|
Welcome to the YorkieTalk.com Forums Community - the community for Yorkshire Terriers. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. You will be able to chat with over 35,000 YorkieTalk members, read over 2,000,000 posted discussions, and view more than 15,000 Yorkie photos in the YorkieTalk Photo Gallery after you register. We would love to have you as a member! Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please click here to contact us. |
|
| LinkBack | Thread Tools |
05-23-2006, 11:52 AM | #1 |
Donating YT 4000 Club Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 4,405
| The Backyard Breeder Fallacy The Backyard Breeder Fallacy http://www.thedogpress.com/default.asp I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper. However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that either. Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being relieved of their civil rights. While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another. Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like “puppy mill” and “backyard breeder” and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on “death row”. Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics. It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding”. Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter. Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist. Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak. The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers. Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it. We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive. According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not “puppy mills”, breed enthusiasts or “backyard breeders” of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a “designer” product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory. Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same “hybrid vigor” so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process. The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future. Am I a “backyard breeder”? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win. Ms. Jade magikworksmins@yahoo.com May 2006
__________________ Kimberly |
Welcome Guest! | |
05-23-2006, 12:32 PM | #2 | |
YT Addict Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Indiana
Posts: 271
| Quote:
Well said!!!! I agree 100%
__________________ Cindy's mom | |
06-25-2006, 12:25 AM | #3 |
YT 2000 Club Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: USA
Posts: 2,992
| I wasn't surprised to see few responses to "The Backyard Breeder Fallacy." I think the only one I see so far was something about "I agree with it 100%." I'm sure I can't go that far. I might agree with it about 10% - but even before doing this, I would have to give it far more consideration and "grueling thought" than I an muster up at this time of night. Actually, I'm not sure I'll ever be up to it. Ms. Jade's personal opinons on so many issues are covered in this one article that it might be somewhat overwhelming for most people to respond to more than only one or two of them. And, actually, many of us have voiced our opinions on most of her topics often on YT, many times over.....but we did have the advantage of discussing them one at a time. Well - let's see if anyone else is going to tackle this article. Carol Jean |
06-25-2006, 02:40 AM | #4 |
Donating Yorkie Yakker Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: .
Posts: 493
| Alright, since we are going to be free thinkers (that and Mia woke me up at 4 in the morning and I have nothing better to do at the moment), let me tackle this article. Not because I completely disagree with it, but rather because it deserves to be analyzed for better understanding of the issues discussed, like all texts (can you tell I am a literature person?). In this article there are some blatant red flags. One of which is the author's tendency to stereotype and scapegoat "animal rights activists." First of all its too easy to homogenize a group of people under umbrella terms, and to describe this group with characteristics that cannot possibly be attributed to the entire group. Let me give an example. I believe I used to be (and maybe still am) an "animal rights activist." I was a PETA member before I found out that they "euthanized" animals at their shelters, I used to be a HSUS member, and I have been a vegetarian all my adult life (which is like 4-5 years, but its somethin'). I would advocate vegetarianism to anyone who is considering. I have taken in a pregant stray cat and nursed her through all her difficulties during/after pregnancy and unfortunate lymphoma (she died on Memorial day). I have found good homes for three of her babies, and I will do home visits to ensure that the babies get spayed/neutered. I have a beautiful cat from the local animal shelter (which gasses animals once or twice a week). Boy do I feel good for rescuing my cat from that hell-hole. And, I am the recent owner of a beautiful pure bred Yorkie. I would like to breed Yorkies some day (in my 40s when I have more stability in my life) to better the breed as a knowledgable and responsible person. To me breeding Yorkies seems like a better occupation of my time than raising kids. And I absolutely fell in love with the breed thanks to Mia. I also love taking care of animals to the best of my abilities and knowledge. But, I would also like to help stray animals, abused animals and animals that are in shelters for the rest of my life. Now, let me tell you why I have, in the past, agreed to the philosophy of "animals are not for us to use, so on and so forth," which includes pet ownership. It may not be a good reason, but it was my reason. Because it is never ever ever going to happen. Not many people care enough about animals and how they are treated. How many of you would treat your pets as your baby and then have dinner at a steak house? Many. I am not trying to judge anyone. I am just pointing out the selective love most people give animals. I used to think that if you aim for such an extreme goal, on your way to that goal, you are bound to accomplish the alleviation of animal suffering. Right now I think such philosophy just polarizes the existing animal lover "community," and makes it easy for people that care to dismiss animal activism as this author does. And that is not helping anyone, including the pet owners. It is also hysterical (!) that the author writes "Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive," later on since that is what she is doing. When it comes to the shelter statistics, this example does not support the author's argument because we don't know the statistics of pet ownership. The reason animals at the shelters are a problem is because there are no homes for them to go to. The main idea "animal activists" rely on when attributing animal overpopulation to the breeders is because "they" think that a person who bought a pure-bred could have adopted, and reduced the overpopulation at the shelters. Not because pure breds crowd animal shelters. There are shortcomings of our understanding of DNA, and there is the basic fact that predictions are just predictions. Not that breeders should not know this stuff, I think they should be up to date on the scientific part of it, but this knowledge does not grant anyone a special untouchable status. Nor does this incomplete knowledge of the breeder grant her puppies a special quality or give her the right to demonize mutts. Some mutts make better pets than pure breds. It depends on the animal. The proposed solution to spay/neuter mutts and to "eliminate" them based on the fact that they are mutts is quite unreasonable. It is very very sad to see a person that is a self-proclaimed "Nazi" anything since it should be clear to everyone (by now) what is wrong with such mentality. This is not joking material. And the reason HSUS would have (I am guessing) promoted mutts "as a 'designer' product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory" is because that is why some people buy pets. I have come across several people that wanted less than 5 lbs. Yorkies to carry around as fashion accessories. HSUS is just trying to save some animal lives by trying to improve mutts' image. Not that it seems to be working. Okay, this is getting long and I am getting bored. These are some of my objections to the article. I agree that the activists' efforts are sometimes misdirected, and that the actions taken are not that productive. They are sometimes unnecessarily restrictive. I think she has some good points, and it is definitely a subject worth our attention. I just wanted to expand the discussion. Thanks for reading.
__________________ |
06-25-2006, 03:08 AM | #5 | |
Yorkies Rock My World! Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,721
| Quote:
Kim, you did not give your own opinion on the article. How about it? What compelled you to post it? Just curious...
__________________ Glad Mom to Jasper, Wosie & Dreama, RIP sweet babies. | |
06-25-2006, 11:37 PM | #6 |
Donating YT 4000 Club Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Portland Oregon
Posts: 4,405
| My reason for posting is I found it an interesting article simple as that ... did I agree with most of it? No! Did I agree with some of it of course. For example the on going debate and possible legislation of the PAWS act. I personally spoke with AKC regarding this purposed legislation. I am not a proponent of the bill but I do better understand it (if it does pass) and the possible effect it may have on the small hobby breeder. Government enforcement has its place, the "millers door step" in the large breed for profit kennels, but for small hobby breeder I question their needed involvement. In their eyes its all about business and or in some instances public pressure. I dont agree with mix breeds, nor breeding the flavor of the month, but every pet should have a home and every breeder should be held responsible for the health and well being of every pup they may produce, requiring a return/rehome agreement be signed with every placement or be an important part of their contract. Because society has become more involved in the welfare of animals there are more pet rescues, no kill shelters, not to mention responsible breeders doing their part in fostering and placement, but it is in my opinion if more breeders would adopt strict spay/neuter contracts no matter the breed the less likely others would entertain the thought of breeding their beloved pet. Also Ms. Jade points out "our disposable society" which I couldnt agree more with yesterday, but I take issue with today. It is also my opinion todays life style has changed, public acceptance has broadened, the "PET BUSINESS" has become big business and with big business comes government involvement. Even though we've become a kinder more gentler society advocating animal rights, count the number of doggie day cares, there are now numerous pet therapists, pet trainers, pet videos, pet radio, pet camcorders, pet insurance, pet cemeteries, all day pampered pet salons, pet boutiques, pet clothing designers, dog walkers, pet sitters, mobile vet practices and groomers. Glance at the pet food manufacturers alone; 20 years ago there was puppy chow today there is a smorgasbord for pets from the raw diet to the doggie bakery. Today people celebrate their pets, who would have imagined 20 years ago a pet wedding or a puppy birthday party? Many businesses allow employees to bring dogs to work, colleges allow pets in classes or some provide doggie day care. Families can travel more freely with their pets, its amazing how many pet friendly hotels and restaurants are available throughout the world. Todays pampered pooches are treated more like children living the spoiled life instead of an outside guard dog. Like in anything there is good and bad and when the government gets involved more often than not its for monetary reason over public pressure.
__________________ Kimberly |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Thread Tools | |
| |
|
|
SHOP NOW: Amazon :: eBay :: Buy.com :: Newegg :: PetStore :: Petco :: PetSmart