AKC has a purpose, but it could lessen the puppymill situation hugely if it did not glean so much revenue from them..they are walking on both sides of the street...although not as much monies are coming in as in years past since most avoid AKC and use CKC, ACA etc. The AKC puppy is not in demand as in past years...many pet buyers have no idea as to the difference in registries..papers are papers to many..no papers are not important to others.

AKC is good and bad as many things.
DOg showing is such a valuable tool for the breeder...it is a place to compare, evaluate and validate your breedings...I would never encourage anyone NOT to show AKC...it is the best way to go IMO.
I just do not happen to think AKC has the means or the desire to stop puppymills...
When AKC reps are present at dog auctions trying to lure back the miller from APRI, ACA etc. what do you think is going on..?

I would vote to prohabit a breeder from producing more then 6, perhaps as many as 10 litters per year for a licenced and inspected breeder..(NOT commerical, but a hobby/pet/show. ..and that law should be passed by state legislation and regulated. What miller who stays in business, breeds less 10 per year ..and I think that should be total litters of all breeds..not 10 of each.

I do not think dogs/cats should be sold in pet shops..pet buyers should have to deal directly with the breeder. NO dog should leave a breeder without being chipped and registered...if at any time in it life it is turned into a pound etc..they breeder would be required to take it back...if I breed a bitch to a dog, a litter results, I am responsible for the results of my actions for the life of the dog...that would help with the dog populations in pounds to some degree I would think...and if breeders would not comply, levy huge fines and make breeding more litters not such a $$$ endeavor.

:thumbup:

I would add spayed/neutered to your list of requirements for a dog leaving a breeder.

That is a tricky area...I am quite happy to place some puppies at 12/16 weeks..I do not want them S/N at that age, before adult teeth appear..and I do not agree all puppies should be kept to S/N time.
Show breeders get faults that are "in your face" at a young age"...I want them with the new owner before 6 months...
BUT I agree, there needs to be a way to limit random pet breeding in this country...one way is to give the breeder access to low cost S/N or no cost...that would stop any breeding of dogs placed after 6 mos...perhaps, a law coudl required a notery statement to accompany AKC regs that the dog is S/N before registration of a pet...

We have plenty of revenue in this country..we waste trillions...direct it to the right places...but again, it is my perfect world and what are the chances...we have children without health care, shleter and food...our animals are way down on the list...

:thumbup::thumbup:Great ideas!!

Another teeny tiny baby step the AKC could start with is requiring proof that all dames/sires had been properly tested, perhaps by only certain certified providers, prior to stamping the litters. It would require extra leg work on their part and increased fees on the part of the breeders. But maybe it would help weed out some of the worst of the worst.

Will people still find a way around this? Of course. Unfortunately, some people are just scum and will find a way to cheat on everything.

But does it really make sense for an organization to say "We protect the health and well-being of all dogs" in their mission statement while looking the other way in their own registry?

Why is a dog "better" than another simply because of it's ancestory? I can think of a lot of human examples of great people in history who have some really cruddy descendants.

I agree with that. But then I would withhold AKC registration until spay/neuter is completed (as some breeders already do).

I knew what was meant. I did not mean to indicate that they were against any legislation, but they fear that it will impact all breeding and that is understandable.

This is good---
 

It's wonderful this thread has lasted this long and I'm happy to see the puppy mill situation being discussed here. With Ethics being at the core of YTCEHB, it is very appropriate to tackle puppy mills and brokers here.
While on the one hand I could support tougher legislation, we have to handle that very delicately so as not to have it harm the small breeder who is doing things correctly.
At first I LOVED YorkieRose's suggestion about requiring chipping and holding the breeder accountable for dogs they produced showing up at a shelter. I would do that. But then I started to wonder if that would just drive the bad breeders further underground.
I'm all in favor of keeping media attention on the puppy mill industry and concentrating on educating the public about what they are supporting when they buy pets in stores.
Reminds me of last Christmas when I had a litter of very nice puppies and a man from a nearby wealthy town phoned looking for one. He didn't seem interested in price, nor in discussing quality, seemed kind of rushed and inconvenienced that I was a few miles away. I was thinking so far he didn't seem like a good prospect for my puppy but I went ahead and booked the appointment for him and his wife to visit, hoping they would show more interest in the important things when they got here. I have no difficulty sending people away without a puppy if something about them bothers me. Well, the wife phoned the next day to say they were cancelling the visit because they "went to a nearby mall and found a nice one with a warranty and everything."
This puppy mill stuff has to be kept constantly in the news and everybody's face until they get it that buying a puppy in a store is a very bad thing.
Anyway, thanks everybody for keeping the discussion civil. That's very nice.

Nancy. I have reposted EXACTLY what I said and NOWHERE does it say that ANYONE should not post on this thread. I don't know how to break it down into more simple terms for that those who did not get it the first time, and did not get my EXPLANATION.


Glib and snide is not my game. I have come to learn that people tend to reflect thier own actions on to other people.

If you are a thief, you tend to think everyone is, if you lie, you tend to think everyone does.

If you speak straight forward, you tend to take everything at face value. If you make snide/glib remarks, you expect it of others.

I'm a straight shootin' country girl. So believe what you want, it is just a reflection of yourself.

Remdember, when you are pointing your finger at someone, you have 3 fingers pointing at yourself. :D

Good ideas. unfortunately it is like gun control, the ones who need controlling are the ones who will find ways around it.

It would be too time consuming to verify and enforce.

50 litters? That would mean that you have at least 50 breeding females, that is not a hobby, it is a business.

50 pups, not 50 litters.

Re post #918 by megansmomma
 

All right put up the evidence. Come up with proof of where I have been against rescues and in favor of puppy mills.

Your accusations are unfounded, and without merit. You don't have to like meand you can bash my breeding program, but makeing false statements is totally out of line and uncalled for.

The tone was in your head, not in mine. Don't reflect your thoughts into my post.

if yhou think twiddling your thujmbs is more worthwhile than crusading agains puppy mills then by all means do it.

if you think bashing parti breeders is more worthwhile than crusading against puppy mills, than by all means, continue to do so.

There is no way that I am going to make you believe anything other than what you want to believe so I'm going to take my own advice and stop wasting MY time on YOU, and find something more worthwhile to do, like crusading against puppy mills.

You may remain here and continue to waste your time bashing parti breeders since you seem to think that is more important. But I can assure you, it is a total waste of time cause we are not going to go away.

Perhaps change could be made by increasing the standards for living conditions for breedig dogs. Allowing them to be kept in cages, no matter how clean the cages are, is inhumane.

They should require solid floors with access to the outdoors.

Closing all pet stores would be a very good very HUGE first step. Maybe that shoud be our focus.

Jeanie I certainly hear your tone in the last several posts you have made...I don't think Yorkiekist has made the personal attacks that you have made here...Can we just be civil and exchange opinions?...Just sayin'

I'm not speaking for Jeanie - but it appears to me that she was trying to respond to posts directed at her from earlier this morning and clarify her position/opinion.

It takes two sides for a civil exchange...and there has already been a lot of that on this thread, so, no reason it can't continue. :)

You hear what is in your head not mine. Don't reflect your negative thoughts into my posts. I know what I said and what I meant. you do not. Others got it right. There are just a few of you that want to keep harassing me about it.

Think what you want. it is only your opinion. people hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe.

At least breeders who sell to pet stores have to be listed with the USDA, and have some federal regulation, those that sell over the internet and directly to the public have no federal regulation, so closing pet stores would do little to stop puppy mills.

I believe that closing pet stores would stop the impulse buying and would eliminate at least one outlet for puppy mills.

JMO But I don't believe that the USDA does a very good job of policing the puppymills. The miller can set up one very nice kennel to get licensed and to use for inspections, then go on to keep dogs in buildings off the premesis.

The licensing is just like the AKC registration, it gives people a false sense of security.

Closing pet stores would limit impulse buying to some extent. But it wouldn't stop the person who picks a puppy from the ad in the newspaper or internet. Just because someone doesn't breed more than 50 pups a year doesn't mean they are a good breeder or that they aren't a small scale puppy mill. Unfortunately, some of the sickest dogs I've seen have come from the small scale backyard breeder.

My best friend lives in Bakersfield. Her neighbor across the street flies just under the "puppy mill" radar. She gets away with it by having pens instead of cages. The pups (dachsunds) are never in doors (despite the heat there in the summer) and completely unsocialized. My friend has called animal control several times, but because she doesn't breed what ever the requisite number required for licensing, there isn't much they can do. Of course, we found out that some of her dames are registered in her daughter's name- so technically they aren't hers... As long as they have shade, food and water and the pens are "reasonably clean" (meaning limited visible feces, though the urine smell is overwhelming in the summer), their hands are tied.

It would be interesting to do a study to see how many people have bought from a pet shop versus a private breeder. It's just my personal opinion that I believe more people have gotten their impulse puppies from the paper instead of the store.

[QUOTE=Rhetts_mama;3219882]I agree with that. But then I would withhold AKC registration until spay/neuter is completed (as some breeders already do).[/QU

I have no problem with that at all...but it would not affect the miller for a second...they are now almost 100% non-AKC..and if I owned a puppymill I would not go near AKC...I would use ACA..no regulates, no rules, no inspection, no record keeping, no DNA, no consequnces...do as you please. Don't you find most pet shop pups are not AKC now?

Pets shops, even high volume breeders mix up puppies and breedings all the time...if you deal with a DNA registry you can have a big old mess if you screw up...I have heard of breeders having 3 yrs of breedings voided because of AKC DNA mistakes...so that is one reason most millers avoid AKC...and no inpsections..although I have never figured out how any miller with 100;s of dogs could pass an inspection.

You might be interested in this thread: http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...mill-bill.html
It's a bill that would require breeders who sell more than 50 dogs yearly directly to the public to have licensed kennels and also beef up USDA's powers.

...and there is also the broker's that sell in small, in-home settings, that give the appearance of perhaps a hobby breeder, not even big enough for a byb. but in actuality are selling for millers.

By impulse buying, I meant people buying a puppy just because they walked into a pet store and saw one. At least with a newspaper ad or internet, you have to have been looking for one, and hopefully put some thought into it.

It would have a huge effect...Huntt Corp would go bust..! It would cut volume breeding way back. The easy part for the miller is to produce puppies the way the farmer produces apples...grow them, truck comes, pays the farmer and takes them to the market where they are sold..same for breeder who sell to a broker liek Huntt, they have an ready and demanding market for their product...
..
If they had to sell 100, 200, 300 puppies by way of the Internet each year...and that is conservative for many...it would be a difficult job. The public is getting wiser each day to the internet rip offs. Every complaint would fall right back on them, not the pet shop. Complaints should be reported to county and states and investated...huge fines for violators...

It is not so easy to move large volumes of dogs without a middle man like Huntt corp..no one comes back at these breeders if the puppy is unhealthy, unsocialized etc...the pet shop gets the grief..the pet shop may stop dealing with a problem breeder, but doesn't look like most do.,or there wouldn't be so many sick puppies coming out of pet shops, right.

I would hazard a guess that not as many puppies are strictly impulse (as in just happened to be passing by the mall and saw that cute little puppy in the window) versus someone who has gone to the pet store specifically looking for a dog because they wanted one. I could be wrong- but $1500 on pure impulse seems a little steep for most people. I have a feeling more of them had at least been thinking about it, searching online/paper and went to the store because they didn't want to wait until a litter was ready.

I'm all in favor of closing Pet Stores, but if they are closed, people will look even more to the Internet for buying a dog. We need legislation that will cover these breeders. Many breeders have multiple websites, those that appeal to one type of person, and those that will appeal to another type. I'm not sure what you mean by complaints would fall back on them, what's happening now, when people buy from a website and get a sickly dog? Not too much, but even if Hunt goes out of business, the millers still can sell directly to the public, and as the laws stand now, they won't even have to be regulated. I think young people are very comfortable buying ANYTHING over the internet, and I disagree with you that it will be hard to sell 300 dogs a year over the Internet.

Jeanie- don't get me wrong. I think outlawing pet stores that sell puppies and kittens is a good first step. But I think it would be too easy for people to get complacent after that and think they've removed the whole puppy mill industry. There have been multiple cities that have banned them, and all it did was create a whole new industry of puppy mill brokers.

As for the fact that AKC won't start making tougher regulations because people will just run to CKC or what ever: Is that REALLY an excuse for them to not do it? Just because someone else has low standards doesn't mean that mine need to be low, too.