Quote:
Originally Posted by Wylie's Mom  Answers in BOLD
So i have been skimming the threads about puppymills one thing ive realized is that once a breeder says the word teacup she/he is considered a puppymill...what is the correlation between a teacup puppy n puppymill? PM's don't care whether using a marketing/buzz word is detrimental to a breed. Therefore, using the word 'teacup' can be indicative of an unethical breeder or PM. Also, PM's breed for quantity and if using/abusing a word means more sales, you can be darn sure they'll use it ad nauseum.
could a puppymill be a puppymill without advertising teacups? Sure.
Next question what is considered a puppymill a person who is just trying to make money from producing dogs or a person who abuses their animals? Well first, a PM by definition is abusive to their animals. PM's are cruel, horrific places. So yes, a PM would involve BOTH 'trying to make money from producing dogs' and being abusive to animals.
Now i may get alot of angry comments for this next statement but is it possible for a breeder like my breeder to just want to make money from a puppy but not abuse or not ,not take care of her animals? wouldnt that just be considered a plane breeder? Yes, it's possible for someone to want to make money off of animals, but they don't necessarily abuse said animals. I wouldn't call that a 'plain breeder', I'd call that a backyard breeder...I'd also call them unethical for USING ANIMALS, living creatures (!!!), to make money. To me, that's deplorable. I don't believe in making money off of selling living, breathing, precious beings.
Whats so wrong with selling a puppy (not including the discussion about genetics n dna testing) who doesnt necessarily live in puppymill conditions and doesnt necessarily breed the 3 to 4 pound moms (and does use the word teacup ) ive been scratching my head over this i just dont see the problem. See everything above. |
Exactly how would I have answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by amyazer I see all of everyone's point. Some said backyard breeders are not trying to better the breed only breeding for money fine I can agree with you on that...now what about the betterment of a the breed ,lets use my breeder for the sake of conversation, she never had an unhealthy pup before...she claims she used good lines n all akc...so if there not show dogs n she breeds healthy dogs what more can a regular pet owner ask for? |
I can only answer this from my point of view, and I admittedly feel very strongly about this. As long as there is a pet overpopulation problem and MILLIONS of dogs are killed every year in shelters, then someone who is breeding better have a darn good reason for doing it.
They should be breeding to better the breed and in an attempt to create the "perfect" dog. Almost all these dogs being killed in shelters are healthy. As far as I'm concerned, this country does not need anyone else breeding only for pets. When there are no more healthy PUPPIES and dogs dying in shelters, then I'd probably be rewilling to revisit my opinion on someone breeding only for healthy dogs, though just because someone has never had an unhealthy pup doesn't mean they haven't just been lucky so far.
The best breeders who breed for betterment of the breed, and, yes, certanly put health first, are lucky to have more than one or two from any litter who are suitable to hopefully continue their lines and the rest are perfect pets.