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.
if a breeder is breeding responsibly ..... dogs bred for a specific purpose or job, the breeders intent is to improve the breed, the breeder has done the appropriate and applicable genetic testing and health certifications for issues common to that breed, ie., OFA hip certifications, heart issues, etc., takes care of the breeding dogs in a humane manner, then I have no problem at all with that breeding operation..... oh yeah .... a responsible and reputable breeder will also have a waiting list for puppies before the female is even bred.... AND a clause in the sales contract that the puppy or dog is to come back to that kennel if for some reason the new owner can not take care of it any longer .... this covers the dog's entire lifetime... and one more thing... they also require spay / neuter of all dogs that will not be in the show ring...... to prevent joe six pack figuring he's got him a registered dog... he's gonna find him another registered dog and make BIG BUCKS off of all those registered puppies......
but really.... those things cost MONEY.... and a responsible and reputable breeder is not in it for profit, because there is little to no profit to be made from RESPONSIBLE breeding.....
now a byb'er and a miller.... they could not care less about genetic testing, health certifications for hips, hearts and eyes or even the condition of the animals they are using in such a manner.... as long as the buyer's check clears, all is good in their world .... that puppy they sold a couple or three of years ago whose owner has died or become incapacitated or whose owner has just grown tired of it?? the check has cleared, so its not their problem.... just take it to the pound.... THAT is what I have a problem with....
These are ideal conditions for the sale of a dog.
This is what we all should aim for, but, at this time it is not the norm.
Still it doesn't make a back yard breeder or seller of dogs a criminal if he or she doesn't do testing, or lifelong guarantees, or take an animal back if you die. Personally, I wouldn't want my dog going back, I would make sure I have provided a safe a secure place for my dogs, should something happen to me. I feel that is the responsibility of the owner. If a buyer wants to be able to return a dog, he should buy from a breeder who provided that courtesy if needed.
It is the uninformed buyer who makes the sale of poor quality dogs possible.
The more informed a buyer becomes, the more he or she will require from the seller, so education of the buying public is important and benefits the seller, the buyer, and the animal sold. The more we know, the better we do.
There will always be people who don't mind paying less and taking a chance on the quality and health of their purchased dog. There is nothing wrong with that either. Millions of dogs have been sold without genetic testing, and have made wonderful pets. It is all about what you are looking for as a buyer and how much you are willing to pay for a pet.
Personally, I prefer to buy a very high quality dog, since I have to look at it for the next sixteen or seventeen years, and that matters to me. Since genetics are of great interest to me, I like to know as much as possible about the genetics of my dogs.
There are some health tests for some breeds, but there are many conditions that no test is available. I feel, with luck, I spend less money on a dog of higher quality...but, this is not always true because genetics are very complicated, and don't always follow through as expected. It is all about what you, as a buyer, are looking for in a pet. I know people who would never pay money for a dog, it isn't worth it to them...and they make fabulous owners. There are people I know who have spent thousands of dollars for their dogs and couldn't care less about them.
Nice post and a good reminder.
I stated these things earlier and think they can be useful for both the seller and the buyer. As always, buyer beware.
ps....shouldn't shelters have to do all of the above, including testing, before they sell a dog or cat, if breeders should? I think so....
Last edited by MoBornSouthernBelle; 03-31-2011 at 10:08 PM..
Thanks for the advice.
I have no trouble reading colors, and as far as bad internet form...whoops, other than e-mail and information gathering, this part of the internet is new to me, so forgive me for my bad form. But, I still like the colors, so I may have to continue.
ps I do know capitals mean you are yelling...though I thought they were used for emphasis. Oh, well...
I did look for information on color usage, but didn't find anything on that.
I am sure you have a link.
When you post a reply here, there are a whole bunch of different options. Bolded text is used for emphasis, its the B on the far left.
Black and white are they easiest on the eyes for text, due to the fact that they are one opposite ends of the color spectrum, in my line of business its called a high-key contrast.
Thats why its so common.
I cant bear to read what you posted in your last post, it really does make the eyes hurt.
wow ... a poster makes a comment that the color you chose to highlight your posts is difficult to read and you have to go get all defensive about approval...... .... sheesh.....
since i have been pretty vocal in my support of legislation that attempts to regulate the horror shows that are puppy mills, i am guessing that this little comment is at least partially directed at me ......
my 2 dogs and 2 cats (all shelter mutts) and the over 300 dogs i have helped to transport to safety would most likely disagree with your assessment.... as would the dozens of dogs I have pulled from death row in shelters and done home visits for..... oh and guess what!! several of those dogs i pulled from death row were PURE BREDS ... that had obviously been used in some sort of breeding program.... wonder how they ended up about to be gassed in a municipal shelter??
to be perfectly honest, i don't give a rat's azz "how you own your pets" ... whatever THAT means... ... as long as they are properly cared for and humanely treated.... something puppy mill breeders (aka livestock) will never know unless they are rescued by some miracle.... but that's not something you really have to deal with or face, now is it??
you go on and enjoy that lovely sunshine.....
Funny, Prop B isn't about ENFORCEMENT of taking down puppy mills.
Missouri has "anti-puppy mill" laws, just lack of enforcement to keep puppy mills out of business.
Also, its a misdemeaner to run a "puppy-mill" maybe ask their lobbyists to aim at stronger enforcement and making it a heavy-duty crime.
If you're gonna get a Proposition passed by and for the people, you might as well go all out
Also, we think puppies/animals in the USA are mistreated sometimes?
Go to China, where the HUMANS are mistreated.
These are ideal conditions for the sale of a dog.
This is what we all should aim for, but, at this time it is not the norm.
Still it doesn't make a back yard breeder or seller of dogs a criminal if he or she doesn't do testing, or lifelong guarantees, or take an animal back if you die. Personally, I wouldn't want my dog going back, I would make sure I have provided a safe a secure place for my dogs, should something happen to me. I feel that is the responsibility of the owner. If a buyer wants to be able to return a dog, he should buy from a breeder who provided that courtesy if needed.
It is the uninformed buyer who makes the sale of poor quality dogs possible.
The more informed a buyer becomes, the more he or she will require from the seller, so education of the buying public is important and benefits the seller, the buyer, and the animal sold. The more we know, the better we do.
There will always be people who don't mind paying less and taking a chance on the quality and health of their purchased dog. There is nothing wrong with that either. Millions of dogs have been sold without genetic testing, and have made wonderful pets. It is all about what you are looking for as a buyer and how much you are willing to pay for a pet.
Personally, I prefer to buy a very high quality dog, since I have to look at it for the next sixteen or seventeen years, and that matters to me. Since genetics are of great interest to me, I like to know as much as possible about the genetics of my dogs.
There are some health tests for some breeds, but there are many conditions that no test is available. I feel, with luck, I spend less money on a dog of higher quality...but, this is not always true because genetics are very complicated, and don't always follow through as expected. It is all about what you, as a buyer, are looking for in a pet. I know people who would never pay money for a dog, it isn't worth it to them...and they make fabulous owners. There are people I know who have spent thousands of dollars for their dogs and couldn't care less about them.
Nice post and a good reminder.
I stated these things earlier and think they can be useful for both the seller and the buyer. As always, buyer beware.
ps....shouldn't shelters have to do all of the above, including testing, before they sell a dog or cat, if breeders should? I think so....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
Funny, Prop B isn't about ENFORCEMENT of taking down puppy mills.
Missouri has "anti-puppy mill" laws, just lack of enforcement to keep puppy mills out of business.
Also, its a misdemeaner to run a "puppy-mill" maybe ask their lobbyists to aim at stronger enforcement and making it a heavy-duty crime.
shelters don't breed puppies for sale, so the comment about genetic testing for shelter dogs is moot.... they are already here and in need of good homes.....
shelters also don't "sell" dogs... the fees paid are to HELP cover expenses for vaccinations, spay/neuter, microchipping, daily care, heartworm preventative, flea and tick preventative, treatment of illness and injury... the list goes on.....
the comment about human rights abuses in China is irrelevant to the subject at hand...... if that is your thing, then by all means, get busy with it..... I choose to focus my energies on issues in my own backyard.....
never said the lack of testing and certification made a breeder a criminal... never even implied it.... BUT it is this kind of indiscriminate breeding that has greatly exacerbated the issues of hip dysplasia, liver shunts, luxating patellas, chf, poor temperament, homzygenous merles having hearing and vision issues.... this list goes on, too.....
if a dog is known to have one or more of these issues, it should not be bred under any circumstances..... and some of these issues don't even show up until a dog is a year or 2 or more old..... you think a byb or a miller cares?? heck no, they just see the $$$ those cute little puppies will make for them, with no regard to how they are polluting the gene pool..... or what they are setting those puppies and their owners up for later on down the road.....
oh... and prob b makes it a criminal offense to maintain breeding dogs in unsanitary and inhumane conditions.... granted, it is just a misdemeanor, but ya' gotta start somewhere..... and this is applicable whether a breeding facility is licensed or unlicensed.....
the comment about an educated buying public is right on ... and that is another avenue being pursued..... but you know as well as i do.... people walking by those cute little puppies in the pet store or seeing their pictures on the internet lose all perspective and the miller and byb'er is rewarded again......
I'm sorry but I cannot even begin to conceive of 30 pages on puppy mills. Certainly there are more pressing matters to be addressed in this day-and-age, or have I missed something?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have NOT waded through this. I think it would make my mind explode.
^You're right Curmudgeon. It IS inconceivable that in this day and age puppy mills are even debatable. I thought we were better as a society than that. Very ironic too that it's the God fearing conservatives who supposedly have such big hearts who turn a blind eye to the egregious abuse of animals. Instead they are grasping at straws trying desperately to make weak "slippery slope" arguments because the proposition was promoted by people they pereceive as "not like them". It's very disheartening to say the least. But so long as proponents of treating animals humanely are labelled as "extremists" and "radicals" by those who have other agendas, we will not get anywhere with this.
And for the record - yes I believe ALL animals should be treated humanely, even those we use for food. People who have a lot of compassion for animals often are the ones who have the biggest compassion for people too.
It IS inconceivable that in this day and age puppy mills are even debatable.
I thought we were better as a society than that.
Very ironic too that it's the God fearing conservatives who supposedly have such big hearts who turn a blind eye to the egregious abuse of animals. Instead they are grasping at straws trying desperately to make weak "slippery slope" arguments because the proposition was promoted by people they pereceive as "not like them".
It's very disheartening to say the least. But so long as proponents of treating animals humanely are labelled as "extremists" and "radicals" by those who have other agendas, we will not get anywhere with this.
And for the record - yes I believe ALL animals should be treated humanely, even those we use for food.
People who have a lot of compassion for animals often are the ones who have the biggest compassion for people too.
So true.
All over the country the hearts of these so called "God fearing" conservatives are being exposed. It really seems that they should spend more time reading their Bibles...
^You're right Curmudgeon. It IS inconceivable that in this day and age puppy mills are even debatable. I thought we were better as a society than that. Very ironic too that it's the God fearing conservatives who supposedly have such big hearts who turn a blind eye to the egregious abuse of animals. Instead they are grasping at straws trying desperately to make weak "slippery slope" arguments because the proposition was promoted by people they pereceive as "not like them". It's very disheartening to say the least. But so long as proponents of treating animals humanely are labelled as "extremists" and "radicals" by those who have other agendas, we will not get anywhere with this.
And for the record - yes I believe ALL animals should be treated humanely, even those we use for food. People who have a lot of compassion for animals often are the ones who have the biggest compassion for people too.
+1.
Well said!
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.
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.
.... sheesh..... 
