Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The deliberate blindness of the rescue extremists to the puppy mills their rescues support is always astonishing to me.
Not all rescue are the same.
I haven't seen any puppies from puppy mills coming through the rescue I foster for, all puppies are mutts. I have seen however moms from puppy mills - and no way I would ever support puppy mills or rescues buying pups from them.
And you better look at the mirror and evaluate your own blindness.
Anonymous wrote:Of course it's not an oxymoron. There are absolutely good breeders out there (but the majority of breeders people think are good are not)
If we want healthy, stable dogs available, people need to intentionally breed healthy, stable dogs. That means a battery of health tests, temperament tests, training to prove bidability in whatever supports the breeder's goals for their line, etc. Done right, breeding doesn't net much money. It's not a viable business, it's a hobby/passion.
If we ban people from doing it "right", then the only dogs left are ones from crappy breedings and the levels of anxious, cancer filled, aggressive dogs will rise because accidental breedings and mills aren't putting together the best versions of dogs.
I ran a basic obedience class in arlington for years. When I started 20+ years ago, most of the dogs were lovely. As time went on, more and more reactive, fearful, and downright aggressive dogs signed up. I had to implement barriers and request people do privates before trying group classes because I was worried what would happen in a group setting. None of those dogs were from "good" breeders. They were newspaper dogs, shelter pups, tonnnnnns of amish dogs, etc. All the "nice" dogs were spayed or neutered by the responsible owners, only the sketch people let their dogs breed. Sometimes they were good dogs, but often times they weren't.
I don't mean that shelter dogs aren't good! I've had 5 of them over the years, 3 were wonderful and 2 were a disaster. I've also had multiple breeder dogs, and one of those was a mess too. The difference with the breeder dog is that she spayed the mom after stories of temperamental challenges from offspring, so those lines will not continue.
TLDR: If we don't have good breeders doing it all right, there won't be any more good dogs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes
I personally believe that all domestic pet breeding should be banned by federal law and should apply to anyone who purposefully or “accidentally” breeds any domestic animal that is or can be kept as a pet.
So you want to genocide the entire species of dogs?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes
I personally believe that all domestic pet breeding should be banned by federal law and should apply to anyone who purposefully or “accidentally” breeds any domestic animal that is or can be kept as a pet.
Agreed. There is no need for additional pets.
The only truly reputable breeders are breeding for purpose: LSGs, hunting dogs, etc. There are limited purposes where breeding for a specific function is ethical, and anything else is for profit, regardless of how you spin it. Hybrid breeders are the worst, and "designer dogs" are an abomination.
No housepet-level dog needs to be purebred, and no reputable breeder would sell one for such a purpose. Then again, most of the people who own dogs right now really shouldn't, so I think greater licensing restrictions are in order all around.
Anonymous wrote:Reputable breeders produce dogs who will never end up in a shelter or mother bad situation because reputable breeders enforce their contracts.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Of course it's not an oxymoron. There are absolutely good breeders out there (but the majority of breeders people think are good are not)
If we want healthy, stable dogs available, people need to intentionally breed healthy, stable dogs. That means a battery of health tests, temperament tests, training to prove bidability in whatever supports the breeder's goals for their line, etc. Done right, breeding doesn't net much money. It's not a viable business, it's a hobby/passion.
If we ban people from doing it "right", then the only dogs left are ones from crappy breedings and the levels of anxious, cancer filled, aggressive dogs will rise because accidental breedings and mills aren't putting together the best versions of dogs.
I ran a basic obedience class in arlington for years. When I started 20+ years ago, most of the dogs were lovely. As time went on, more and more reactive, fearful, and downright aggressive dogs signed up. I had to implement barriers and request people do privates before trying group classes because I was worried what would happen in a group setting. None of those dogs were from "good" breeders. They were newspaper dogs, shelter pups, tonnnnnns of amish dogs, etc. All the "nice" dogs were spayed or neutered by the responsible owners, only the sketch people let their dogs breed. Sometimes they were good dogs, but often times they weren't.
I don't mean that shelter dogs aren't good! I've had 5 of them over the years, 3 were wonderful and 2 were a disaster. I've also had multiple breeder dogs, and one of those was a mess too. The difference with the breeder dog is that she spayed the mom after stories of temperamental challenges from offspring, so those lines will not continue.
TLDR: If we don't have good breeders doing it all right, there won't be any more good dogs.
That is such BS. My family has had wonderful rescue dogs all our lives.
Anonymous wrote:Of course it's not an oxymoron. There are absolutely good breeders out there (but the majority of breeders people think are good are not)
If we want healthy, stable dogs available, people need to intentionally breed healthy, stable dogs. That means a battery of health tests, temperament tests, training to prove bidability in whatever supports the breeder's goals for their line, etc. Done right, breeding doesn't net much money. It's not a viable business, it's a hobby/passion.
If we ban people from doing it "right", then the only dogs left are ones from crappy breedings and the levels of anxious, cancer filled, aggressive dogs will rise because accidental breedings and mills aren't putting together the best versions of dogs.
I ran a basic obedience class in arlington for years. When I started 20+ years ago, most of the dogs were lovely. As time went on, more and more reactive, fearful, and downright aggressive dogs signed up. I had to implement barriers and request people do privates before trying group classes because I was worried what would happen in a group setting. None of those dogs were from "good" breeders. They were newspaper dogs, shelter pups, tonnnnnns of amish dogs, etc. All the "nice" dogs were spayed or neutered by the responsible owners, only the sketch people let their dogs breed. Sometimes they were good dogs, but often times they weren't.
I don't mean that shelter dogs aren't good! I've had 5 of them over the years, 3 were wonderful and 2 were a disaster. I've also had multiple breeder dogs, and one of those was a mess too. The difference with the breeder dog is that she spayed the mom after stories of temperamental challenges from offspring, so those lines will not continue.
TLDR: If we don't have good breeders doing it all right, there won't be any more good dogs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When we as a country and planet are inundated with dogs, when we know that hundreds of dogs are euthanized every day or left to languish in no kill shelter, Is it reputable to breed dogs because you want them to look a certain way? Or think they will act a certain way?
If breeders add even more dogs into society and charge people thousands of dollars to do so, and you consider that reputable, please share why.
And don’t say “ betterment of the breed” that’s just made up jargon by the AKC.
We're only inundated with pitbulls and other undesirables. I don't see any stray golden retriever puppies taking up space at the pound.