AKC plays good breeders for fools
By Gina Spadafori
October 29, 2009
A while back, the top dogs at the American Kennel Club brought to their member clubs a plan to make it easier for puppy-mills“high-volume breeders” to register their widgetspuppies with what once was the best “brand”in the dog world.
The members of those member clubs, who pride themselves on being ethical, responsible breeders, responded with torches and pitchforks, and the plan seemed to be shelved.
Except apparently not.
Faced with declining registrations (and so, revenue) because of competing registries that print “papers” for puppy-mill dogs, including (gasp!) non-purebreds such as puggles, maltipoos, labradoodles and more, the AKC brass continued on course. These registries had sprung up when the AKC officially cared about dogs spending their lives in cages — or at least cared about the integrity of its records of “pure” dogs — and the millers realized as long as a dog had “papers” most pet-store buyers neither knew nor cared what organization (or dude in his basement) printed them.
Add a couple of other factors to the defection of puppy-milling scum bucks: The greater awareness of health problems associated with small gene pools common in purebred dogs and the recent cache associated with adopting a dog from a shelter or rescue group. (Both great developments, by the way!)
The problem for the AKC: It needs the money from the back shop (puppy mills) to pay to keep the display window (dog shows) decorated.
They could change their business model. But instead, they chose to help “raise the bar” on high-volume breeders — sell their failing brand to “model” operations that may be cleaner and have kennel help with more teeth and a clean smock, but that still ignore what we have known for generations now: A family pet needs to be raised in a family, not in a kennel. Because factory farmed pets have problems out the wazoo , many stemming their unfamiliarity with what a human home is really like. Even worse: The lives of the “breeding stock,” who will never know what it’s like to be a pet. Clean cages don’t fix the miserable lives of these dogs, and no true dog-lover would ever pretend they do.
Oh, and to judge from my e-mail, the AKC has also chosen to spend utter gobs on very pricey blue-ribbon PR firms to promote what’s in that display window. Because the high-volume breeders aren’t going to be interested in paying for a brand that doesn’t have a good image with consumers, are they?
How far will the AKC go to sell out ethical, reputable breeders? How little does the AKC actually care about dogs?
Go here, here and here. And be warned: It’s ugly.
Honestly, I’ve gone from hoping the AKC will reform to hoping they implode. Then maybe we can build an organization that actually does care about dogs — all dogs, even shelter dogs — as well as the preservation and protection of our heritage breeds, the celebration of and support for ethical breeding practices (including putting some fresh waster in up those disease-riddled gene pools) and working to end puppy-mills, however “high the bar” is raised for these factory farms.
The Kennel Club in the United Kingdom has shown some small signs that it cares more about dogs than “purity.” I’m still waiting for some small sign that the American Kennel Club cares more about dogs than money.
But all I keep seeing in the opposite. The rot is clear through to the core, I’m afraid.
Hat tip to Terrierman, and yes, I know the top picture made his head explode.
When blogs collide: Yes, it’s true. I’m spending the weekend at Dr. Patty Khuly’s house in … Miami. Again, thank heavens I have a good house-sitter and great neighbor, otherwise with all the critters here I’d never go anywhere. But first, to San Francisco for dinner with Christie … if I can actually get there, with the Bay Bridge situation and all.
That was the sound of my head blowing up. I am no way no how reg. my Collie wth AKC or competing in AKC events with myself or clients. APDT Rally is looking better and better. AKC in bed with HUNTE. good bye.
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — October 29, 2009 @ 8:30 am
Honestly, I’ve gone from hoping they reform to hoping they implode.
We knew you’d come over to the Dark Side eventually.
As the bumpersticker reminds us, We have cookies!
I’m a complete kennel club Bolshevik. The worse things get for them, the happier I am that the Revolution is at hand.
But not unmindful of the damage and suffering done to the innocent while the lead-filled monster grasps at straws in its drowning struggles. Ugly, ugly stuff.
I don’t think we need to build “an organization” to be the new de facto Government of Dogs. Such concentrations of power are inherently corrupt. Small is beautiful.
Breeds will do best when stewarded by independent breed clubs. Sports will do best when developed and promoted by sporting organizations. Overall animal welfare can be best served by a large number of devoted animal welfare organizations.
Decentralization will not be perfect, but it will be a huge improvement — for the animals, for breed conservation, and for the people who want and need healthy dogs who are suitable for the function for which they are acquired.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 29, 2009 @ 8:35 am
From Terrierman’s blog:
What’s the Hunte Corporation?
Simple: the Hunte Corporation is a “puppy bundler” business which gathers together very young puppies (typically 6 or 7 weeks old) from puppy mills in Missouri and around the mid-West.
These very young dogs are too young to have full immunity, and are too young for shots, but time is the enemy of the puppy industry, and so they are gathered up at a very young age and mixed together, helter-skelter, in trucks.
The dogs are then sent to a Hunte facility where they are given shots, looked over, groomed and washed, and moved out the door, as fast as possible, to a pet store near you.
Why the rush to collect such young dogs and get them out the door so fast?
Simple: puppies are like fruit; they go rotten with age.
Most people want a puppy; they do not want a dog.
An eight-week old puppy is very saleable commodity. A 12-week old puppy is not.
A 16-week old puppy will be marked down 90 percent.
——————-
This is what bothers me about Nathan Winograd’s argument that the presence of pet stores in a community means there are plenty of people looking for dogs.
No, they’re not. They’re looking for X-poo puppies.
Not year-old chowrottpittlabs.
Comment by Mary Mary — October 29, 2009 @ 8:43 am
My motto: Less hollow regulation for the beautiful people, more education for everyone.
Comment by YesBiscuit — October 29, 2009 @ 8:48 am
The AKC doesn’t mean much these days to me. I have bought AKC registered dogs from caring loving breeders doing their best, and me too trying to have a healthy happy dog, and still there are problems that break my heart. My Snoopy died at five years old for some unknown reason, maybe a heart attack, and I still call out his name at times. He is that much a part of me still in death. I tried to find someone to blame, the breeder, chance, God, and I did the best I could trying to purchase a healthy dog as heaven knows the dog breeder did care and gave me tons of information about training and raising my Doberman - she was a caring informed breeder. Having the tag AKC doesn’t mean much these days not when your heart is breaking over a life cut short. Still, I must admit, there needs to be some way to insure the health and pedigree of our pets, I just don’t know of a way to do it without problems - and what I wanted and cared about the most just didn’t happen - a long life from a healthy happy well adjusted AKC dog.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — October 29, 2009 @ 9:05 am
The thing is, while AKC means less and less, NOT having it, in a breed that’s NOT a working breed (And no, Gina, I’d actually not count your guys- Doesn’t one of the field stud books recognize flatties?- I’m thinking of my collies and breeds like the toys), is a sign to be cautious. There ARE good breeders who don’t do the ‘show’ thing and who don’t ‘play ball’ with AKC at all, but I think they’re surpassingly rare!
Comment by Cait — October 29, 2009 @ 9:21 am
For over a decade now I have selectively chosen dogs of breeds that aren’t recognized by AKC. Their obscenely out-dated ideas of eugenic purity and form over function ceased to make sense decades ago - but they hold on to them more tenaciously than terriers.
Many AKC-recognized breeds would be greatly improved by [gasp!] out-crossing. All of them would be improved by tossing out existing breed standards that focus purely on shallow (and often dysfunctional) points of conformation and breeding dogs purely for health, temperament and purpose.
Like Gina, I’d love to see the AKC go down in flames. And when they do, I’ll bring the marshmallows.
Comment by Janeen — October 29, 2009 @ 9:23 am
of course this seems horrible (and probably is), and I have no desire to defend AKC or high volume breeders.
But it sure would be nice if ANY of the bloggers would have considered asking AKC to comment. Just to pretend to do a little of that journalism thing.
Comment by EmilyS — October 29, 2009 @ 9:36 am
My comment section is wide open.
Even Ron Menaker is welcome to comment.
I’d love to hear the explanation.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 29, 2009 @ 9:48 am
When you try to bash Icons…I’ve been questioning what good the AKC is and what they actually do for animals beyond going to courts across the US to kill puppy mill legislation or any new laws that protect animals from cruelty.
I actually had a reader tell me it was preposterous of me to say that AKC or it’s field offices could be against cruelty laws…had to list the complaint plea filing in response…assumptions are the undoing of us all. That poster…those poor dogs.
Comment by Mary Haight — October 29, 2009 @ 10:00 am
Emily, thank you for attempting to edjumacate me on “that journalism thing.” Having not only practiced it for a living for 30 years plus but also taught it at the college level, I sure appreciate the help.
However, getting “the other side” isn’t all there is to journalism — and informed commentary is part of journalism.
Note the observations of the late, great Russell Baker, who once pointed out that the truth is not served by reporting on the Holocaust by asking the Nazis for their side of the story.
And yes, our comments section is open, although it will be up to poor Christie to manage it this weekend. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 29, 2009 @ 10:14 am
This registry is desperate. It is losing what we poltical scientists call institutional legitimacy. Of course, it lost that long ago when it claimed to be both the main quality control organization for purebred dogs and “just a registry.” Whenever bad people do bad things, the AKC won’t get involved because it’s just a registry. When people want to have those normal uric acid Dalmatians registered that have been backcrossed with pointers, the AKC says no way— because it hurts the integrity of the breed.
The AKC has said “it’s just a registry” so many times that it has created a new market for puppy mill paper mill registries in this country, registries that make no pretense of being a quality control or a consumer information organization. Breed your dog to a hyena (which is not possible, BTW), and we’ll register it!
Those registries have cut into the AKC’s market, and the puppy mills really like them because they can do designer mutts and get them registered.
So the AKC has come back to the puppy mills, offering them a better service. Of course, if this became more widely known, it will probably be the thing that kills of what legitimacy the registry has left.
About balance— sometimes there are multiple sides to every story. But not always. The unfortunate thing that has happened in American journalism is that offering the two established viewpoints in a piece has been deemed good journalism. I don’t think the public is served by that false sense of balance. Sometimes one side is very, very wrong. And a good journalist should expose it.
The AKC knows it’s wrong in this, but the money will come in for a while. I’m sure that if anyone contacted the AKC about this issue, you’d get nothing but PR and stonewalling.
Comment by retrieverman — October 29, 2009 @ 10:55 am
ah, Godwin’s law already.. guess we’re not going to even try to learn what AKC’s “side” might be. Ok!
Comment by EmilyS — October 29, 2009 @ 11:18 am
My head did not explode. Instead my heart swelled seeing you — once again, and always — stand for the dogs. Thank you!
The dogs deserve a better start than the AKC is willing to give them.
The dogs deserve better representation than the AKC does give them.
The puppy mill industry is working to buy the AKC lock-stock-and-smoking barrel. And they are succeeding because the AKC is morally bankrupt and moving closer to real bankruptcy too.
The only antidote is to get out the word. If dog owners will stand together and say NO MORE, then this kind of nonsense will stop.
If we do not do that, then America gets the kind of AKC it deserves — and the kind that teh dogs do NOT deserve.
Patrick
Comment by PBurns — October 29, 2009 @ 11:18 am
You might want to recheck your understanding of what Godwin’s Law is.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 29, 2009 @ 11:22 am
This also opens the flood gates for poor back yard breeders to not campaign their dogs and not adhere to anything and be even more accepted by the unknowing. BLEK
Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — October 29, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Mary Haight wrote:
“When you try to bash Icons…I’ve been questioning what good the AKC is and what they actually do for animals beyond going to courts across the US to kill puppy mill legislation or any new laws that protect animals from cruelty.”
How about this, just for starters?
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3964
There’s lots more like it.
Can you point me a single 2009 “puppy mill” bill that wasn’t a trojan horse attack on responsible hobby breeders, boarding kennels, training kennels, guide/assistance dog breeding programs, hunting kennels, or law enforcement dog suppliers?
BTW, these bills weren’t attacked in the courts, but in legislatures.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 11:50 am
“When people want to have those normal uric acid Dalmatians registered that have been backcrossed with pointers, the AKC says no way— because it hurts the integrity of the breed.”
Actually, the AKC said yes. It was the Dalmatian breed club that said no.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 11:52 am
“Decentralization will not be perfect, but it will be a huge improvement — for the animals, for breed conservation, and for the people who want and need healthy dogs who are suitable for the function for which they are acquired.”
True in most respects. But decentralization is a problem when it comes to fighting bad dog legislation. When it comes to influencing legislators, name recognition matters.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Nancy … this is certainly a problem. I don’t know how to fix it, and for the time being, I’m still planning to work towards a championship and working titles for puppy Faith. And those will be through the AKC.
Almost all the people I know who are doing things right — the reputable, ethical breeders — are still using the AKC. I get a lot not from the AKC, but from our breed club, which is extremely active in the peer-pressure area for responsible, ethical breeding to keep our working retrievers working and (we hope to God!) healthier at some point. (Which will likely require outcrossing, and I think we will see the day.)
If anyone has any near-term suggestions … I sure love to hear them discussed.
I wish the UKC would step up. Paging Wayne Cavanaugh …
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 29, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Can you point me a single 2009 “puppy mill” bill that wasn’t a trojan horse attack on responsible hobby breeders, boarding kennels, training kennels, guide/assistance dog breeding programs, hunting kennels, or law enforcement dog suppliers?
BTW, these bills weren’t attacked in the courts, but in legislatures.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009
No, I can’t. Whether the intent is veiled or overt, these laws have not given a damn about the collateral damage to reputable, ethical breeders or the preservation of working ability in dogs.
I have I told just about anyone who will listen, I will support no law that purports to “save” animals that doesn’t start with input from all reputable shareholders.
There are too many of us who are bloody well sick and tired of the “if yer not with us yet agin’ us” bloviating. One does not have to be a sekrit PETA mole to see that there’s something wrong with high-volume dog breeding. One does not have to be a “greeder” to see that mandatory spay-neuter is an absolute and utter failure that doesn’t fix the problem it purports to solve.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 29, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
“I wish the UKC would step up. Paging Wayne Cavanaugh …”
For all AKC’s problems, they are a 501(c)4 non-profit governed by an elected Board of Directors and club delegates. AKC breed standards are owned by its breed clubs.
UKC is worse. Despite its name, UKC is not a kennel club at all. UKC is a privately-owned for profit business. UKC breed standards are owned by UKC, which has a history of ignoring its breed club’s wishes re: breed standards and a lot of other things.
UKC threw my breed (English Shepherds) under the bus. Rather long story, but it was instigated by Wayne Cavanaugh. The ES breed club started our own single breed registry because of Mr. Cavanaugh’s actions with respect to our breed.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 12:23 pm
“I wish the UKC would step up. Paging Wayne Cavanaugh …”
What she said.
Wayne Cavanaugh bought the UKC upon leaving his post as Vice President for atrocity justification at the AKC.
Oh, and as far as we know, our favorite English shepherd puppymiller, now convicted of felony animal cruelty, and with well-established falsification of registration and pedigree records, has not had her ability to register dogs with the UKC revoked.
Yes, we told them.
No, they did not reply.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 29, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
Except, one other thing, the bus that the UKC threw the English shepherd under — they were also driving it.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 29, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Suggestions? Alternatives?
Most of the regulars here know how to find a good breeder (if they want a particular breed) or a good rescue group/shelter (if they want to adopt).
Most of my readers don’t. Trust me on this.
How do we help them? Where do we send them? If we’re filing the demolition permit, I want to see the building permit, too, for what we plan to replace the old structure with.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 29, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
“I have I told just about anyone who will listen, I will support no law that purports to “save” animals that doesn’t start with input from all reputable shareholders.”
I agree with you Gina, except what do we do when breeders (even good breeders) won’t even TALK to animal welfare people/groups? I’m not talking spay/neuter laws, I’m talking puppy mills. AKC campaigns against every bit of legislation out there that would bring some small relief to mill dogs, and breeders are right there with them (maybe not knowing that they are acting as puppy mill frontmen and women, but that’s what they are doing)
AKC and too many breeders point out what is wrong with a certain bill, but don’t seem to have any suggestions of their own or desire to have a conversation about it. Remember how how breeders tried to eat their own when the Nashville Kennel Club was working with legislators (and the Humane Society) on puppy mill legislation this year?
Or how about this little beauty when an AKC judge supported anti-puppy mill legislation:
http://www.thedogpress.com/Sid.....uspend.asp
I’m glad some breeders (is it too hopeful to say many breeders?) are waking up to the AKC and how BAD they are for dogs trapped in mills. Now that they are awake, are they willing to speak out and not blindly follow AKC and their NAIA brand of animal (ab)use to actually help dogs?
I sure hope so - the dogs need us working TOGETHER.
cautiously optimistic…
Comment by BestDog Mom — October 29, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
“Most of my readers don’t. Trust me on this.
How do we help them? Where do we send them? If we’re filing the demolition permit, I want to see the building permit, too, for what we plan to replace the old structure with.”
Thank you, Gina. Been asking myself that since PB blogged on the issue.
I’m not “into” dogs, breeding sounds like a lot of thankless work. I don’t want to be an experienced evaluator/raiser/trainer of dogs. I just want my dog, and I want it to be healthy, physically and mentally capable, free of the garbage harbored by AKC-recognized breed clubs. Because I do want to engage in strenuous activities with it.
There is no “third-party” pedigree, health, and performance registry from which to start. Not because good can’t be gleaned from what exists, but because I have no desire to do the ampount of research retrieverman has done, for instance, in order to ascertain where I might locate a dog bred for the right reasons.
Some breed specific clubs/associations come about due to political/philosophical schisms. All rely on select few individuals to preserve the work in posterity. I do not think a breed club can succeed in this respect, by itself. Interest in specific breeds come and go; small associations die out when the last member who cares kicks the bucket.
I agree with the concepts HH espouses, but differ in regards to the need for a registry.
I think breeders need an independant registry. One that is not in the business of promoting its contents. A registry that can not set breed standards, performance standards, or health standards. Let the breed clubs say what they want. The registry and independant sporting/working/etc associations will speak for the dog. A registry that allows for the public to research health, lineage, and performance. A registry that can serve as a starting point for finding breeders that are “doin’ it right”.
And furthermore, let it be a “multi-level registry”: a) proven/certified breeding stock, b)sterilized offspring & potential breeding stock, c) out-cross program, and d) all others.
Comment by eli — October 29, 2009 @ 1:48 pm
“AKC campaigns against every bit of legislation out there that would bring some small relief to mill dogs, and breeders are right there with them (maybe not knowing that they are acting as puppy mill frontmen and women, but that’s what they are doing)
“AKC and too many breeders point out what is wrong with a certain bill, but don’t seem to have any suggestions of their own or desire to have a conversation about it.”
Look, just because legislation is packaged as only affecting cruel puppy mills doesn’t make that the truth.
None of the 2009 puppy mill bills I read were about stopping cruel puppy mill abuses. These bills said little or nothing about the care and condition of dogs. They were sweeping statewide limit laws that would have affected many others, including responsible hobby breeders, boarding kennels, training kennels, guide/assistance dog breeding programs, hunting kennels, law enforcement dog suppliers, etc.
In the case of California’s 2009 puppy mill bill, I know for a fact that responsible dog breeders and subject matter experts told the bill sponsor’s office about these consequences with plenty of time for them to do something about it. But nothing changed. They don’t believe it.
They didn’t even believe Canine Companions for Independence (CCI).
Some of us fought these bills because, ya know, we read and understood the bills.
So now we see Judie Mancuso crying about the governor’s veto of AB 241: “This is obviously a cop out for his special interest friends. AB 241 did absolutely nothing to hamper raising service and assistance dogs, nothing!”
What hubris.
Judie knows absolutely nothing about assistance dog breeding and raising programs and refuses to learn. Gawd knows, some of us have tried.
Guess what Judie, the Governor decided that CCI knows more about assistance dog breeding and raising than you do.
It’s not true that breeders and dog owners aren’t involved. They work to get law enforcement authorities to crack down on puppy mill abuses. They turn them in, and insist that action be taken.
Cause guess what, the abuses that are highlighted by the promoters of puppy mill bills are already illegal. In many cases the abuses are already felonies.
Often times the local authorities know about these abuses but don’t get involved. More legislation isn’t needed to enforce existing laws.
Some of us would like to see existing anti-cruelty laws enforced. Would that fix everything that’s wrong with these breeding operations? Nope, but it would fix the worst of the abuses.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 3:43 pm
Eli, I never said that breeders and buyers don’t need a registry. I am very pro-registry. I’m all about registries.
I just don’t think they need an all-breed one-size-fits-all registry.
Single-breed registries run by membership-based non-profit breed associations are the rule in all other species of domestic animals except cats. Where they have been employed for dog breeds, they’ve worked a damn sight better than any overarching “kennel club.”
ASCA, JRTCA, ABCA, CKCSCA — all have watched their viable single-breed registries get swamped by the 800 pound gorilla. But some have survived, and some are still the main and respected registries for their breeds.
In the aftermath of the UKC’s bus-pushing of the English shepherd, the ESC was able to found a highly successful new registry that is member-owned, accountable, and sets the gold standard for the information that can be mined from its online database. We did this in a few years with all-volunteer labor and leadership.
Folks, it is just not that hard. Not one tenth as hard as the other projects that consume the members of the registry committee — such as fighting mandatory sterilization laws or pulling off a massive puppy-mill rescue. (Yep — exact same individuals.)
Years ago the Wirehaired Pointing Griffon Club made the decision to break away from AKC and form their own registry, with an open studbook and performance requirements for registration. This has been a success, and there’s quite a waiting list for pups from registered parents. So it’s not just for breeds that the ACK has never gotten their mitts onto.
Comment by H. Houlahan — October 29, 2009 @ 4:22 pm
Laura s I am with you on getting current laws enforced! Unfortunately, most of those laws are cruelty laws, and I don’t think dogs should have to suffer to the point of meeting a cruelty definition before someone can help (that’s IF they can get on the property to see the cruelty to report it to whatever agency can enforce it).
I’m all for letting small breeders do it right, but I think we need laws that allow someone to go in to these bigger places and check on the dogs. Those dogs shouldn’t have to wait for things to get “cruel”.
Dogs do not belong in cages.
Comment by BestDog Mom — October 29, 2009 @ 5:57 pm
BestDog Mom, so far, these laws haven’t been written to allow small breeders to operate—not in the real world, at least. Maybe in the minds of people who think everyone who breeds is doing it for the money. In the real world, the exemptions and licenses provided for have been mainly available to the puppy millers. If vigorously enforced, they would result in clean puppy mills—and the animals would never get out of their cages, lest they encounter something not allowed for in the rules. Like grass or mud or anything they might encounter inside a normal human home.
BTW, having the link “http://none” in your name doesn’t add to the sense that we’re talking with a good-faith participant rather than an AKC or Hunte Corp. shill.
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 5:12 am
I agree with you Gina, except what do we do when breeders (even good breeders) won’t even TALK to animal welfare people/groups? I’m not talking spay/neuter laws, I’m talking puppy mills. AKC campaigns against every bit of legislation out there that would bring some small relief to mill dogs, and breeders are right there with them (maybe not knowing that they are acting as puppy mill frontmen and women, but that’s what they are doing)
That’s because the laws are written so as to allow puppy millers to pay their license fees and continue operating with almost no change, while devastating responsible breeders for whom breeding is not a business and who don’t have multiple dozens of puppies every year to “spread the cost” over.
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 5:15 am
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 5:12 am
BTW, having the link “http://none” in your name doesn’t add to the sense that we’re talking with a good-faith participant rather than an AKC or Hunte Corp. shill.
I’m not sure, but I think maybe that just happens if you don’t have a website and therefore type “none” in the “Website” box. I tried it here to check out that theory.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 5:55 am
Yup! That’s what happened!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 5:55 am
So I’ve been unfair to BestDog Mom. My apologies.
Lis
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 6:10 am
thansk - and the OTHER Pat is right, I don’t have a website or a blog to refer you all to. (Although I’m terribly impressed by those who find the time to HAVE a blog on top of jobs and life and such!)
We can certainly agree to disagree on the value of proposed laws. My frustration sits with the way these efforts play out…an “animal group” works to pass a bill which is opposed across the board by fools from the puppy mill industry but also by really great breeders. I just wish those really great breeders would reach out to the animal groups and say “hey, appreciate your desire to shut down puppy mills, maybe we could talk about other ideas to do that because I personally think you’re going about it all wrong” rather than just public fighting about wanting to stop breeding or whatever the specific accusation or assumption might be.
As for being a front-woman for Hunte or AKC…well the thought of that made me barf on my keyboard. And that I assure you is worse than what Christie had to go through with Borzoi fur!
Comment by BestDog Mom — October 30, 2009 @ 8:21 am
BestDogMom wrote:
I just wish those really great breeders would reach out to the animal groups and say “hey, appreciate your desire to shut down puppy mills, maybe we could talk about other ideas to do that because I personally think you’re going about it all wrong”
Believe me we have. Publicly, privately, through lobbyists, through other legislators. We’ve heard sponsors promise other legislators to work with us on the bill. Nada. I won’t speculate as to why, but at least in California the sponsors of these bills are not willing to talk to other stakeholders. Not even after promising to do so. Go figure.
Comment by Grahund — October 30, 2009 @ 8:53 am
Gina - you can’t have it both ways. You came out all gung ho for AKC Mixed Breeds and they announced in the last Board Minutes that already 800 have been “listed” for $35 a pop. Guess what? We already know that the millers turn out “hybrids” so encouraging AKC to have mixed breeds on the rolls makes even more money for the millers and AKC. It is a lot cheaper and a lot less hassle to mill mixed breeds than purebreds - and the pet shops sell them too. So, coming or going, when one gets a puppy from the pet shop - purebred or mixed - it will now have AKC “papers.”
Comment by ruthie — October 30, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
LauraS,
Can you please start your own blog? Your posts are always factual and accurate. Some of the time Gina is right on. Lately though I’m beginning to wonder if someone slipped something into her drink. Gina, what exactly do you propose should happen when the “good” breeders supply only 10% of the puppies that are desired by the US population? Do you know a lot of people that suddenly want to get into the money losing business known as ethical dog breeding~especially in this economy? I sure don’t. In fact, most people think I’m nuts for having more than two dogs in my house. Where does this other 90% come from? The puppy tree? Right…..such a thing doesn’t exist. Do they get imported? How do we know they are being raised any better overseas? (Hint: they are not.) Before knocking AKC for registering puppies from high volume breeders I would suggest coming up with a way to obtain these puppies for the other 90% of the population that wants them (or maybe they just shouldn’t have them???)
Comment by Lisa — October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Lisa, we have blogged about this before. I lay out my thoughts on the numbers here.
Family pets should come from family homes. If we stop stigmatizing and demonizing breeding, and welcome and embrace home-based breeders, we can supply the demand for dogs in the United States without having to raise future family pets like livestock.
And before you say that’s a tall order, yes, it is, but it can be done.
Unlike “fixing” high volume breeding, which is by definition impossible to do.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 3:42 pm
Some of the time Gina is right on. Lately though I’m beginning to wonder if someone slipped something into her drink.
Comment by Lisa — October 30, 2009
Thanks for the laugh.
Nope, nothing chemical involved. The difference is that I THINK about the issues instead of grabbing a position, building a wall and lashing out like a wounded dog when approached with a new idea.
I see too much of that, on both sides.
I’m tired of everyone being against something. I would like us to find some common ground and be FOR something. Like the building of no-kill communities.
There are some non-negotiables, to be sure. For me, those are NO mandatory spay-neuter and NO factory farming of family companions. (Actually, I’m against factory farming completely, for reasons expressed before here that go far beyond the problems with livestock handling.)
There’s a lot of room between those two points.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 4:18 pm
Ruthie, the AKC mixed breed program requires that mixed breed animals be spayed/neutered, so, no, no one will be breeding from AKC-registered mixed breed dogs.
Lisa, no amount of faux breast-beating about overseas mills and people unable to get dogs will change the fact that breeding dogs as livestock, treating especially the small breeds no differently than battery hens, and churning out large numbers of puppies from breeding stock that isn’t health screened, taking them from their mothers at five weeks of age so that they reach pet stores at maximum cuteness, and sending them into family homes with no prior exposure to anything they will encounter there, is not the way to produce healthy, happy family pets who will warm the lives of the families they join.
Meanwhile, there’s a large and largely untapped resource of almost-good breeders, BYBs who love their dogs, take good care of them, raise the puppies inside with the family, and at least try to screen buyers and place the puppies in safe, loving, appropriate homes. Many of these people are potentially receptive to educational efforts that are respectful rather than confrontational, to learning how to care for their dogs a little better, what additional health screening they should do, how they can improve their screening and their contracts so that the puppies are better protected. One of these people turned up on Dogster this past week, initially with some questions because she wasn’t comfortable with the reassuring answer her vet had given her about a concern with her bitch who is currently pregnant.
The discussion nearly went bad, because this woman is clearly a BYB, but cooler heads prevailed, and in the ensuing discussion it became clear that she’s doing a lot of things right, and is very receptive to learning more and doing better. This included some tweaks to her currently pretty good contract, which does require spay/neuter and does require that the dog be returned if the buyer for any reason can’t keep it.
These almost-good breeders who’d like to be better are out there, but because really good breeders are on the defensive, fighting so hard to distinguish themselves from millers and irresponsible BYBs who don’t care about their own dogs or where the puppies wind up, they get denounced rather than mentored most of the time.
So, no, I don’t believe I have to agree to having dogs live their whole lives in tiny cages, or else join with PETA in calling for the complete elimination of pet-keeping. Or relegate it to an elite luxury, either, for that matter.
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 4:24 pm
Before knocking AKC for registering puppies from high volume breeders I would suggest coming up with a way to obtain these puppies for the other 90% of the population that wants them (or maybe they just shouldn’t have them???)
Comment by Lisa — October 30, 2009 @ 3:35 pm
Yes, maybe they just shouldn’t have them. There’s an idea. A large percentage of people not getting a puppy until this whole mess is resolved. Encouraging less consumption of that “product.” Suggesting that maybe we can go without. Or getting a DOG instead. Promote the idea that there is a price beyond the money to pay for insisting on a puppy instead of “settling” for a DOG.
Which I guess I already said way up in the third comment.
Comment by Mary Mary — October 30, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
I think that would be a very bad idea, Mary Mary.
One, it’s the bond with animals that makes people give a hoot what happens to them. It’s what makes them volunteer at and donate to shelters or rescues. It’s what makes them show compassion for animals, even develop empathic bonds.
Two, by encouraging less “consumption of the product,” as you put it, you’re using a message exactly counter to the one used by successful shelter and rescue marketing efforts, ie, the idea that having a pet is a wonderful thing and brings great benefits to people. We’re trying to GROW the market, not shrink it! That’s how we’ll get shelter animals into homes.
There are enough homes out there that we can promote shelter/rescue pets AND lovingly home-bred pets. We don’t need to discourage the very people who could be our animals’ future families.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
Mary Mary — what Christie said, me too.
Lisa — nope, no blogging for me. I will continue to occasionally throw my 2 cents in.
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
Ok, now I have to add some reality to the situation with the CA puppy mill bill, which I personally worked harder than anyone to pass.
On many occasions the author’s office reached out to opponents and we all wanted to discuss options with stakeholders.
However in each case the response was clear that opponents simply wanted to kill the bill. In no discussion and in none of the myriad public hearings did an opponent offer an alternative to our cap approach.
The guide dog breeder concerns were baseless. The bill only covered people who sell pets. Guide dogs aren’t sold (they’re given away) and they are not pets (they’re working dogs). But a simple request to the author to exempt them specifically would likely have been approved and resulted in an amendment to that effect. They never offered it.
Everyone who testified against the bill and even the Gov in his veto message admitted puppy mills are a problem. And it’s part of my job (and commitment) to find a solution.
What’s your solution? No time like now to speak up. Here, via email, over coffee. I’m all ears.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
Until very recently, I believed that the only thing that will end the puppy mill trade is if it becomes unprofitable because people know not to buy from pet stores. Now, with the Internet, it’s become kind of muddied. Growing numbers of high volume breeders are selling direct to the consumer through the Internet.
However, there are multiple kinds of high volume breeders. There are big mega-corporations and aggregators, like Hunte. There are small, dirty little facilities that sell to larger brokers and pet store chains. There are big, sterile corporate factory puppy farms. There are small “puppy farms” with a couple dozen breeds who sell locally.
It’s a much more diverse marketplace now. However, banning third party sales of pet dogs and cats would go a long way towards ending the sale of dogs and cats through pet stores, which are a huge part of the problem.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 6:03 pm
However, Mary Mary’s point about dogs v.s. puppies is well-taken.
I find that a lot of people I have run into simply assume that if you’re in the market for a dog, that you get a puppy. It literally hasn’t occurred to a lot of them to consider an adult (I’m including older puppy and young adult in this) instead. Or if it has occurred to them, they think that you can’t bond with a dog unless you start from when the dog is a puppy.
I’ve had pretty good success in introducing the “non-puppy” concept, especially when I outline all the ways that a “non-puppy” can be easier to handle (i.e. sleeping through the night, possibly past teething, sometimes already housetrained, etc.). And it helps that I can use the example of my own dog - obtained at the age of 15 months - to show them how well it can turn out.
It’s not just a matter of saying “Don’t get a puppy!”. Rather, it’s sometimes as simple as saying “Have you considered some of the other options?”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 6:07 pm
No third party sales of dogs and cats.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009
Christie … how would that work? I assume the ownership of puppy-mill dogs is transferred sequentially — miller to broker to retailer to puppy buyer?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
The city of south lake tahoe banned retail store sales of dogs and cats earlier this year. I admit the idea seemed like a good one. No reputable breeder would sell through a retail third party, right?
Let’s keep this discussion going. More ideas?
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 6:22 pm
I always thought that banning retail store sales was a pretty obvious idea and never could figure out why that approach wasn’t a “gimme”. Anyone know why not?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Ethical, reputable breeders want to know where our puppies and kittens go, that’s for sure.
But wouldn’t “no retail sales” in California just push people to direct-to-public puppy-mill internet sales sites?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
Gina, as I recall (RE: AKC transfer of ownership), there is a different document that is filled out when a dog is simply changing hands than the paperwork that is filled out when the “actual owner” registers the dog (wish I could think of the name of the document).
So it would seem that if you required that only someone who held the actual registration of the dog were permitted to sell it, that you’d make it one step harder for the brokers to operate.
Of course, that only applies to AKC paperwork. I’m sure the puppy-mill registries issue ownership papers at the drop of the hat, and I’m not sure how you’d craft fair and workable legislation that singled out one registry.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 6:42 pm
On many occasions the author’s office reached out to opponents and we all wanted to discuss options with stakeholders.
Really? Truly? Because it seems to me that Gina and Christie had something else to say, at the time.
However in each case the response was clear that opponents simply wanted to kill the bill. In no discussion and in none of the myriad public hearings did an opponent offer an alternative to our cap approach.
The guide dog breeder concerns were baseless. The bill only covered people who sell pets. Guide dogs aren’t sold (they’re given away) and they are not pets (they’re working dogs). But a simple request to the author to exempt them specifically would likely have been approved and resulted in an amendment to that effect. They never offered it.
What about provisions that would really, truly have protected responsible breeders? License fees for intact animals that weren’t based on the assumption that a “breeder” is in business and can easily pass on the cost of the license to customers by spreading it over the dozens of puppies that commercial breeders—but not responsible breeders—produce and sell? That couldn’t be raised arbitrarily by local authorities? Provisions that would protect the small-scale breeder from having their animals seized and forcibly sterilized based on a single mistake—quite possibly made by the meter reader rather than the dog owner? Was that on the table too, if only opponents had asked?
Everyone who testified against the bill and even the Gov in his veto message admitted puppy mills are a problem. And it’s part of my job (and commitment) to find a solution.
You won’t shut down puppy mills by writing, sponsoring, supporting, campaigning for legislation whose provisions target the responsible breeder, would make it impossible for anyone who cared about their dogs to continue breeding, while making it easy for millers to deal with the fees as a cost of doing business.
What’s your solution? No time like now to speak up. Here, via email, over coffee. I’m all ears.
Ban third-party sales. Responsible breeders and the better variety of BYBs don’t do third-party sales, ever. At an absolute minimum, ban pet store sales. All pet store puppies and kittens come from breeders who do not care diddly-squat what happens to their animals—and pet stores rely on impulse purchasers.
Exempting pet stores and puppy mills, excuse me, “USDA-licensed commercial breeders,” from the incovenient provisions of these proposed laws reveals the true agenda of the people behind them.
Comment by Lis — October 30, 2009 @ 6:43 pm
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 6:40 pm
But wouldn’t “no retail sales” in California just push people to direct-to-public puppy-mill internet sales sites?
Remember - multi-pronged problems require multi-pronged solutions. Every little bit harder you make it for the puppy farmers and puppy retailers is a step in the right direction.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 6:44 pm
I wasn’t even thinking of registries, AKC or otherwise … but rather LEGAL ownership.
Someone will come in here and elaborate on this, I’m sure, but I believe AKC registered ownership hasn’t been the final call in court cases where the ownership of a dogs is in dispute and other elements are in play (such as one party has physical possession of the animal, veterinary records, licenses, etc.). And there have been some nasty ownership fights, one of which I know you have a passing familiarity, although thankfully at the lovely distance of not being involved.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Lis is absolutely correct. In fact, a suggestion I made to make the “puppy-mill bill” remove language that specified “intact animals” was dismissed out of hand.
Now, you may say that I’m not a “stakeholder,” as in, I’m not the AKC. But I know for a fact that this was brought up in discussion and the obsession of the other side with the idea that you cannot be a responsible pet-owner if your pet has gonads doomed the discussion. Even though the change would have in fact addressed problems with animal hoarding and rescues that are unable to keep it together because they have more pets than they can care for.
And even though that ONE CHANGE would have gone a long way to showing reputable, ethical breeders that the other side isn’t gunning for them, but rather is looking for common ground.
As stated on countless occasions — too many to count, really — I believe most people are better off choosing to spay/neuter their pets. But it should be a choice, since it does have medical ramifications for individual animals. And because a medical decision for MY animal should be mine to make, after consulting with MY veterinarian.
“You’re a bad pet owner if you don’t neuter” is one freeway exit short of “we’re going to make you a better pet-owner by FORCING you to spay-neuter” in the minds of many activists. The idea that you can be responsible and own an intact pet just can’t get through to them, just as the idea that all breeders are not the same can’t. We’re all “greeders” to these folks — and we help push this idea along by defending puppy-milling scum.
Almost all of my pets have been and will be altered. I encourage people to spay-neuter. I support pay-to-spay and other ways to get more pets neutered.
But I guarantee you that my intact male retriever does not roam, does not have behavior problems and has not sired any accidental litters. How did I manage this miracle? Training, fencing and a leash.
And yet, hardly a day goes by when I take him out that someone doesn’t “helpfully” point out that he has his testicles and lecture me about them.
Really? I didn’t know he still had his balls. Thanks for pointing it out. Is there a problem? No? Then STFU.
***
As for service dogs and working dogs, remember many of these do not come through organizations but rather through reputable breeders. They are also trained by people who also do not work for an organization. When they are not working, many of these animals do double-duty as pets, in that they live as part of a family.
I honestly have no problem with the concept of a “cap” statewide as long as it is not aimed solely at “intact” animals and also means that municipal pet limits are lifted to conform to state law. If I lived two miles east of here, I’d be required to have one fewer pet. Does that make me a better neighbor or a better citizen than living where I can have the number of pets I do? Of course not.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
What does a limit on sterilized animals have to do with high volume breeding? The focus of the bill was on high volume breeders.
Frankly I see the obsession of “the other side” with any mention of the word sterilized/intact as equally problematic as the obsession you say “my side” has with it.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 7:55 pm
Oh, and Gina, small reputable guide dog breeders would have had nothing to worry about with a 50-adult cap.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 7:57 pm
Jennifer, AB 241 sponsor Assemblymember Nava’s office was unwilling to do anything with the opposition input from key stakeholders in the process. I saw the back and forth dialogue. I know this happened.
I have evidence suggesting that Nava’s office was paralyzed as a result of Judie Mancuso’s unfortunate involvement, since she has some strange power to prevent legislators who carry her bills from treating ANYBODY in the opposition with even a shred of respect.
Nobody can work with legislators who treat them with utter disdain. It just cannot work.
Canine Companions for Independence really does know more about service dog breeding and raising than anybody else involved in AB 241 knows. They are the subject matter experts. It was CCI who voiced the service dog concern about AB 241 the most, and directly to Assemblymember Nava’s office. CCI (understandably) does not wish to see any bill passed that could be interpreted to make their work illegal.
Brushing off CCI’s concerns displays the same disdain that most subject matter experts experience when they oppose animal legislation. CCI got treated no differently than the pitchfork-wielding black helicopter crowd.
AB 241 specifies that it applies to those who have 50 or more intact dogs for breeding pets. And yet exemptions were spelled out in the bill for 3 groups — research facilities, veterinary facilities, and rescue/shelter groups — none of which breed ANY dogs that end up in the pet market. The reason these exemptions are needed is because the bill is fundamentally vague. AB 241 defines offenders as CRIMINALS, and the dividing line between law-abiding citizens and criminals is a difficult to prove “purpose” for having intact dogs.
Trying to prove one’s purpose for keeping intact dogs isn’t for breeding pets is darn near impossible in an environment where it is commonly asserted by the animal welfare community and others that the only reason anyone would have an intact dog is to crank out puppies for the pet market. AB 241 sponsor Judie Mancuso makes that abundantly clear with her not uncommon “they’re all one and the same” flame-throwing hatred for all breeders.
AB 241 validates my point by including exemptions for three types of organizations that have more than 50 intact dogs even though none of them have a purpose of breeding to produce pets. If what I am saying wasn’t true, these exemptions would not have been necessary in the bill. The fact that these exemptions exist at all in AB 241 is likely to be interpreted by local animal control authorities to mean that everybody who isn’t explicitly listed as exempt falls under the ban.
Now let’s take the case of service dog organizations like CCI, who were not exempted in AB 241. They have a lot more than 50 intact dogs, and 65% of the puppies CCI produces in their breeding program wash out as service dogs and end up going to pet homes [this is among the things one can learn if one treats stakeholders with respect].
I wouldn’t be surprised if CCI produces more pet dogs than any other breeding operation in California, more than any of the “puppy mills” in the state. Of course to many in the animal welfare community, CCI is a puppy mill.
It would have been easier for the three groups that somehow managed to get exemptions in AB 241 to claim the bill doesn’t apply to them than it would be for CCI, since most of the many pups CCI produces do go to pet homes while in the case of the three others, either none of their pups end up in pet homes or they don’t breed at all.
The animal welfare community’s most common answer to CCI’s concern is that there’s no excuse for CCI to breed at all, they should get their dogs from shelters. This attitude is not uncommon among animal control authorities, the people who interpret and enforce laws like AB 241 would have created.
Is it any wonder *WHY* CCI would feel vulnerable?
That’s just the tip of the iceberg. Who here can say with a straight face that a 4 month old puppy is an adult? Do we really want that enshrined in California state law?
Then there’s the fact that AB 241 said nothing about being limited to PLACES with 50 or more intact dogs. Don’t we all recognize that a “puppy mill” is a “concentrated breeding operation”, where all the dogs are housed in one place? Beyond that criterion we may disagree on how to define them, but I think we all agree on at least that point. Yet that’s not what AB 241 says.
Many responsible breeders place their pups on co-ownership contracts of some form or another. Eight litters of seven pups each, sold under co-ownership contacts into 56 different carefully-screened pet homes spread out all over California, would make a breeder a criminal under AB 241. Why would a “puppy mill bill” be written to ban this sort of thing? Because it’s got Judie Mancuso’s hatred for “they’re all one and the same” breeders all over it.
This too was pointed out to Nava’s office. They not only didn’t do anything to mitigate it, they expanded the net of lawbreakers to include anybody who aides, abets, councils, or assists these responsible breeders. Great, so now the veterinarians, breed clubs, breed registries, and bloggers who aide, abet, council, or assist these responsible breeders would be lawbreakers too (er, Gina & Christie). Jennifer, you do not strike me as deranged that you would do this. If this vindictive language isn’t Mancuso’s handiwork, I don’t know what is.
[Suggestion: Do us ALL a favor, and ditch Mancuso. Don’t believe me. Ask legislators’ staff in Sacramento who have had to work with her over the past few years]
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 8:25 pm
“On many occasions the author’s office reached out to opponents and we all wanted to discuss options with stakeholders”
The willingness of some stakeholders to work with legislators is what led to the break in California’s no- BSL law, to allow MSN for pit bulls. Many people regard that as a betrayal by those stakeholders.
Negotiating over a bad bill is usually a disastrous, no win tactic. If you negotiate, you lose part of what you believe in, and if you don’t you get comments like Jennifer Fearing’s, accusing you of not participating.
If it’s a bad bill, and you have no trust relationship with the legislators, or your opponents, the BEST tactic is to work to kill the bill entirely.
Comment by EmilyS — October 30, 2009 @ 8:26 pm
“Ban third-party sales.”
Almost every police dog serving anywhere in America was a “third-party sale”. That’s just one example.
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Jennifer, you’d seem more authoritative in your assertion about “guide dogs” if in fact you understood that there is a difference between a Guide Dog (which comes from the organization in San Rafael) and a service dog.
In any case, I already said I had no problem with a cap, under certain conditions.
I don’t, however, think they solve the puppy mill problem.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
It’s not my goal to be authoritative. I am on an iPhone and chose to use “guide dogs” as shorthand (and because it was the guide dog board - under DCA, here in Sacto - that came in with 11th hour concerns only 3 days before the Gov vetoed the bill, so that phrase is on my mind).
And four months was chosen as the age to conform with the age dogs are required to be licensed.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
The copy of AB 241 I read also exempted ‘retail pet stores,’ otherwise known as the very places which sell puppies and kittens from mills. And so far as I recall it did not contain language which so much as suggested that working dogs or service dogs would be exempt.
Just looked it up again:
http://www.cacda.org/documents/ab_241.pdf
… and I note that my memory of the above was correct, and the language also only exempts ‘publicly operated animal control facility or shelter,’ not all rescue organizations.
Comment by Eucritta — October 30, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
Four months of age is at least two years before the age when any reputable breeder would even be starting to consider the value of any dog to a breeding program. Heck, you can’t even get hips certified until two.
But you CAN increase the chance of osteosarcoma neutering at that age.
As Laura said, it’s not a given that people who don’t neuter or delay neutering are doing it to breed. Hard sell to people who can’t believe anything else.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
AB 241 was amended several times before it was sent to the governor. This is the final version
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/.....olled.html
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Again, please remember that none of this applies unless you own 50 or more dogs over the age of four months.
I will repeat that I would not have objected to exempting service dog orgs if doing so would have satisfied their concerns and removed their opposition. Such an amendment was never offered, to my knowledge.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Police dogs are not PETS. I believe this conversation is how to stop puppy mills, and is dealing with the pet trade.
I’m still not at all sold on the idea of legislation in the first place, but I’m thinking out loud here. I don’t mind disagreement, and I’m not arguing, just explaining. If a third party sale ban were to be considered, it would apply only to dogs sold as pets.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:17 pm
Jennifer… AB 241, like AB 1624 before it, EXEMPTED pet stores? Is that correct?
And you wonder why we think it’s targeting US, when it exempts the very people who are the problem????
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Again, please remember that none of this applies unless you own 50 or more dogs over the age of four months.
I also didn’t realize that this law applied to all the dogs you own, not all the dogs in one facility. Even if the concerns over working dog kennels could have been dealt with, including service and police dogs, this is still a law that could easily apply to any successful show breeder who uses co-ownership to help PROTECT her dogs and keep them OUT of the shelter system!
I mean, big breeds have big litters, often far more than 10 pups at a time. You could have a single litter of Labs every three years and still be an owner of more than 50 dogs over 4 months!
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:22 pm
I did not say that people would be breeding from AKC mixed breed dogs. The very fact that AKC is providing a market outlet for them significantly encourages the mass production of more mixed breed dogs in the puppy mills. They now have more value in the marketplace because they can now have AKC “papers.” The average person doesn’t know the difference between “registration” and “listing” because in reality,there is precious little. This is a huge win-win for the millers and AKC. The millers can produce more mixes for the pet shop trade and each person who purchases a mix at the pet shop will be handed the form to “list” their dog with AKC. AKC is giving all kinds of incentives for listing (not available to those with purebreds). Additionally - read the “procedures” for AKC mixed breeds. AKC IS NOT REQUIRING PROOF that the dog be spayed or neutered as a prerequisite for listing.
Comment by ruthie — October 30, 2009 @ 9:23 pm
Ah, thanks, LauraS. Nice to know *someone* got some sense before it hit the governator’s desk, but now I’m wondering - who thought it would be a good idea to exempt pet stores in the first place? What on earth were they thinking?
Comment by Eucritta — October 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
My suggestion is to find something that is unique to the entity you want to control — high volume breeders, in this case — and focus on that. That is why I suggested banning third party sales of pets. It won’t eliminate the problem, but it will certainly take a big huge chunk out of it. And it will do exactly nothing to home-based breeders.
And again… pets. Not working dogs of any kind.
I did just think of one thing, which is re-homing adult show dogs. I think most of those are placed free, but I suppose some owners do charge for them, and that’s a third party sale. Not sure how I’d handle that…
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
How is that a third party sale? I bought my dog as a young adult (retired neutered Champion) from a show breeder. She was his registered owner (and breeder - but even if she had not been his breeder, she was still his registered owner) and sold him to me.
How would that constitute a third party sale?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Anything that has Judie Mancuso within a thousand yards of it is going to be aimed right between the eyes of anyone who has a dog or cat with intact reproductive organs. If the key to ending the factory farming of puppies lies in legislation, it needs to be legislation originating from someone who has a rational, balanced view of these issues, and who can craft some very simple, clean legislation that will, with surgical precision, end that specific practice.
If HSUS or any other organization seriously wants to sit down with stakeholders on this issue — and I know from talking with Stephanie Shain that there are plenty of you in HSUS who do — then you have to accept that there is a burden of mistrust, built up over years but exacerbated by the unfortunate partnership with Mancuso over AB 1624 last year. It’s going to take more than protestations of good will and an expressed desire to sit down to overcome that.
The black helicopter crowd will never relent, but plenty of people in the fancy hate puppy mills more than they hate anything else. After all, it’s our breed rescue groups who deal with their fallout the most.
It may be that HSUS has become too tangled in their minds with Mancuso and her ilk to be trusted any time soon. So reach out to someone else, someone they might actually trust, or at least someone they won’t knee-jerk reject. Let HSUS be just one more stakeholder at the table.
Maybe Rich Avanzino could do it. Healing the breach between the animal welfare organizations and the purebred dog fancy would go a long, long way towards helping America become a no-kill nation. People trust Maddie’s Fund because they’ve stayed out of these types of frays, and have historically opposed breeding bans, MSN, and similar legislation breeders feel targeted by.
If what you want is to stop puppy mills, let that be more important than whose name is on the law, or who gets credit. Because I’m telling you, the AKC does not speak for me and it does not speak for the fancy on this issue. We HATE puppy mills — including the big, shiny clean ones. And we love dogs, including the scabby-skinned one-eyed ones whose nails have grown into the pads of their feet after a lifetime in a wire cage.
The people I know who take care of those dogs, every one of them, is a breeder. My vet, Helen Hamilton, a greyhound breeder whose fight against the puppy mills I’ve written about here and here and here and here. Karen Thayne, an Italian Greyhound breeder and rescuer who wrote this heartbreaking story of a rescued Pet Shop Mama. Good breeders not only despise millers, they clean up after them.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:36 pm
The OTHER Pat:
If I bred a dog and sold her to someone, and when she was an adult and finished, that person wanted to place her in a pet home, and sold her instead of placing her free… that’s a third party sale.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
Oh. I guess I had a different idea of what constituted a “third party sale” (i.e. “broker” such as the middle men who get puppies from the puppy farms to Hunte, etc.).
Which definition is commonly/legally understood?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 9:41 pm
Well, I don’t know the legal definition, but I suspect you’re right. Let me say instead, allow only direct breeder to consumer sales. That would not ban Internet puppy mills that sell their own dogs to the public, nor “puppy farms” that raise a couple dozen breeds and sell direct to the public, but it would end the sale of puppies in pet stores overnight.
The “third party sales” as relates to brokers wouldn’t do it, because they could just transfer ownership down the chain and circumvent this.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
Police dogs are not PETS.
I know that. But laws that target pet dogs apply to police dogs and other working dogs unless they are explicitly exempted. We see these exemptions in many laws and ordinances. Dog = pet unless explicitly stated otherwise in a law.
Once we go down the path of a sweeping ban and then try to carve out exemptions, we are in an incredible mess. Remember all the attempts by Levine to pile on more exemptions into AB 1634? Same idea. They don’t work.
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
Laura, what would you do? I’ve always rejected legislation, but it’s kind of grabbing my mind now, COULD a law be written that would end the factory farming of puppies without having unintended (by me, LOL) consequences for those with whom I have no problem?
I mean, if you banned the sale of dogs as pets by anyone other than their breeder… would you have to exempt ANYONE?
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:45 pm
I would be open to a forum where all felt safe and where we focus on common ground. I just want to stop puppy mills. It’s going to take all of us… AKC and PIJAC can be strong opponents.
The mistrust goes both ways… The PetPac fundraising emails often have a strained relationship with the truth.
Ok, I’m not running away from this discussion, but I am signing off for tonight. Thanks all.
Comment by Jennifer Fearing — October 30, 2009 @ 9:48 pm
Christie … Word.
Mancuso’s position is known, and if she’s on a bill, it’s aimed at every intact dog or cat on the planet. She’s a hate ball.
Jennifer, on the other hand, really WILL listen, think and consider. She and others are challenging long-standing assumptions within the organization. And love him or hate him, Wayne Pacelle is allowing and even encouraging this organizational re-examination.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 9:53 pm
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 9:42 pm
The “third party sales” as relates to brokers wouldn’t do it, because they could just transfer ownership down the chain and circumvent this.
This goes back to what I wrote to Gina earlier in the thread. I cannot recall the name of the document (it’s an AKC document), but there is a transfer document that is different, quicker and cheaper than a final owner’s registration that is used by these brokers. It is specifically intended to preserve the paper trail that AKC has always said must follow a puppy from birth onward. It is part of what makes the whole brokering chain possible (at least as far as AKC documentation is concerned). And if I remember correctly (too tired to go look all of this up) there’s something in APHIS about this, too.
That’s what I was trying to get at in my comment to Gina. If the definition of “third party sale” somehow incorporated this transfer documentation as a means to define what constituted a “third party sale”, the brokers would then have to go through the more involved, time consuming and costly owner registration in order to avoid having the sale defined as a “third party sale”. Or at least, I was thinking that something along those lines might be workable.
But again, that would only apply to AKC documentation. And as easy as AKC has apparently decided to make it for the puppy retailers, they’d probably design them an “out” for this one, as well.
Sigh.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 30, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Wouldn’t you still need to exempt non-profits, like rescue orgs? Or is there an actual legal difference between for-fee adoptions and sales?
Comment by Eucritta — October 30, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
Final note from me tonight, too. Jennifer’s also correct about PetPac. Even after we pointed out to Bill H. that the HSUS was NOT a sponsor of SB 250, PetPac’s fund-raising mailers continued to say that they were.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 30, 2009 @ 9:59 pm
If HSUS or any other organization seriously wants to sit down with stakeholders on this issue — and I know from talking with Stephanie Shain that there are plenty of you in HSUS who do — then you have to accept that there is a burden of mistrust, built up over years but exacerbated by the unfortunate partnership with Mancuso over AB 1624 last year.
This year, HSUS co-sponsored AB 241 with Social Compassion in Legislation, Judie Mancuso’s group.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/....._comm.html
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
Eucritta, I know the black helicopter crowd is always calling “adoptions” “sales,” but I hadn’t really considered that. I imagine there is already language in the state sales tax code that makes a distinction — we could avoid the endless “exemption cycle” but seeing if something like that, that already exists, could be used to define the target group, and exclude something like a shelter or rescue that charges an adoption fee.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 10:01 pm
PS, I’m not saying I’ve gone over to the legislation side. Like I said, I’m thinking out loud: Could a law be crafted that would accomplish ending the factory farming of puppies without all these other consequences, and if so, what would it be, and how would it come about?
Comment by Christie Keith — October 30, 2009 @ 10:03 pm
The PetPac fundraising emails often have a strained relationship with the truth.
Agreed, most of us don’t take them seriously.
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
Laura, what would you do? I’ve always rejected legislation, but it’s kind of grabbing my mind now, COULD a law be written that would end the factory farming of puppies without having unintended (by me, LOL) consequences for those with whom I have no problem?
I’ve wondered the same thing. I tossed around some ideas a while back here, but you (rightfully) pointed out that those don’t work either.
I think we need to focus first on the worst offenders. The breeders already violating existing cruelty laws. After all, anytime a puppy mill bill is being promoted, it’s heartbreaking photos of these places that are used, even though what they were doing is already illegal.
Can somebody explain to me why local authorities are so reluctant to go after these awful places even when it’s well known what’s going on?
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
Hey Gina, we’re getting close to 100 ;-)
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
These are the exemptions in AB 241 (nope, there’s no retail pet store exemption):
(1) A public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group. Except as specified in subdivision (f), these entities are the same as the entities regulated under Division 14 (commencing with Section 30501) of the Food and Agriculture Code.
(2) A veterinary facility.
(3) A research facility, as defined in Section 2132(e) of Title 7 of the United States Code.
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 10:45 pm
I also didn’t realize that this law applied to all the dogs you own, not all the dogs in one facility.
In addition to that, it also includes those who “possess, control, or otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 dogs and cats with intact sexual organs.”
The 50+ intact dogs not only don’t have to be in the same place, they don’t even have to be owned by the offender. Yes, it applies to large boarding kennels and training kennels. It includes boarding and training kennel businesses that have multiple facilities — gotta add up all the dogs in all of their facilities. Why?????
I’m also puzzled why cats were included in the total. I’m not aware of any “kitten mills.” Would this have potentially turned feral cat caregivers into lawbreakers? Why were cats included at all?
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Jeez, gone for one day and it’s almost regressive to pick up on LauraS’s point.
17. BTW, these bills weren’t attacked in the courts, but in legislatures.
Comment by LauraS — October 29, 2009 @ 11:50 am
Was also referring to Louisville Federal Court Case where LKC tried to unravel laws that included anti-cruelty provisions. Apologies for conflating.
Coming from a shelter POV, I have no knowledge base on what the problems are on the good breeder side of this issue. It may be why I am astonished by what I see sometimes.
Given a cursory look, it would seem that licensing fees are being structured to marginalize or stamp out small breeders. Is this so? And if it is purposeful and designed by corps like Hunte, ending up in legislation, how do you fight that? Is that what Gina was talking about in terms of not voting on anything that doesn’t include all stakeholders? But then how do we make it possible to get some relief for the mill dogs held in filthy, untended limbo in the meantime? It’s ridiculous the dogs should have to suffer while change is attempted. Change takes years. Are they just supposed to wait? Just looking for answers, or beginnings.
And I could not tell (it’s really late here)if the PETA thing was directed my way, so I’ll say no,hell no,I’m no PETA lover. I have stated my case here against MSN and asked for advice on how you organized against it vis a vis Chicago’s (now shelved) issue. I am for animal welfare and have nothing against good breeders, just in case those pesky assumptions are percolating to the surface.
Comment by Mary Haight — October 31, 2009 @ 1:34 am
I’m also puzzled why cats were included in the total. I’m not aware of any “kitten mills.” Would this have potentially turned feral cat caregivers into lawbreakers? Why were cats included at all?
Comment by LauraS — October 30, 2009 @ 11:10 pm
Where do you think the “purebred” kittens in pet stores come from? The cat fairy?
But yes, it would likely hav turned feral cat caregivers into lawbreakers.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 6:33 am
Given a cursory look, it would seem that licensing fees are being structured to marginalize or stamp out small breeders. Is this so?
Comment by Mary Haight — October 31, 2009
Yes.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 6:54 am
But then how do we make it possible to get some relief for the mill dogs held in filthy, untended limbo in the meantime?
Enforce cruelty laws?
Comment by Eucritta — October 31, 2009 @ 7:22 am
That would be a start. Of course, the puppy-mill industry is trying to do this itself, because they realize that the “bad operators” are a black eye that cuts into sales.
Hence the “raising the bar” work.
But a “model mill” is still not the way to raise ideal family companions. Family pets from family homes.
The USDA is part of the problem. Pets are not livestock, and the regulation of breeding them does not belong with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The ideal way to raise puppies — in the home, in a family, underfoot — is ILLEGAL per USDA regs.
Pet-stores and internet sellers use “USDA licensed” to dupe buyers into thinking that’s badge of honor, when in fact it’s the sure sign of a puppy-mill.
Yes, this is a complicated issue. Which is why I continue to have my doubts that we even CAN address it through legislative or regulatory means. I suspect in the end the ONLY way to end high-volume breeding is to dry up their sales.
Puppy mills will end only when people stop buying puppy mill dogs.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 7:32 am
100.
Frankly, if a post with a headline like this one’s DOESN’T get 100 comments, it would be very strange indeed.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 7:42 am
Puppy mills will end only when people stop buying puppy mill dogs.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 7:32 am
OK then how many home-based breeders would be needed to fulfill the demand for puppies?
Comment by Mary Mary — October 31, 2009 @ 8:12 am
Is the issue with puppy mills that the dogs live and are raised in horrific conditions? Or that the dogs are “mass produced”? Or both…
Would it be theoretically possible to mass- produce puppies in a humane, healthy way? Folks here often defend people who OWN mass numbers of dogs. And we certainly see many cases of people who abuse individual animals.
Is so, then wouldn’t we want to address the conditions in which puppies are “produced” rather than merely the number that people own?
Comment by EmilyS — October 31, 2009 @ 8:32 am
We have to not think about the demand as a demand for “puppies” and think about it as a demand for dogs. And while educating people about the evils of puppy mills, also educate them about selecting the right dog, including the right age dog (which might or might not be a puppy), and the availability of good adult pets from shelters, rescues, and good breeders.
And of course, the good breeders would be both more numerous, and easier to find, if they weren’t living in fear of being forced to move or to give up or sterilize their dogs.
Plus, there’s a lot of the better BYBs that we shouldn’t be trying to shut down, either, but should be encouraging to health screen, temperament screen, and improve their contracts to better protect the puppies.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 8:38 am
OK then how many home-based breeders would be needed to fulfill the demand for puppies?
From what I’ve been reading, it looks to me like there’s a possibility that the current level of demand for very young puppies and kittens, specifically, may be … inflated? I’m not sure that’s the word I want - due to mill sales practices. Are there any statistics on how often purchases of these babies at the shops are on impulse? I know it’s assumed many are and I suspect that’s true, but I wonder if there’s a source for actual numbers.
I suspect that any effort to significantly reduce mill sales would also require familiarizing folks with family breeder practices, and I don’t know of any family breeders who just hand off tiny babies to anyone who asks. Or who hand off babies at all - in fact, I think it’s a pretty good flag for someone who may not be on the up-and-up, if they’re willing to give up babies younger than about four months.
Comment by Eucritta — October 31, 2009 @ 8:40 am
Is the issue with puppy mills that the dogs live and are raised in horrific conditions? Or that the dogs are “mass produced”? Or both…
Many puppy mills have horrific conditions. But even with a clean facility, you cannot mass produce puppies (or kittens) and also raise them in a way that prepares them to be happy, well-adjusted family pets.
Dogs and cats are not widgets. If you insist on going for “economies of scale,” you do enormous psychological damage. What Gina said is right: USDA regs, designed to produce livestock safe for human consumption, prohibit everything responsible breeders of dogs and cats do.
And if you accept mass production of dogs or cats, you’re endorsing that ban on responsible breeding.
Would it be theoretically possible to mass- produce puppies in a humane, healthy way?
No. It wouldn’t. Not everything in the world is a widget; some things can’t be mass produced and have good results.
Think about it. Do you really want to bring home a ten-week-old puppy who has never seen or heard anything it will encounter in a normal human household? Whose experience interacting with human beings is limited to being snatched from mom and littermates at five or six weeks, and then the alternating complete isolation and unavoidable groping and handling of a pet store?
Folks here often defend people who OWN mass numbers of dogs.
People who own mass numbers of dogs may be hoarders—or they may be people who actually work their dogs at what their breed was originally intended for. Hunting packs of hounds or terriers, for instance. Or for a new job: Guide dog programs have large numbers of dogs, and they do breed—but those dogs are getting a lot of both group and one-on-one human interaction, exercise, and mental stimulation. And often the puppies when old enough are placed in private homes, rather than being raised in the kennel setting because, duh, that’s not the way to raise a dog who will need to be a healthy, well-adjusted adult able to not only cope but make decisions in a world that’s nothing like the kennel.
Details matter, and attempting to keep things “simple” and “consistent” will produce terrible results, every time.
And we certainly see many cases of people who abuse individual animals.
And we already have laws against that. So, great big red herring there.
Is so, then wouldn’t we want to address the conditions in which puppies are “produced” rather than merely the number that people own?
Sure, but there’s no way to both “mass produce” puppies, and provide the conditions for those puppies’ upbringing that will equip them to be happy, healthy, well-adjusted family pets.
No matter how many different ways you come at it, dogs are still not widgets, and still won’t thrive in factory-farm conditions—no matter how clean.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 8:58 am
I wasn’t talking about “factory farm” conditions, or puppies raised without socialization. Those are current realities, not the theoretical one I’m asking about. If you accept that people like hunters and guidedog producers (or for that matter, large rescue operations) can own/raise large numbers of happy healthy dogs, why couldn’t a “commercial” breeder? Just ASSERTING that it’s impossible doesn’t mean that it IS impossible.
Comment by EmilyS — October 31, 2009 @ 9:06 am
From what I’ve been reading, it looks to me like there’s a possibility that the current level of demand for very young puppies and kittens, specifically, may be … inflated? I’m not sure that’s the word I want - due to mill sales practices. Are there any statistics on how often purchases of these babies at the shops are on impulse? I know it’s assumed many are and I suspect that’s true, but I wonder if there’s a source for actual numbers.
I think it’s clear to all of us that pet stores use all the same tactics other retailers do to promote sales and exploit that moment of impulse, but I don’t believe there’s any way to get good numbers.
And for sure no one at a pet store (that sells puppies or kittens) is talking to customers about whether they really know what’s involved with a particular breed, whether they want a dog or a cat at all, whether they might be better off with a different breed, whether they’ve chosen the right breed, but would maybe be happier with an adult than a puppy.
I suspect that any effort to significantly reduce mill sales would also require familiarizing folks with family breeder practices, and I don’t know of any family breeders who just hand off tiny babies to anyone who asks. Or who hand off babies at all - in fact, I think it’s a pretty good flag for someone who may not be on the up-and-up, if they’re willing to give up babies younger than about four months.
Um. Four months? That seems extreme. In fact, it seems like a bit more of moving the bar.
In my experience and to my knowledge, 8-12 weeks is considered a good age for placing larger-breed puppies. Among the toy breeds, 10-14 weeks is considered good. That’s for people who actually want a puppy; breeders will take the time to find out if in fact you might be happier with an adolescent or adult.
The age problem with pet stores is not that you’re going home with a ten-week-old puppy; it’s that that puppy was taken from mom at five or six weeks, and in addition to leaving mom too young, has had mostly scary and confusing experiences since then.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 9:07 am
“Where do you think the “purebred” kittens in pet stores come from? The cat fairy?”
Since feral cat kittens are dumped in animal shelters by the truckloads, I would have guessed that the kittens in pet stores are also rounded up feral kittens. But I dunno. Cats aren’t my specialty :-) I’m only saying, I’ve never heard of a kitten mill.
Comment by LauraS — October 31, 2009 @ 9:11 am
According to Joan Miller of CFA, cat health problems make any kind of ongoing large scale mass breeding impossible. The cats get URIs from stress, stop reproducing and/or die.
I believe most kittens in pet stores — of which there are VASTLY fewer than puppies — come from breeders who are local (to avoid the stress and losses from shipping, which are far greater for cats than dogs) and smaller (to avoid the issues of infections etc). That doesn’t make them good breeders, it doesn’t mean those are well-socialized family pets. It just means it’s a different problem and requires a different solution.
Joan told me that a lot of these cats are a “sideline” of the puppy millers and they usually go out of the kitten business when they find out how tough it is. It’s possible that focusing on the puppy producers will take care of many of the kitten producers, too.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2009 @ 9:19 am
If you accept that people like hunters and guidedog producers (or for that matter, large rescue operations) can own/raise large numbers of happy healthy dogs, why couldn’t a “commercial” breeder? Just ASSERTING that it’s impossible doesn’t mean that it IS impossible.
I actually think that’s a great question, and I’m glad you brought it up.
My “family pets from family homes” idea is a slogan. But what I’m really saying, and have said before but in comments, not a post, is that puppies should ideally be raised in the conditions in which they will live as adults, as that’s what will result in the dog most adapted to his future life.
If a dog is intended to live in a hunting pack, raise him in one.
If he’s going to be on a mushing team, raise him as part of a sled dog pack.
If he’s going to be a guide dog, raise him the way the guide dog programs do, which is designed to adapt him to that life.
If he’s going to be a stockdog, raise him on a ranch with other stockdogs and with livestock.
If he’s going to be a family pet, raise him in the home.
All down the line. The best way to raise a puppy is to acclimate him to the life he’s going to be living as an adult.
Of course there are bad kennel situations for working dogs just as there are bad home situations for pets. If we’re looking for a magic bullet that makes everything perfect, well… doesn’t exist.
But in good kennel situations, the dogs are being WORKED and they get out of their kennels to do be trained and worked, and in many cases these dogs are more mentally and physically challenged, and much happier, than the majority of family pets.
It’s not that pack and kennel life is cruel to dogs. It is often LESS cruel than the boring sterile existence of a neglected family pet.
It’s that puppies raised as kennel dogs are not well-adapted to family life. Even on the oldtime estates where they used to keep large kennels of dogs, those were far more like today’s guide dog programs, with only a small number of dogs for each employee in charge of those dogs, much more home-like kennels, live-in staff, and far more bucolic settings with fresh air, sunshine, and space to run and play.
And let’s face it, in those days, dogs had far less challenges to face than today’s dogs. Dogs raised in those kinds of kennel situations could grow up to become pets who could safely roam, there were no breed bans and leash laws, dog bites were considered more or less a fact of life, and people had much more “animal sense” than they do today. So having a pet be specifically adapted to life as a family companion wasn’t necessarily as crucial as it is today.
And even then, the majority of pets came from the very situations they would continue to live in… farm dogs from farms, pets from family pets, show dogs from show dogs, hunting dogs from hunters, etc.
I still think it’s a good, flexible, humane model that is also economically sustainable.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2009 @ 9:29 am
I wasn’t talking about “factory farm” conditions, or puppies raised without socialization. Those are current realities, not the theoretical one I’m asking about. If you accept that people like hunters and guidedog producers (or for that matter, large rescue operations) can own/raise large numbers of happy healthy dogs, why couldn’t a “commercial” breeder? Just ASSERTING that it’s impossible doesn’t mean that it IS impossible.
Because the things that hunters and guide dog organizations do run directly counter to the goals of commercial breeders. The “advantage” to commercial breeders of mass production is that it lowers the unit cost. All the things that hunters and guide dog schools and other “large scale” producers of happy, healthy, well-adjusted dogs raise the unit cost: lots of interaction, individually and in groups, by trained, experienced people who know what they’re doing; then placing puppies old enough to leave mom and littermates in “puppy raiser” foster homes; then individually assessing them, when they’re old enough, for training or permanent placement as pets.
Now, you might reasonably say that the point at which they’re placed in foster homes would be the point at which a commercial pet breeder would just sell them as pets. But it doesn’t work that way, for two reasons:
1. All that trained interaction before that point. You can’t do this by hiring the tweens and young teens who want some extra pocket money and “like dogs.” You need trained, knowledgable adults if you’re going to do this on a large scale, and that’s going to raise your per-widget cost significantly.
2. Puppies have their maximum cuteness value at 6-8 weeks old. After that point their value starts dropping. Therefore, commercially bred “pet” puppies are taken from mom at six, or even five, weeks and shipped to the pet stores. Those lost weeks are important weeks for the development and social learning of the puppy, but giving the puppy those weeks lowers its commercial value.
A sixteen-week-old puppy in the hands of a loving, caring breeder may be the perfect pet for someone, but a sixteen-week-old puppy in a pet store may be marked down 90% as virtually unsaleable.
When profit is the motive, even the best, most ethical individual is going to feel pressure to cut costs. And the best, most ethical breeders are breeding on a small scale and placing each puppy individually. There is a fundamental disconnect between large-scale commercial breeding and breeding responsibly, because the pet stores or brokers pay maybe $50-$100 for those $1500 puppies.
Where there’s hope for raising standards and inducing the breeders to pay more to produce each puppy is with the better BYBs, who do care about their own dogs and who do get the entire sale price when they sell a puppy.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 9:30 am
I believe Nathan Winograd wrote that during the San Francisco SPCA’s glory days when they were doing a tremendous amount to promote adoptions, that pet shop puppy sales in San Francisco either disappeared or largely disappeared. It happened by making adoptions more desirable, by having them out compete pet shop puppies.
I am very skeptical that any new legislation that attempts to shut down puppy mills will be successful. I’m not interested in legislation that just causes them to move from Missouri to Mexico. We have to dry up demand for “the product” to reduce the problem.
I suspect that legislation that promotes no kill policies would do more to reduce the number of cruel breeding practices than would any of the puppy mill bills that have been floating around. It’s really a shame that ACR 74 got no support from the animal welfare community. Instead, it was attacked and killed by the animal welfare community.
If HSUS had supported this resolution, it would have passed. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/.....duced.html
Comment by LauraS — October 31, 2009 @ 9:30 am
OK then how many home-based breeders would be needed to fulfill the demand for puppies?
I’ve gone through the numbers in this thread once already, as well as in previous discussions on this blog, but it’s all gotten buried. Here they are again:
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ent-470143
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Since feral cat kittens are dumped in animal shelters by the truckloads, I would have guessed that the kittens in pet stores are also rounded up feral kittens. But I dunno. Cats aren’t my specialty :-) I’m only saying, I’ve never heard of a kitten mill.
Um.
You think they’re rounding up feral litters of Siamese, Scottish Folds, American Curls, impossibly squish-faced Persians?
Really?
Where?! :)
Lots of large-scale BYBs, rather, who’d step up to the size of the mills if they could.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 9:37 am
Lis … Laura already said she doesn’t know about the cat situation. Ease up, OK? We don’t all have to know about everything, as long as we don’t each think we know it all.
Laura is not a subject-matter expert on the breeding and selling of purebred cats. But she sure as hell is one on working dogs.
Let’s play to our strengths, and respect what we each know.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Word … again.
http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ent-477717
What she said.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 9:46 am
Um. Four months? That seems extreme. In fact, it seems like a bit more of moving the bar.
I was deeply tempted to answer this with some snark, but after reading the rest of the thread to date, it’s become evident that there are significant differences in practice between what I know a bit about - primarily the Sphynx fancy - and what’s common with dogs.
Yes, to be specific: four months is to my knowledge common practice among Sphynx breeders, and it’s been my impression that it’s not all that uncommon in the cat fancy in general.
Comment by Eucritta — October 31, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
Four months is fairly common among Responsible Breeders of Toy dog breeds.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — October 31, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
Yes, 12-16 weeks is not uncommon in toy breeds. McKutie’s litter, on the other hand, flew to their new homes at 8 weeks.
(Trying to imagine six retriever puppies still in my home at 16 weeks … Aiiiiiyyyyee!)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 1:57 pm
Try a dozen deerhound puppers.
I won’t place before 12 weeks and prefer 16.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
When I wrote the Mastiff book a few years ago, breeders were keeping the puppies until they were 10 to 12 weeks old and that seems to be the trend with other breeds as well, the sporting breeds being an exception. They seem to go at 7 to 9 weeks.
Comment by Kim Thornton — October 31, 2009 @ 2:58 pm
“Lots of large-scale BYBs, rather, who’d step up to the size of the mills if they could..”
So are you agreeing that there really isn’t a kitten mill problem?
This gets back to my point, why are cats mentioned at all in AB 241?
Comment by LauraS — October 31, 2009 @ 4:28 pm
So, sixteen weeks is the upper limit on what’s considered “old enough to go to new home” while the lower limit varies a lot, and to a great extent is dependent on the breed size? I.e., in general smaller breeds go home later, and larger breeds later? With responsible breeders in some sporting breeds thinking seven weeks is not too young?
Have I got that right?
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 4:44 pm
I don’t know how these norms are set, but last time I talked to Dr. Ian Dunbar about this, he thought the 49th day was optimal for the move to the new families. McKenzie arrived here on her 52nd day, and Faith’s sibs were about that when they left.
With toy breeds, I know the blood sugar and fragility are an issue. Don’t know what the issue is for Deerhounds.
Guess retrievers are just prodigies! ;)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — October 31, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
There are many things to consider other than behavior issues when deciding what is the optimum age to send a puppy to his new home. Behaviorists and trainers often want them much younger than I think is wise from the point of view of their immune systems. We wean our pups WAY too early in this country. We take them away from their litters because we have some misguided belief that if we don’t, they won’t bond or become attached to their new families.
But if breeders do their jobs and take each puppy for individual socialization, there’s not only no reason not to keep the puppies with mama and littermates longer, there are many reasons, mostly related to health and the development of a healthy immune system, to do so.
However, even from a behavior point of view, a 10 week old deerhound is MUCH younger than an 8 week old ‘triever. The giant breeds mature more slowly in the beginning. That’s why so many giant breed breeders do what the toy breed breeders do, and place at 10-12 weeks, while the medium sized dogs are usually placed at 7-8.
But again, that’s behaviorial, and a good breeder can give that puppy exactly the right experiences during the extra weeks that will allow the puppy’s immune system to mature, vaccinal immunity to form, and also allow for a much later weaning than is customary today.
Comment by Christie Keith — October 31, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
Yes, people are terrified that a dog that isn’t an infant when they get it won’t bond with them. When I get the opportunity, I point out to them how bonded Addy is with me—and she was a year old when I got her.
If you’ve taken the time to find a good breeder, waiting until the breeder is comfortable sending the pup to her new home is not going to do any damage to your ultimate relationship with that dog.
Comment by Lis — October 31, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
It’s not always just about bonding, though. As a sport person, I really, really appreciate being able to start rewarding those little puppy retrieves (the breeds I’m involved with are not particularly noted for being good natural retrievers, so that puppy ‘put everything in your mouth’ phase may be the best chance I get to really capture the behavior without a lot of setup and free-shaping.) And while I’ve been happy with the socialization done by the breeders I’ve worked with in general, I prefer to do a lot MORE intensive socialization than any of them think is necessary (Lizzie came home at 7 weeks and had met a thousand people easily by her 4-months birthday- this was important to me because her breed is known for being a bit suspicious of strangers and I wanted a crazily outgoing dog, which I got- sometimes I wish she was a bit more reserved, honestly ;P), and a month isn’t much of a window to do that in if I get a puppy at 12 weeks. I’ve done it before (Indy and Bou both came home at 16 weeks) and I’ll do it again, but I think it comes down to splitting hairs. It’s one of the areas where there just IS a lot of variation, and I think it makes more sense to focus on the areas where there IS consensus - pets for homes, from homes; health testing & selecting for overall health; screening owners & following up on puppies.
Comment by Cait — November 1, 2009 @ 1:02 am
I’m going to start this as a new thread. I honestly had NO IDEA that Christie kept her Deerhound puppies until they were four months old.
My personal experience is with behavior, not breeding. And sporting/herding dogs, not hounds or toys.
Gotta grab a bite with my brother … I’ll start a new topic when I get back.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 1, 2009 @ 8:14 am
(I should throw out there that Lizzie is small but not a toy- she’s a mittelspitz, which is in the spitz/primitive group with FCI, although they’ve got a lot in common genetically with the Pomeranian. Historically, they were a little multi-purpose farmdog whose main job was as a watch dog- I think it might be interesting to compare how say, working terrier folks let their pups go (I’d bet it’s earlier) compared to toy and small-but-not-tiny companion breed folks (say, Keeshond, or Tibetan Terrier) let them go.
Comment by Cait — November 1, 2009 @ 9:18 am
We let Toy Manchesters go as early as 8 weeks although I generally prefer to wait until 9 weeks. In Florida, it’s illegal to sell a puppy any younger than 8 weeks. TMTs are generally 3-4lbs at 8 weeks and quite hardy. I wean at 4-5 weeks and do first vaccines at 7 with good vaccine.
I don’t breed very much, and I am very picky about where my puppies go. I’m particularly skeptical of the “I have to have a baby-baby so I can raise it right” callers. I raise puppies like I’m going to have to live with them for 15-16 years until the right home comes along for that dog. Sometimes that’s at 8 weeks, sometimes that’s 7-8 months or later.
I sold 2 of the 4 pups in my 2008 litter at 8 months in pet homes, and the owners were thrilled to death to have ‘plug-n-play’ house-dogs who were well socialized, crate-trained, and housebroken, etc. They were both spayed, fully vaccinated, micro-chipped, and registered with AKC/CAR before they left us, as well.
There’s something to be said for getting a dog that’s through some or most the ‘puppy stuff’ and who has be raised by someone who understands dogs in general and the breed in particular.
Comment by Carolyn H — November 1, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
AKC has significant problems. Unfortunately, none of the alternatives are much better. Border collie registries? Do they actually REQUIRE that a BC be a proven herding dog? That it have CERF? No. But several do reject an AKC registered breed champion even if it happens to herd well. AKC didn’t “ruin” BCs — the foundation “show” dogs came from Australia who had them first. ASCA? no. ASCA had long tolerated seperate working/show dogs with the show dogs dominating long before AKC did their sleight of hand registration maneuver. UKC? UKC doesn’t even go through the motions. The problem is that when anything is popular, plenty of “get rich quick” folk want to sell the cheapest version of it they can. That includes dogs, particularly popular breeds. Even the Kelpie folk haven’t kept their dogs out of the hands of “breed ‘em quick” folk, although it’s largely limited. AKC’s money came from registrations and to stay afloat, they need to keep selling “numbers”. Unfortunately, like a lot of American corporations, they haven’t quite figured out that for their business to truly survive, they need to start listening to their customers and to cut unnecessary costs. Instead, they have suggested having a “best of best” competition beyond breed championships to encourage yet more intensity in the show ring, rather than any effort for documentation of more quality (such as a required OFA for a CH). The problem is that if AKC “fails” there really isn’t much out there to replace it.
Comment by peggy Richter — November 2, 2009 @ 7:26 am
The problem is that if AKC “fails” there really isn’t much out there to replace it.
Comment by peggy Richter — November 2, 2009
Yes, that IS the problem.
AKC I wish I knew how to quit you
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 2, 2009 @ 7:40 am
There are many things to consider other than behavior issues when deciding what is the optimum age to send a puppy to his new home. Behaviorists and trainers often want them much younger than I think is wise from the point of view of their immune systems. We wean our pups WAY too early in this country. We take them away from their litters because we have some misguided belief that if we don’t, they won’t bond or become attached to their new families.
I keep my pups until 11 or 12 weeks, for a few reasons. For myself, I need to let them develop as much as possible, so that I’m accurately choosing my show prospects. For the pups, I’m using the Jean Dodds’ vaccination protocol, which requires first shots much later than other protocols do.
I’ve never had an issue with these older pups ‘bonding’. Not once, not ever. They each get daily, individual attention, trips and outings and personal time, and as much socialization as I can provide. In typical Frenchie fashion, the little ingrates don’t bother to spare me a backwards glance as they hurry out the door with their new parents.
Peanut Butter (now Paco) left even later, at 16 weeks. As his new mom said within minutes of meeting him (as he fawned all over her) “You don’t have to work so hard on getting us to love you, buddy, we already bought you!”.
As for weaning, I let my bitches tell me when the time is right - and it’s almost always later than the books and experts tell us. Tessa let Sailor nurse for comfort till she was almost six months old. Her mother was the same.
Comment by FrogDogz — November 2, 2009 @ 8:34 am
Comment by FrogDogz — November 2, 2009 @ 8:34 am
In typical Frenchie fashion, the little ingrates don’t bother to spare me a backwards glance as they hurry out the door with their new parents.
Thanks for the morning giggle!
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 2, 2009 @ 8:47 am
We call it ‘trading up’.
As in, “I traded up my breeder mommy for a home on Park Avenue with maid service and an in house chef”.
Sean keeps asking if he can go with them.
Comment by FrogDogz — November 2, 2009 @ 9:17 am
The problem is that when anything is popular, plenty of “get rich quick” folk want to sell the cheapest version of it they can. That includes dogs, particularly popular breeds.
Comment by peggy Richter — November 2, 2009 @ 7:26 am
—————————
This is what worries me with the prospect of replacing puppy mills with backyard “Amway” breeders.
Of course I want the mills closed. But I don’t want their closure to just drive the production of equal numbers of “excess” puppies. Excess meaning they are dumped in the shelters as babies or, worse, 12-18 months later, when their poorly (or un-) screened buyers take them there.
I already see plenty of this on Craigslist, people “just trying to feed their family” by selling purebread puppies.
Yes. Bread.
And don’t even ask how some of them spell
“Chihuahua.”
Comment by Mary Mary — November 2, 2009 @ 9:43 am
I suspect that the shortage of giant kitten mills also has something to do with the much lower demand for purebred kittens, compared to that for purebred or slyly-marketed “designer” mutt puppies.
Essentially, a cat is a cat is a cat to most people.
A few people are willing to pay for a particular look in a cat, and a few want a purebred cat with breed-typical behavior (e.g. “doglike” Abyssinians). Some, like Gina, are hoping for a reduced allergen load. A tiny, tiny number want to go to cat shows and win ribbons.
But the overwhelming majority of cat owners are like me — I can get a really nice cat or kitten for free with little trouble. I can even have my choice of colors and coat textures in a random-bred kitteh. I’ve been totally happy with my free cat choices in my life. Why would I spend money for a purebred cat? I’ll spend money to adopt from a shelter (have done so three times), because I perceive that I’m getting good value in terms of vetting, and to support the shelters.
So, lesson for the dog world here?
The puppymill industry depends on “the Fancy” to sell the idea of “breed” as “brand” to the potential dog-owning public. This started in earnest after WWII, when everybody was getting a tract house, a Ford, and an AKC beagle.
Can we dog lovers help to unsell the idea of the “pedigree purebred” as a superior pet? This should not be the sole job of shelters.
I will grant that the situations are not entirely parallel; functional dog breeds vary drastically in size and behavior for a reason, and different forms of dog are suitable or preferable for different owners.
But millers would have a harder time making a profit on the “pure bread” morkie-poo pups if potential buyers were comparing them to the small mixed-breeds down at the shelter, instead of viewing them as higher value because of the marketing hype.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 2, 2009 @ 7:07 pm
“The puppymill industry depends on “the Fancy” to sell the idea of “breed” as “brand” to the potential dog-owning public. This started in earnest after WWII, when everybody was getting a tract house, a Ford, and an AKC beagle.”
“Can we dog lovers help to unsell the idea of the “pedigree purebred” as a superior pet? This should not be the sole job of shelters.”
You had me up until that point.
The dog Fancy has existed for about 150 years.
The concept of dog breeds is at least 5000 years old.
Most dog breeds were not invented by the Fancy. They were invented by people who wanted or needed specialized dogs for specific functions.
Even among those who want a pet, there is a wide variation in what people want. If somebody wants a Pom and not a chow/pit/lab mix, I’m not going to tell them all dogs are interchangeable.
I will not give ammunition to those who are trying to destroy dog breeds and dog breeding with false allegations that all of us can just get any dog we could ever want or need from among the random-bred dogs at shelters. Find an avenue to reduce cruel breeding practices that doesn’t involve cutting our own throats. Promote shelter adoptions with a POSITIVE message. Don’t do it by dissing dog breeds.
I know you were only referring to the dog Fancy’s closed studbook model of purebred/pedigreed dogs and not to the broader concept of dog breeds. That distinction is lost among those who already reduce this issue to simple “breeding & breeds are bad” grenades aimed at all dog breeding.
The concept of closed studbook purebred dog breeding vs. other models of dog breeds deserves thoughtful discussion among those who care about breeds. Those who are trying to destroy dog breeds aren’t going to use the ‘unsell purebred dogs as pets’ message the way you intend. They will aim it right back at you.
In anticipation of another round of highly imaginative reading between the lines — NO, I’m NOT making a “yer with us or against us” defense of puppy mills. Criticize them for what they do wrong, not because they produce purebred dogs.
Comment by LauraS — November 2, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
I bought a dog from a local breeder here in Texas who has a nice clean place but very poor record keeping habits. The ad in the paper said “AKC puppies”, but when I got my dog home with a promise that the papers would come directly from the AKC, I discovered by calling the AKC that the breeder hasn’t registered any new litters since 2004.
http://cindyhiemenz.com
No one can DO anything about it. The AKC is “just a registry”, the State AG has more important things than keeping dog breeders records honest, and the breeder says she’ll get around to paperwork later.
The dog is fine but I paid extra for “papers” that aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, because THEY HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN PRINTED.
There sould be some way to check with the AKC before you buy that the dogs are legitimately documented.
—Lone Star Dog owner
Comment by Texas Dog Lover — November 13, 2009 @ 12:01 am
I’m sorry you got ripped off money-wise. Aside from that, however - are there any specific reasons having the AKC registration was important to you? If you are interested in participating in performance events (such as Obedience or Agility, for example), you can apply to AKC for an ILP (Indefinite Listing Privilege):
http://www.akc.org/reg/ilpex.cfm
Just thought I’d offer that up in case it’s useful for you.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 13, 2009 @ 8:54 am
Paying extra for “papers” is always a sign of crooked dealer.
The scam with “vitamins” or sometimes Life’s Abundance food that you mention in your name link is a puppymill tactic.
They offer a “health guarantee” that is predicated on you buying all this crap, and they additionally get a kickback from the manufacturer for locking the consumer into it.
And they know that they can weasel out of the health guarantee because no one can prove they were 100% compliant on feeding/dosing the dog as required.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 13, 2009 @ 9:35 am
Yes, I need AKC registration for obedience and Schutzhund. I can’t get an ILP until the dog is spayed, but my contract with Elite German Shepherds says I’m not supposed to have any surgery until the dog is 2 years old.
My issue is that I already PAID for the papers, and I should have had them already. I tried to do research on the breeder before buying, but the constant name changes (Elite German Shepherds, Stone Hill Pet Resort, and originally von Fenwald Kennels) kept me from spotting the complaints ahead of the purchase.
—Lone Star Dog Owner
Comment by Texas Dog Lover — November 17, 2009 @ 5:23 pm
Well, they’ve broken their contract with you, so I certainly wouldn’t feel bad about non-compliance at this point. If you have your own reasons for wanting to put off the spay until the dog is 2, then that’s your option. But I wouldn’t worry about the “contractual obligations” at this point.
You could always put in 2 years of training (i.e. “train all the way through”) and just hold off on the actual showing until you have the ILP in place.
But I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for “papers” at this point. The constant name changes are but one indication that this outfit is not one to be relied upon to conduct their business in an above-board and honorable way. I think you just might have to get used to the idea that that’s money out the window.
None of which - of course - precludes your ability to have a lovely time training and interacting with and loving your new dog.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — November 17, 2009 @ 6:01 pm
You don’t need AKC registration for Schutzhund competition.
Comment by H. Houlahan — November 18, 2009 @ 7:58 am