I don't think you are a snob ;) I think so many people think that their dog would have CUTE puppies. Well unless you have ALL of the breeds standards, just love your dog. To me if you love a breed you too would only want the best dogs to have puppies. And anyone that thinks that you can make money having a litter or 2 truly does not understand all that needs to be done and how much it will cost. So please Nancy keep posting if only 1 person sees that their dog is not up to standard to have puppies then it was worth it.

Very informative thread. Thanks.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I just might add to that, although the standard is important I feel all breeders should take 'health' under consideration first and foremost.

The start of the show...
 

Another thought..... the shows are not ends unto themselves (or, at least they aren't supposed to be). Shows were started as a way for breeders to show off their breeding stock and to show off the quality of dogs they have.

My concept of a "show breeder" is someone who shows to validate their breeding program. But, some people take it to the extreme of the sport of showing, and only breed to show, not show to prove they should be breeding.

That used to be my opinion too, but shows are a way for breeders to get "confirmation" that their dog does indeed meet standard. When you love a pet, it's difficult to use a critical eye to judge it's appearance, and that's where others opinions become an important part of the process. Developing an eye is an important part of being a breeder, and while not every breeder can afford the show circuit, I believe it's important to attend shows, as an aid to developing your eye. Pictures only show you so much, and seeing a great quality dog in person, allows you to better evaluate your own stock.

To crystalsmom, I agree health should always be taken into consideration first, it is my opinion that show breeders are more likely to do health screening because the are developing a "line", and not just in and out of the game. I don't think most BYB's offer health guarantees.

That's basically what I said - what I was saying is that conformation shows are a way for breeders to show off their stock and compete against one another. But, some people only breed in order to show their dogs - and nothing else matters. They aren't breeding to do anything but win - they aren't involved in anything except showing.

I agree that if you don't show, then you should re-think why you are breeding. Not because showing is the only reason to breed, but because showing (and doing well) "confirms" that your breeding stock "conforms" to the standard.

Hoe that makes sense the 2nd time around.

When I read the words, "show off" you seem to be referring more to the breeder's self-esteem and not them really wanting to properly evaluate their dogs. I'm sure there are breeders that do it for the wrong reasons, as with anything, but I was trying to point out that this isn't really why showing started, and it's not a frivolous thing. I use to think it was, and there may be others who don't understand the true purpose of showing.

Well, that's not what I meant, and I certainly wasn't alluding to any frivolity in showing. I was merely stating that showing should be used as a tool, not as the reason for breeding.

Thank you for reminding me why I spent a year on here reading without ever registering.

I hope I didn't offend you, I've read that others thought showing was frivolous, and I know I use to think that too. It wasn't clear in your first comment, what you meant, but I think I understand it now. Again, my apologies, I don't want to turn you off Yorkietalk.

I emphatically disagree.

Until animals that have not had their little bodies mutilated in order to conform to the standard, perfectly acceptable dogs will be overlooked by the show breeders. If you won't dock ears and/or tails, your dog can't be shown, even if it perfectly conforms to breed standard in all other ways, and if the dog can't be shown, that "confirmation" is not possible.

I readily concede that there are a lot of people who indiscriminately breed (intentionally or otherwise) dogs that pass on a poor genetic heritage but you cannot be equally indiscriminate in judging those who breed and do not show. It is tantamount to...and no more valid than...stereotyping.

I won't know for several months yet how well my girl conforms to standard. But I won't mutilate her tail...it's actually illegal here for a vet to dock tails and ears for cosmetic purposes...and the breed standard has not changed, so she can't show, no matter how perfect she may turn out to be. But if she is good enough to show and her tail is what is keeping her out of the ring, I will not allow a lack of "confirmation" from a show judge to prevent me from breeding her if that is what I want to do.

It is dangerous to put your full faith in an "authority" at the expense of your own common sense. And while some people may be blinded by their love of their dogs or are motivated by an expectation of profit, it is not true of us all, which makes this generalizing grossly unfair. And, even if an expectation of profit exists, if it is not realized at the expense of the well being of the animals involved, I fail to see what is so bad about it.

It is elitist to put forth the idea that only dogs that have received "confirmation" from show judges should be bred. It IS snobbish. What you are saying, in other words, is that dogs that are not show winners should not be allowed to breed...sorry, but dog show aspirants are the SMALLEST market for purebred dogs and there is absolutely nothing wrong with breeding otherwise healthy dogs that do not conform to championship standards. They won't get into the shows, they won't breed with the show dogs and pollute their bloodlines, and they have no less right than the show dogs to walk the earth and and bring love into the hearts of people who simply cannot pay the kind of money a show dog's offspring must fetch.

No, I'm not saying that only "show winners should not be allowed to breed..." in post 156 I said:
There is no such thing as "championship standards", there are just "standards." If there were a shortage of pets I would agree with you. There is no shortage. There may be a shortage of Yorkies who meet standard, and this is why I think it's OK to breed for them.

Docking is a whole other matter, and it has little to do with what we are discussing, but if it illegal in your country, I would follow my counties laws. I've got to say that one of the reasons it was outlawed in England was that too many BYB's were botching it up, and your are right, it was horrible mutilation.

i am a stickler for details as well, but i don't let detail sidetrack me and allow that to shift my focus away from what is truly important.

i have not done any research on all the % because i did not see that as the main point here. it's wonderful that some people are doing the research, once anyone finds good valid information that they feel like they can add to and support fellow animal lover, feel free to do that. but so far, i haven't seen that kind of attitude. it feels more like tearing apart something than trying to add to.

honestly, pet over-population is not a complex issue. it certainly can be if that's the way you choose to see it. pet over-population means that there are too many pets around. and instead of looking for breeders. most of us should look in the shelter to adopt a dog instead of buying a dog, especially instead of buying from a BYB.

did i buy milu from a breeder? Yes.

it would probably be better if i adopted an animal needing a home from the shelter instead of purchasing a dog that can too easily find a loving home. but just because i made a decision to buy a dog instead of adopting doesn't mean i am going to justify that and say that's the right thing to do.

same as BYBers or BYBer supporters.

don't try to justify what is not right. if you are doing something wrong, or have done something wrong. the least you can do is to recognize that and be honest with the reality that YOU ARE adding to the pet over-population problem.

justifying a wrong cause just make you look stupid, it doesn't make what you are doing right because you poorly 'justified' it.

(when i say 'you' i don't mean anyone specific, i just mean people in general. i am clarifying so that the post won't be read with a overall tone of hostility... thanks)

also, in my previous post, i was not suggesting that woogie man is a BYBer or a BYBer supporter....

gosh, i feel like i have to be so careful about what i say now because people are getting so fired up about everything.

it's a good thing though, i like it! :D

i think that's how things get better, by people becoming aware and bring lots of attention to the topic and getting people to care about the topic. :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

I care about the topic and I think that more than one opinion can have very valid points.

"Most of those who will come running to buy your pups are the kind of people I wouldn't give a dog I didn't like to."

I'm fairly new to YorkieTalk. I enjoyed this article, and found it very informative and while I understand that this issue can stir very passionate emotions, I hope that the vast array of dog owners is taken into consideration here on this board. Those owners who love their yorkies may or may not have purchased them from what some would define as a "deserving" breeder . I bought my Kota from someone you may term as a "backyard breeder" (as I am sure more than a few of this boards members have done as well). She has raised AKC standard yorkies for years, but never showed them. Maybe I am confused on the term, but does this make her less qualified to breed? She is knowledgeable on the breed and I have to say Kota is one of the healthiest, happiest dogs I have ever known. I have purshased animals from show breeders with health guarantees only to have them fall ill to congenital defects. Again I am not the most educated on BYB's, and certainly the emotions I feel when people breed irresponsibly are just as strong as your own, but think twice before assuming you know the quality of a person who has purchased from a "BYB" or of a dog for that matter.


****i am now running and ducking from the flames I can see coming for miles ;) ***

wow...i do see your point, but i disagree with you. we don't need more breeders at this point in time. especially not bad ones.

pet over-population is a problem, and even though it seems that we have been debating over and over who is the 'main cause' of this problem. BYBers are for sure A contributor to this problem.

why should there be more breeders at this point in time especially if they are not willing to do all the work that IS involved in it?

the current system, the AKC, the dog show competitions are NOT perfect, but it is a STEP in the right direction. it certainly is better than NOTHING.

just as i might not agree with all the tests or education or experiments they do in medical schools. i am still going to opt for a certified doctor that has gone through the 'imperfect' training and schooling every single time i go see a doctor. would YOU go to any doctor who is a self-proclaimed and says he knows enough about everything there is to know about people's health?

and yes, it CAN cost a lot of money to own a pet. (especially the sickly ones produced by people who have no business breeding) people should have enough money to pay for their pets to get the treatments they need, but a lot of people do not have the money and they ended up abandoning their pets. is it classiest to say that only people who have $$$ can have dogs? i don't know, all i know is that pet CAN cost a lot of money. and that you should not own one if you are not able to pay for the care...your thought?

:happyboun

I love a good ol' fashioned heated debate too!
*makes some popcorn*

What about hobby breeders? Should they be breeding if they try to conform to the standard and do health testing but dont show dogs?

i knew this was going to be a problem in this thread, because the definition of a BYBer was never clear, and all the readers in this thread have never agreed on how we are defining the term BYB.

the problem with not defining terms is that no one is interpreting it the same way, and therefore a lot of pointless debates will occur...

i tried to define it in one of my earlier post, but only one person responded. i guess people are not interested in defining it, because i am sure it would be hard for us to agree on a definition. i still think it is important. without a premise and clearly defined terms, debates are not very effective, it's like everyone is speaking a different language.

how can we talk about how we feel about BYB if we all have different ideas of what a BYB is? doesn't make any sense!

anyway, here is my earlier post:

LOL. thanks for watching! :p

I'm not sure what was said that some of you think someone said only show breeders should breed. No one said this in this thread; I certainly didn't say it, just because I said it's a good idea to "attend" shows to develop an eye, does not mean I think only show breeders should breed. A hobby breeder that is breeding to standard and doing health testing is my idea of a good breeder. I think some people don't breed to standard and are getting really upset, and doing a lot of misquoting of other people, which leads to more confusion.

I think this link gives explains the differences between the backyard breeder and the responsible breeder. Lawrence County Humane Society Abuse and Adoption Center Try to find a breeder who has more qualities on the left side of the list than on the right.

We were talking earlier about how many dogs were born in puppy mills vs. regular breeders. By regular breeder, I mean the small home breeder, and I guess that would includes byb's, hobby breeders, and show breeders, as well as the pet owners who don't classify themselves as breeders at all, but have a oops pregnancy, in other words, not a large commercial breeder.

This websites says that "It’s estimated that 4 million dogs are bred in puppy mills every year. "
Puppy Mill Awareness Day.

Now, I don't now if this number is correct, and I still can't find an estimate on how many total dogs are born a year, at least from even one semi reliable source. Can anyone help me here? My point of this is that people seem to think the largest producer of puppies is the commercial breeder, and I use to believe this too, but I have read lately that this is just not true, but I can't find any documentation now. I'm not trying to argue a point, but now I'm just curious. Woogieman is right; a national database would be helpful.

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.:animal-pa

Just curious. Do any other countries have problems with over pet population, mills,or bybers leading to shelters, rescues and euthanasia? If so, how do they deal with the problem?

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.

I probably should have said pet over-population is a 'multi-faceted' issue rather than a 'complex' one. While it's a national issue, every area has a unique set of circumstances. It could be either puppy mill busts, strays, owner surrender, dog fight busts or any combination of these that make up the shelter population in any given area. In my area at this time, many dogs are being surrendered due to housing restrictions being placed on pets. A lot of folks are moving into new housing that has been built since Katrina and are faced with limits or bans on pets in the places they're moving to. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to this and all the other reasons why the shelters are so overwhelmed. Ultimately, it comes down to owner responsibility no matter where they get their dog from. Even here, with the reasons I cited, most of the pet owners knew they would be moving into new housing with restrictions yet still chose to get a pet they knew they couldn't keep. As I said before, discussing breeder ethics is fine and is a valid subject. I just think that more of the focus should be on owner responsibility when it comes to discussing why the shelters are so full.

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 that checking people out should be the responsibility of the person selling the pup. It bothers me that anyone could breed animals and not care who gets them.

Don't get me wrong, I know there is a lot of holes in that arguement I presented as well... I mean if we find someone unsuitable after they have a dog what happens then? We can't make the dog not there anymore. I agree that the breeder should maybe be the police of the owner, perhaps their responsibility shouldn't end with the sale but with keeping tabs on their pups after for a period of time afterwards. Maybe extending the license idea to the breeder. Make it illegal to breed unless you are licensed to breed by some governing body.

Walter