Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783185)

Mardilin...You are not listening to what I am saying....I said One male and one female. You breed them two, sell the puppies. I would have no intentions of breeding ANY of the offspring. I would want them all gone. Then I would breed the male and female 2 or 3 years in the future and do it all over again.

I would have no need to breed any of the offspring. I already have one of the best lines for Samoyeds right now. I just need and want a line that is as great as hers and a male that I want to breed for the better of the breed that he too has a great line so I can breed an even better line. Isn't that the point??? Breeders breeding to improve the breed instead of breeding just for money?

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783188)

That is not a breeding program. That is just doing the same thing over and over. What improvement, what progress, would you be making? I do not understand at all. You are seriously saying all breeding programs should have just one male and one female?

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783072)

Nancy,

Please don't bring up puppy mill breeders again to insult Rachel. I think she has had enough of this.

This is not what the thread is about. She is offering to help those that want to find a nice name for their dog. Doesn't matter where they are registered. She is not asking about registries. Just making an offer.

I feel that we all need to get off her back about where she purchased her puppy. I personally am tired of reading about it everytime I read one of her threads. This is a good way to chase a member off the forum and that is not nice. I think you owe her an apology. I honest to God think that a lot of them members want her to leave and that is why this subject is brought up so often to her.

She bought the dog and she is not giving it back and now it is time to get over it. I have and I have moved on.

End of subject.

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie (Post 2783177)

WHAT!?!?!?!?!? nancy owes an apology!? haha...you are NOT funny, in fact, you are rude.

well, i think you need to get your head out of where it doesn't belong.
your suggestion is ridiculous. if you are tired of reading something. STOP. no one is forcing you to.

there are a lot of knowledgeable people on YT, and i am thankful that they don't 'get over it' and that they continue to share their wealth of knowledge.

now, stop reading things that bother you, and don't make ridiculous suggestions. thank you.

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie (Post 2783177)

WHAT!?!?!?!?!? nancy owes an apology!? haha...you are NOT funny, in fact, you are rude.

well, i think you need to get your head out of where it doesn't belong.
your suggestion is ridiculous. if you are tired of reading something. STOP. no one is forcing you to.

there are a lot of knowledgeable people on YT, and i am thankful that they don't 'get over it' and that they continue to share their wealth of knowledge.

now, stop reading things that bother you, and don't make ridiculous suggestions. thank you.

Originally Posted by yorkiepuppie (Post 2783177)

WHAT!?!?!?!?!? nancy owes an apology!? haha...you are NOT funny, in fact, you are rude.

well, i think you need to get your head out of where it doesn't belong.
your suggestion is ridiculous. if you are tired of reading something. STOP. no one is forcing you to.

there are a lot of knowledgeable people on YT, and i am thankful that they don't 'get over it' and that they continue to share their wealth of knowledge.

now, stop reading things that bother you, and don't make ridiculous suggestions. thank you.

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783206)

I am not going to stop reading Rachels threads because of old hashed threads come up again and again. But there is no way for someone to ignore the other posts. They might have something to do with what Rachel was offereing.

Good luck Rachel and God Bless you and your threads. From here on out, I will be passing over them so I can keep myself from blowing and it's very difficult to just pass by their responses to you without blowing my mind.

Take Care Rachel. Please feel free to PM me so we can hopefully have a a private conversation sometime.

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783139)

As far as legislation goes, the people don't usually get to vote on laws. It is up the states.

Originally Posted by Ladymom (Post 2782655)

Rachel, you seem to be suggesting that somehow Amish puppy mills are worse than Missouri puppy mills.

As the Humane Society officer says, if you buy a puppy from a pet store or a newspaper ad in Missouri, this is where he most likely came from:

YouTube - Humane Society of Missouri Rescued More Than 90 Yorkies from Substandard Puppy Mill

Originally Posted by mnewco (Post 2783072)

Nancy,

Please don't bring up puppy mill breeders again to insult Rachel. I think she has had enough of this.

This is not what the thread is about. She is offering to help those that want to find a nice name for their dog. Doesn't matter where they are registered. She is not asking about registries. Just making an offer.

I feel that we all need to get off her back about where she purchased her puppy. I personally am tired of reading about it everytime I read one of her threads. This is a good way to chase a member off the forum and that is not nice. I think you owe her an apology. I honest to God think that a lot of them members want her to leave and that is why this subject is brought up so often to her.

She bought the dog and she is not giving it back and now it is time to get over it. I have and I have moved on.

End of subject.

Originally Posted by Rerun201 (Post 2783488)

WOW. I came to this post and kept thinking I MUST be reading it wrong. I'm not sure what world you're living in, but maybe you need to learn about respect, not to mention common courtesy. Nancy is a wealth of knowledge, and I thought that's what this forum was supposed to be about. I cannot imagine who gave you the idea that you can tell a respected, compassionate member that she owes someone an apology.

I realize I haven't been on here very long, but I have to say it makes me embarrassed to be considered one of the "newbies" with the way some of them are acting on here. I for one think the advice to stuff the ears and LISTEN is a great suggestion.

One more suggestion...I keep reading how this is stressing certain people out. I have a simple solution...it's called log off.

Nancy, Debra, Jodi, and all the others, PLEASE keep posting about this. I have learned so much since being on here and hope to continue. Maybe others would be happier in a social forum as opposed to a learning one.:confused:

Originally Posted by Rerun201 (Post 2783488)

WOW. I came to this post and kept thinking I MUST be reading it wrong. I'm not sure what world you're living in, but maybe you need to learn about respect, not to mention common courtesy. Nancy is a wealth of knowledge, and I thought that's what this forum was supposed to be about. I cannot imagine who gave you the idea that you can tell a respected, compassionate member that she owes someone an apology.

I realize I haven't been on here very long, but I have to say it makes me embarrassed to be considered one of the "newbies" with the way some of them are acting on here. I for one think the advice to stuff the ears and LISTEN is a great suggestion.

One more suggestion...I keep reading how this is stressing certain people out. I have a simple solution...it's called log off.

Nancy, Debra, Jodi, and all the others, PLEASE keep posting about this. I have learned so much since being on here and hope to continue. Maybe others would be happier in a social forum as opposed to a learning one.:confused:

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783078)

I personally would not want to have more dogs than I could have in my home. I do not want to make my dogs into livestock. But I know there are many outdoor kennel set ups that are humane and sanitary, where they let the dogs out for daily exercise and personal time with people.

There are laws in the works that could use our support along these lines. The Illinois Chloe Bill is one of those. It limits breeders to 20 unspayed/unneutered animals. That is a doable number to realistically provide nurturing. Any more than that, I do not see how they could provide any quality time with their dogs.

On a national level, there is H.R. 6949, the Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety Act was co-sponsored by Representatives Sam Farr (D-CA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Lois Capps (D-CA), Terry Everett (R-AL), and Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) -- it got introduced late and no action taken yet. Among other things, it requires that all dogs being used in breeding be allowed out of their cage for daily exercise. It requires breeders to get a license from the USDA if they raise more than 50 dogs in a 12-month period and sell directly to the public and sets forth reasonable standards of care for commercial breeders. Enforcing those reasonable standards of care could go a long way to improving the lot of puppymill dogs. Enforcement would be crucial to make it worthwhile though.

I send out periodic emails in support of these intiatives. I basically say the same thing each time, but I figure one in a thousand emails ever really get read by the pol I am sending them to. So, I just keep on sending them.

Originally Posted by FlDebra (Post 2783128)

The first line of my post says I personally would not want more dogs than I could have inmy home. I never said I would ever have 50 dogs or think that is right. This is just legislation that says that if anyone sells 50 dogs a year, they would have to have a USDA license. It is not about having 50 breeding dogs. Anyone with that many needs plenty of employees to help.

One male and one female per breeder is not realistically going to make it into law. I have 4 dogs and can handle that just fine. I have no problem giving them all the attention they need -- even my puppy, Rocky, the little attention hog! If you want to do any good in changing laws you have to pick a realistic solution -- something people will actually vote for and get passed. Trying to limit everyone to no more than 2 dogs is ludicrous and has NO chance of being passed. So, then you are back to having no law at all.

Originally Posted by mjharpst (Post 2783136)