Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[YorkieRose]

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.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

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 finds and make breeding more litters not such a $$$ endeavor.

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

[YorkieRose]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

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...

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

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.

Great ideas!!

[Rhetts_mama]

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.

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by YorkieRose

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.

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

[JeanieK]

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

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.

[magicgenie]

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.

[JeanieK]

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.

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.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

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.

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.

[JeanieK]

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.

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

[Rhetts_mama]

50 pups, not 50 litters.

[JeanieK]

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.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

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.

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.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.