I am so glad you found YT and are keeping your mind open, to learn and contribute. Isn't it ironic how you found us? ;) That is really what all of this is about~informing and learning, making good decision on pet ownership, passing on what you have learned to help educate others. I have learned and grown so much since I have I found YT. I now volunteer for a rescue, an a foster mom, have adopted 3 rescues and feel good about all of it. It felt good to grow and learn the truth and now become active in something that I have always believed in.

Maybe I have strong beliefs but I do think they are well founded. The numbers don't lie they speak the truth and sometimes the truth hurts. :(

There were several points made in the original article - none more clear than that anyone who breeds a dog who is not 100% AKC standard (which defines appearance only) has no right to breed. She just slammed every BYB over and over again. As I said earlier - it is not right to group every BYB as irresponsible and careless. There are good ones and there are bad ones. As I said, I bought Bailey from a BYB and I wouldn't hesitate to buy another puppy from her again!!! She cares about the health and welfare of all her puppies. And yes, she makes a profit - why not!!!

The physical appearance is what sets the different dog breeds apart, and that's why the standard addresses the physical appearance. The terrier is also judged by something called a terrier attitude, which we all have learned to know and love. Just because you are breeding dogs that meet standard, it doesn't mean all offspring will always meet standard, perhaps someday, but the Yorkie is a relatively new dog as far as breeds go, and achieving standard is difficult, but that's why dogs that don't meet standard should not be bred, there is nothing wrong with them as pets. Breeders who are breeding to standard are much more likely to know their lines, and do health testing than back yard breeders who are in and out of the game. I understand you love your pet deeply, and I had great love for my little dog who at age 7 had a genetic disease, and my children and I had to watch while our little dog suffered immeasurably because of a byb. I'm not saying the byb was a bad person, just someone who didn't know what they were doing. Watching your dog and kids suffer because someone decided they could be a breeder, might change your mind.

i was thinking about breeding my milu because i think she is perfect. but then i did research and emailed a lot of breeders and made a post in the breeder section. after finding out all that's involved in breeding, i decided that there is no way i can be a breeder, even if i DID have a perfect dog. (milu is too small to be bred, and i also never showed her or get the evaluation and genetic testing)

but of course i would always run into backyard breeders that insist i should breed milu and ask why i spayed her.

most people don't do that much research. Yes, there are a few rare backyard breeders that might do all the research, testing, evaluations, and show their dogs, but probably not, because if they did all that which they should do, then we would not call them back yard breeders.

i think i understand where you are coming from. your point is that they shouldn't be so discrimitory and only allow the rare few to become breeders? but the thing is i don't think it's discrimitory at all, i think that everyone who is willing to do all the research required, and put in all the efforts required to breed is 'allowed' to breed.

the reason most have problems with bybers is because back yard breeders usually havent' done all the necessary things to make sure it is a sound idea to breed thier dogs. i think most BYB just think of it as a part time job to make a few bucks...

:thumbup::thumbup: Thank you for posting this and it makes me very sick to my stomach. About 2 months after we got Bailey (Sept), my husband came in and told me of a breeder less than a mile from here, with Yorkies for 400.00. When I passed by I saw the sign at the end of their drive, made of cardboard and printed with a magic marker. There's a small utility building in the back and I know this is where those poor babies are kept. :(:( I can't stand to pass there now and I don't unless I have to.

100% why all my dogs have been spayed / neutered...
 

I agree with all my heart and soul to Megans mom's post.

These numbers are exactly why all three of my dogs and the two prior (that have past) have all been spayed or neutered.

I've had people (one of which I thought were friends) ask me to breed Garrett (Great Pyrenees). I absolutely refuse and lectured my friend so much that she had her female spayed ;o)

Actually, earlier this year, Garrett was having some limping on his leg and the vet told us he is actually bow legged. I am so happy that I wasn't infulenced by my friend to breed him. As this would most certainly be passed on to his babies. I wish more people would think of the quality of life the puppies will have instead of the dollar signs.

Actually, I didn't even send Garrett's AKC paperwork in because I felt it to be useless.

:goodpost: That is exactly what this article is trying to say. It is not a right to be a breeder. You hit it right on the head with your post. :thumbup:

I really do not believe that a responsible breeder makes a profit. Someone would have to show me their books to make me buy that one...and I mean books with all of their financial transactions related to breeding including veterinary expenses.

While I'm sure we all agree that far too many animals are being euthanized, I have trouble following the author's logic. After reading her opening statement, I googled around and, sure enough, the estimate of up to 10 million animals is about right from what I see. This number is for shelter animals euthanized, not just dogs. Actually, within that nearly 10 million number, many more cats than dogs are euthanized. I point this out not to diminish the severity of the problem, only to look at the situation for what it is. In the article, the author tosses up the 10 million number and never once mentions cats and jumps straight into talking exclusively about dogs. It leaves the impression that 10 million dogs are euthanized in shelters every year which just isn't true. The rest of the article seems to zero in on those breeding pure bred dogs that don't meet the breed standard as if they're the sole cause of this problem. Have you looked in your local shelter lately? How many pure bred dogs did you see, bred to standard or not? I realize that every area may be different, but my local shelter is full of mixed breed dogs. They have a 'pet of the day' in our local paper and it's never a pure bred dog of any sort. They never have one when they do a weekly 'pet of the week' with the local TV station either. I do recognize that every breed has a breed rescue and there are many dogs there but what does that have to do with the millions in the animal shelter? I can only conclude that the author is an advocate of regulating breeders and is using mis-leading statistics to make her point. Not once does she even mention puppy mills (except to say they aren't the number 1 problem) or the irresponsible owner that leaves a bitch in heat outside so any and every male can have a go at her. Also worth mentioning are those that see a pet as disposable. They really strike a nerve with me. IMO, it's the puppy mills that are adding to the breed rescue problem but it's the irresponsible owner that is filling up the shelters. Articles such as the one posted tug at our heart strings but do they really help to solve anything? If we got rid of all BYBs (however you define them) of pure bred dogs, would the shelters be less full? I would like to see the worst of the worst mills shut down through enforcement of animal cruelty laws and owners to recognize their responsibility to spay/neuter pets. Also, I'd like to see AKC require proof of health testing of parent dogs before a litter could be registered. This would further distinguish AKC from other registries so that having an AKC dog could truly mean something. There are many AKC dogs coming from mills that have health problems and this is stressing rescue groups. If AKC did something like this, many BYBs and mills wouldn't go through the trouble of breeding AKC dogs and, if they did, at least the dogs would have a better chance of being healthy. If this happened, it wouldn't take long for the average person to realize this and opt for AKC when choosing a pure bred dog. Sorry to ramble on but I feel that articles such as this do little but get folks riled up when what we need are real solutions and by that I don't mean half-baked legislation restricting breeders.

Unfortunately I have been to my local shelters and I can only say that you are correct.....every area must be different, because our shelters are full of pure bred dogs and I do mean full. Yes, we have mixed breeds, but the amount of pure bred dogs is mind boggling.

Articles such as this help pet buyers learn that they should only support reputable breeders. Buyers can make up their own minds what a byb breeder is, there are lots of opinions out there. This link compares a reputable breeder from a back yard breeder Lawrence County Humane Society Abuse and Adoption Center and I would like to see more people choosing breeders who have more qualities on the left side of the list.

The"pet of the day" you mention, is usually a dog that will be hard to place, not one that will be easy to place. You can place any dog, if it's given enough publicity, and people will stand in line for this. Remember that local shelters do have outlets for many purebred dogs, because many go to breed specific rescues, and these rescues are notified immediately after the dog have gone through the waiting period where the owner is trying to be located. I think articles such as this are important because they inform us that millions of dogs are needlessly dying, and while puppymills/petstores are a problem they are not indeed the biggest problem. Backyard breeders produce way more dogs than puppy mills, and I don't think most people realize this.

For me, the biggest problem is unneutered pets, who are allowed to roam freely. We had a thread on legislation California was attempting to pass, and pets that were picked up three times would be required to be neutered. Most YT members were against this, and I was shocked by that fact, I believe responsible breeders don't allow their pets to "roam freely."

I think the biggest point you are overlooking, is that many new time Yorkie owners ponder the thought of breeding. Most people have no idea what breeding entails. Because animals breed all the time in nature, and everything goes well, they think the same is true with domesticated animals, but once man enters the picture, Mother Nature waves her hand by-by. Domesticated animals often need help in whelping, and even having sex. My point is the many people think, if they have a cutie pie dog, it's OK to breed, and the more information that we can get out there that this isn't a good idea, the better.

You said exactly what I was looking for the words to say. Excellent response!

I would like to add that does it really make a difference if the numbers are off even by 1,000,000? We are talking about millions of pets in shelters every year that are PTS. There is no arguing that is there? :confused:

If the author wants to promote responsible breeding - then she could have done so in 5 lines or less as she did in her closing statements. Instead she raised the issue of euthanized dogs in our society and then blamed it on BYBers. She made generalized and harmful statements against a diverse group of people.

That is why the article is so offensive.

The author is a shelter worker~she is speaking from her heart and with passion. It is not offensive IMO it is heartfelt. She is pouring her heart out because of what she has seen in shelters due to people irresponsible behavior. I am sorry but if you feel the author was long winded, IMO it seemed to be out of frustration and more of a vent and rant.

I have to ask? Do you volunteer for a shelter, rescue or with animals in need? When was the last time you visited a shelter to see or help with all of the dogs, cats and other animals housed there? Have you ever picked up a dog that was so sick you didn't know if he would make it through the night? Do you own a rescue or volunteer to be a foster home? What action or responsibility are you personally taking to make a difference in the treatment of animals?

I posted the original letter to try to enlighten YT member of how a shelter worker feels. Even if just one person now understand the magnitude of breeding their PET my point has been made. If it has offended you then so be it there is nothing more that can be said to change your opinion.

My opinion IS about the article and how the situation was approached by the author. Lets not get personal!! Don't think for a second, that I have a less-than-compassionate disposition about neglected animals. I said nothing of the sort.

Her message about all BYBers was inappropiate.

I honestly do not think one can sum up what the author was trying to impart into 5 lines or less.
I also do not see where she made any harmful statements. She made some very good points.
Her article is focusing on the part that backyard breeders play in the problem. I don't see her saying that they are the only problem.
Bottom line: there are far more people breeding dogs in this world than need be.

I think leaving out the fact that millions of dogs are dying each year, would be negligent. This is the reason; many of us are upset about the abundance of breeding. I know I would not be near as passionate about the cause, if I thought every puppy born was going to a good home. Then I would only be concerned about the fact that poor breeding results in sickly dogs, that cause much pain and suffering to them, as well as their owners. I'm confused why anyone would feel the need to defend backyard breeders? Just because you are not a show breeder, it doesn't mean you are a backyard breeder. If a person feels that the description of backyard breeder fits them too closely, perhaps they need to take a look at their breeding program. I believe that unless you are truly trying to improve the breed, you should not be breeding, we already have an abundance of dogs.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Nancy, I don't think you can say what is true about shelters in my area. As ladyjane pointed out after my post, her area's shelters are full of pure bred dogs while in my area this just isn't the case so there are regional differences. I know there are breed specific rescues and I mentioned them. They are not, as best as I can tell, counted in with 'shelter dogs'. I do visit my local shelter regularly with donations and the pure breds just aren't there. When I do hear of pure breds being in a shelter, it's the result of a puppy mill bust. It is the mills that are heaping cruelties on dogs on a huge scale. You and the article's author state that BYBs are the bigger problem but, since it's hard to even get a good total count of shelter dogs, I don't see how anyone can comfortably say who is the bigger problem. Again, in my area, the shelter is full of mixed breeds which would indicate it's the irresponsible owner rather than mills or BYBs causing the shelter problem, at least here. I do agree with you about unneutered pets and made a point about them in my post. I really don't think I'm overlooking any big points. The article was not breed specific so why should I extrapolate it over to the Yorkie? I'm sure everyone here is a true animal lover so no one really disagrees about animal welfare but only offers different points of view. Shelter and rescue workers/volunteers are saints IMO and deserve all our thanks. I have rescued dogs and cats from abusive/neglectful owners so I know just what it can be like to see the inhumanity of what some people can do. Given all that, I still feel the same about the article as I posted earlier. One thing I would like to add is that we need a national database to compile accurate figures on just what is coming into shelters. There's no way to solve any problem if you can't get a handle on it. As it is now, anyone can say anything about what is the biggest problem and have just as good a chance of being wrong as of being right. With so much legislation being drawn up on this issue, it is critical to at least have good accurate information on what the problem really is. I hope you will see that, while I don't accept the article at face value, I certainly don't promote irresponsible pet ownership and/or breeding. As for people here on YorkieTalk contemplating breeding, I would say that breeding any dog without doing your research is irresponsible and, in the case of toy breeds, is downright dangerous.

Didn't mean to imply I knew what was going on shelters in all or even most locations. I had read an article about the "pet of the week" feature and it said how they selected the dogs to feature. I have read figures, on dogs produced by puppy millers vs. dogs produced by other breeders, and as I recall puppy millers were a drop in the bucket, compared to byb, and I was surprised by this. Don't have the figures now, and maybe someone can find the source, but I do believe that HSUS has mentioned this before, and also have stated that they never received a dog from a good breeder. This was on the Oprah show. :D Here's a link to HSUS estimates of dogs entering shelters, with the number of purebreds being 25%. HSUS Pet Overpopulation Estimates | The Humane Society of the United States

I checked the link you posted and it says estimates are 6-8 million cats and dogs enter shelters every year with 3-4 million being euthanized. This is a lower number than the article the OP posted indicates and also lower than the estimates I've seen. In all cases, though, these are estimates and no one seems to have a really accurate number. No matter whose numbers you use, it's way too many but the range of estimates does underscore the need for a database. Also, in any estimate, cats outnumber dogs and the link you posted lumps them together to get the number they use. The estimate of 25% being pure bred is about dogs but every other number is about dogs and cats. I'm wondering if these estimates are about shelters only or if they include rescues. I know neither one of us is trying to be argumentative and we would all like to see something done about this. I'd just like to see a more accurate compilation of data before legislative solutions are offered since that seems to be the direction being taken lately. Pet over-population wouldn't be such a problem if people had more of a sense of responsibility but that seems to be sorely lacking in society these days. It's really a shame.

These two links seem to support what Nancy is saying about the numbers. They both indicate that the larger number of pure bred dogs come from backyard breeders.

Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeders vs Responsible Breeders - VeterinaryPartner.com - a VIN company!

Backyard Breeders & Puppy Mills : Tovik Siberians

The one mentions that the AKC stated that years ago, but I cannot find those stats. Will keep looking.
Actually, it makes sense to me. We all see puppy mills as being a problem because of the overwhelming amount at each facility. We do not see those amounts in individual homes, but the numbers of individuals breeding probably are astronomical.

:thumbup::thumbup:

You will never get the full numbers as only government owned/tax payer based animal protection organizations are required to report their euthanization numbers. This does not include rescue organizations etc. I believe the last study was done in 1999 (I could be wrong on the date) but it was only a guesstimate at over 5 million animals and was growing and that 25% were purebreds.

If you want more accurate compilation of data then you have to be ready to pay hugh amounts of $$$ or pass laws to incorporate all organizations to get to these numbers...it will never happen. Animals are just property and frankly few people really give a darn.

Pet over-population starts with the breeders/owners as they are the ones putting together a male and a female dog or not fixing their dogs. End of story. It also starts with "volume breeders" which AKC endorses some of them.:thumbdown

I would LOVE to only be able to buy my yorkie from a LISCENCED breeder, that has to account for EVERY aspect of breeding since they are taking (not making) money for a service.

A business has to be held accountable, payroll taxes, licences, benefits, and what not, why not a breeder!? This is not a product that is being debated, this is a live animal. How in the world can laws protecting LIFE not be celebrated by breeders everywhere?

If it becomes hard for me to buy a yorkie someday because laws got tough on people I will be thrilled! It is too easy to just pick up the local paper and buy a pure breed dog at the drop of a hat. I am so sorry to all the "hobby breeders" out there that don't classify themselves as BYB's. I hope you can find a new hobby. If you don't breed your dogs to standard than you don't even come close to understanding those who do and should not be placed in the same category.

If rescues and animal shelters become extinct in my life time it would be just about the most amazing thing that could ever happen. If it takes legislation getting tough on EVERYONE then so be it! If you don't have the resources and time to jump throughout the hoops that future breeders will have to than stop breeding!

The links you posted don't speak to the number of dogs entering shelters and/or being euthanized. The HSUS link that Nancy posted shows that 25% of dogs in shelters are pure bred. This means that 75% of dogs in shelters are not pure bred. I know that in my local shelter the kill rate is about 40+% for dogs and much higher for cats. If that is a typical ratio, you could take that to mean that, if the number of shelter dogs could be halved, then you are left with not an ideal situation but at least a manageable problem. So, if only 25% of dogs in shelters are pure bred, how can they be the biggest source of the problem whether they come from mills, BYBs or even reputable breeders? It seems to me that the numbers point to mixed breeds being the biggest problem and that goes directly back to irresponsible pet owners, not breeders of any stripe. Again, I'm not being argumentative, only trying to make some sense of these statistics. Bringing up puppy mills and BYBs is fine when talking about breeder ethics, but the numbers suggest they are much less of a problem in terms of pet over-population than careless and irresponsible pet owners are.

excuse me, but i don't see the point in having to prove the numbers blah blah blah... i don't care about the exact number of unwanted dogs that is contributed by BYBers. even contributing just one more dog and selling it to irresponsible owners like themselves is one too many.

i was going to do some research to find out how big of a problem BYBers are, but decided that that's not even really the point. i think it's self-evident that BYBers are contributing to the problem.

for the people that are arguing against BYBers being part of the problem, where are you coming from. what is your logic?

puppy mills have received a lot of bad press, but there are a lot of backyard breeders that run similarly to puppy mills. i mean, don't they both have the same goal? produce dogs for money. and no education on what they are doing but just carelessly breeding?

i do not understand why people are arguing for BYBers? please point out your logic. because you are not making any sense.

earlier in my other post i pointed out that if you are worried that it will become exclusive and only selected few will be able to breed, then do all that is necessary to breed, then you will not be called a byber.

plus, with the kind of over populating problems we DO have with pets, you know what, yea, probably only selected few should be breeding. it might just be a great idea that it IS more discrimitory on who should be breeding dogs.

Well said, WoogieMan.

I realize this is a very sensitive issue - and that is why I don't respond to these types of posts. For the record, I don't disagree with the author's overall goal in bringing awareness to the issue that average people ought not breed their pets. In fact, I have discouraged several of my friends from doing just that (friends who have wanted to recover their purchase costs). I just disagree with how the author made her point.

As Woogie Man said, I don't mean to be agrumentative - I believe we are all on the same page when it comes to animal suffering.

Do you want a Barber operating your open heart surgery?
 

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.