I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.

If you ask me ( which you didn't) I think a moratorium on breeding ALL dogs would be great. Let's say a year or until we can get a handle on it.

Of course the AKC would fight that and win.

you sound a bit hostile to me, but at least you're finally responding to my posts... guess maybe this was the only post you could pick apart...:confused:

of course i have read the article... who hasn't?... there may be A definition suggested be the author of that article, but it is VERY APPARENT that all the posters in this thread do not have the same interpretation as to what a BYB is.

idea: ... you CAN contribute by looking up some info as to the definition of a BYB if you would like...

I would like to see this also but I understand a breeding bitch from a reputable breeder only has so much time to have litters. I would like to see the number of litters that she has be limited.

It really is incredible how many people make their living or $$$ off of animals. I wonder how many pay taxes?

oh, it's actually not a definition that was agreed upon, just one other person posted replied and agreed with that particular definition.

i just posted as a suggestion and wanted to see if i was interpreting it the same way as others because i think there are a lot of different interpretations...and like i said... it's like we are all talking about something different...

oh, and, no need to apologize :) :) :)

Do you really want me to respond to your posts? okay - this one was just plain silly and way off base.

lol, we didn't ask you, but we care about what you have to say anyways! lol

i think it's a neat idea... but i still think the issue is for the people that are not qualified to breed dpgs to stop breeding.

even when you have a surplu of teachers doesn't mean we stop churning out teachers for schools. it's not that we don't have enough teachers. we don't have enough GOOD teachers....

same with lawyers, and other occupations (breeders included) we will always NEED GOOD breeders, good lawyers, good doctors, but we certainly don't need another bad lawyer, bad breeder, bad doctor...etc.

lol. sure, you can respond or not respond, which ever makes you happier. ;)

i am glad that you quoted that post though!!!! because it was a personal favorite of mine in this thread! :p

alright, so, why is it silly and off base? :confused: i thought it was a great analogy

[QUOTE=yorkiekist;2497619]I think the licensing of people will open the door to tooo many more regulations. What would it be based on: annual income, a simple test like the drivers license test,completion of a college course on pet management? Where would it stop? A license for a turtle, canary, guppy? And, yes, the shelters are filled with dogs that un-educated buyers dump when the cute Christmas puppy grows up to be an uncontrollable 100 lb dog. Actually, I think more blame should be pointed at the un-educated, spur of the moment pet buyers. But in this country, there is no personal responsibility for anything anymore.[/QUOTE

By your account is seems to me that all responsibility should fall upon the pet OWNER. What responsibility falls upon the pet breeder? Some not all breeders will sell to anyone who has cash in hand. How is that responsible? Then when the dogs end up unwanted were is that breeder? If they were reputable, they would be at the door taking that dog bad and it would be written into a contract that is what would be expected. Then maybe if the breeder were held responsible for their actions they would not be irresponsibly and only out for a quick profit. If the breeder has a prequalified list of homes were the puppies would be going to, background checks on vetting and previous pet ownership they would think twice about how many litters and who their puppies would go to before making decisions about adding to the pet overpopulation. If you bring that life into this world then you should be responsible to make darn well sure that it will have a home that will be the very best forever be it with the adopter or back to that breeder. Pet ownership is seen by so many as a right. Maybe is should be seen as a privilege and there would not be so many neglected, abused and abandoned animals the shelters wouldn't be full and millions of pets would not be PTS annually. If we expect the government to carry the huge burden of the pet overpopulation then they should have the right to regulate and oversee breeding practices. It is so easy to pass the buck and say the owner is irresponsible. If the breeder were held responsible for adding to the pet population them it would trickle down to the owners.

Let me add this as well. If a breeder were also held responsible for breeding sick and unhealthy animals that would also make them think twice about testing for genetic flaws etc. that we all seem to have agree should be done. It can reasonably be a that the purchaser expects a healthy dog. When they are not then they are also prone to dump them at a shelter

It is silly and way off base because this thread is about the original article as posted by the OP. You want to take this thread in a different direction and use extreme and inapplicable examples to make your point.

Regarding another post of yours, I am not making a half-ass attempt to defend irresponsible breeders - I am simply stating that the author made broad and harmful statements against breeders in general that she labled as back yard breeders.

It would never work unless the law said all dogs!! Everyone would have an excuse and who is to decide who is a good breeder, that is a matter of opinion. People say they don't make money breeding:confused: so why should they care. I don't really care about the breeder, I am thinking of these poor animals being bred when we have way too many already.

[quote=megansmomma;2497738]

I didnt say ALL BLAME, I said MORE BLAME. Big difference.

Oh sweetie that is so sad.

I asked before....what is harmful in that post? I don't see it, but could be missing something.

i still don't see it as off base or taking the thread in a different direction. i don't understand how i am taking this thread a different direction. i thought i was pretty focused on the main topic of the original post.

i did mention earlier that i think everyone is focusing on different parts of the article and that may be why you think i am taking it a different direction. no one else has informed me or bring to my attention that i was going the wrong direction? (or have i not been listening?)

i guess i just really don't see things the way you do. i don't see how the article is making harmful statements against breeders in general.

i just don't see it.

[quote=yorkiekist;2497781]Please clarify what responsibility that a breeder should hold for the life of that pet they have breed and sold? You picked two words and never address any of my other very valid points that I rose. What responsibility should a breeder have after selling a puppy? If all breeders were held responsible for the production of their puppies wouldn't that cut way down on the number of puppies there are born each year? It is so easy to just pass the buck and shun responsibility for your actions.

LOL!!!!! check out the time on our posts, we posted at the exact same time and we asked the same question! LOL!

[quote=megansmomma;2497803]I am not going to speak for other breeders. But more and more breeders ARE spaying/neutering puppies before they are placed just because of the over-pupulation problem and they dont want great quality puppies to fall into the hands of mills, bybers, other registries, etc. Most reputable breeders interview and check potential buyers homes before placing a puppy. Most reputable breeders have a lengthy contract and guarantee. Alot are now having mandatory return to breeder clause. But with everything, some buyers dont want to be "micro-managed", some dont tell the breeder that they haved moved, married, changed there name, or taken the puppy to the pound or have given it away or sold it. Cant blame that on the breeder!!
So if you want the big government to micro-manage breeders, you must also have big government micro-manage buyers.

[quote=megansmomma;2497803]There are 'Lemon Laws' and I know Florida has one that covers pets and I'm sure there are other states also.

[quote=yorkiekist;2497833]In rescue we have a clause like that. I have yet to have an adopter NOT respond to my requests to follow up on a pup. Maybe I am just fortunate...or maybe, just maybe it is because I am a total bug about screening? I think the latter! Yes.....I am lucky...but, I don't chalk it all up to luck. I take my time.

Here are the states that have lemon laws.

Puppy Lemon Law States

[quote=ladyjane;2497845]Do you "follow up" ten years after you placed the dog? Thats what you are implying that breeders should do. I keep in contact with most of the buyers for my puppies over the years. Some of them have moved, changed their number, etc. Life happens! I suppose that is MY FAULT also in your perfect eyes. Reputable breeders do the absolute best they can. And lets face it, 25% of the shelter dogs are not from reputable breeders are they?

I really am confused by why you're upset, the article seems to be saying to me,:

1. We have an abundance of pets, so many in fact that we can't find homes for all of them all, and millions of healthy pets need to be euthanized.
2. The major contributor to the over population is NOT puppy mills but backyard breeders.
3. There is no reason to be breeding if you are not breeding to standard.
4. Spay and neuter your dogs, if you don't want to be a proper breeder, and take the time to do it right.

I would think you would agree with all of these things from your previous posts. I don't believe the article is talking about legislation, but more about why the average pet owner shouldn't become a breeder.

[quote=yorkiekist;2497833]You have missed by point as we are talking about BYB and overpopulation of pets. Some is a very small portion of what we are talking about in the original topic. If you at what point should a breeder be no longer responsible OVER ALL for the puppies that they have breed? If breeders were held to be responsible for the puppies that they produce then wouldn't it put a stop to all of the dogs that are overpopulating the shelters of the US?

I understand that some breeders are very responsible with the dogs they breed and sell. They have contracts that cover many aspects that they feel sound be done as responsible breeders which is exactly what I am trying to point out. But what about all of the people that are not responsible for what they breed. If a pet owner that did not spay or neuter their pet by choice were to then have puppies because of irresponsible behavior what is the consequence of their actions? NOTHING! To live in a civilized society there be consequences for our actions and it should be a 2 way street when it comes to caring for the animals that are allowed to reproduce and purchase pets. Breeding a dog should be a privilege not a right. Maybe what needs to be done is that breeders and pet owners alike need to earn that privilege through their responsible actions and reasonable management of their pets health and well being. I understand that there are legitimate breeders but they are not the ones causing the problems. Someone needs to address all of the others that breed recklessly and without regard for anything except the $$$ in their pocket. Maybe people would think twice about letting Fluffy have a litter to hand out like Christmas cookies, if there was a chance Fluffy Jr might some day show back up on their door step or they would be required to foot the bill for that dogs care. If there was a consequence to being a BYB and selling dogs in a Walmart parking lot or on the side of the rode maybe these same people would give a second thought before allowing it to happen in the first place.

thank you nancy! i was hoping someone would do a little summary/bullet points of what they believe the article was addressing. really makes discussions here and focusing the discussion a lot easier. lol.

i didn't do a summary because i am very lazy, but i agree with your points. and think those are the things i got out of the article as well.

Possibly in an ideal world, but that would only work if owners were equally as responsible for the dogs they have as well.

I think we all know that there are breeders who do everything within their power to breed ethically and place their pups accordingly, and then there are those who don't give a hoot what happens to their dog as long as someone hands them money for it. Is that really a debate? I thought it was common knowledge.

Bottom line IMO, there are too many dogs being bred by too many people who don't take it seriously. People who mass produce puppies just to make money, with no regard for the overall health of the animals or the standards of the breed they work with. Also, I think there are too many people who are irresponsible owners. Too many people who get a dog without being willing to actually commit to them--people who pass them off the moment they are "inconvenient" for their lifestyle or because they just didn't get that dogs are living creatures, not just pieces of property or accessories.

[quote=megansmomma;2497803]You all wanted me to "clarify" so I did. Just seems like there are alot of bullets flying towards the responsible breeder as much as the byber. But NOT the buyer. What about the responsibility if the actions of the buyer?

:thumbup::thumbup:

[quote=yorkiekist;2497945]i personally see the irresponsible breeders as irresponsible pet owners. i think you agreed with me on this earlier? (was it you?)

i think that the BYB are not 'breeders' at all...they are just irresponsible pet owners that bought pets and decided that it was a good idea to breed them for a few bucks.

just because someone choose to breed their pets doesn't really make them breeders does it? they are just irresponsible pet owners that continually making bad judgement/decisions over and over again.

pet owners definitely need to take responsibilties. sure thing. we all have a responsibility. i don't know, am i misreading something and completely missing the point? (let me know if i am!)