Article about BYB! Must read!

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by RIPMyLittleCase

I read the article at work yesterday but then got busy. My husband and I talked about it last night after I got home from work. I don't know if the place where we got Teddy from is a BYB or a puppy mill or a legit shelter. I have learned alot here and will definitely do even more research next time we adopt. We have been very fortunate with our little boy as he came to us healthy (except his missing toes) and we have already had him altered. The number of pets pts every month is heartbreaking.

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.

[Karrie]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

I think you need to go back to the original article and reread what is says. What is offensive to me is that 1,000,000 dogs are PTS each month! My Pebbles has AKC papers as well but I would NEVER consider her breeding material. The BYB that she came from should not be breeding. She is 100% yorkie too but is 11 lbs and has crooked teeth. Does that give me the right to breed? ABSOLUTELY not! Sure this breeder is a wonderful woman~a school teacher even~ does that give her the right to breed? Did I purchase Pebbles? No, she was given to me by a friend. Rehomed because my friend was not able to care for her. There was never an offer to take her back from this breeder so what was to happen to my little girl? If I wouldnt' have taken her who knows where she would be now. Of course I love and and think she is wonderful. She was sold without a spay contract so if I had wanted to she could be a breeding dog now. That is what a BYB does they sell for profit and it is WRONG!

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!!!

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Karrie

I don't usually post to these types of threads, but I feel that I must respond to that article.

I understand that there are responsible breeders and that there are irresponsible breeders. I understand that some breeders are greeders and some breeders breed for their love of the breed and for the best interest in producing quality and healthy dogs.

I just read the AKC standard - and it makes reference to only physical appearance!! I TOTALLY disagree with the continuous comment in that article that if someone does not have a dog meets the 100% physical appearance as set forth by the AKC then they do not have the right to breed it!!

I strongly oppose irresponsible breeders who breed for greed without any consideration to the puppy's health - but I also disagree with the idea that only a select few should have the right to breed. My baby is AKC certified - but does not meet the AKC standard - she has silver on her forehead!! She is healthy, smart and 100% yorkie. I can't imagine life without her and she came from a responsible BYB.

It is wrong to label all BYBers as irresponsible and careless. These types of posts are offensive to me- and I don't think I'm the only one.

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.

[yorkiepuppie]

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.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Karrie

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!!!

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...

[shirlblack]

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.

[Gennies]

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.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

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...

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.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Karrie

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!!!

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.

[Woogie Man]

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.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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.

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.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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?

[Karrie]

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.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Karrie

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.