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 |
I can assure you that I'm not making excuses for anyone, if I did not believe that some purebred breeders actually loved the breed as a whole as much as I do, and not just their own dogs, I would not buy a purebred. Do breeders and their dogs make sacrifices for the good of the breed? Yes, I believe the do. If you do not believe in showing, I do not understand how you can buy a purebred dog, for without show breeders who breed to standard, the purebred yorkie would look undistinguishable from other dogs in 50 years. Some of these bigger kennels are probably not even selling to the pet buyer, but they are probably selling to a small breeder who has proven herself to someone and has shown she won't be breeding for profit. So many small breeder say, nobody will sell me a good dog, but they have never taken the time to prove to someone, they are doing it for the right reason, and not just to earn pocket change. Most of the breeders I know, have spent way more on their dogs than they have ever earned.