:thumbup:I think you coined byb pretty well!

I think this is what I am trying to say but can't find a way to say it.
If you are not a part of the solution then you are a part of the problem.

"reputable breeder" is a hard term to coin. I confess I didn't read the article at the beginning of this post but numbers and opinions aside I still feel like if the laws get strict on EVERYONE, "reputable breeders" included, then we will see a positive difference. It is not all about $ it is about the physical and mental health of animals. If people cant afford to breed they should not be allowed to do so. And if people that can afford to breed abuse the privilege then they should be punished by LAW and held accountable. Only if laws change can we enforce this.

I do agree that you should think very carefully before you start bringing new pets into the world!

I would like to think that we can change attitudes without regulation, though perhaps that will not be possible. For instance, Oprah's show on puppy mills was probably more powerful than many laws that have been passed. I'd like to see it be socially unacceptable to buy a cat or dog at a pet store.

Similarly, many people do not even know that there are breed-specific rescues. One of my friends was saying that he knows he's "supposed" to go to the pound and rescue a dog, but he's always wanted a lab... I made sure he knew he can get a Lab AND a rescue!

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I usually try not to post on these heated threads, but I just thought that this post really made a good point.

I dunno how much of an issue this is in this particular thread, but I think that sometimes when government starts getting involved good intentions really can take a turn for the worse. I know that IL and IN are putting some questionable new legislation into consideration.

I completely support getting the word out to people looking for pets about greedy/corrupt BYB's and puppy mills, But I think the BYB term should be a little more defined as some really could take offense to this article.

Not that I am aware of. :)

Oh...there are more labs and lab mixes in shelters than any breed. At least that is the case in this area.

I wish for the same things that you do.
I am very thankful that someone like Oprah made such a change. I do the small things that I can to educate people about puppymills and BYB's, t-shirts, bumper stickers, emails, and letters.

I want to see laws change so punishments can be more than a slap on the wrist and a little fine for animal abuse and cruelty.

I don't like the idea of "government" run breeding and I feel like there will be a middle ground reached in all of the new legislation, after all that is what the process is for.

I whole-heartedly agree with this. I get so upset when I watch 'Animal Cops' (on Animal Planet) and they show horses kept in horrid conditions where they are dying of thirst, and have open infected wounds... and then the owner gets a $500 fine or something like that. There should be real punishment for those kind of outrages.

It really IS horrifying what people do to animals and the small price they pay. That is something that really needs to change.

I agree.
Breeders will affected by the laws also, and I am ok with that simply because good things will come out of something that is just an inconvenience for others.

I have NO hard feelings toward breeders, and have a great deal of respect for those that breed responsibly, but if new law is what it takes to make a difference in the way that people are punished for animal cruelty then I want new tougher law.

That is the point of the article to begin with....people do not think before they breed their PET. If you have a PET quality animal, it should not be breed to give Aunt Mary a Christmas present. :rolleyes:

There are people that come onto this forum everyday wanting to breed their PET for no other reason than it is cute. Some are dissuaded and some are not. The one's that are not you can find in the breeder section not knowing what to do when their now pregnant PET is in labor or a puppy is stuck in the birth canal or how to hand feed a puppy. It is disturbing to say the least. But some seem to think it is their right to have no regulations so that they can do what they please.

Many breed clubs have decided to put off breeding for at least a year. Not because they feel there are too many dogs being bred but because they can't sell them in this economy.

People are not buying from pet shops and many are closing:)

So even though we need new laws the bad economy is really good for somethings.:thumbup:

Thats so true about the economy. I have seen dog adds in the paper that usually go for 1500 are now going for 800. Not as many in the paper either compared to a year ago. On the down side of the economy, alot of bybers are "dumping" their dogs off at shelters and so are the people that have lost their houses.:(

Well, I *thought* I was addressing the issue of pet over-population and the resulting euthanasia of millions of dogs. Since the article posted put the bulk of the problem on BYBs, I was attempting to show, through the use of statistics, that is not the case. If you believe the HSUS data (that 25% of shelter dogs are pure bred), then the real problem (75%) is irresponsible pet owners letting their dogs hook up with whatever. You may call it 'punching holes in people's arguments', but I would call it trying to identify the real problem. With a kill rate in shelters somewhere around 50%, the number of dogs entering shelters needs to be cut in half to stop the needless euthanasia. You just won't achieve that by going after breeders. Indiscriminate breeding shouldn't be given a pass but restricting breeding isn't THE solution. There probably isn't any one fix to the problem. Most likely, it will take lots of 'little solutions' chipping away at the numbers to get us to a place where dogs are no longer being needlessly destroyed. Donating to and volunteering with shelters and rescues only helps so much. The same is true of education and public awareness; it only goes so far. I would like to see the AKC (and other registries), the AVMA and local vets take an active role in helping to reduce the numbers of dogs entering shelters. Nothing will ever get us to zero dogs in shelters but we should strive to get to the point where the needless slaughter of healthy animals is a thing of the past. I would add that the last thing I would like to see is government taking a larger role in this. Did you ever hear the definition of a giraffe? It's a horse that was drawn up by committee.

Just a point of curiousity. Are you a breeder?

Never mind. I am dense at times...figured it out myself.

Oh you are a little slow tonight. I figured that one out right after I did my search and got the answer about 30 posts or so ago. :rolleyes:

Interesting
 

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet, but I had to stop here and reply. Just, please, re-read that first paragraph I quoted... Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, because I love Yorkies, but, imagine for a moment that you are talking about people, not animals (yes, Yorkies are animals). What do you think would happen if we were talking about which people were allowed to "breed." A perfect physical appearance is all that matters... It would certainly make things better for the human race. Humm..... (I smell Hitler).

Please don't everyone jump down my throat here, it's just a thought I had - says nothing about how I feel about dogs (or the horrendous numbers PTS every year).

I know you are kidding...right?

Haha
 

Of course I'm kidding. I completely agree that not everyone who has the notion to breed their dog should, and not every dog is suitable for breeding. But, it's not like people take as much consideration in to breeding as dog breeders do when they have a one-night stand. : )

Yeah....well I am all about altering some people. :D

Haha
 

Haha, yeah, me too. :)

It makes an interesting analogy, though. Dog breeders range in preparedness as much as mothers do - some breeders are totally unprepared and have no clue what they are doing, and haven't really thought out the best "mating pairs." Other breeders spend years learning all they can and making the best selections before committing to a mating. : )

wow...you did not go there...

yea, you did go there.

well, i don't think you were supposed to go there... :p

well, i guess we have different opinion or definition of what a BYB is. to me, a BYBers ARE irresponsible pet owners who should but did not spay/neuter their dogs.

do you mean if it's pure breed dogs, than it's not the same as irresponsible pet owners who did not spay/neuter their dogs? i don't see it that way. i see it still as irresponsible pet ownership as long as they haven't taken the necessary steps to become a responsible breeder. all irresponsible breeding ARE bad pet ownership regardless of what two dogs they are breeding together. regardless of if it's an 'accidental' mistake or not. they are both mistakes...

p.s. all the byb you've heard of only breed pure breed dogs? because a lot of the bybers i see in the papers/internet are selling mix breeds.

Great Article!

Maybe we agree more than I first thought but, boy, we sure do word things differently. What I got from the article was that BYBs were the biggest contributors to the pet over-population problem. The author then went on describing a BYB as someone that didn't breed to breed standard. She obviously was talking about pure bred dogs. My posts centered on the fact that pure breds are not, numerically speaking, the biggest problem in shelters. By the author's own definition of a BYB being one that didn't breed to standard (again, it must be a pure bred to be bred to a standard or not), I was stating that BYBs, by her definition, weren't the shelters' biggest problem. The HSUS link that was posted stated that pure breds make up about 25% of shelter dogs so my assertion was nothing more than that 25% of a problem is not the biggest part of a problem. Your definition of a BYB is much broader and mine is, too. Surely many of the mixed breeds in shelters are the result of deliberate or careless breedings and not just the result of strays. Maybe our initial disagreement is because I was responding using the author's definition of a BYB while you were thinking of it in the broader sense. Or maybe we just really disagree :D IDK, but I hope that we can agree that we all are equally concerned about the welfare of all dogs. Ladyjane, I'm glad you satisfied your curiosity. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion but I am open about who I am and you can read any of my older posts and see that.

honestly, it's not that i don't think we should pick apart things and make sure we have our facts right. the reason i was trying to say that it wasn't important earlier is because i do think that a lot of us DO have similar beliefs and might just be arguing over technicality and missing the issue that the OP had intended to address.

i think that getting our facts straight is important, but i think what's even MORE important is that whenever someone is trying to bring attention to animal welfare, i really rather that we support them as oppose to tearing apart what they are saying and argue over the 'technicality' instead of the core issue that was intended. but perhaps we are all reading and interpreting the article differently and therefore we are all focusing on different things.

Nice post
Thanks

Lisa

I do understand the author's intent but was really thrown off by how she backed up her opening statement. Maybe I'm a stickler for details, but I feel it's important to be accurate, especially on this issue. Mis-information will never bring about effective solutions. I think it's a good thing that we all focus on different things. It can lead to a better understanding. Pet over-population is a complex issue and needs to be broken down to see different aspects clearly. No matter how each of us looks at it, in the end, it's all about the dogs and that is one thing we should all focus on. We're all they have and they deserve our best efforts.

I agree with you 100%. Imagine a world in which only show breeders were allowed to breed dogs. The Yorkie is the second-most popular pure-bred dog in America (after Labs)...if the supply was limited to dogs the show breeders were willing to sell, where would we get our pet dogs? There would be a miniscule supply compared to demand, which would drive the prices to astronomical heights. How many of us on YT got our dogs from show breeders? Would YT even exist if they were the only source?

I don't think every dog needs to be a potential show dog. I also do not think that show breeders should have a monopoly on breeding dogs...it smacks of elitism. "Improving the breed" and "adhering to breed standards" is nothing more than word salad: the breed standard is purely aesthetic and does not speak to other, equally valuable characteristics. And nobody can tell me that the Persian cat breeders who have come up with ugly pig-faced cats with a too-small brain case and distorted sinuses "improved" that breed. Why should we be beholden to some trendy concept of canine beauty perpetrated upon a breed by show breeders?

As far as having a showring judge tell me if my dog is worthy of breeding or not, I'll accept that only when I can get my girl into a show ring with her tail undocked. The show ring...and show breeders...do not have a lock on healthy, well-tempered, physically fine specimens of any breed.