Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama  No offense at all, Donna.
But here comes the question: If great show breeders are primarily concerned with preserving the breed, are they doing that by breeding in mass? Presumably, they are only keeping the dogs that meet their showing goals. The rest are placed in homes. Now, presumably again, those dogs are placed on spay and neuter contracts because those dogs weren't fit for showing and therefore, not fit for breeding. So how is that improving the breed if the lineage stops there? Or are they selling these dogs to other breeders as "good enough" to breed? And if these "good enough" dogs are breeding, how are they controlling the progeny to make sure the lines stay strong? Limited registrations haven’t helped; the unscrupulous breeder just goes and registers with an alternate registry and keeps going.
I'm going to pull a number out of the air here; since I can't seem to find a good answer to what percentage of pups from a show breeder are show- worthy. If 1 out of every 25 pups is championable (is that a word?) , what about the other 24? Granted, it's more likely that these pups are well vetted and less likely to have health problems than the mill dogs, but that's still 24 dogs brought in to an already over populated pet world. I'm not saying that these high volume show breeders are the cause of the overpopulation problem, but surely they are adding to it every bit as much as the byb'er.
There is a huge difference between a dog that chooses to go in to a cage on its own, and one that is forced to stay in a cage/crate/xpen/kennel because it’s owner is too busy or has too many dogs to properly supervise it. I also won’t disagree that many breeders spend more one on one time than some many pet owners. But I don’t care how many kennel helpers you can afford to pay; the dog still loses out on the day to day bonding and interaction that is the reason this species, above all others, is so loved when it’s kenneled versus raised in a good home situation. So if it’s bad for the owner to do it, why is it ok for the breeder? If they truly love the dogs, why deprive them of something it needs to reach it’s full potential? It just seems hypocritical that these same breeders would point fingers at the mills and BYB’ers and say they are bad for the way they treat their dogs, while doing essentially the same thing themselves, just in better conditions.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that a high volume show breeder producing more dogs isn’t going to put the BYB’er or mills out of business. It’s not going to improve the overall health of the breed nor preserve the traits of the Yorkie as long as everyone is over breeding. I just see a lot of excusing A,B and C because someone does X,Y and Z.
ETA: Not sure why Brooklyn's quote came out so strange. I've been having lots of issues with quoting lately |
My husband and I both work and my dogs are in large kennels while we are away because I just can't have all them running loose in my house while we are working wouldn't be safe. But one good thing for me is my husband only works 2 miles from the house and comes home for lunch everyday. If he can't come home then I come home for lunch and let them out to potty. If done right I see no problem.
You know they also have waiting lists for other show exhibitors that want to obtain from them as well. All the breeders I know that place as pets are all on spay neuter contracts. If these show breeders didn't place show dogs in other exhibitors homes "I" wouldn't have what I have now.