Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by chachi

The complaints Ive seen from breeders regarding legislation is that it also affects hobby and show breeders. I dont think any breeders would be against legislation that just targeted puppy mills

If they are selling more than 50 dogs a year than it would seem to me that they have crossed the line from being a hobby or show breeder.

But if they have surpassed that number for what ever reason, I can't imagine that any truly good breeder would have a problem with the rest of the bill. It requires a minimum level of care that I would think they would all surpass without a problem.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Breezeaway

They would use Aztec gold on them.

I'm just kidding.

Ahhh...back to the enhancement subject. Actually, it was the lightness in the gold that I was talking about and not the saddle, so you're right on in your comment.

You sure you were kidding??

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Jeannie has told various people on this thread that their posts are not welcome and again she told Yorkiekist that she should do something "better" with her time. Yorkiekist has shown in interest in the past in the problems in puppy mills, which very few breeders here have done publicly, and I have worked very hard trying to get breeders involved in some of the solutions. To make light of the problems of puppy mills, and reputable breeders involvement in the solutions is reprehensible. I believe the remark was made in a glib and snide way, if you actually believe her quote, "maybe you could go and crusade against puppy mills, that would be a far better use of your time." was a sincere suggestion, that is indeed your prerogative, but knowing a little of past threads and history, I do not.

That is exactly why I still believe her remark to be what I stated previously. It has been her repeated comments about rescues and mills that helped me to form my opinion regarding this particular posts. It was uncalled for and I firmly believe written in such a way to make others not "see" the true intent of the written word~as is being proven by those standing up for her comments. Very good tactic IMHO. The entire picture is not being seen by just a few deleted posts in this thread. It is the repeat performance of statements that helped me to form my opinion of the true intent.

As for my being angry~it make me sick to think of the condition of all the dogs that are bred to death in puppy mills. I believe that I am passionate about the treatment of animals, saddened by the lack of knowledge but NOT angry.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

If they are selling more than 50 dogs a year than it would seem to me that they have crossed the line from being a hobby or show breeder.

But if they have surpassed that number for what ever reason, I can't imagine that any truly good breeder would have a problem with the rest of the bill. It requires a minimum level of care that I would think they would all surpass without a problem.

Here's another perspective on the puppy mill problem. Maybe it's the system and support of the registries that allow them to flourish. Laws can only do so much....how about if those mill dogs couldn't get papers? Check this out....

"Another example: The FCI requires all its member clubs to prohibit the sale of puppies and dogs to, or through, any type of dog dealers or agents, especially pet stores, while the AKC and CKC happily give quantity discounts for registering larger numbers of puppies (which most often are these helpless little creatures manufactured in US and Canadian puppy mills)."

From this link.... FCI versus AKC/CKC

Also, here's an interesting read, for those that haven't seen it before.... http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/ani...ent-mills.html

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

If they are selling more than 50 dogs a year than it would seem to me that they have crossed the line from being a hobby or show breeder.

But if they have surpassed that number for what ever reason, I can't imagine that any truly good breeder would have a problem with the rest of the bill. It requires a minimum level of care that I would think they would all surpass without a problem.

I dont know the particulars and what state legislation that you are refering to. I was just saying what past complaiknts were with a particular legislation. Maybe they wouldnt have a problem with that I dont know

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

If they are selling more than 50 dogs a year than it would seem to me that they have crossed the line from being a hobby or show breeder.

But if they have surpassed that number for what ever reason, I can't imagine that any truly good breeder would have a problem with the rest of the bill. It requires a minimum level of care that I would think they would all surpass without a problem.

Not all breeders are against bills, when targeted against puppy mills. What is being argued is that some bills are not written in a manner just targeting puppy mills, encompass all breeders.

The bill that is on the table in El Paso, TX, bans all dog/cat sales "backyard" breeders and only allows "competition dog and cat breeders"to sell animals "IF' they qualify and are "Approved" by the Animal Service director.

Breeder/exhibitor's opposition to this is that the director will be able to control which breed continue to exist or become extinct.

I for one am not sure how they got this idea from, as I haven't fully researched it. I myself find the concept a good one and maybe with a bit of tweeking it would be acceptable..

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by GreenwoodBiewer

Glad to hear you say this about Arizonia in October.. I'm going to be in Phoenix for an IABCA show in October and was hoping it wasn't going to be really REALLY hot!! Coming from MN, about that time of year, we're already getting our Parka's and Sorels out so it will be a nice change for a few days. Looking forward to it.

-Diana

Is your inside or out doors? Usually October is PERFECT!!!! I have seen it get to 90 in the afternoons though. Alot of people are still swimming in their pools also! I through all my parka's away when I moved here and never looked back.LOL Best of luck at your show!

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Not all breeders are against bills, when targeted against puppy mills. What is being argued is that some bills are not written in a manner just targeting puppy mills, encompass all breeders.

The bill that is on the table in El Paso, TX, bans all dog/cat sales "backyard" breeders and only allows "competition dog and cat breeders"to sell animals "IF' they qualify and are "Approved" by the Animal Service director.

Breeder/exhibitor's opposition to this is that the director will be able to control which breed continue to exist or become extinct.

I for one am not sure how they got this idea from, as I haven't fully researched it. I myself find the concept a good one and maybe with a bit of tweeking it would be acceptable..

I would be worried who the animal service director is and what his/her agenda is. What criteria would they use? Will the director need to know the standard for each breed?

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by JeanieK

This is exfactly what I wrote. it is not offensive. It does not tell yorkiekist to NOT post on here anymore.

It tells her to move on to another TOPIC not another THREAD and suggests that her time would be better spent doing something worthwhile, like crusading against puppy mills (meaning it is a worthwhile cause), rather than to waste her time bashing parti breeders. We are not going to go away so bashing us is a waste of time

Now explain to me exactly how that was making light of puppymills in any way what so ever.

Actually, it was offensive to me. I have a life. I will post on any topic or thread I want to. And you were making light of puppymills, just by the tone of your post. You may just as well said that I should go twiddle my thumbs.

I dont care if you parti breeders go away or not. That was not the point of any of my posts and I have never said that you all should just pack up and go.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by chachi

I dont know the particulars and what state legislation that you are refering to. I was just saying what past complaiknts were with a particular legislation. Maybe they wouldnt have a problem with that I dont know

I was referring to the federal "puppy mill bill".

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...mill-bill.html

And for the record, I didn't get that anyone was making fun or making light of puppy mills. What I got from her post was that it seems that an inordinate amount of energy is being used in preventing parti's from being accepted by the AKC when the energy would be much better spent if everyone pulled together and focused on the bad breeding practices out there that affect ALL dogs, including those that seem inordinately bent on breeding the correctly colored "teacups".

And yes, Woogie- I agree that the AKC has a hand in the support of puppy mills. They talk the talk, but they sure don't walk the walk. They are still registering dogs that are far too small to meet standard, too.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

I was referring to the federal "puppy mill bill".

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...mill-bill.html

And for the record, I didn't get that anyone was making fun or making light of puppy mills. What I got from her post was that it seems that an inordinate amount of energy is being used in preventing parti's from being accepted by the AKC when the energy would be much better spent if everyone pulled together and focused on the bad breeding practices out there that affect ALL dogs, including those that seem inordinately bent on breeding the correctly colored "teacups".

And yes, Woogie- I agree that the AKC has a hand in the support of puppy mills. They talk the talk, but they sure don't walk the walk. They are still registering dogs that are far too small to meet standard, too.

Just wondering. How can the Akc know in advance if the dog is too small to register?

[107barney]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

I was referring to the federal "puppy mill bill".

http://www.yorkietalk.com/forums/gen...mill-bill.html

And for the record, I didn't get that anyone was making fun or making light of puppy mills. What I got from her post was that it seems that an inordinate amount of energy is being used in preventing parti's from being accepted by the AKC when the energy would be much better spent if everyone pulled together and focused on the bad breeding practices out there that affect ALL dogs, including those that seem inordinately bent on breeding the correctly colored "teacups".

And yes, Woogie- I agree that the AKC has a hand in the support of puppy mills. They talk the talk, but they sure don't walk the walk. They are still registering dogs that are far too small to meet standard, too.

Oh this is definitely true! My Barney and Daisy have AKC registrations and they come from The Mill. And guess what? The average buyer doesn't know about pedigrees. I am ashamed to admit I was an average buyer...until I bought my Teddy who has a pedigree to be proud of from. He had a lot of relatives who were champions. Barney and Daisy have PHONEY AKC papers, I look at them now and what a joke. To think I actually sent them in to get the papers from the AKC. The AKC is part of the culture and it's disgusting. I'd like to send them all my dogs medical bills for the last 10 years.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

Just wondering. How can the Akc know in advance if the dog is too small to register?

It would require them revamping their system. Instead of allowing a blanket registration at birth and sale, they could offer a limited/provisional registration. Once the dog reaches maturity, a full registration could then be given if the dog meets standard. This would prevent someone from breeding a small dam/sire and the puppies automatically being given the AKC stamp just because somewhere along the lines they had an ancestor that DID meet standard. The AKC could also do a better job of pulling registrations on people they know are breeding dogs with known health defects in their line if they would just start keeping a data base.

As it is, the AKC stamp really is useless. The general public (if they know about registries at all) think it means they are purchasing a good quality dog. In reality, it means nothing. It's no guarantee of quality, it's no guarantee of a healthy line. It's become a meaningless marketing tool, IMO. "Pure bred" doesn't mean jack if the quality of the dog isn't up to snuff.

Just for kicks, google "AKC registered teacup yorkies" . The number of hits that come back will astound you.

Again, this is JMO. I don't breed, will never breed (though I suppose I should heed Mardelin's advice on another thread and "never say never"- so I will say: I don't plan to breed.)

[YorkieRose]

[QUOTE=Rhetts_mama;3219744]It would require them revamping their system. Instead of allowing a blanket registration at birth and sale, they could offer a limited/provisional registration. Once the dog reaches maturity, a full registration could then be given if the dog meets standard. This would prevent someone from breeding a small dam/sire....

You have got to be kidding...the best judges can not always agree...who is going to run this "policing" organization...AKC will not get invloved in it..cut their revenue to the bone if they they did...
who going to come to each breeders home/kennel and evaluate 1000's of dogs...registry fees..all fees would be got through the roof to pay the 1000's of new employees needed...
Pic's can be doctored..and it would still flood AKC to a stand still...

You live in my world..a perfect world LOL

[Rhetts_mama]

So then you are agreeing that the AKC is basically useless. And if the best judges can't agree, then why bother championing any dog at all?