Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie (Post 2495693)

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.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 2495788)

I don't really see anyone arguing for BYBs or mills and I think it's offensive for you to suggest otherwise. The OP posted an article that began about pet over-population and somehow the article morphed into a rant about breeding to the standard. These are two different subjects and I fail to see the logic in that. By using numbers, I was trying to make sense of her attempt to place the majority of the blame on breeders. Apparently, the statistics punch a big hole in her argument. I'm not defending BYBs, but am only trying to look at the problem in a logical way. If you can't see the problem, how will you ever hope to find a solution? Breeding ethics and pet over-population are two different (though somewhat related) subjects. I don't see any sense in lumping them together if your goal is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters. It only muddies the water but to each his own. There has been some good information coming out in this thread but make of it what you will. If all you can do is go blah, blah, blah and say what's the point in doing any research, then I guess your mind is closed.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 2495788)

I don't really see anyone arguing for BYBs or mills and I think it's offensive for you to suggest otherwise. The OP posted an article that began about pet over-population and somehow the article morphed into a rant about breeding to the standard. These are two different subjects and I fail to see the logic in that. By using numbers, I was trying to make sense of her attempt to place the majority of the blame on breeders. Apparently, the statistics punch a big hole in her argument. I'm not defending BYBs, but am only trying to look at the problem in a logical way. If you can't see the problem, how will you ever hope to find a solution? Breeding ethics and pet over-population are two different (though somewhat related) subjects. I don't see any sense in lumping them together if your goal is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters. It only muddies the water but to each his own. There has been some good information coming out in this thread but make of it what you will. If all you can do is go blah, blah, blah and say what's the point in doing any research, then I guess your mind is closed.

Originally Posted by Woogie Man (Post 2495632)

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.

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie (Post 2496135)

i also give good analogies! :D i personally really like my barber-surgeon analogy, didn't you?

Originally Posted by hartygirl (Post 2495626)

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!

Originally Posted by hartygirl (Post 2495626)

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!

Originally Posted by lil fu fu girl (Post 2495911)

Originally Posted by hartygirl (Post 2496286)

No I don't want them to be able to breed dogs AT ALL! Let alone "crappy" ones. I want the current laws to CHANGE and prevent BYB's and Puppymills from existing all together. I understand that that is a long way from happening. I also understand that the laws will make it hard for breeders across the board, including certified licensed breeders. If you can not afford "fees, fines, etc AND pay for health research, vet bills, etc" then I would NOT buy a dog from you and you should not be able to breed.
Quality breeders invest in their dogs, emotionally and most importantly financially, if you don't have the $ to back your investment it will fail, new laws or not.
I am confident that I will always be able to find a breed standard, healthy dog. There are good breeders out there that will fight and win for their breed and will continue to be successful.
And if not, millions of animal lives will be saved every year. I am just fine with that.

Originally Posted by ladyjane (Post 2496168)

I enjoyed it. :D

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 2496331)

Well, while your at it, why not make legislation say that you have to have a certain income to even own a dog. That will solve just about everything. Why not start at $100,000 income per year to own 1 dog. Mandatory s/n. To be a breeder of one litter per year, you have to have an income of $200,000 per year. That would weed out just about all the bybers and alot of the families. No more need for dog breeding. Atrician will take care of the millions put to sleep and shazam, an almost dog free society! I think I should call my Senator about this!!