U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-07-2010, 04:35 PM
 
Location: ST paul MN
622 posts, read 1,421,594 times
Reputation: 329

Advertisements

A good/excellent breeder rarely has more then a litter a year, dog or cat.


They useally compete in shows but try to stick to the old type less radical body types.


Its useally done as a hobby and they loose money..


they have lots of waiting lists and rarely if ever any babies.


They pick top lines and dont feed garbage brand pet foods/ raw breeders or ones that dont dock tails/ears/declaw cats/ect are best..


about 99 percent dont make the cut.


that being said there are ways to be sure its a reputable if not an excellent. breeder.

Visit the sire and stud if possible

make sure they rehome all the pups/ kits into good homes not in pet shops/ect.


If dog dont debark,dock/ect give to people with yard and time to walk/train/vet the dog.

if cat dont declaw, have a ban on declawng kitten, dont demeow or give to poor people/people with vast numbers of pets/or in rental.


needless to say its hard to find a breeder,lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2010, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,395,048 times
Reputation: 7084
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666 View Post
Agreed- fully and firmly. The words "responsible" and "breeder" shouldn't be used in the same sentence...If you really love dogs, then you do not do anything that would cause certain death to them- which, I'm sorry, is exactly what breeding does, like it or not. For every dog bred, whether from a so-called "responsible" breeder, or some schlup who just doesn't take the responsibility of spaying/neutering their animal, the birth and home placement of every one of those dogs guarantees that another will be put to death in his place.

When and if the day should come where there is no need for shelters because every dog already is loved and in a loving home, then fine- breed away. But when there are hundreds, thousands of nice, sweet, loving dogs that get put to death simply because they were abandoned, lost, or just the fact that nobody came to love them or want them during their stay at a shelter, then how can anyone justify making MORE dogs, dogs that will of course be sent to good homes while others are ignored and euthanized- and feel OK about it?!? I don't get that. People who love dogs want to help them, not ostracize them and/or ensure a death sentence for them.

Argue as you will that it's about keeping alive the "breed" because of specific traits, be it for hunting, police work, etc.- that's fine if that is what you believe is important but then please, at least be honest, and realize that you are not breeding because you love dogs, you are breeding because you believe that the needs of humans supercede that of the dogs' well being. Breeding is selfish and based on human needs, and irregardless of how much anyone loves their own dog/dogs, it has NOTHING to do with a true, genuine desire for the well being of dogs.

And it's not just the breeders I take issue with, it's the people who continue to BUY dogs from breeders. Fact is, breeders would stop if it were not profitable or if they had difficulty finding homes for all their dogs. So not only should breeders wake up, the general public should stop and think about what they're doing, and who they are supporting- and, as well, who they are hurting, which is other dogs- dogs that would absolutely love to be with them and their best friend but, instead, are going to die because nobody came to give them love or a home. Or because some people think they're gonna get a "better" dog from a breeder. Tell that to the dog that's getting put to sleep that he doesn't measure up to the dog you just bought...

I know I sound harsh, and it's not that I am against breeding if it were done in a place and time where there weren't so many unwanted, homeless dogs. But that's not how it currently is, so in good conscience I can't do anything but take serious issue with anything that helps kill more dogs, and breeding does...I really, really love dogs and just wish that others who say they love them too would show it by not contributing a any further to the dog population until every adoptable dog has a loving home.

So based on all that- sorry, but there isn't any such thing as a "responsible" breeder. There are simply those that treat the dogs they farm better than others.
The first question that springs to mind is: "How do you propose that we perpetuate dogs without selective breeders?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2010, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Florida
478 posts, read 654,079 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
The first question that springs to mind is: "How do you propose that we perpetuate dogs without selective breeders?"

Are you being serious?!? We will never be short of dogs so long as there are morons among us, and I fear we can always count on them to make up a good percentage of our population here in the U.S.. So, assuming a decent percentage of those morons have dogs, then we can easily assume that they'll not spay/neuter their dogs- so there you go. However, regarding breeders: what they contribute is obnoxiously superfluous to the current dog overpopulation- which was my whole point. You copied and pasted my whole little rant there, did you read it?!?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2010, 04:59 AM
 
Location: California
10,091 posts, read 36,866,500 times
Reputation: 22101
Quote:
Originally Posted by leorah View Post
Mod Note: Discussions about adoption vs. breeding are interesting and important, as are discussions about the various breeds and their health issues. However, those discussions don't belong in this thread.

Please bring the discussion back to the topic of this thread, which is, "What makes a RESPONSIBLE breeder?"


Thanks.
Just bumping Leorah's post to help bring the thread back on topic!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2010, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,395,048 times
Reputation: 7084
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666 View Post
Are you being serious?!? We will never be short of dogs so long as there are morons among us, and I fear we can always count on them to make up a good percentage of our population here in the U.S.. So, assuming a decent percentage of those morons have dogs, then we can easily assume that they'll not spay/neuter their dogs- so there you go. However, regarding breeders: what they contribute is obnoxiously superfluous to the current dog overpopulation- which was my whole point. You copied and pasted my whole little rant there, did you read it?!?
I actually had a point, Shelby...

To helios: yes, I am being serious and yes I read your whole rant. I asked the question to learn whether or not you recognize that responsible breeding and placement has a negligible impact on overcrowded shelters and that irresponsible ownership is the core of the problem.

Clearly you do.

Please help me understand why people who are attempting to correct the damage done to a multitude of breeds through years of horrible breeding practices, reconstruct healthy lines, carefully monitor the placement of their dogs and who genuinely love and care for their animals (what I would call responsible breeders) are contributing something that is "obnoxiously superfluous" and why they deserve the label of "selfish?"

And no, you didn't do that in your rant. That rant just made me wonder if you have ever met someone who knows what he or she is doing when it comes to breeding dogs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2010, 09:21 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,021 posts, read 13,542,402 times
Reputation: 8045
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666 View Post
Are you being serious?!? We will never be short of dogs so long as there are morons among us, and I fear we can always count on them to make up a good percentage of our population here in the U.S.. So, assuming a decent percentage of those morons have dogs, then we can easily assume that they'll not spay/neuter their dogs- so there you go. However, regarding breeders: what they contribute is obnoxiously superfluous to the current dog overpopulation- which was my whole point. You copied and pasted my whole little rant there, did you read it?!?
so your idea is to eradicate the responsible breeders and just let the "morons" supply our dogs? you'd rather have people breeding our future pets for money vs. responsible breeders who breed for health and temperament? funny, I would think the exact opposite. there is an overpopulation of dogs, but that's not the fault of any responsible breeder. very, very, very few of the dogs at a shelter came from a responsible breeder and there's no guarantee whatsoever that someone looking to buy from a responsible breeder will instead choose to adopt from a shelter or even a breed specific rescue. not everyone is looking for a rescue dog, whatever their reasons. best way to tackle that overpopulation is to leave the breeding to the experts.

eta: sorry, shelbygirl, won't continue on this line of discussion any more. needless to say, a responsible breeder will not allow their dogs to be surrendered to a shelter or rescue
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2010, 09:44 PM
 
Location: Florida
478 posts, read 654,079 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
I actually had a point, Shelby...

To helios: yes, I am being serious and yes I read your whole rant. I asked the question to learn whether or not you recognize that responsible breeding and placement has a negligible impact on overcrowded shelters and that irresponsible ownership is the core of the problem.

Clearly you do.

Please help me understand why people who are attempting to correct the damage done to a multitude of breeds through years of horrible breeding practices, reconstruct healthy lines, carefully monitor the placement of their dogs and who genuinely love and care for their animals (what I would call responsible breeders) are contributing something that is "obnoxiously superfluous" and why they deserve the label of "selfish?"

And no, you didn't do that in your rant. That rant just made me wonder if you have ever met someone who knows what he or she is doing when it comes to breeding dogs.
Thank you for clarifying and detailing exactly what you must have originally meant to ask; had you done so from the beginning I wouldn't have been so snarky...sorry!

To answer your question- yes, I have known breeders that take great care in the way they treat their dogs and as well have been very careful with the choosing of lineage and matching up just the right ******* and studs to ensure the healthiest and heartiest dogs; one of my Mum's best friends used to breed Keeshonds. Which is the kind of dogs we always had growing up. Also knew Maine Coon cat breeders who exercised great care with their Coons (and as well that was the only breed of cat we used to have). There did come a day, however, after our last Maine Coon died, my Mum came to a realization that it just wasn't "right" to "buy" animals so from then on, we only adopted/rescued them.

Now when you talk about "correcting the damage" done to breeds- you're still talking about bringing more animals into the world when there aren't enough homes for the ones that already exist so, irregardless of whether or not it's the dirtbag puppy farmers, or the idiots who either don't spay/neuter or just neglect or abandon their dogs that is the reason for pet overpopulation rather than "responsible" breeders, I still maintain that breeding isn't necessary, nor is it humane to do. No matter how careful a breeder is about homing their dogs, the fact remains that for every home that takes in a bred dog, that's one less place for a shelter/homeless dog.

And I'm sorry, but I still stand firm that breeding is in fact selfish. Again, breeding is not about the dogs- it's about humans and what we think we "need" in a dog that is the only reason I can think of why anyone would defend breeding and say that it's important. I personally think it is archaic practice and hope it stops. Even if it's for something like training dogs for handicapped or blind people, because there are various breeds and/or mutts that can be trained well to do that; my biological Mother is legally blind and has a guide dog- who isn't a Shepherd, nor a Lab- he's is a pitbull mix! And anyone who knows anything about breeds and traits therein knows that although there are usually very specific traits within specific breeds, all dogs are individuals and there are always exceptions to the rules, and you can find damn near any trait you're looking for in ANY breed- sometimes not in the dog you'd expect to find it, either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 05:16 AM
 
204 posts, read 531,157 times
Reputation: 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666 View Post
Thank you for clarifying and detailing exactly !


Now when you talk about "correcting the damage" done to breeds- you're still talking about bringing more animals into the world when there aren't enough homes for the ones that already exist so, irregardless of whether or not it's the dirtbag puppy farmers, or the idiots who either don't spay/neuter or just neglect or abandon their dogs that is the reason for pet overpopulation rather than "responsible" breeders, I still maintain that breeding isn't necessary, nor is it humane to do. No matter how careful a breeder is about homing their dogs, the fact remains that for every home that takes in a bred dog, that's one less place for a shelter/homeless dog.

And I'm sorry, but I still stand firm that breeding is in fact selfish. Again, breeding is not about the dogs- it's about humans and what we think we "need" in a dog that is the only reason I can think of why anyone would defend breeding and say that it's important. I personally think it is archaic practice and hope it stops. Even if it's for something like training dogs for handicapped or blind people, because there are various breeds and/or mutts that can be trained well to do that; my biological Mother is legally blind and has a guide dog- who isn't a Shepherd, nor a Lab- he's is a pitbull mix! And anyone who knows anything about breeds and traits therein knows that although there are usually very specific traits within specific breeds, all dogs are individuals and there are always exceptions to the rules, and you can find damn near any trait you're looking for in ANY breed- sometimes not in the dog you'd expect to find it, either.
Using your line of reasoning it could be argued that it is selfish to even own a dog. If no one owned a dog the mill, breeders, etc. would ALL go away. Not much would be accomplished or even attempted in society if everything was abandoned due to some sector's malfeasance. The key is education.....

Why begrudge someone who has specific needs and wants to improve the odds in finding a suitable dog when they choose a breed or breeder?

As far as what makes a responsible breeder.....to me it's not certain types of show breeders whose methods move them towards becoming livestock producers. The kind that does do health screenings, follows the show circuit, etc., but has a kennel full of dogs that live as kennel dogs. My dominant memory of visiting one big name breeder is not the wall of ribbons, but of the 20 dogs living their entire lives behind chainlink fencing.

I'd never consider anyone a responsible breeder if I wouldn't want to sell them a puppy that I produced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2010, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 34,395,048 times
Reputation: 7084
Quote:
Originally Posted by helios666 View Post
And I'm sorry, but I still stand firm that breeding is in fact selfish. Again, breeding is not about the dogs- it's about humans and what we think we "need" in a dog that is the only reason I can think of why anyone would defend breeding and say that it's important. I personally think it is archaic practice and hope it stops. Even if it's for something like training dogs for handicapped or blind people, because there are various breeds and/or mutts that can be trained well to do that; my biological Mother is legally blind and has a guide dog- who isn't a Shepherd, nor a Lab- he's is a pitbull mix! And anyone who knows anything about breeds and traits therein knows that although there are usually very specific traits within specific breeds, all dogs are individuals and there are always exceptions to the rules, and you can find damn near any trait you're looking for in ANY breed- sometimes not in the dog you'd expect to find it, either.
The above is really the stem of our fundamental disagreement.

We have dogs in our homes and by our sides only because dogs have been immeasurably useful to humans throughout history. Dogs are not here because of human sympathy or welfare - they are here because they have earned their keep for thousands of years. It is a true symbiotic relationship and the lots of both species have been improved by the other. To abandon the dog's usefulness to humans is to destroy the dog's pride.

I saw a duck hunter hunting over a rottweiler as a boy. It was very strange indeed. I doubt I will ever see that again. You can't count on finding mutts at the shelter who are suitable for all the tasks that humans still use dogs for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2010, 04:52 AM
 
Location: Florida
478 posts, read 654,079 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShermanJoe View Post
Using your line of reasoning it could be argued that it is selfish to even own a dog. If no one owned a dog the mill, breeders, etc. would ALL go away. Not much would be accomplished or even attempted in society if everything was abandoned due to some sector's malfeasance. The key is education.....

Why begrudge someone who has specific needs and wants to improve the odds in finding a suitable dog when they choose a breed or breeder?

As far as what makes a responsible breeder.....to me it's not certain types of show breeders whose methods move them towards becoming livestock producers. The kind that does do health screenings, follows the show circuit, etc., but has a kennel full of dogs that live as kennel dogs. My dominant memory of visiting one big name breeder is not the wall of ribbons, but of the 20 dogs living their entire lives behind chainlink fencing.

I'd never consider anyone a responsible breeder if I wouldn't want to sell them a puppy that I produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimboburnsy View Post
The above is really the stem of our fundamental disagreement.

We have dogs in our homes and by our sides only because dogs have been immeasurably useful to humans throughout history. Dogs are not here because of human sympathy or welfare - they are here because they have earned their keep for thousands of years. It is a true symbiotic relationship and the lots of both species have been improved by the other. To abandon the dog's usefulness to humans is to destroy the dog's pride.

I saw a duck hunter hunting over a rottweiler as a boy. It was very strange indeed. I doubt I will ever see that again. You can't count on finding mutts at the shelter who are suitable for all the tasks that humans still use dogs for.

I must say that both of you made your points very well, and I respect that. And I also am taking into consideration things both of you said and am having a hard time disagreeing when you bring up the issue of we humans having a symbiotic relationship with dogs; we humans did create that when we decided to domesticate them, and of course breeding specific traits was surely a part of that. We need dogs as much as they need us- if not more, and throughout history and centuries we went through all sorts of lengths to create JUST the right companions to suit our needs. And on that note alone, I digress- when a human gets what he wants in a companion he's happy and so the dog is happy- we all win! THAT really is what it's all about when it comes down to it.

Of course I obviously side with the dogs before the humans because they don't have a will- we do. We make a choice to keep them, however the case may be, so we have a responsibility to care for them even if it turns out they aren't what we were "expecting" or looking for- just like when you have a child- it's always a bit of a surprise but sorry, you're stuck! Of course it's not just expectations, its ignorance. People buy dogs for looks or status and that doesn't work. And it goes without saying that anyone that stupid to get a dog for those reasons isn't likely to care for it right and are the types to either just abandon a dog or hand it off to a shelter as if giving an old couch to Salvation Army. Disturbing that such people walk among us, and probably procreate but that's another thread...

So since you've both made me think further about this, I'm now thinking that the best way to help dogs, and in turn help humans to still have the breeds they love for whatever reason, would be to require ALL breeders to keep and maintain a license if they wish to "sell" their dogs (for anything more than a very nominal "homing/rehoming" fee for "accidental" litters and the like). And impose fines for any breeder refusing to keep said license and/or not adhering to whatever set standards apply (and they should be strict to keep the rif-raf dirtbags OUT!). That would, right off the bat, eliminate probably MOST of the current "breeders" out there who, not only aren't diligent in using care to maintain strength in breeds, often breed and sell to pet stores or irresponsible owners, in addition to selling to just anyone who is willing to pay for their "product". EVERY responsible breeder should take great care in the placement of their dogs and require anyone who takes their animal to sign a contract agreeing to return the dog back to them should anything not work out, period.

And until such laws are enacted I'm afraid I'll still be against any intentional breeding, though I appreciate the further insight and hope you can appreciate mine on the matter- I only wish laws might continue to change in order to help our four legged friends rather than malign them. They've already suggested restricting the breeding of certain types of dogs like Pitbulls, and that doesn't help at all- it should be the breeding of ALL dogs that is restricted. We already have enough laws to protect people but we need some to protect animals. !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Pets > Dogs
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top