Article about BYB! Must read! - Page 13 - YorkieTalk.com Forums

yorkiekist · 03-02-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bonovox011

First of all let me say that I am all for the regulation of breeders and fixing the problem that exists with all the senseless loss of life with these dogs in shelters.

I also don't want to offend anyone or rile too many feathers but am all for conversation and idea interchange. Here is my idea (forgive me if this idea has already been presented I didn't read the entire thread yet)...

Is the true crux of this problem that there are too many breaders or too many unfit owners? How many of these dogs found in the shelters come straight from the BYB's home? Should we be placing more effort on regulating and monitoring the owner? I guess an analogy could be to driving... we don't let just anyone drive. you have to pass a test and are licensed to drive then are subject to losing that license for violating the terms of that license. Perhaps dog owners should be the same... they should be licensed to own a dog and are subject losing that license for not adhering to the license terms. Don't ask me how that would be enforced or administered. it's just another idea.

Walter & Baxter

I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.

crystalsmom · 03-02-2009, 12:56 PM

If you ask me ( which you didn't) I think a moratorium on breeding ALL dogs would be great. Let's say a year or until we can get a handle on it.

Of course the AKC would fight that and win.

yorkiepuppie · 03-02-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karrie

Have you read the ARTICLE? Since this thread is about the ARTICLE, then back yard breeders, for the purposes of this conversation, was clearly defined in the ARTICLE - which, btw, contained a much broader group of breeders than your definition - hence the debate.

you sound a bit hostile to me, but at least you're finally responding to my posts... guess maybe this was the only post you could pick apart...

of course i have read the article... who hasn't?... there may be A definition suggested be the author of that article, but it is VERY APPARENT that all the posters in this thread do not have the same interpretation as to what a BYB is.

idea: ... you CAN contribute by looking up some info as to the definition of a BYB if you would like...

livingdustmops · 03-02-2009, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalsmom

If you ask me ( which you didn't) I think a moratorium on breeding ALL dogs would be great. Let's say a year or until we can get a handle on it.

Of course the AKC would fight that and win.

I would like to see this also but I understand a breeding bitch from a reputable breeder only has so much time to have litters. I would like to see the number of litters that she has be limited.

It really is incredible how many people make their living or $$$ off of animals. I wonder how many pay taxes?

yorkiepuppie · 03-02-2009, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ErinKota

Just for the record, I was very interested in the definition of a BYB. I must have missed that post. My apologies.

That defn clarifies it a bit for me.

oh, it's actually not a definition that was agreed upon, just one other person posted replied and agreed with that particular definition.

i just posted as a suggestion and wanted to see if i was interpreting it the same way as others because i think there are a lot of different interpretations...and like i said... it's like we are all talking about something different...

yorkiepuppie · 03-02-2009, 01:15 PM

oh, and, no need to apologize

Karrie · 03-02-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

once upon a time, barbers can be doctors, because there are no laws to say that they couldn't. no laws to say that you must have gone through the education and training before you can perform surgeries.

so since barbers have sharp knives and scissors, they also performed surgeries on people.

once upon a time, anyone could build a bridge if they had the money. they do not need to have gone to engineering school, have the education or training, they can just simply build a bridge.

how would you feel about that if that was still true today?

BYBers do not have the education, training, or qualification to breed dogs. if they did, they would not be called a back yard breeder.

don't let your selfish wants allow you to support what is NOT RIGHT!

backyard breeder are basically barber-surgeons. it's kind of barbaric if you think about it.

Do you really want me to respond to your posts? okay - this one was just plain silly and way off base.

yorkiepuppie · 03-02-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crystalsmom

If you ask me ( which you didn't) I think a moratorium on breeding ALL dogs would be great. Let's say a year or until we can get a handle on it.

Of course the AKC would fight that and win.

lol, we didn't ask you, but we care about what you have to say anyways! lol

i think it's a neat idea... but i still think the issue is for the people that are not qualified to breed dpgs to stop breeding.

even when you have a surplu of teachers doesn't mean we stop churning out teachers for schools. it's not that we don't have enough teachers. we don't have enough GOOD teachers....

same with lawyers, and other occupations (breeders included) we will always NEED GOOD breeders, good lawyers, good doctors, but we certainly don't need another bad lawyer, bad breeder, bad doctor...etc.

yorkiepuppie · 03-02-2009, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karrie

Do you really want me to respond to your posts? okay - this one was just plain silly and way off base.

lol. sure, you can respond or not respond, which ever makes you happier.

i am glad that you quoted that post though!!!! because it was a personal favorite of mine in this thread!

alright, so, why is it silly and off base?

i thought it was a great analogy

megansmomma · 03-02-2009, 01:33 PM

[QUOTE=yorkiekist;2497619]I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.[/QUOTE

By your account is seems to me that all responsibility should fall upon the pet OWNER. What responsibility falls upon the pet breeder? Some not all breeders will sell to anyone who has cash in hand. How is that responsible? Then when the dogs end up unwanted were is that breeder? If they were reputable, they would be at the door taking that dog bad and it would be written into a contract that is what would be expected. Then maybe if the breeder were held responsible for their actions they would not be irresponsibly and only out for a quick profit. If the breeder has a prequalified list of homes were the puppies would be going to, background checks on vetting and previous pet ownership they would think twice about how many litters and who their puppies would go to before making decisions about adding to the pet overpopulation. If you bring that life into this world then you should be responsible to make darn well sure that it will have a home that will be the very best forever be it with the adopter or back to that breeder. Pet ownership is seen by so many as a right. Maybe is should be seen as a privilege and there would not be so many neglected, abused and abandoned animals the shelters wouldn't be full and millions of pets would not be PTS annually. If we expect the government to carry the huge burden of the pet overpopulation then they should have the right to regulate and oversee breeding practices. It is so easy to pass the buck and say the owner is irresponsible. If the breeder were held responsible for adding to the pet population them it would trickle down to the owners.

Let me add this as well. If a breeder were also held responsible for breeding sick and unhealthy animals that would also make them think twice about testing for genetic flaws etc. that we all seem to have agree should be done. It can reasonably be a that the purchaser expects a healthy dog. When they are not then they are also prone to dump them at a shelter

Karrie · 03-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

lol. sure, you can respond or not respond, which ever makes you happier.

i am glad that you quoted that post though!!!! because it was a personal favorite of mine in this thread!

alright, so, why is it silly and off base?

i thought it was a great analogy

It is silly and way off base because this thread is about the original article as posted by the OP. You want to take this thread in a different direction and use extreme and inapplicable examples to make your point.

Regarding another post of yours, I am not making a half-ass attempt to defend irresponsible breeders - I am simply stating that the author made broad and harmful statements against breeders in general that she labled as back yard breeders.

crystalsmom · 03-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

lol, we didn't ask you, but we care about what you have to say anyways! lol

i think it's a neat idea... but i still think the issue is for the people that are not qualified to breed dpgs to stop breeding.

even when you have a surplu of teachers doesn't mean we stop churning out teachers for schools. it's not that we don't have enough teachers. we don't have enough GOOD teachers....

same with lawyers, and other occupations (breeders included) we will always NEED GOOD breeders, good lawyers, good doctors, but we certainly don't need another bad lawyer, bad breeder, bad doctor...etc.

It would never work unless the law said all dogs!! Everyone would have an excuse and who is to decide who is a good breeder, that is a matter of opinion. People say they don't make money breeding

so why should they care. I don't really care about the breeder, I am thinking of these poor animals being bred when we have way too many already.

yorkiekist · 03-02-2009, 01:55 PM

[quote=megansmomma;2497738]

Quote:

Originally Posted by yorkiekist

I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.[/QUOTE

By your account is seems to me that all responsibility should fall upon the pet OWNER. What responsibility falls upon the pet breeder? Some not all breeders will sell to anyone who has cash in hand. How is that responsible? Then when the dogs end up unwanted were is that breeder? If they were reputable, they would be at the door taking that dog bad and it would be written into a contract that is what would be expected. Then maybe if the breeder were held responsible for their actions they would not be irresponsibly and only out for a quick profit. If the breeder has a prequalified list of homes were the puppies would be going to, background checks on vetting and previous pet ownership they would think twice about how many litters and who their puppies would go to before making decisions about adding to the pet overpopulation. If you bring that life into this world then you should be responsible to make darn well sure that it will have a home that will be the very best forever be it with the adopter or back to that breeder. Pet ownership is seen by so many as a right. Maybe is should be seen as a privilege and there would not be so many neglected, abused and abandoned animals the shelters wouldn't be full and millions of pets would not be PTS annually. If we expect the government to carry the huge burden of the pet overpopulation then they should have the right to regulate and oversee breeding practices. It is so easy to pass the buck and say the owner is irresponsible. If the breeder were held responsible for adding to the pet population them it would trickle down to the owners.

Let me add this as well. If a breeder were also held responsible for breeding sick and unhealthy animals that would also make them think twice about testing for genetic flaws etc. that we all seem to have agree should be done. It can reasonably be a that the purchaser expects a healthy dog. When they are not then they are also prone to dump them at a shelter

I didnt say ALL BLAME, I said MORE BLAME. Big difference.

crystalsmom · 03-02-2009, 02:01 PM

Oh sweetie that is so sad.

ladyjane · 03-02-2009, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karrie

It is silly and way off base because this thread is about the original article as posted by the OP. You want to take this thread in a different direction and use extreme and inapplicable examples to make your point.

Regarding another post of yours, I am not making a half-ass attempt to defend irresponsible breeders - I am simply stating that the author made broad and harmful statements against breeders in general that she labled as back yard breeders.

I asked before....what is harmful in that post? I don't see it, but could be missing something.

03-02-2009, 12:56 PM	#182
crystalsmom Donating YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,946	If you ask me ( which you didn't) I think a moratorium on breeding ALL dogs would be great. Let's say a year or until we can get a handle on it. Of course the AKC would fight that and win. __________________

03-02-2009, 01:15 PM	#186
yorkiepuppie Donating YT 1000 Club Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: San Jose, CA, USA Posts: 2,883	oh, and, no need to apologize __________________ www.yenspiration.com i love milu

03-02-2009, 01:33 PM	#190
megansmomma Donating YT 10K Club Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: S. W. Suburbs of Chicago, IL Posts: 12,235	[QUOTE=yorkiekist;2497619]I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.[/QUOTE By your account is seems to me that all responsibility should fall upon the pet OWNER. What responsibility falls upon the pet breeder? Some not all breeders will sell to anyone who has cash in hand. How is that responsible? Then when the dogs end up unwanted were is that breeder? If they were reputable, they would be at the door taking that dog bad and it would be written into a contract that is what would be expected. Then maybe if the breeder were held responsible for their actions they would not be irresponsibly and only out for a quick profit. If the breeder has a prequalified list of homes were the puppies would be going to, background checks on vetting and previous pet ownership they would think twice about how many litters and who their puppies would go to before making decisions about adding to the pet overpopulation. If you bring that life into this world then you should be responsible to make darn well sure that it will have a home that will be the very best forever be it with the adopter or back to that breeder. Pet ownership is seen by so many as a right. Maybe is should be seen as a privilege and there would not be so many neglected, abused and abandoned animals the shelters wouldn't be full and millions of pets would not be PTS annually. If we expect the government to carry the huge burden of the pet overpopulation then they should have the right to regulate and oversee breeding practices. It is so easy to pass the buck and say the owner is irresponsible. If the breeder were held responsible for adding to the pet population them it would trickle down to the owners. Let me add this as well. If a breeder were also held responsible for breeding sick and unhealthy animals that would also make them think twice about testing for genetic flaws etc. that we all seem to have agree should be done. It can reasonably be a that the purchaser expects a healthy dog. When they are not then they are also prone to dump them at a shelter __________________ “Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain Last edited by megansmomma; 03-02-2009 at 01:37 PM.

03-02-2009, 02:01 PM	#194
crystalsmom Donating YT 3000 Club Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 7,946	Oh sweetie that is so sad. __________________ Last edited by Wylie's Mom; 03-02-2009 at 04:46 PM.