs.

That means mobile outreach and pay-to-spay programs — both ways to get the services where they are needed, in a way that helps both people and dogs. It’s not about what’s in the shelter now, but about having the vision to go upstream and turn off the tap.

Check out this post on the BADRAP blog, about outreach in the troubled city of Richmond, Calif.

What would help? Hey, ask the people you want to help. They have some of the answers.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 23, 2009 @ 8:39 am
I agree with what Gina said, and would add that in addition to aggressive outreach with free or incentivized speuter programs if you add in rescue transport between communities, destigmatizing the pit bull, making alliances with strategic partners with expertise in evaluating and rehoming pits, and other targeted interventions, the burden on a specific community will become less.

No-kill is about communities, but it’s also about networking with other communities. There is a small and passionate group of people who’d walk through fire for the pibbles. Efforts that tap into that will be more successful than efforts that don’t, and broader based.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 23, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Unfortunately, it is just not true that people know not to buy from puppy mills and pet stores.

Not sure if that was in response to my post or a comment downthread, but yeah… that was my point. Good breeders have ceded the spotlight to more visible, accessible sources like pet stores. That’s exactly the problem.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 23, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Maybe the breeding industry needs a “good houskeeping” type of seal of approval. But who would administer it? The AKA already seems to have enough problems with their own registry.

Comment by 2CatMom — January 23, 2009 @ 10:05 am
“Maybe the breeding industry needs a “good houskeeping” type of seal of approval. But who would administer it? The AKA already seems to have enough problems with their own registry.

Comment by 2CatMom — January 23, 2009 @ 10:05 am”

I think you mean the AKC here. And the problem with any kind of seal of approval is that there are so many different factions and so many different groups and registries, nobody would ever agree on anything. Nobody really agrees on what constitutes a responsible breeder (and no breeder is going to identify themselves as anything but), and any attempts to standardize dog breeders (I hate to look at it as an industry) would unfairly exclude someone, so I just don’t see that working.

‘Tis a real dilemma, no matter how you look at it.

Comment by stellaluna — January 23, 2009 @ 10:22 am
When I wrote the Code of Ethics for DogHobbyist.com’s Dog Breeder Locator (no puppy ads allowed, you just list yourself as a breeder), I tried to create something like that. The problems with it, of course, are that people can lie, and that so many of these guidelines are situational/breed-specific, etc. Here is what we have:

DogHobbyist.com supports the responsible breeding of purebred dogs. We host websites for, accept advertising and sponsorships from, and list only code of ethics registered breeders.

Responsible breeders seek to preserve and improve their chosen breeds, and are involved with clubs, rescue, education, and other canine-related activities. They register their dogs with reputable registries, screen their buyers to make sure their animals are placed in appropriate homes, and make provisions to ensure that the puppy will have a good home for its lifetime.

View our Code of Ethics

How can you know if a breeder is a responsible breeder? View What is a responsible breeder?

If you have evidence one of our listed breeders or advertisers does not abide by our Code of Ethics, we want to know. Report complaints here.

I found that the single thing that lets me “weed out” the most dog breeders is membership in a dog-related club or organization. (And “weeding out” was exactly my mentality at the time; I’m re-evaluating that now.) We accepted membership in things like 4-H, a local rescue group, training group, animal shelter — it was a very broad-based requirement, and yet two-thirds of our rejected applicants were rejected for not meeting it. HUGE numbers of them listed “AKC” as the group to which they belonged — which is impossible, as AKC does not have individual members; only clubs can be members.

We required they use a “reputable registry,” and then I listed those that we recognized, and included space for them to include a different one and tell me what it is so I could check it out. Some people listed breed-specific or work-specific registries, or small foreign registries that were recognized by FCI, AKC, or the Kennel Club, and I would approve those; many used “paper mills” and I rejected those.

I’m rewriting those guidelines at this time to try to reflect my new perspective on some of these issues, and I’m doing my level best to be fair to both breeders and potential buyers while keeping the best interests of the dogs in mind overall. It’s not easy, and this is an entirely VOLUNTARY program. I can’t imagine trying to do this across the board as a requirement.

And I’m also fully prepared to see a lot of the old-school “responsible breeders” storm off in a huff if the restrictions are relaxed to allow those breeding for pets only, and who don’t show, compete, or work their dogs. And in all honesty, two years ago, I’d have been with them.

I’m not sure where this will end up going…

Comment by Christie Keith — January 23, 2009 @ 10:40 am
“And I’m also fully prepared to see a lot of the old-school “responsible breeders” storm off in a huff if the restrictions are relaxed to allow those breeding for pets only, and who don’t show, compete, or work their dogs. And in all honesty, two years ago, I’d have been with them.”

I understand what you mean about this; I am starting to think differently about people who breed “just” pets as well. I never thought I’d see the day I’d feel that some of the pet breeders I’ve met have proven to be more responsible than some of the show people I’ve known over the years. But it’s a whole new ball game now.

Comment by stellaluna — January 23, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Sorry about the typo!

Comment by 2CatMom — January 23, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Change is hard, but it’s also exciting. So many possibilities …

One of the issues that’s a long way from being thrashed out — if it ever can be — is how does one evaluate a pet? When you evaluate dogs on working ability, then how to you evaluate a dog who has no work to do except bring joy to our lives?

Which, if we’re honest, is what 99 percent of American dogs do for a living.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 23, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
The “just pets” thing is also breed-specific.

Someone who breeds healthy pet Maltese is one thing. What else IS a Maltese?

Someone else who says they breed healthy, “pet” Catahoulas or Beauceron — wha???

I give the easy examples. Harder examples — springer spaniels, golden retrievers.

In general I would err on the side of requiring *some* involvement with a dog club of some sort. Or volunteering at the local shelter. Some evidence of genuine engagement.

It’s a hard claim, that one is a “hobbyist” when one pursues one’s hobby in total isolation from others with similar interests, AND happens to be making money from it.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 23, 2009 @ 12:08 pm
how does one evaluate a pet

Oooh, I love that one — I’ve blogged about it before, and I’m passionate about it, because I regard the goal of breeding for a ‘great pet’ to be just as important, and just as challenging as breeding for a great herding dog, or a great police dog.

A good pet needs to be healthy, because no one wants to spend thousands of dollars on vet care, or wants to watch their beloved dog die of a lingering illness.

A good pet needs to be stable of temperament - able to adapt to urban environments as much as to suburban.

It needs to be relatively laid back and low key in its energy levels, since that seems to suit 90% of pet owning homes.

Matters such as size are relative, so long as all of the above apply.

Personally, I also think a good pet should be an attractive example of its breed, since to be quite honest looks do play a part when people choose a dog breed. IOW, if someone chooses to own a Malti, it should look more or less like the Maltis people have seen in books or at shows.

A good pet should be intelligent enough to be readily trainable, without being so intelligent that the basic job of ‘being a pet’ leaves it frustrated and destructive.

Those are my set goals as a breeder. The fact that some of the dogs I produce are also able to compete in conformation shows (extremely successfully, in many cases) is an added bonus. I’m usually more excited by the ones who compete in rally, agility & flyball.

Comment by FrogDogZ — January 23, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Good question, Christie.

I wish I had time to go through the entire discussion.

I can tell you that, being a consumer as opposed to breeder or rescuer, and keeping up with sites and blogs such as this and the Terrier Man, that I have lost all confidence in any breeder. Regardless of label.

I have been searching the Internet for about an hour a week for months on a couple of particular breeds.

Quite frankly, Christie’s question will not be answered until there is a common reference for health, vitality, and soundness. And a breeder can be held accountable to this standard.

For example, I came across one of HH’s litters. She lists completed tests for the dogs and bitches. This is cool. Of course, I would need to research no fewer than 4-5 tests and understand the implications of their results, and also understand why some tests were done on some and not others.

There are times when I figure whether its a puppy in a window, in a wire and concrete cage, or from a self-proclaimed (is there any other) ethical breeder, its all a crap shoot.

I really get disgusted when I see what GSD’s are today, or ACD’s, and seriously question whether there is a gene pool left that is not afflicted to these extents.

How many breeders do not breed before 4-6 years of age, with a full battery of structural and genetic tests? Where are they? Does it mean anything if they exist? And you know what, if someone went to that kind of trouble, I couldn’t afford the product!

Comment by eli — January 23, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
I finally got decent internet signal and logged on, to find I had a lot of excellent reading to catch up on!

To add to the what makes a good pet discussion… It’s a question that comes up frequently and I would say that for companion breeds, FrogDogz conveys my thoughts on the issue better than I could.

But it also comes up virtually every time a potential puppy buyer calls me for a breeder referral or to ask about my puppies. They also want to know what makes a pet, why the pets are generally priced for less and “what’s wrong with them.”

My answer is that for companion and toy breeds, all the puppies should be pets! They should be healthy, a pleasure to own and train. Be stable in temperament and be able to be an active part of a household. They should be decent looking members of their breed.
Show or performance prospects have these qualities but the potential to excel in the ring or in competition, agility, obedience etc… as well.

For the record, I place all puppies I sell for the same price, pet or show. The same level of effort, socialization, health testing and so forth has gone into each and every puppy. I do not guarantee that they will be more than a healthy, loving pet. I don’t breed frequently so most of the time, pups with the potential to go on to get titles or potentially be used for breeding go to people I’ve known for a while and who usually share similar philosophies regarding breeding, raising etc… I personally believe that “will these puppies be good pets” needs to be the minimum, baseline consideration in any planned breeding.

I’ve been told I’m hard to get a dog from. I suppose that’s true but that’s generally because I don’t breed frequently. When I have puppies I’d like to think I am very reasonable but I am choosy where they go.
I do know people who use a make or break checklist, I don’t as some of my favorite homes have been unconventional ones.

I have really really been making an effort to be extremely up, patient and positive with breed info inquiries on the phone at shows and on the internet. It can be excruciating at times but the majority of the people who find me through breeder referral are going to get puppy from someone. If breeders do not make themselves available to the public, if for nothing more than information sometimes, and do not make the experience pleasant than we will lose out to substandard breeding operations, no doubt about it.

Comment by Jenniferj — January 23, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
Eli wrote:

For example, I came across one of HH’s litters. She lists completed tests for the dogs and bitches. This is cool. Of course, I would need to research no fewer than 4-5 tests and understand the implications of their results, and also understand why some tests were done on some and not others.

Yes, you would, and I’m glad you realize that.

Too many people don’t know, for example, a good PennHIP score from a bad one, or the implications of that. (And of course, a fine score for one of my English shepherds would be a crappy score a saluki, as if this is not complicated enough.) Few appreciate the importance of sibling and ancestor data of the same metric, as well as everything else about the dog.

I’m not sure how to fix that for you.

It’s like asking for a uniform standard for fine artisanal cheese.

Yeah, one could meet some standard criteria for bacteria load in the milk, chilling temperature, amount of rennet, etc. etc. and still make a crummy cheese. And then there’s no way to compare a Brie to a Gruyere, is there?

This is why I suggest that people spend some time interacting with a breed community before buying a pup.

Sure, people will have different opinions, sometimes heatedly so, but you will tend to find a near-consensus about “definitely nots” and “certainly yeses” when it comes to getting a pet from one or another breeder.

I can’t tell you how depressing it is when someone joins our breed club, or signs up for the open breed discussion list, right after he or she has just acquired a pup from a “definitely not” breeder.

All the person had to do was join up first and ask before paying a deposit to some internet shyster.

I also need to point out that a guarantee is not a guarantee.

I “guarantee” my pups’ hips, and I am as transparent as possible about each pup’s known genetics. But I have also produced a radiographically dysplastic pup — and as luck would have it, one that we hoped would be a stud. He’s fine at age five, but neutered.

Money back for the price of the pup doesn’t cover the dashed hopes of his owner and many others.

A guarantee is a gesture of good faith from a breeder: I am doing what is humanly possible, with the information I have at hand, to produce a healthy pup for you, because I care about the dogs I bring into the world and the people who love them.

It is a good sign that your odds are better. Nothing more.

If you choose a spouse from a healthy, long-lived family with no known genetic diseases, and you yourself have the same family history, you may still have a child with asthma, or diabetes, or something far worse.

At a certain point, you need to shake off the paralysis, suck it, and take the plunge.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 23, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
What a great discussion. I wanted to respond to this:

“I see dogs purchased from mill stores ALL the time. And not because people are even looking for something specific. They just don’t know.”

I was in the local family-owned feed store (sells super premium food and dog/cat/bird supplies, but no pets) one day when a man came in. His wife had sent him out for groceries and wanted to him to—along with bread, milk, and eggs—come home with a Pug. So he came into the feed store searching for a Pug to buy. He was really disappointed to learn that they didn’t sell pets.

The good folks behind the counter did a quick explanation (the man was in a hurry) of how & why to locate a reputable breeder, and also suggested checking the animal shelter….but he seemed uninterested, and I had a feeling he got back into his car and headed up to Pass Pets in the mall.

I will never forget that witnessing that exchange, and how amazed I was to find out that there are people out there for whom buying a dog is no different than buying bread and milk.

Comment by Kathy smith — January 23, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
stellaluna wrote:

“I never thought I’d see the day I’d feel that some of the pet breeders I’ve met have proven to be more responsible than some of the show people I’ve known over the years. But it’s a whole new ball game now.”

Oh, yes. It’s with good reason that the term “show mills” exists.

Comment by Kathy smith — January 23, 2009 @ 6:49 pm
One of the things that would help pit bulls in shelters is to understand that not all are ” large, adult, high energy dogs”. REAL pit bulls are medium size dogs, whose energy level can vary considerably.

And what also would help is to remember that a good percentage of dogs identified as “pit bulls” are nothing of the sort. I can’t tell you how many photos of dogs I’ve been sent from people asking me for help placing a “pit bull”.. only to see a dog that has LITTLE, if any, of any of the pit bull breeds. The last one was most likely a Ridgeback mix.

Even dogs that appear to have some component of pit bull may or may not exhibit any of the pit bull behavioral characteristics that concern people.

It has to be about the individual dog, not about supposed breed, or about assumptions about breed behavior.

Comment by EmilyS — January 23, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
“One of the things that would help pit bulls in shelters is to understand that not all are ” large, adult, high energy dogs”. REAL pit bulls are medium size dogs, whose energy level can vary considerably.

And what also would help is to remember that a good percentage of dogs identified as “pit bulls” are nothing of the sort. I can’t tell you how many photos of dogs I’ve been sent from people asking me for help placing a “pit bull”.. only to see a dog that has LITTLE, if any, of any of the pit bull breeds. The last one was most likely a Ridgeback mix.

Even dogs that appear to have some component of pit bull may or may not exhibit any of the pit bull behavioral characteristics that concern people.

It has to be about the individual dog, not about supposed breed, or about assumptions about breed behavior.

Comment by EmilyS — January 23, 2009 @ 8:22 pm”

Understood, and agreed. We have two very experienced Pit Bull (loving/owning) people on staff who are also part of Pit Bull rescue and are very good at identifying them and assessing them as individuals. We give the dogs the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

We just adopted out a wonderful female Pit today who had been with us since August, and had spent a lot of time hanging out in the marketing offices with us and had gone on TV, on the radio, and in the newspaper “Pet of the Week” columns. As lovable and gentle as she is, it was still pretty difficult to convince people who really want a Chihuahua to consider adopting her.

We have really loosened up our criteria for adopting PBs out over the past few years, and we do judge each on a case-by-case basis. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help much for the potential adopter whose landlord won’t allow even a Pit Bull mix on the premises, or homeowners’ insurance that won’t allow the dog, and that is often the biggest problem.

If we aren’t honest about the possibility that a dog is part Pit Bull, we run the risk of someone taking the dog to their vet and being told that the dog IS a Pit Bull/mix, then being accused of lying to them just to get the dog adopted when they bring it back — it has happened on several occasions, and it’s never a good situation.

Damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

Comment by stellaluna — January 23, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
Well, I see “real” pit bulls at our shelter who are close to lab size and 80lb. plus because they’re being bred to be large economy size. It’s a definite trend where I live.

And if breed doesn’t count, then why bother? If breed behavioral tendencies don’t count, then what’s the point of selecting for dog aggression, herding or retrieving instincts.

It’s not an either/or choice. Of course they are all individuals, WITHIN the context of being animals, dogs and breed. It all counts.

Comment by Susan Fox — January 23, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
This is a fabulous post. I completely agree with what has been said. It should NOT be so hard to find a good breeder and a quality puppy. Not only should buyers be more educated, but show type breeders need to be more patient with puppy buyers and spend the time to talk with them and educate them. Breeders should not expect their pet homes to provide the impossible. I personally show and breed English Cockers and this is NOT a breed that does well home alone during the day. I am realistic, though, and know that most people must work in order to buy dog food and pay their house payment. I do not reject homes that do not have someone home during the day, but instead work with them to see if we can develop a plan that will be successful for them and their puppy. I have many puppies who go to doggie daycare or who were left with a relative during the day until six months old or so and after that have a dog walker come in and take them out for a playdate with other neighborhood dogs or play fetch with him/her in the backyard for a while.

Here is a nice article that I always refer people to when they mention they are looking for a breeder or are interested in buying a dog. http://www.thesocialpuppy.com/.....reeder.htm

Comment by Kelly Monroe — January 23, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
One thing driving up the size of back yard bred pits is crossing them with cane corsos or american bulldogs. Where I live they are also sometimes crossed with filas. Most of these big guys look like crosses but some look like pit bulls, 100 plus pound pit bulls.

there is one rescue that sends me pictures from time to time asking “what would you call this” They want to know if they have a terrierish am. bull or a great big pit. I suspect that they have more success adopting out dogs labeled am. bulldogs.

There are also are internet sites and ads in dog magazines for pit bull kennels advertising their 80-110 pound stud dogs.

Comment by Jenniferj — January 23, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
“‘Unfortunately, it is just not true that people know not to buy from puppy mills and pet stores.’

Not sure if that was in response to my post or a comment downthread, but yeah… that was my point. Good breeders have ceded the spotlight to more visible, accessible sources like pet stores. That’s exactly the problem.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 23, 2009 @ 9:27 am”

So is the solution ending puppy mills and breeder pups are the only ones in stores (which brings the price WAY up over adoption, which is probably a good thing— making a clear and specific choice that is from a reputable breeder SHOULD cost a lot. There would be a long waiting list everywhere, but maybe that’s ok?

Something new for me to think about. What I had meant was that these are not people who would seek out a breeder if they had known more about mills. They would have adopted instead of mills or reputable breeders.

So I guess that leads me to think that there needs to be a watchdog, like restaurant health inspections. A breeder needs to be subject to inspections and standards and a store caught buying from an unlicensed breeder is subject to fines or getting shut down altogether.

So the convenient choice must come at a higher cost, but it will be safe. And adoption will be cheaper, but that takes an investment of time if you’re looking for something specific, or a waiting list for a breed rescue. Is it fair to hike the prices for pure-breds?

Am I crazy?

Comment by Amy — January 23, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Ok. I knew I would think about this until I came up with something else. Talked with sig other and this is what I thought of:

Obviously the above idea is problematic for one reason: enforcement. If pet food, treats, supplies aren’t regulated, how could this be?

This has probably been thought of before (maybe even in these comments, but there’s so many that I probably missed a few) or maybe someone has it in the works now or a version I haven’t heard of yet.

So let’s say an organization is created. Reputable breeders are approved by following its standards. Pet stores that comply get the seal of approval/membership or something similar. Seems like reputable breeders would want this, shelters would want it.

Enter giant media campaign. Buy from approved stores/breeders or adopt. That’s it. Anything else and you’re risking a puppy mill. Put pressure on mills and mill-supporting stores. The waits for approved pups will be long and it will be more expensive, but stores can risk boycotts. We live in a capitalist society, so unless consumers are in the driver’s seat, nothing will fly.

Get a few celebs. Oprah will do it. Heck, I don’t like them, but get box stores to pitch in some money. Get vets, foods, etc., behind it. The giant pet food corporations (don’t like them either, but whatever) can use their taxable donations to contribute to the cause. Some of them are already running adoption ads.

Seems like something shelters, breeders, and the general industry could get behind, right?

Obviously it’s not that simple. I usually like my big ideas, but they always end up as just that: big ideas. I’m always short on resources, aka, time and money. I don’t think there really are any things that could be called resources other than time and money.

It just seems like this would be a way to bring all sides together. In the spirit of bi-partisanship.

Thoughts?

Comment by Amy — January 23, 2009 @ 11:34 pm
Amy, responsible breeders do not sell their puppies through third parties. Responsible breeders take responsibility for placing their puppies in safe responsible homes, and providing support, advice, and a safe haven for the dog if ever its new owners cannot or do not want to keep it any longer.

You can’t have the “convenience” of buying a puppy in a pet store, and get that puppy from a responsible source.

Pet stores could become a convenient source of information about responsible local breeders for pet seekers. They could become a place for responsible breeders to advertise a planned litter or older dogs (by “older” I mean anything from a puppy that didn’t pan out as expected to a dog looking for a pet home after a full career of competition and breeding) needing homes.

The main thing is to educate the general public that convenience is not a plus in getting a dog. Everyone knows that with a comparatively small amount of money, especially if you have it in cash, you can go down to the used car lot and buy a car immediately. Or you can do a good bit of research and shopping, and apply for a car loan, and get a brand-new or certified used car. And we also know which of those two things is likely to result in a reliable means of transportation.

We need to de-stigmatize responsible breeders, and educate the public to understand that buying a dog is one of those purchases that is NOT best done on the basis of convenience and impulse.

The only organizations that license breeders currently do so on the basis of livestock standards. The AKC, if it got into the business of “certifying” breeders, would be at least strongly tempted to write the standards in a way that allowed them to continue to collect registration fees from large commercial puppy mills.

We don’t “certify” car manufacturers or computer manufacturers. Yet, somehow, people generally know how to do enough research to get what they want. People are perfectly capable of learning to do the same with dogs. The general public just hasn’t been encouraged to do so, or been adequately exposed to the information needed—because the responsible breeders are practically in hiding, due to a very determined campaign that masks itself as being pro-animal, but which in fact is violently anti-pet.

Comment by Lis — January 24, 2009 @ 7:53 am
Craigslist probably would undermine your laudable idea almost immediately. Rural areas like mine would simply ignore it.

People around here rose up (think peasants with pitchforks) against a proposed county spay/neuter ordinance and turned it into a class issue, assuming that if the supply of dogs was limited, only rich people would be able to afford a dog. Say what you like, but that’s how it played out.

However, there are no pet shops that sell pups around here. People get their dogs pretty much like people always have, with the addition of going to the local shelters or rescues, or they buy purebreds from out-of-the-area breeders, hopefully responsible ones.

If they want a backyard bred, oversized, Humboldt County doofus lab, they’ll find one and won’t give a rat’s patootie whether the breeder is “approved”, especially if said breeder is approved by Oprah ;-).

Comment by Susan Fox — January 24, 2009 @ 8:09 am
People around here rose up (think peasants with pitchforks) against a proposed county spay/neuter ordinance and turned it into a class issue, assuming that if the supply of dogs was limited, only rich people would be able to afford a dog. Say what you like, but that’s how it played out.

Mandatory spay/neuter is in part a class issue. Lack of information and lack of upfront cash to pay for speuter of their pets are big factors in keeping pets intact. Not the only factors, for sure, but they play a big role.

Your neighbors, though, are at least getting their dogs, in most cases, from situations where they know at least the mother dog, and the circumstances in which she lives and her pups were raised. That’s way better than a pet store, or an internet miller.

Comment by Lis — January 24, 2009 @ 8:29 am
To expand on Lis’ point more specifically, the organization that oversees licensing and regulations for puppy producers who are allowed to sell their product through retail pet stores is the USDA (the “A” stands for “Agriculture” - as in cows, pigs, sheep and - in this case - dogs). The regulations exist within APHIS (Animal Plant Health Inspection Service) under the name of AWA (Animal Welfare Act) and can be found here:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/awa.shtml

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 24, 2009 @ 8:31 am
If you want to get a nice feel for what happens when you let agricultural folks write the rules about how a puppy producer can legally house their breeding stock, take a look at this handy-dandy “Cage Size Calculator”. Pull out your tape measure, measure your OWN dog, enter the number in the form, and then see how large a cage YOUR dog would legally be allowed to live out its life in according to the USDA regulations followed by licensed puppy producers:

http://www.animalarkshelter.or.....r?OpenForm

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 24, 2009 @ 8:34 am
I’m struggling to think of anything good that has come out of the USDA. Nor can I think of any federal agency I’d rather have tossed in the dustbin of history.

Centralized, large-scale agricultural practices are environmentally unsustainable, risky to the populace in terms of bio-security and food safety, high in the need for the massive use of fossil fuel (fertilizer, pesticide and machinery fuel) and are a business model that demands the abuse of animals and workers to run.

The USDA has proven to be a barrier to flexibility and innovation (except anything that allows corporate agribiz to get even bigger) and is the enemy of people who want to support humane, sustainable decentralized regional agriculture and small family farms and ranches.

That puppy-millers use the “USDA licensed breeders” label as a marketing tool to trick the saps is just another reason why I think this agency needs to go, or undergo a drastic refocusing of its mission.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 8:51 am
A HUNDRED AND TWENTY COMMENTS????

*faints*

Comment by Christie Keith — January 24, 2009 @ 10:01 am
You started a breeder thread, and you’re *surprised* it got a response?

You siwwy wabbit!

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 24, 2009 @ 11:11 am
Gina thought it would; I am not always the best judge of these things… at least about my own posts!

Comment by Christie Keith — January 24, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
And that doesn’t even count the blog post and comments at BADRAP, pushing back on the calls for reform in the shelter industry by terming it the “blame game.”

Yeah, I know it’s hard to see the forest for the trees when you’re in the thick of it.

Although it would be nice for them to realize that the SFSPCA hasn’t been a “no kill model” since Rich Avanzino left for Maddie’s Fund years ago.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
well it is interesting, and the sheer number of comments here makes it a challenge to et through them all. I rad the blog post on Bad Rap and I’ve read ALL the comments here.

Thing is, here at Pet Connection, no one is denying that pits are suffering an overpopulation problem. Pi bulls and ferals are specifically identified, many times over as two sectors of the pet population in shelters that need individualized attention and strategy. Pits to get help and education to the dogs and owners and communities that need it. Feral cats to change the whole catch and kill paradigm. I certainly do not see anyone denying that pit bulls are way over represented in shelters.

And in the Bad Rap blog, the breeders cited for contributing to the numbers are not the breeders Christie is referring to. The sort of breeders Christie is defending/ calling out to speak up and represent themselves to the public do not breed trend breeds/colors etc to sell to uncommitted homes. The breeders Christie references will also always be there to reclaim their dogs, provide help to owners etc.. and so specifically do not contribute to the buy-breed-dump cycle.

I hope that the divide here is a matter of miscommunication rather than unbridgable philosophical differences, because the authors of both blog are both committed 100% to animal welfare. And we all need to realize that most things in this world are not absolutes. I really do believe that responsible dog breeders are a huge, largely untapped resource for the animal welfare and shelter community. But painting them/us all as the enemy and oftentimes scorning our assistance on principal is no good for dogs on many levels.

Which of course brings us back to the point of the original post…. :-)

Comment by Jenniferj — January 24, 2009 @ 1:35 pm
Gah, please pardon the above spelling and gramatical errors…..

Two year old has not been sleeping through the night

Comment by Jenniferj — January 24, 2009 @ 1:37 pm
Great post Christie. You made excellent points which generated many good comments. I agree, it should not be this hard to find a good breeder of pet dogs.

H. Houlahan wrote:

I’ve had German shepherd dogs for 18 years.

I can tell you where you can get a fine working dog, if you are a SAR handler or police officer or serious dog hobbyist who wants to do Schutzhund or obedience.

I am completely at a loss about where to get a good, healthy, well-balanced, sane GSD with a pet temperament. The kind of dog Biden was looking for.

I come up helpless against this question time and again. You are right — if I can’t answer that question for a client or friend, it is too damn hard.

I’ve studied the breeding of GSDs for years, developed a number of contacts, and could provide recommendations. I’d suggest specific breeders of German showline GSDs, or else rejects from guide dog breeding programs — depending on why they were rejected. I agree it is silly that one should have to study a breed for years to be able to find a good pet dog breeder. This is too hard.

I’m inclined to agree in part with H.Houlahan:

So I’m on the verge of concluding (please note, I do not say that I have concluded) that the German shepherd dog genome is not well-suited to selection for pet qualities. It’s a working dog or nothing. Trying to “tone down” the drive to work just ends up with shy, skittish, cowardly, insecure, potential-fear-biting animals who still try to take over the household.

It appears to me that without ongoing selection for working abilities that GSD temperament does indeed degenerate over generations into “skittish, cowardly, insecure, and potential fear-biting animals.” The shorthand term for this in working GSD circles is “nervebag”. However, a GSD can be watered down from drivey working breeding but not degenerated all the way into nervebag status.

A major reason why American-bred GSDs before the 1970’s are fondly remembered is because they were not many generations removed from selection for working abilities. A steady influx of imported GSDs from Germany into the mainstream America GSD population kept population temperament in decent shape. Up through the 1960’s, most top AKC GSD show dogs were imports from Germany. These imports ceased when breeders of America GSDs went their separate ways in terms of desired breed conformation. As a result, the mainstream American GSD population eventually degenerated in temperament.

German showline GSDs usually avoid this state of degeneration because they are required in Germany to attain working titles — almost always schutzhund. They are not bred for excellence in working abilities, but usually just a bare minimum. This makes them watered down compared to true working-bred GSDs. The latter are more likely to be “too much dog” for the vast majority pet owners. German showline GSDs are by far the most popular GSD in the global pet market, and there are many good breeders in America who breed these dogs.

One cannot just get any German showline GSD however. It’s still necessary to select from reputable breeders. Especially since a GSD in Germany who fails his/her hip radiograph test or is a “nervebag” is often sold to Americans who naively believe that ‘from good imported bloodlines’ automatically means good GSD. No breeding system or program always produces good dogs and anyone who believes that is vulnerable to being the sucker who gets the dud shoved off onto them.

Any 12 mo. old or older German GSD import that doesn’t arrive with an “a stamp” hip clearance should be avoided like the plague, for either pet purchase or as breeding stock. There’s a very good chance the dog is dysplastic.

Any imported GSD that arrives with a schutzhund title should be tested at a schutzhund club, to see if the title was real or fake. The club’s training experts can give insights into the dog’s training and temperament.

Pet buyers are ill-advised to import a GSD. They are too likely to get a discard.

GSDs bred to be guide dogs are working-bred dogs but are bred for much lower drive and activity levels, higher thresholds, and a generally calmer temperament than other working-bred GSDs. Most GSDs from guide dog breeding programs would make fine pets. But few guide dog rejects are available for rehoming, and sometimes they are rejected for reasons that would make them less suitable as pets.

Comment by LauraS — January 24, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
[I]n the Bad Rap blog, the breeders cited for contributing to the numbers are not the breeders Christie is referring to. The sort of breeders Christie is defending/ calling out to speak up and represent themselves to the public do not breed trend breeds/colors etc to sell to uncommitted homes. The breeders Christie references will also always be there to reclaim their dogs, provide help to owners etc.. and so specifically do not contribute to the buy-breed-dump cycle.

I hope that the divide here is a matter of miscommunication rather than unbridgable philosophical differences, because the authors of both blog are both committed 100% to animal welfare.

Comment by Jenniferj — January 24, 2009

Oh, absolutely. That’s why I called it out. I got nothin’ but respect for BADRAP. Even when they disagree with us, they’re good by me.

Pit bulls and feral cats DO require special programs to address the issues, programs that turn off the tap with spay-neuter outreach and incentives but aren’t secretly or overtly about extermination. That was referenced upstream here.

That said …

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what “no kill” is, a lot of it intentionally promoted by huge national groups that see their donor base and/or philosophical views threatened. And of course, it’s natural for people who support, volunteer or work in traditional shelters to distrust “breeders” because they see dogs originally bred for sale showing up in their shelters every day. That mistrust is reinforced by the “breeder is a breeder is a breeder and all are scum” lies happily propagated by those same national groups so busy also lying about what “no kill” is all about and PR-double-speaking about killing for population control as “euthanasia” and high-kill shelters as “open admission.”

And in fact, no-kill flamethrower Nathan Winograd has been accused of being both a “tool of breeders” and an operative for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a front group for the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries that is also the group behind the the dead-accurate PetaKillsAnimals.com (which rightly points out that PETA has nasty skeletons in its ~~walk-in freezer~~closet). As for Winograd, a vegan animal activist, his only “crime” among his peers is to have a better idea and not shut up about it, while calling out those big national groups on their hypocrisy.

From the side of reputable breeders, it’s just as hard to reach across and trust those who launch and support forced spay-neuter efforts that will not reduce shelter admissions or killings but will eliminate the small-scale ethical, reputable breeders dedicated to preserving our heritage breeds. (Not to mention those who believe medical decisions should be made by an owner with the advise of a veterinarian, not by the state.) These attitudes are also reinforced by groups with an hard-wired agenda and a donor base/philosophical view to protect, such as the National Animal Interest Alliance, which is as dead-on clueless as PETA, and just as committed to fighting any true solutions. The NAIA works to scare reputable, ethical breeders to side with puppy-milling scum, factory farming and other animal abusers in more “if you’re not with us you’re agin’ us” strategy.

Wedge politics are easy as pie in these conditions, and these groups play it like a violin.

We need to work together, and some of us are starting to, those of us who are able to think for ourselves and don’t howl to the dogma of the interest groups.

There is a third way.

Who are we in the new movement? Animal-lovers with open minds, compassion and an honest agenda for change who realize that the answer to a system that’s broken isn’t choosing sides, digging in and pushing that system harder … it’s changing it.

Even if that means making a lot of people angry and more than a few scared.

***

LauraS: As usual … WOW.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
Thanks, LauraS! We have one of those “nervebags” living a few doors down. He was an aggressive, fence-running, barking idiot puppy until one day I just walked up to the wire fence and stood there to “claim the space”. It was like someone had flipped a switch. He almost ran back to the house.

The other dog will come up and say Hi, but the GSD just cowers, ducks his head and walks away. Kind of pathetic, really. And his hindquarters aren’t all that bad. No idea where they got him, but his timid temperment was really a shock to me. Now I see better what’s going on.

(Can we make it to 130 comments? Will that be a record ;-)?)

Comment by Susan Fox — January 24, 2009 @ 3:13 pm
130. There.

And frankly, it pisses me off that all the high-comment posts on this blog are Christie’s.

;-)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
Amy, responsible breeders do not sell their puppies through third parties. Responsible breeders take responsibility for placing their puppies in safe responsible homes, and providing support, advice, and a safe haven for the dog if ever its new owners cannot or do not want to keep it any longer.

You can’t have the “convenience” of buying a puppy in a pet store, and get that puppy from a responsible source.

I don’t think “can’t” is the appropriate word here. Can’t implies that no parties involved here are CAPABLE of actually coming together for the betterment of the entire “industry” (I hate that word but another one isn’t coming to mind at the moment).

I am saying that convenience is what makes puppy mills so successful. If the choice is a long waiting list and an expensive pup or shelter adoption, that’s not actually convenient. But it’s out in the open. Obviously places that sell dogs should have adoption screenings and advice and follow up, just like breeders but out in the open as part of what they do. Why “can’t” stores be something different? The “can”. Right now, they’re just not. And I truly think it’s because we’re more interested in thinking about our small interest groups and not making any large changes and organizing for a more effective way to promote good, safe choices for EVERYONE. If we stop thinking about just one aspect and think of the whole and get out of our own heads and what each individual wants, it seems that everyone can make some changes and if you want to call it this, compromises, and “reach out with unclenched fists,” if you will.

If breeders don’t want to be forced underground, than there will HAVE to be change. No one wants puppy mills, so we HAVE to create a way for them to be driven out. Everyone want the choice to be responsible breeding or adoption. So we have to organize it. That’s it. No one can continue as they are and expect to move forward on this issue.

The word “adoption” should replace “buying” at stores. Those stores could operate more like an adoption center than a place where you go and pick up a dog like you’re buying milk at the grocery store, as Kathy said.

The thing that makes me angry is it doesn’t have to be like this. People are making choices here. It isn’t natural law or anything. We need to change “can’t” to “won’t” and figure out “why.” Then change the why and work together.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
I get what you’re saying, Amy, I do.

But speaking as a person who has been planning what may be a once-in-a-lifetime litter for more than four years, I gotta say there is no bloody way my co-owner and I are handing over the resulting puppies to a third party to decide how to place them, and calling that third party an “adoption center” isn’t going to change that.

I just can’t see anyone who actually cares about the pets they bring into the world feeling any differently. I am responsible for the lives of these puppies forever.

That responsibility starts with the breeder making the decision about the homes they go into, not a clerk in a retail establishment. And with always being there as a resource for those families.

I felt that way when I ran a breed rescue. And that doesn’t mean in either case (as a breeder or as a foster/rescue/placement volunteer) that I didn’t or won’t work with people to help them get the pet that fits them best — even if it’s not one I personally have available.

It’s not about bringing reputable breeders and rescue groups/shelters down to the stinking level of puppy mills and their retail outlets.

It’s about getting reputable, ethical breeds to stop hiding (or feel like they have to or have to, in some areas of the country), and about getting shelters/rescue groups to prepare their pets better for the transition to new homes, to support those new homes and to serve as a resource, and to also not shine their light of service and care under a bushel.

There will always be people who will try to buy a puppy/kitten like a quart of milk. But we can change social behavior through peer pressure (think smoking) and through options such as making people feel good about doing right (think how people love to brag that their pet was “saved”).

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Sometimes I think the interwebs is an awful place to have a conversation. We are missing each other on this and I don’t know how to articulate my point. I am much better at this in a true words to ears back and forth, I swear.

I’m not asking you to hand your puppies over to anyone. I’m not asking you to give them to a retailer. I’m not asking retailers to be “called” something different, I’m asking them to “be” something different. I’m not an idiot. I swear.

You don’t have to do anything you don’t want to and that’s not what I’m saying at all. However, I feel that retailers should be forced out if they’re not responsible. And they can’t be without transparency and breeders that ARENT mills and partnerships that may seem unlikely, but don’t have to be impossible.

I’m not good at writing. Talking and conversating I can do, but I’m still not sure my point is coming across.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
I don’t think “can’t” is the appropriate word here. Can’t implies that no parties involved here are CAPABLE of actually coming together for the betterment of the entire “industry”

No, it doesn’t. It has nothing to do with “coming together” or turning “can’t” into “can.”

It means that the two things are mutually exclusive.

No responsible breeder places puppies through a third party, therefore it’s impossible to aggregate puppies in an adoption center or anywhere else and have those puppies come from responsible breeders.

Now, can you aggregate the responsible BREEDERS themselves? Yes.

But not puppies. A breeder who hands his puppies over to be placed by a third party instead of himself is by definition not responsible. So what you propose is, also by definition, impossible.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 24, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
So are young women who work with adoption centers being irresponsible by not tracking down parents themselves?

I’m not saying retail as it is now. Is that coming through? I don’t know why I can’t get what is in my head communicated clearly right now.

Breeders can continue as they are now, if they wish.

Retail “puppy stores” must changes. Mills become reputable breeders or they can’t sell puppies. Retail becomes reputable or they can’t sell puppies.

Organization of breeders, shelters, and retailers. Working together.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
Amy, again, I realize your good intention here, but also:

I am NOT AT ALL interested (as a rescue volunteer, breeder or pet-care writer) in the good of the “entire ‘industry’” with regards to the handling of live animals.

I am instead interested in getting pets and people together and happy.

Those are also mutually exclusive aims. Retail puppy stores can only change by not selling puppies. On this point, there is no wiggle room for me. None.

Sell all the beds, bowls, toys, leashes, coats you want. Recognize that the sale of puppies through a retailer will never be what reputable, responsible and ethical breeders do, for all the reasons we have outlined.

And more, such as that every reputable behaviorist and trainer for the last half-century has stressed the importance of getting puppies from a home-raising source (reputable breeder or foster home) that understands the social and socialization needs of puppies — directly into the puppy’s new family. No stops along the way.

Any trainer who comments regularly here can tell you — as I can — that the difference between a well-socialized puppy raised underfoot in a human home and a puppy sold at retail can be spotted a mile away in any puppy class.

The properly raised puppy is confident, outgoing and ready to learn, and probably more than half house-trained (as in, understands the concepts, can’t manage the physical aspects yet). The commercially raised dog is a stressed-out basket case, the result of being raised in kennel (even a clean one), transported like a case of bananas, put on display and now completely unsure of what is expected or what people are about. As for house-training, well, too bad that minimum wage kennel or retail help couldn’t be bothered to keep the puppy areas as scrupulously clean as a good breeder or experienced pet foster volunteer knows to.

What it takes to raise a puppy optimally from birth to adulthood has not been in dispute for decades. And it is completely at odds with any possible incarnation of a retail experience involving puppies.

Do you see that?

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
So are young women who work with adoption centers being irresponsible by not tracking down parents themselves?

I’ll set aside the CATACLYSMIC confounding of babies and puppies and dwell on the other problem.

You’re confounding shelter adoptions of unowned dogs and the placing of owned puppies.

The issue of “third person adoptions” is not applicable to shelter animals because there’s no “first person” in the picture. The two have things in common, but not this.

Comment by Christie Keith — January 24, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
I don’t think our differences in opinion are as great as you think.

For one thing, I don’t believe that retailers of ANYTHING should be without accountability. Personally, I don’t think retailers who care about pet health should even carry products that they don’t know the origins of or products that are produced by manufacturers who are concerned with nothing but the bottom line. I don’t think that it has to be that way. It is that way because people make choices. As consumers, as manufacturers, as retailers. There are companies out there that are, as good business people, concerned with the bottom line BUT they have higher standards than the bottom line alone. And that is changing more and more. Retailers have to then step up, and some are, to say “we only want to sell products we can get behind and believe in.” They then become champions of good people doing good things and make it easier for consumers to find products that can be trusted. Would it be cheaper and more convenient to just sell the cheapest? Of course. But that’s not good for anybody.

And I am familiar with training and have worked with and as a trainer. I don’t know why that really comes into this conversation. I believe in well-socialized puppies. I can see that difference, too. I’m not saying that’s not part of the problem.

I’m going to need to bow out of this conversation and think of why what’s in my head is not coming through how I intend it to. I’m not attacking anyone on this blog. I’m not disagreeing with the majority, if anything at all, of what you’re saying. In my head, I’m talking about something completely different that isn’t a reality right now, but could be in the future.

I don’t believe that there can’t be a future for a new model.

I’m taking some time off from this. Maybe I’ll run through my thoughts via good ole conversation and real time exchange. That usually helps me articulate more effectively. I’ll be back.

Thanks for the discussion. I do appreciate this forum A LOT. I think the best ideas come from true discussion and disagreement. I don’t think new ideas are born any other way.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 5:18 pm
I’ll throw another wrench in the breeders, shelters, retailers coming together argument.

And for the record, I think responsible breeders, shelters and rescue can come together very nicely.

But responsible breeders and retail puppy sales, no, nada, no way.

Now I know PB likes to talk about breeders producing a product. And in the abstract, he is absolutely right. The consumer/puppy buyer has a right to expect that the breeder has truly bred and raised their puppy using every reasonable tool and good intention that that puppy will be healthy and will have received a solid start.

But no good breeder considers their dogs a product in the retail sense. And good breeders are not generally a business, at least not one that relies on puppy sales. Training, or providing other services and products maybe, but not puppy sales. So the idea of responsible breeding coming together with retail “adoption” centers or puppy sellers is not only impossible, the idea is repugnant to people who consider every puppy family for life and would/have jump in a car to drive 500 miles to get a geriatric dog whom they have not seen in a decade in person, because it is the right thing to do.

Frankly, the best “guarantee” you have with a responsible breeder is that they are available 24/7, 365 for LIFE. Believe me, I want those people and dogs to be happy. I do this for love (of a breed, of the babies I have sat and held for their first breath, in love and honor of the great grand parent who took her first and last breath in my arms) cause money does not roll in. Actually it often barrels out.

It means I suck as a business but sleep well as a human being and breeder.

Puppymills have great marketing and prey on impulse. Good breeders have great customer service and tech support but only after you find us and yeah, we need to do better in the marketing arena. But I will not sell my soul or betray my dogs that way.

Comment by Jenniferj — January 24, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Amy - just stop for a moment and visualize this. There are two major, MAJOR problems with the model I believe you’re describing:

The first has been commented on by several folks here, and that is that Responsible Breeders take the responsibility of placing their own puppies. Period. They do NOT let someone else make that decision for them.

The second has been alluded to but perhaps not stated outright, and that is this: You don’t - if it can be avoided - house a puppy in a cage after he leaves his mama and before he reaches his new home. He goes from home to home - life in a cage is not part of that equation. And that is the other major, MAJOR reason why there is no conceivable model of Responsible Breeders selling their puppies at retail.

Do shelters and rescues sometimes end up keeping their dogs and cats in cages? Sure they do. But I think we all realize that that’s not the optimal situation for anyone involved - least of all the dogs and cats caought in the middle without an immediate home. We do what we have to until we are able to get them placed.

But Responsible Breeders don’t HAVE to do that with their available animals. Therefore, why would they? Why would they take their puppies out of their kitchens and their bedrooms and off of the couch in front of the TV and put them in stainless steel and glass cages on display for the entire general public, left alone in the dark all night every night, and having their needs taken care of my some minimum wage high schooler who wants a job “playing with the puppies” but may or may not have a clue what properly taking care of an animal is really all about?

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 24, 2009 @ 5:49 pm
I must say that this blog and the comment threads are almost always a content-rich environment, but y’all have outdone yourselves this time.

I can’t believe how much I’ve learned here this last day or two.

And it is obvious that that there is no such thing as the RESPONSIBLE retail sale of puppies. It’s an oxymoron of the first order.

Comment by Susan Fox — January 24, 2009 @ 6:53 pm
I meant to take more time off than this. But here I am. Obviously, I can’t get this off my mind. And I now understand where we’re miscommunicating.

I don’t advocate puppies in cages EVER. I wish that NO dog had to live in a crate for ANY length of time. Not for a week, or even a day.

I don’t use the word retail as it is. I use it because I don’t have a word for what I’m thinking of other than adoption.

I mentioned adoption of babies as a model. Not to equate puppies and babies as the same thing. I thought that was clear, but as I see, it wasn’t. I hate dog/kid arguments. HATE them.

Think of the role of an adoption agency. Or a retailer.

Breeders and Manufacturers need to be doing what they do best. Manufacturers of good products often make their products available to retailers because their business is making a good product. They need not be experts in marketing and getting their products directly into the hands of consumers because it is not their business and it is not what they are experts in. Obviously, this is not always the case on a very small scale.

The organization I can see is somewhat related to the model of an adoption agency. Basically, a network for breeders that are reputable. Obviously, this becomes easier now that there are less and less people who are unfamiliar with the internet, but I say that still thinking of so many people I know who aren’t as proficient (like my parents). That aside, said organization can be a place for people to go and breeders to go. A matchmaker of sorts. This rules out anyone looking to “buy/adopt” that doesn’t do interwebs, but perhaps said organization has real locations on specific days for the interwebless. Like retailers, etc. VISIBILITY and real paper. No underground.

For reputable breeders, there needs to be a middleman. Maybe it’s only really a network of breeders with a few outsiders, but the organization itself acts as a middleman. Because breeders should be doing what they do best. And people should be able to find them. And it shouldn’t be so hard. And there should someone championing for them because without it, people don’t know them and they get lumped in with the worst.

It’s not convenient, but it is visible, which actually does raise the “convenience” factor, it just doesn’t make it all the way to convenient. Just more convenient.

I AM interested in getting pets and people together and happy, too. And I stated that I used the term “industry” begrudgingly because I didn’t have another word. Not because I believe it’s the correct word. I meant all of this, shelters, breeders, people, the PET COMMUNITY and most all things related to it. I didn’t mean industry as industry and I thought I made that clear. I think we missed each other on that because I do so you as someone who is interested in the greater good of the entire whole. Industry was the wrong word. I used it as a shortcut to writing many paragraphs defining each sector. Obviously that was the wrong choice.

Basically, I’m saying there must be an easier way for breeders and people to connect. Essentially, a middleman. And that will raise the cost, because nothing can exist without expenses. A hybrid of adoption agency/matchmaker/retailer.

Does this make more sense or do I really live inside my own little head? I think I spend too much time with dogs and cats (though I don’t think there is such a thing) and not enough time with people.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
I think maybe we are on the same page now.

No puppies in stores. No pit stop between a home-raised, properly socialized puppy and the new family.

But stores help to serve as one of the ways people connect with reputable breeders. An yeah, there’s a cost for that .. a referral fee, listing fee, whatever.

Is that what you’re saying?

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
The second has been alluded to but perhaps not stated outright, and that is this: You don’t - if it can be avoided - house a puppy in a cage after he leaves his mama and before he reaches his new home. He goes from home to home - life in a cage is not part of that equation. And that is the other major, MAJOR reason why there is no conceivable model of Responsible Breeders selling their puppies at retail.

A third problem is that retailers, with the best will in the world, can’t provide the screening and selectivity that Amy imagines in her scenario, and still function as successful retail operations. They cannot put themselves in the position of telling customers, “No, we will not sell you this item because we have decided that you and the product are not suitable for each other.” Good, responsible retailers can try to guide the customer to a better choice, but they cannot in the end substitute their judgment for the customers.

If a retail operation, which is selling many other normal products, has this one class of products that they have to handle completely differently, and decide who is suitable to “buy” or not, they’ll at best get all tangled up in knots. More likely, they’ll either tick off customers whom they want to sell other things, or they won’t tick them off. They’ll give them what they want.

Petco and Petsmart and other more local pet supply stores DO host adoptions—but they are careful not to tie themselves up in these knots. They donate space and supplies; they leave the adoptions to the shelter and rescue workers.

But before you say, aha! that’s the model—you still have the problem of responsible breeders not letting third parties decide where their puppies go, because they have a perosnal commitment to them, AND the problem of taking puppies from a home, and putting them in cages to live until they find a home.

Just not a workable idea, sorry.

Comment by Lis — January 24, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Maybe what Amy is trying to suggest is something like an organizational “yenta”? Might be the germ of an idea there.

Hey, Gina, you could pull it together in your free time!;0)

Comment by Susan Fox — January 24, 2009 @ 8:13 pm
Puppa Yenta (TM)

I so suck at business, though.

Left brain, right brain … whichever is the biz-running brain, I ain’t got it.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 8:16 pm
So…this site is…..a silly indulgence? I. Don’t. Think. So.

Really, what about the idea of a person who gets it and makes it their business to know who the responsible breeders are; who people can go to and trust that they will be sent to good puppy people?

Could something like this be set up on a state or regional basis as an informal network?

Could this network leave business cards or brochures at pet shops?

Most of the country could probably be covered by some of the more, uh, informed commenters on this blog.

Just thinkin’.

Comment by Susan Fox — January 24, 2009 @ 8:28 pm
Amy, were you thinking of something like what I wrote about here?

http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ent-395492

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 24, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
I should have used the word matchmaker earlier *slaps palm to forehead*

Yes, Pat, similar. Though I was thinking a bit more organized and a bit more large scale. A big Yenta, pretty much. Like say it’s called Puppy Yenta.

Puppy Yenta is basically a network of reputable breeders who meet the standards that are agreed upon. There are people that work for Puppy Yenta and take applications, etc. Process the paperwork, keep in touch with people and breeders. Like I said, it won’t be convenient, but definitely MORE convenient than people to breeder vice versa because there’s one place to go that’s keeping up with all the breeders. As I said earlier, it will obviously have a higher cost and a waiting list, but people would know where to go and who’s in touch with the right people. No secret code word at the door.

Preferably, national. Visibility at stores. Ideally working with shelters— if you’re not going with Puppy Yenta, adopt. Maybe Puppy Yenta has her ear open to other groups and can suggest Breed Rescues and animals available at shelters for those who don’t want to wait.

I guess it’d be more like a version of a yenta or an e-harmony, but for people seeking reputably bred dogs.

And then reputable breeders and shelters are both visible as the only two good places to go for a dog.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
YES! YES! YES!

We are on the same page.

Now … how do we make this happen?

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 9:57 pm
To be continued … I’m retiring to a nice fresh bed with The New Yorker. (The magazine, not a person.)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 24, 2009 @ 9:58 pm
LOL @NY comment.

I must retire as well. I’ll think some more about it. Like I said, I occasionally get some big ideas, but resources… that’s the hard part.

I think it can happen though. And I think it could have the potential to really change some things. It’d be great to say “go here or adopt” and create something that could conquer some of the buy/adopt rifts.

Ok. Really must not spend any more time on petconnection tonight, though I’ve enjoyed it.

Comment by Amy — January 24, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Puppy Yenta! I think I just found my new job!

I’m great at sizing up people (its what I do for a living), neurotically organized (yes I’m the one who arranges shirts in order by colors in the rainbow), and I have the right ethnic background (if you don’t count hating chopped liver)!

This could be a match made in heaven, or as we say, beshert…Oy!

Comment by 2CatMom — January 24, 2009 @ 10:39 pm
I own a pet supply store and over the years have invited several like-minded industry friends to open businesses within our plaza. We have a dog and cat “day spa”, a full service veterinary clini, a doggie bakery, positive training classes, home cooking classes, a charity for homeless pets, etc.

One of my business partners is a retired AKC judge who also retired as a breeder a few years before we opened the store (my background was mostly in pet welfare and adoption programs). We are very active in our community when it comes to anything pet-related. One of those activities is that two of us sit on the advisory board of our local dog club.

Everyone in our little plaza uses the same informal “system” for referring potential buyers/adopters.

For customers looking to bring a new pet into their home, we act as a sort of “middle man” by quickly assessing what sort of adopter/buyer they seem to be and offering several referral options. We keep a list of breeders we know and trust, a list of local hobby groups like for S&R, agility, confirmation, etc), a list of purebred rescue groups and of course a list of local all-breed/mixed-breed rescue groups. These lists are constantly being modified/updated and we make those recommendations depending on the person/family, their circumstances and what they are looking for in a new pet.

For me, the only way to really help my customers make the right choice is to stay involved and informed with my community’s breeders and adoption groups. The only real constant is that we never recommend pet store purchases; not for dogs and cats and not for birds and small pets (we have those breeders and rescue groups too).

The other thing we do is keep vigilant with our community board. Flyers for pit bull puppies for sale “from good fighters” (this actually happened!) are removed/reported, people posting “free to good home” are contacted and advised to charge a nominal adoption fee, etc. So we feel more comfortable referring potential adopters/buyers to that board.

What I have learned is that there seems to be no real formula for what is “right“ or “wrong” as far as ethics are concerned. There are local nonprofit rescue groups housing dogs and cats in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions offering little to no supportive services to adopters: there are breeders with impressive credentials who look great on paper but are just a cage or two short of being a “puppy mill”: there are hoarders and “humaniacs” and there are great adoption groups and great breeders.

Comment by Joy — January 25, 2009 @ 7:06 am
How can you ensure that a “Puppy Yenta” won’t fall into the same trap that breed clubs have fallen into? the breed clubs that get sued because they choose to kick out a member who supposedly violated those agreed upon standards (aka code of ethics)?

Comment by Ann — January 25, 2009 @ 8:41 am
Well, we tried to do something similar to a “Puppy Yenta” for French Bulldogs - namely, the Responsible French Bulldog Breeders Alliance.

Screened listings, full reveal of your health testing, contract and placement policy, a low annual fee that helps us to place advertising in the same sources as the Puppy mills usually dominate (namely, google ads and the print mags), with the balance donated to rescue.

What response did we get? Nada. A few people emailed to grumble that the questions were ‘too invasive’. A few more complained about having to pay a fee. That’s it.

I’m actually taking it down this week, because I feel ridiculous being the only person listed there. Hey, if anyone wants the template to try and set it up for another breed, let me know and it’s yours.

Getting a group of breeders to agree on anything is like herding freakin’ cats sometimes.re

Comment by FrogDogz — January 25, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Comment by FrogDogz — January 25, 2009 @ 9:00 am

“Getting a group of breeders to agree on anything is like herding freakin’ cats sometimes.”

And with that, you’ve hit one particularly critical nail square on the head.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 25, 2009 @ 9:46 am
FrogDogz, you really have said it all with your “herding cats” observation. It is nearly impossible to get breeders to agree on things, even when they are things that are to their benefit. I have seen many attempts at responsible breeders listings, annual directories and similar projects that have fizzled out because nobody seems to agree on anything long enough to keep them viable.

I just don’t think there are any easy answers. I would like to see more energy go toward educating the public to make better choices when they buy a pet in the first place, but I have to wonder if that’s even possible given the amount of inconsistent information that is out there these days. No matter how you look at it, it’s an uphill battle.

I am opposed to legislation that unfairly restricts legitimate responsible breeders. I’m to the point that I’d almost rather see the potential buyers have to take a test and obtain a permit to own a pet, along with a waiting period like they were buying a gun. Maybe that would help cut back on impulse purchases, which would cut back on puppy mills. (Of course, that’s only a fantasy, and I realize it would be impossible, but I really am at a loss for real solutions here.)

I haven’t seen much in the news about the most recent puppymill bust in Washington state, but it’s yet another case of some sleazy millers operating behind one legitimate-looking seller — a family operation that’s been around for years.

I hope that Pet Connection will allow me to include a link here for information on that. I think it’s really important to look at both sides of these situations in order to get a better overall view of the concerns we all have.

The Yorkie Talk news linked at http://tinyurl.com/bvhneo contains comments from people who have bought dogs from this place, as well as detailed news reports and links to other news stories about the case. It’s a lot like what we dealt with here in Tucson last year.

It’s just insane that people raise dogs like this, but almost as crazy that people are perfectly willing to buy a dog from an unknown quantity that can just as easily be this kind of “breeder.” But this is the kind of thing we are all up against.

Comment by stellaluna — January 25, 2009 @ 11:39 am
This is a test.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 25, 2009 @ 12:43 pm
This very morning, the CBS Sunday Morning show had a story about the Battersea (UK) shelter that runs a program like the one you’re describing. The interviewee said they had dropped their return rate basically to zero
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752099n

Comment by EmilyS — January 25, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
Sounds like getting dog breeders to join together in mutual self-interest is every bit as easy as it is with artists. Heh heh. Or small business owners (been there, done that with a Main Street program).

That entrepreneurial temperament gets in the way. You really have to answer the question “What’s in it for me?”. Or the pain of going it alone gets high enough that making common cause starts to look good.

So instead of telling breeders what they need to do, maybe start with finding out what it is they need and see if there’s a match with what you all think needs to be done. Does this make sense?

Comment by Susan Fox — January 25, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
Comment by stellaluna — January 25, 2009 @ 11:39 am

It is nearly impossible to get breeders to agree on things, even when they are things that are to their benefit. I have seen many attempts at responsible breeders listings, annual directories and similar projects that have fizzled out because nobody seems to agree on anything long enough to keep them viable.

This has been my experience as well. Breeders often live an insular existence. They are very tied up in their dogs, and they often have their own way of doing things, to which they can cling with maddening rigidity. This frequently doesn’t make for particularly good concensus building when you try to get a group of them to organize and agree around a lot of common goals.

I would like to see more energy go toward educating the public to make better choices when they buy a pet in the first place, but I have to wonder if that’s even possible given the amount of inconsistent information that is out there these days.

IMHO, public education is an essential part of this effort, and it is precisely because of the diversity of information that’s out there as well as that “herding cats” thing about breeders that makes this so.

Consequently, I tend to try and focus my efforts on helping people understand why sticking with a breeder who’s doing things the “right way” (assuming they’re going with a breeder) is beneficial from THE BUYER’S point of view rather than focussing on why it’s the right thing for the dog(s).

For example, the “takeback clause” which a Responsible Breeder will offer means that a person will NEVER have to worry about finding themselves burdened with a dog which they can no longer care for, no matter the reason. In these times of growing economic uncertainty, that’s got to be particularly appealing.

Or the health guarantee. Assuming it’s well-written and fair, this is also a “good for the buyer” reason to go to a Responsible Breeder rather than a puppy producer who doesn’t stand behind their “product” once the credit card charge clears.

Responsible Breeders don’t do the things the way they do primarily out of concern for the buyers - their focus is on their dogs. But it’s a happy side effect that what’s good for the dogs is quite often also good for the buyers, so that’s the kind of thing I focus on when people ask me how to find a “good breeder”.

I am opposed to legislation that unfairly restricts legitimate responsible breeders.

Legislation can be problematic for a lot of the same sorts of reasons that it’s difficult to get breeders to broadly agree on agendas - they frequently all have their own ways of doing things, all of which may be legitimate. Legislation tends to narrow those choices.

Take feeding, for example. It’s easy to envision well-meaning legislation that requires dogs can only legally be fed AAFCO-approved commercial diets. That sounds like a good idea to someone who hasn’t been very deeply involved in dogs, but we all saw during the Rolling Recalls of 2007 how meaningless an AAFCO label can be as a guarantee of “safety”. Not only that, but it would make it illegal to make other completely legitimate choices, such as feeding raw.

Or take as another example the evolving state of knowledge on vaccinations. Yearly vaccinations have been so accepted for so long that you can almost assume that required yearly vaccinations would become part of any such legislation. And yet we are learning that yearly vaccinations may not only be unnecessary, but may also be harmful. It’s work under progress, and all the answers aren’t known yet. But certainly codifying this kind of thing into legislation would be upsetting to people who are exercising their right to choose a different vaccination protocol for their dogs.

The examples go on - legislating how to socialize puppies, what kinds of training are legal and what kinds are not, how many intact dogs a person may own, how old a b!itch must be before she is bred and how often she can be bred thereafter, and so on. Questions to which there are a range of legitimate, acceptable answers, but for which the individual’s choice of how to address those questions would almost certainly be severely constrained by almost every kind of legislation that gets proposed when these discussions come up.

I’m to the point that I’d almost rather see the potential buyers have to take a test and obtain a permit to own a pet, along with a waiting period like they were buying a gun.

I’d like to see that for children, too! VBG! But of course, then we’re back to the question of agreeing on who gets to decide what’s “acceptable” and what’s not, what’s “right”, and what’s “wrong”.

It’s just insane that people raise dogs like this, but almost as crazy that people are perfectly willing to buy a dog from an unknown quantity that can just as easily be this kind of “breeder.” But this is the kind of thing we are all up against.

People want the easy way out, which is why - for example - “How to find a Responsible Breeder” lists are so popular. People want a set of rules that will guarantee that if they follow them, they’ll end up with “the perfect dog” (when such lists don’t even exist for cars, for pete’s sake!).

It’s that critical thinking thing that people seem to be willing to expend endless amounts of energy on when buying their next car or their next computer, but that seems to fly right out the window when the contemplated purchase is a living, breathing dog. As Christie said in the original post:

“Finding the good ones is truly no more or less difficult than finding a good hairdresser, doctor, dentist, or person to plan your wedding. You don’t need a secret decoder ring. Gollum will not help nor betray you. You might get ripped off — it happens. But it’s not a mystery. The exact same set of skills that allow you to find a good day care center, or the lack of skills that gets you suckered at the car repair shop, will be in play when you look for a dog breeder.”

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 25, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
You know, The OTHER Pat, one of the biggest problems seems to be how quickly and easily people’s brains shut off when confronted with adorable puppies.

We just came back from the dog park, where we had a beautiful, sunny afternoon here in Tucson. We had a very nice conversation with a lovely young couple — both pre-vet students — who were there with their sweet, well-socialized little longcoat Chihuahua.

They were smart cookies who really knew their dogs. We discussed dog diets and grooming and our respective breeds, and since they didn’t volunteer the information, I asked where they had gotten their dog — she was about the right age to have been one of the puppies that popped out of our puppy mill dogs last year, so I am always curious.

They sheepishly admitted to having bought their dog from Petland. They were apologetic about it, and admitted they knew that was a horrible place to buy a dog.

The young lady told me about having searched online to find out the source of their puppy after the purchase, and realizing she did indeed come from a midwest puppy mill. I told her that Petland always says their dogs don’t come from puppy mills, yet all the ones I’ve seen registration papers on are mill dogs and are from the midwest. (We get dogs that were purchased from them fairly often at our shelter, and I usually end up with the registration papers, contracts, etc., so I check them out.)

These were clearly very intelligent people who knew they shouldn’t have gotten the dog from Petland, and who admitted to having been suckered in by that adorable little puppy and buying it even though they knew they were taking a chance.

Luckily for them, the dog is not bad looking, if a little heavy-boned, and she’s in good health. She has a fabulous temperament and is obviously very well loved. And while I really enjoyed visiting with them, I couldn’t help but think, if *these* people are going to fall for buying a puppy from a pet shop, knowing full well what a bad idea it was and that they could just as easily have had a terrible experience, how on earth do we convince less knowledgeable potential owners this is not the way to go? And on top of that, how do you convince the less knowledgeable people who meet this sweet dog that they shouldn’t do the same thing?

Now this couple knew the potential for problems well enough that they have spent a lot of time and money on excellent nutrition, lots of socialization and training on this dog. They are way above average owners with the advantage of being future veterinarians, so they have more motivation than most to learn. And still, they did something that most of us would certainly consider to be risky and stupid.

That’s the kind of thing that is so hard for me to understand. I have no doubt in my mind that these kids would have been in it for the long haul with this dog regardless of how she’d have turned out. It’s frustrating to know that they will basically end up as good examples for Petland, assuming they do tell people where they got the dog from and don’t include something along the lines of a caution to other people. Arrrrgh…

(I’m in full agreement that people should also have to pass a test and get a permit to have kids, by the way! It’s definitely not a job for the faint of heart.)

Comment by stellaluna — January 25, 2009 @ 3:37 pm
So instead of telling breeders what they need to do, maybe start with finding out what it is they need and see if there’s a match with what you all think needs to be done. Does this make sense?

You’d think it would, yes — but I started the RFBBA to address the fact that I kept hearing from really good breeders with available puppies, while at the same time hearing from really good owners who had sick puppies they’d gotten from crappy sources.

It seemed a natural fit — make it easier for buyers to find good quality, available puppies, and by pooling their resouces, and make it easier for the breeders to reach the buyers who’d usually miss them.

One of the main problems is that the big volume breeders can afford to do mass advertising. Any of us who use google mail are well used to seeing puppy mill ads all over our inboxes. Ditto the big, newsstand dog mags - ads in them are pricey, and not worth it for small, occasional breeders. Part of the idea of a ‘coalition’ was to allow smaller breeders to pool their ad dollars, and to give consumers another venue other than the mills.

Oh well. Maybe we can try again in a few years.

Comment by FrogDogz — January 25, 2009 @ 4:52 pm
Comment by stellaluna — January 25, 2009 @ 3:37 pm

one of the biggest problems seems to be how quickly and easily people’s brains shut off when confronted with adorable puppies.

It’s a particularly virulent affliction known as “Puppy Fever” which is invasive and persistent once introduced, and which the puppy producers take advantage of to great effect.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — January 25, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
I’ve offered my services as a dog Yenta for as long as I’ve trained professionally.

That means helping to find and qualify breeders, evaluating parents and litters, visiting shelters and evaluating dogs there — whatever that person needs.

I don’t get to do it nearly often enough — and almost always for other SAR handlers, friends, and long-time clients. None of whom I charge.

I rely on finding breed experts when this process involves locating a purebred pup for someone in a breed that is not the one I know best. Including GSDs, which I have owned forever, but which I do not breed myself.

Though, now that I think of it, I do it a LOT of matchmaking in an informal way when people call me about an English shepherd pup.

Because I rarely have a litter, and when I do, I am unlikely to have a pup available that is right for that person. But I’ve got a pretty good handle on what other breeders are producing.

Someone who may not have a strong enough personality or enough work for one of my little pirates may be a fine match for a pup from a breeder whose animals have milder temperaments. Or someone with really rank livestock to work may need a harder dog than I endeavor to breed.

Of course that’s just my own breed.

Because the fact remains — it takes years to get a handle on the canine and human geography of ONE breed of dog. It is as much art as science. How people master it in very populous breeds, I have no idea.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 25, 2009 @ 9:21 pm
I say that it’s hard to find a “good” breeder because the RIDICULOUS standards that are being thrown around. You can’t simply be a hobby breeder, you need to be rich, a saint, a politician, and a private investigator all in one. And not get paid for it.

Does it seem just a little odd that the prevailing wisdom on what makes a good dog breeder is MORE strict, intricate, demanding, absolutist, and filled with requirements than, say, what we demand of:

- Our spouses
- The people we have children with
- Ourselves
- Adoptions
- Elected officials
- People who operate on us
- Any other expensive product, like a house, a car, an education.

Tell me JUST ONE other product (let alone a LIVING product) that it is common to demand:

- The Producer can’t make money doing it
- The Producer can’t do it too much or too little
- The Producer can only do it if they keep one each batch
- The Producer must guarantee everything, forever
- They can’t just sell you the product, they need to be your new best friend, mentor, teacher, shrink, dog sitter, on call 24/7/365
- The Producer needs to be mean to you to seem like they’re serious about the whole vetting people business
- The Producer must take your product back at any time, for any reason, even if it’s not defective
- We must blame the Producer for all problems with the culture of the product, especially how people who buy the product use it and dispose of it
- The Producer is not only responsible for creating the perfect product, they also need to be perfect at vetting buyers, even better than, say, the President in picking a nominee

Perhaps the better question is who to find a good dog, not a good breeder. There are plenty of people who don’t want a full service nanny with loads of dogma to go along with their puppy. Some of us are perfectly capable of raising a dog without having our hand held by some controlling guilt ridden peer pressured breeder who does things to impress other breeders instead of make good dogs.

Comment by Christopher — January 25, 2009 @ 10:44 pm
I have to agree with Christopher there… some breeders are so quick to attack others that DARE to make a profit (gasp!) or to breed for any reason other than to get a new pup to show. As if dog shows where the end all reason for a dog to exist, and anything else was immoral.

Comment by Pai — January 25, 2009 @ 11:38 pm
Christie: did you see this?

http://badrap-blog.blogspot.co.....-game.html

Comment by Lori — January 26, 2009 @ 10:01 am
re: above—scroll down about halfway to see the reference to this post.

Comment by Lori — January 26, 2009 @ 10:02 am
And read the comments, too. :)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 26, 2009 @ 10:10 am
I have found this discussion very interesting.

I actually have a thirteen and a half year old GSD who has been a fabulous family dog. But maybe we were just lucky—we bought him as a puppy through an add in the newspaper. The people who sold him to us said that they did ‘rescues’ and had occasional ‘accidental’ litters. We were told that our dog’s father (who we met) was from Germany and had been taken from an owner who abused him. In fact, we saw both parents and I asked to leave our puppy with the mother until he was weaned at three months. I was, at the time, researching getting pregnant myself, and having learned about all benefits of nursing wanted to make sure he got to nurse as long as he needed to.
Although, as a puppy, Guinness was full of energy and had to be walked A LOT for the first 8 years of his life, our friends and relatives always describe him as the best dog. He also doesn’t have the odd back that so many GSD’s seem to have. So, anyway, maybe we lucked out and got a ‘watered down temperament’ and that’s why he turned out to be such a great family dog.
Obviously, finding a nice purebred puppy shouldn’t be so hard.

I think a Puppy Yenta as visible as Petfinder, which I used last year to find a great beagle/cocker mixed puppy last year, would be a wonderful thing. Maybe there could be a list of minimum guidelines (having the puppies be raised in a home would be one I would care a lot about) could be devised and then have the website provide further information for people to use as they visit breeders. Petfinder has articles and a forum, for example.

Comment by Eliblu — January 26, 2009 @ 10:28 am
P.S. Sorry about the choppy writing and typos, above. I’m typing at work and obviously didn’t edit enough. Also, to Christopher, your description of the perfect Breeder reminds me of the perfect University Teacher Education Program.

Comment by Eliblu — January 26, 2009 @ 10:31 am
OK, I still don’t have any idea on how to find a nice puppy that:
fits the description I’m looking for,
is close enough (geographically) for me to evaluate over several weeks.

What I have found involves more resources (time and money) than I have. I’m not poor, but I do have a job and bills.

Realistically, within these constraints, I could search for years before finding the canine companion of perfectly compatible personality, temperament, drive,…networks such as HH has developed are far away, seldom found, narrow in focus, and collapse with the loss of any single link in the chain.

I can research a major purchase in one to twelve hours, a week or two for a house maybe. I have an idea as to what constitutes a good dog, now. So where is a standards based and enforced organization of breeder/trainer networks that can efficiently and economically point me in the direction of puppies that have a higher than average chance of being personally compatible? In my area.

I have a question for breeders: if I’m on your list, how does that work? If I’m 6th on the list of a 6 pup litter, as that it? Do you evaluate your pups, go through the acid test results and match puppies to listees? If I opt to turn your offering down, do I go to the bottom of the list? Am I off the list, and must put down earnest money again in order to get back on the list? Do you have a committment to the list? I’m just troubled by the whole list concept, not sure what to make of it.

Comment by eli — January 26, 2009 @ 11:48 am
Fascinating conversation, re: the breeder regulation, you should see the conversation on the AKC parent club lists about Codes of Ethics, even the groups that are likely to have the highest percentage of good breeders can’t agree as to whether they should strictly enforce and throw some people out or have a code that is treated more as a suggested ideal. Although I feel I’m one of the “good guys” I am strongly opposed to mandatory COEs/inspections/standards because I just don’t trust that they wouldn’t evolve to cross some line that restricted my own judgment about how to care for and place my dogs.

I also feel ethical breeders could do a heck of a better job promoting themselves. I’ve worked in Internet marketing and think I’ve done a fairly good job of optimizing my dog site for search. I breed only occasionally and mostly put up my site to share a database about dog show judges.

I was surprised how much traffic I got from people looking for puppies. I then realized the volume breeders in my state had sites much better optimized to reach those searchers. I decided to add more terms to attract puppy searchers and mention that I am happy to refer people to other breeders if I didn’t have puppies. I’m working on getting the dog club sites for my clubs performing better in that regard as well. Maybe a small step, but I think just getting more knowledgeable dog people and ethical breeders accessible online would help. To sell puppies, most of us have operated and can get away with word of mouth referrals alone; we need to wake up and get more accessible to people shopping online to help them make educated choices.

Comment by Cleo — January 26, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
“So where is a standards based and enforced organization of breeder/trainer networks that can efficiently and economically point me in the direction of puppies that have a higher than average chance of being personally compatible? In my area.”

Eli, I don’t know what breed you’re looking for so this may be a moot point, but wanted to mention that it’s sometimes very hard to find certain breeds no matter where you look.

I talked to some people at the dog park yesterday who had a gorgeous 6-month-old Irish Terrier puppy. I’ve always admired that breed and had to ask where they found him because they aren’t that common.

I was impressed that the owner went to North Carolina to get him because the closest breeder she could find was in Phoenix and they didn’t have any litters planned. I asked if she was planning on showing him, and she said that she had bought him as a pet. (It’s really cool that she is spending a lot of time socializing him around other dogs, because they can be pretty scrappy.)

Now I know not everyone is able to spend the kind of money she has to have spent to get that dog, but with some breeds that’s just the way it is, because they are few and far between. That’s one of the reasons people end up placing “special orders” with pet shops for uncommon breeds — they can’t find them in their area and are either not into or not able to go outside to find one.

Well, like I said, this may be a moot point, but I thought I’d throw it out there because maybe it will help someone else understand why you can’t find the breed you want just anywhere and might have to expand your search.

Comment by stellaluna — January 26, 2009 @ 12:18 pm
stellaluna: http://cynography.blogspot.com.....urity.html

I have not had one of my own, but I have known a few. Including the GSD that was the family pet during my early childhood. This is a character that is not bound to size, color, brand, or rosette.

I currently have a couple of ACD’s, and they are great dogs. I see them as the beginnings of my “standard”: I love their size, their coat, their general shape, and their drive. If I could blend the two, they would make one terrific dog.

I am not currently looking for one, I am looking for breeders close by. I am looking now, because I am not interested in the breed standard (conformation) ACD. This makes my search the most difficult. I am leery of rosettes, “breed conformation standards”, “linebreeding”, etc. My Blue would fail conformation miserably; but he has the agility of a cat, the sprint of a quarter horse, and can change directions (90-180) at a full run. So much for “form follows function”. Tough and high drive. Loves to compete.

A McNab Shepherd may work (but rare = limited gene pool), I think the ES is too big, I couldn’t afford a structurally sound GSD (also too big), and so on. The BC is different in its temperament from what my ACD’s are. (Maybe I’m more into the loose-eyed dogs)I’m just not drawn. Ditto the Aussie - now there’s a misnomer.

There are plenty of ACD breeders around, but ACD breeders that work their breeding stock at _something_ are scarcern hen’s teeth. Most are looking to place their 5yr old brood bitches in “forever” homes…they’re such jewels, ya’ know? And the breeders who have working stock, why, they work all 15 of their breeding dogs on cattle every day! (Obviously don’t raise beef!)

Mostly, I am looking for a breeder of this type of dog so that I can come by sometimes, watch their dogs work, learn something, even. Watch a few grow up, see how a puppy corresponds to the grown dog. Understanding that if and when I do select a puppy, it was my selection. I will be responsible for it.

Comment by eli — January 26, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
I have a question for breeders: if I’m on your list, how does that work? If I’m 6th on the list of a 6 pup litter, as that it? Do you evaluate your pups, go through the acid test results and match puppies to listees? If I opt to turn your offering down, do I go to the bottom of the list? Am I off the list, and must put down earnest money again in order to get back on the list? Do you have a committment to the list? I’m just troubled by the whole list concept, not sure what to make of it.

Comment by eli — January 26, 2009 @ 11:48 am

Fair questions.

Here’s how I do it.

I take applications any time after the breeding and start checking references fairly quickly. I generally have 3-4 x the number of applicants as I expect to have puppies. Just like college applications, I expect them to be hedging their bets with other breeders at this point. (I sold seven pups from the last litter. Four of those were absolutely only a Pip puppy would do, two were people who were looking for a good English shepherd pup, and one was looking for a good pup for her purposes, breed irrelevant.)

Applicants understand that this is not an offer of a pup, no pups might be born. Applicants who must have particular color and markings are not considered, but there is some latitude for aesthetic whimsy and practical preference (sable dogs do better in hotter places, etc.) Gender preference is a place where an applicant can be absolute.

If an application is just not right for any pup I expect to produce, I tell the applicant as soon as I see the application. Maybe it’s someone who should get an ES from a different breeder. Maybe it’s someone who I don’t think is a good match for the breed at all. Occasionally, it’s someone who shouldn’t have a dog.

There is no set ranking based on when names came in. Working homes get precedence, unless there is a pup with what I think is a “pet temperament” in the litter or some special inspired personality match with a person or family. SAR homes generally get first shot, then farm work, then other practical work, then dog hobby competition. I prefer *potential* breeding homes — that is, homes where the people are open to the idea of breeding a few times if the dog is exceptional at maturity, but not where they want a dog “for breeding” per se.

Anyone who gets to this point gets a copy of the contract to look over, so there are no surprises, and I can field any questions about it in good time.

I do not take deposits until pups are born — then I know the number and genders of the pups. I don’t cash the deposits, I hold the checks. And I don’t take deposits from friends.

As they mature, I start getting a feel for matches based on pup temperament and my read of the owner needs, capabilities, and personality. Some owners I match, and some I give some constrained choices. The lady with first pick of the last litter (a fellow trainer) had her *theoretical* choice of any of the eight pups. She chose the one I told her she would when he was only four weeks old. I chose the exact pups for every other person who got one from that litter — just turned out that way this time. Only one couple did not get the pup they wanted most — they are friends, and my estimation was that they are too soft and laid back for the adorable devil pup they wanted most. I kept that one; my friends are happy with her sister.

Most applicants don’t get a definite yes until the pups are about six weeks old, and I generally don’t absolutely finalize matches until after puppy testing at seven weeks — though I’ve never gotten a big surprise at that time. So they get two weeks (minimum) lead time then about a three week window to pick up their pup. Last litter, the first left at eight weeks (with an owner who had been waiting for three years to get a Pip pup) and the last two went at 11 weeks.

Mopping up: the few disappointed good applicants for whom I had no match, I worked to get them fixed up with other breeders.

Neither orderly nor efficient, but flexible, and as accurate as I can be.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 26, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Eli —

Maybe you’d like a Kelpie?

BTW, my smallest ES is a 34 pound bitch. So I don’t think you can write them all off as “too big.” (The refugees in Billings — some of them are even smaller than Rosie. Some of the *males* are even smaller than her. But that is not normal.)

But if you like the ACD temperament and form, you might not find the ES to your specs, except perhaps the very gritty cowdog lines — and those tend to be bigger.

You might like a mountain cur, actually. Not common, but the ones I’ve met have been really cool dogs.

I know what you mean about the farmers with 15 dogs and ten cows. And all the dogs work every day. Right. Tired cows. And with ACD at those ratios, you don’t need a grinder to make hamburger.

Comment by H. Houlahan — January 26, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
Thank you, HH. I do not recall seeing it spelled out so well on your web site. (I wasn’t looking for it, at the time.) I am encouraged, also. I know folks on lists for performance lines, and am always curious about whether you “takes your pick, you takes your chances”, or if you can turn down your pick if you do not see what you have a lot of money down on.

And your response is what I imagined it would be. I’m sure it varies from breeder to breeder. Pip gave you a little devil-pup, eh?!

Here’s another question I have (not directed specifically at HH): who/what/how many breeders spell out the first 8 weeks of the litters’ life, in a contract? I am curious about training phylosophies, how much time the breeder has for the litter and bitch. (Raised in the house with the family isn’t encouraging to someone who doesn’t know your family well.)

Also, where do you see a breeder’s views on “linebreeding”? Genetic propensities and breed health? Do I have do _all_ the legwork on figuring out the ins and outs of, PRC, for example?

One brand of hip/elbow testing is opt-in, when does the breeder “opt-in”. How come I only see good or better results in your lines? Aren’t you losing the ability to track your progress if you toss the ones you don’t want to publish?

Do you have examples I can see of your breeding program that shows how you have diversified your gene pool? Have you crossed your lines with different but similar breeds? Does the question hurt your feelings?

Comment by eli — January 26, 2009 @ 2:42 pm
Kelpie - intrigued, but have heard they are the excitable cousins. Mountain cur? How many different breeding lines are there today?

Hey, ES can be smaller than I thought.

You know, if you take a gander at the Border Wars blog, a dog at home in the Fourth Estate, and lovin’ life in the Third Estate, holdin’ down the Director of Home Land Security job, at 40-50 lb, 20-22” tall, coat with the characteristics of the ACD…nimble, quick, tractable. I am determined it wouldn’t need to be an ACD, the right dog is the right dog.

I’m not an extreme sport guy, but I do enjoy flyball and spending my free time with my dogs. Blue needs more work (more than flyball 2x wk, and Chuck-It till _I_ drop), plans come through, he will get it this summer.

Keep us posted on the rescue - we have eight dogs, so will keep our contributions to resources others might use in getting these dogs placed.

Comment by eli — January 26, 2009 @ 3:07 pm
Thanks for the plug Eli. I have to agree with your core philosophy. “I’m not an extreme…”

I think that moderation is an important quality to look for in a pet and their breeder. If you look at almost all the problems in dogs, it comes from extreme philosophies and extreme practices.

The physical deformities which gave us CKCSs with too-small skulls: extreme. The GSD’s spine: extreme. Feathering and bleaching on the Goldens: extreme. The in/line breeding which have so concentrated unwanted diseases along with pretty looks or keen abilities: extreme.

Sadly, this isn’t an easy metric to apply against potential puppies and breeders. All puppies are cute and charming and many breeds only exist for activities that emphasize extremeness.

My only other tip is meet the relatives. If you’d want to take them home, odds are good you’ll like the dog.

Comment by Christopher — January 27, 2009 @ 12:01 am
I’m officially losing my mind.

I was toodling around Christie’s Pet Hobbyist site, and, out of curiosity, did a search on GSD breeders in Pennsylvania.

A couple good working dog breeders were there — AND …

The lady in Eastern PA who started out in the show ring, and now breeds very suitable and healthy pets from her original American lines and German highlines. Who I know to be ethical, careful, and forthright. Who I have known since like 1994. And who I had flat-out forgotten existed.

I’m so sorry. This is exactly the breeder I would have sent Joe Biden to. If I had a brain cell left. And if I’d been asked. Neither of which is the case, so no matter.

Comment by H. Houlahan — February 7, 2009 @ 8:45 am
I know this is an old topic, but I thought I’d post a link to a similar project in Australia - http://www.mdba.net.au/

Comment by Cait — February 8, 2009 @ 1:17 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?