Article about BYB! Must read!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Just a point of curiousity. Are you a breeder?

Never mind. I am dense at times...figured it out myself.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Never mind. I am dense at times...figured it out myself.

Oh you are a little slow tonight. I figured that one out right after I did my search and got the answer about 30 posts or so ago.

[WalnutHill]

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...

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet, but I had to stop here and reply. Just, please, re-read that first paragraph I quoted... Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, because I love Yorkies, but, imagine for a moment that you are talking about people, not animals (yes, Yorkies are animals). What do you think would happen if we were talking about which people were allowed to "breed." A perfect physical appearance is all that matters... It would certainly make things better for the human race. Humm..... (I smell Hitler).

Please don't everyone jump down my throat here, it's just a thought I had - says nothing about how I feel about dogs (or the horrendous numbers PTS every year).

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by WalnutHill

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet, but I had to stop here and reply. Just, please, re-read that first paragraph I quoted... Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, because I love Yorkies, but, imagine for a moment that you are talking about people, not animals (yes, Yorkies are animals). What do you think would happen if we were talking about which people were allowed to "breed." A perfect physical appearance is all that matters... It would certainly make things better for the human race. Humm..... (I smell Hitler).

Please don't everyone jump down my throat here, it's just a thought I had - says nothing about how I feel about dogs (or the horrendous numbers PTS every year).

I know you are kidding...right?

[WalnutHill]

Of course I'm kidding. I completely agree that not everyone who has the notion to breed their dog should, and not every dog is suitable for breeding. But, it's not like people take as much consideration in to breeding as dog breeders do when they have a one-night stand. : )

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by WalnutHill

Of course I'm kidding. I completely agree that not everyone who has the notion to breed their dog should, and not every dog is suitable for breeding. But, it's not like people take as much consideration in to breeding as dog breeders do when they have a one-night stand. : )

Yeah....well I am all about altering some people.

[WalnutHill]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Yeah....well I am all about altering some people.

Haha, yeah, me too.

It makes an interesting analogy, though. Dog breeders range in preparedness as much as mothers do - some breeders are totally unprepared and have no clue what they are doing, and haven't really thought out the best "mating pairs." Other breeders spend years learning all they can and making the best selections before committing to a mating. : )

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by WalnutHill

I haven't finished reading through the entire thread yet, but I had to stop here and reply. Just, please, re-read that first paragraph I quoted... Please don't anyone take this the wrong way, because I love Yorkies, but, imagine for a moment that you are talking about people, not animals (yes, Yorkies are animals). What do you think would happen if we were talking about which people were allowed to "breed." A perfect physical appearance is all that matters... It would certainly make things better for the human race. Humm..... (I smell Hitler).

Please don't everyone jump down my throat here, it's just a thought I had - says nothing about how I feel about dogs (or the horrendous numbers PTS every year).

wow...you did not go there...

yea, you did go there.

well, i don't think you were supposed to go there...

[yorkiepuppie]

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.

well, i guess we have different opinion or definition of what a BYB is. to me, a BYBers ARE irresponsible pet owners who should but did not spay/neuter their dogs.

do you mean if it's pure breed dogs, than it's not the same as irresponsible pet owners who did not spay/neuter their dogs? i don't see it that way. i see it still as irresponsible pet ownership as long as they haven't taken the necessary steps to become a responsible breeder. all irresponsible breeding ARE bad pet ownership regardless of what two dogs they are breeding together. regardless of if it's an 'accidental' mistake or not. they are both mistakes...

p.s. all the byb you've heard of only breed pure breed dogs? because a lot of the bybers i see in the papers/internet are selling mix breeds.

[AmyChristine]

Great Article!

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

well, i guess we have different opinion or definition of what a BYB is. to me, a BYBers ARE irresponsible pet owners who should but did not spay/neuter their dogs.

do you mean if it's pure breed dogs, than it's not the same as irresponsible pet owners who did not spay/neuter their dogs? i don't see it that way. i see it still as irresponsible pet ownership as long as they haven't taken the necessary steps to become a responsible breeder. all irresponsible breeding ARE bad pet ownership regardless of what two dogs they are breeding together. regardless of if it's an 'accidental' mistake or not. they are both mistakes...

p.s. all the byb you've heard of only breed pure breed dogs? because a lot of the bybers i see in the papers/internet are selling mix breeds.

Maybe we agree more than I first thought but, boy, we sure do word things differently. What I got from the article was that BYBs were the biggest contributors to the pet over-population problem. The author then went on describing a BYB as someone that didn't breed to breed standard. She obviously was talking about pure bred dogs. My posts centered on the fact that pure breds are not, numerically speaking, the biggest problem in shelters. By the author's own definition of a BYB being one that didn't breed to standard (again, it must be a pure bred to be bred to a standard or not), I was stating that BYBs, by her definition, weren't the shelters' biggest problem. The HSUS link that was posted stated that pure breds make up about 25% of shelter dogs so my assertion was nothing more than that 25% of a problem is not the biggest part of a problem. Your definition of a BYB is much broader and mine is, too. Surely many of the mixed breeds in shelters are the result of deliberate or careless breedings and not just the result of strays. Maybe our initial disagreement is because I was responding using the author's definition of a BYB while you were thinking of it in the broader sense. Or maybe we just really disagree IDK, but I hope that we can agree that we all are equally concerned about the welfare of all dogs. Ladyjane, I'm glad you satisfied your curiosity. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion but I am open about who I am and you can read any of my older posts and see that.

[yorkiepuppie]

Originally Posted by Woogie Man

Maybe we agree more than I first thought but, boy, we sure do word things differently. What I got from the article was that BYBs were the biggest contributors to the pet over-population problem. The author then went on describing a BYB as someone that didn't breed to breed standard. She obviously was talking about pure bred dogs. My posts centered on the fact that pure breds are not, numerically speaking, the biggest problem in shelters. By the author's own definition of a BYB being one that didn't breed to standard (again, it must be a pure bred to be bred to a standard or not), I was stating that BYBs, by her definition, weren't the shelters' biggest problem. The HSUS link that was posted stated that pure breds make up about 25% of shelter dogs so my assertion was nothing more than that 25% of a problem is not the biggest part of a problem. Your definition of a BYB is much broader and mine is, too. Surely many of the mixed breeds in shelters are the result of deliberate or careless breedings and not just the result of strays. Maybe our initial disagreement is because I was responding using the author's definition of a BYB while you were thinking of it in the broader sense. Or maybe we just really disagree IDK, but I hope that we can agree that we all are equally concerned about the welfare of all dogs. Ladyjane, I'm glad you satisfied your curiosity. I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion but I am open about who I am and you can read any of my older posts and see that.

honestly, it's not that i don't think we should pick apart things and make sure we have our facts right. the reason i was trying to say that it wasn't important earlier is because i do think that a lot of us DO have similar beliefs and might just be arguing over technicality and missing the issue that the OP had intended to address.

i think that getting our facts straight is important, but i think what's even MORE important is that whenever someone is trying to bring attention to animal welfare, i really rather that we support them as oppose to tearing apart what they are saying and argue over the 'technicality' instead of the core issue that was intended. but perhaps we are all reading and interpreting the article differently and therefore we are all focusing on different things.

[fluver]

Nice post
Thanks

Lisa

[Woogie Man]

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie

honestly, it's not that i don't think we should pick apart things and make sure we have our facts right. the reason i was trying to say that it wasn't important earlier is because i do think that a lot of us DO have similar beliefs and might just be arguing over technicality and missing the issue that the OP had intended to address.

i think that getting our facts straight is important, but i think what's even MORE important is that whenever someone is trying to bring attention to animal welfare, i really rather that we support them as oppose to tearing apart what they are saying and argue over the 'technicality' instead of the core issue that was intended. but perhaps we are all reading and interpreting the article differently and therefore we are all focusing on different things.

I do understand the author's intent but was really thrown off by how she backed up her opening statement. Maybe I'm a stickler for details, but I feel it's important to be accurate, especially on this issue. Mis-information will never bring about effective solutions. I think it's a good thing that we all focus on different things. It can lead to a better understanding. Pet over-population is a complex issue and needs to be broken down to see different aspects clearly. No matter how each of us looks at it, in the end, it's all about the dogs and that is one thing we should all focus on. We're all they have and they deserve our best efforts.

[SweetViolet]

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.

I agree with you 100%. Imagine a world in which only show breeders were allowed to breed dogs. The Yorkie is the second-most popular pure-bred dog in America (after Labs)...if the supply was limited to dogs the show breeders were willing to sell, where would we get our pet dogs? There would be a miniscule supply compared to demand, which would drive the prices to astronomical heights. How many of us on YT got our dogs from show breeders? Would YT even exist if they were the only source?

I don't think every dog needs to be a potential show dog. I also do not think that show breeders should have a monopoly on breeding dogs...it smacks of elitism. "Improving the breed" and "adhering to breed standards" is nothing more than word salad: the breed standard is purely aesthetic and does not speak to other, equally valuable characteristics. And nobody can tell me that the Persian cat breeders who have come up with ugly pig-faced cats with a too-small brain case and distorted sinuses "improved" that breed. Why should we be beholden to some trendy concept of canine beauty perpetrated upon a breed by show breeders?

As far as having a showring judge tell me if my dog is worthy of breeding or not, I'll accept that only when I can get my girl into a show ring with her tail undocked. The show ring...and show breeders...do not have a lock on healthy, well-tempered, physically fine specimens of any breed.