Article about BYB! Must read!

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

i think that there are many interesting ideas being brought up in this thread. but i guess we never defined what we call a BYBer

i feel that when the original post was posted; the main idea was that people should not breed irresponisbily and contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. but i think people are focusing on different parts of the article that was posted.

the way i define a BYBer is basically a 'irresponsible pet owner' is that correct? i think that if we can agree on a definition of that, it might be easier to discuss this and avoid arguments that's not necessary?

i think that BYB are people who should not be breeding their dogs, and probably shouldn't own dogs because they misunderstand the point of having a pet...dogs are not little money making machines...

I think you coined byb pretty well!

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

You mean these points that you can find all over the internet about what a reputable breeder is? That is exactly WHY people are trying to pass these laws....yet the people who are all about money don't want those laws. Heaven forbid they should have to clean up their acts and lose any of the money they make off the poor dogs.
I agree it will be hard to pass laws that will not hurt the good breeders BUT that is not an excuse to bury our heads in the sand and allow the problems to continue.

--------
Finding A Reputable Breeder

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.

[QuickSilver]

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!

[JMuedog]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

I care very much about pet overpopulation in this country. I volunteer at a shelter and most of my charitable contributions go to animal welfare.

That being said, I think the original article is way off base. First, I believe it is factually incorrect. From what I understand, puppy mills are by far the largest producers of pure bred animals today. Second, it's a huge logical leap to claim that mostly BYB dogs end up in the pound. As WoogieMan pointed out, this overlooks mixed breed dogs entirely, and that's not even the only hole. Finally, its accusatory tone is going to turn off people who otherwise might want to help.

Honestly, to me, it seems like the attitude in the article is shared by some people in this thread. What good does it do to get offended and accuse people of nefarious acts simply because you're not getting the number of replies you think your thread "deserves"? If people are that bad, then the problem will never be solved, so there's no need to expend any energy on it.

Alternatively, if you are not getting the results you want, be it nationally, or on an online forum, maybe it's time to reconsider your approach.

I don't believe breeding responsibly has anything to do with breeding to a standard of physical appearance. You should:

- breed for health. Frankly, this should be more important than appearance.
- ensure all your pups go to good homes.
- follow up with your buyers.
- *****sell ALL of your pet-quality dogs under a spay/neuter contract.

I can't claim to be an expert, but I'd like to see a conversation about how to make these kinds of things happen.

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.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Sorry, are we fighting?

Not that I am aware of.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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!

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

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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!

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.

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by hartygirl

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 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.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.

[hartygirl]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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.

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.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

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!

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.

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.

[crystalsmom]

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.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by crystalsmom

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.

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.

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

i do feel that there is a half-ass attempt that someone is arguing FOR the backyard breeder. my mind is not closed, in fact, i am open to all logical thoughts. so, where ARE you going with your argument? what issues are you addressing exactly? i guess i don't know what you are trying to say besides 'punch holes' in people's argument? what problems are you addressing and trying to fix?

or are you just here to "punch holes" in people's arguments?

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.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

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?