Honestly, I don't know what kind of breeders you deal with.....but, none of the breeders I know would not even think of placing their dogs with people they didn't trust. I know where everyone of my pups is, I see them regularly, I get e-mails from their owners regularly.....I groom and board my pups for free for the rest of their lives. And yes I do require microchipping....as a matter of fact, I'm learning how to administer them so, that I can do it before the pups ever leave my home. Sorry, I just can't phathom ever placing my pups in the type of homes you describe.....but, then I'm pretty picky on where I place my pups. As my vet says when he sends people to me.... here's who I recommend, but it'll probably be easier for you to find a cure for AIDS, then get a pup from her.

Remember a contract is only as good as the two people signing it and if I don't trust you to begin with, I'm not selling you a dog.....simple as that. Then I do have a $5,000 breech of contract clause in my contracts.

I have watched I wholehartedly understand the problem. Not everyone who responds on the net is not informed.


I am not shooting down ideas. I am warning you.....that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You go imposing fines, laws, regulations, on the large scale breeder who can pay them, will run the reputable small scale breeder out of business. This is big government, and this is how our country is already, the big gets bigger, and the small gets choked out. Why would the dog world be any different.

But, imposing this type of fine will not put the reputable breeders out of business. They know where their pups are and if by some chance one does end up in rescue, they most gladly pay the fine to get their pup back. I know I would.

Gosh it seems like every suggestion is always met with, it won't hurt the puppy mills it will hurt the small breeder. The reputable breeders aren't breeding for profit anyway, they will continue to breed, and we pet lovers will continue to support them.

I was referring to the title of cars...they have to be transferred...and yes the manufacturers spend a fortune in warranties and other things that a consumer should have to pay for (if I used your theory)...I know - I am retired from General Motors Corporation and I wish you had said corvette instead of mustang or a camero..:p

5 million in one year is a lot to hide...

Someone in Tucson tried to hide mass killings (easy to hide something in the desert for awhile) but someone called the police because they couldn't stomach what they knew.

I don't "deal" with any. And, I am NOT a breeder on any scale. But, I have been around in my lifetime and I have seen a lot of stuff that some of you probably couldn't even imagine. I honestly have seen it from a different perspective. Some very large scale, some very small.

Look, I am not here to argue because I know that the people here, responding to this thread are NOT the problem. You do things that way it should be done without necessary regulations, fees, fines, and anyone checking up on you. I know good an well where the problem is. Do I have the answers, of course not. I really do believe we ALL have a part in the responsibility. You have the mills (I refuse to call them breeders) putting out the puppies, but you also have so called registeries allowing it in that they create a registery for everything. Everyone's hand is in the pot!

You know I'm really not about imposing laws, I'm against big government. I firmly believe the laws of licensing your dogs was put in place as government money maker. My dogs are in my backyard....it's my backyard and kept clean for my dogs to play in.....why should I have to pay a liscense fee when I already pay insurance and taxes on my house.
A bit off track but, we as breeders do more when we breed dogs than most people do before they decide to have a family.....

But, reputable breeders aren't afraid of resonable fees, the one of imposing a fee if your dog ends up in the shelter, is not far fetched.

Thank you for that! That is what I am trying to say. The fines and regulations do sound like a good start, but it is so much deeper than that. Really, registeries are not going to want to lose out on their dropped numbers? Lets make them accountable for the number of dogs they allow to be registered. Now, you and I know that a mixed breed dog's papers are not worth nothing, but mills use that as a selling point. Lets limit the number of different breed a mill is allowed to have at any given time......

I do have to say also, I am totally opposed to big government...Lordy I went to a private college that is so right winged (not religious) it isn't even funny...free enterprise the whole works...but...I can not stand the slaughter of millions of animals every year. We have to stop it. It isn't working with what is in place now. I do know once the car manufacturers had to start paying hugh fines..they changed many ways they do business. Is it perfect....no but a heck of a lot better now. Even with the bad recalls going on with Toyota...nothing compared to the 60's.

I am not saying laws are not necessary because sometimes they are. You used the auto industry as an example of government policy. What about farmers and government buy outs? They buy out the small farmer with buy out incentives that are too good to be true, and the large farmer buys up their land and gets bigger and bigger. Or they buy out the small dairy farmer with government programs so the big dairy farm can get bigger and better prices on their milk, and because of this buy out your grocery prices go up. Don't quote my political correctness on this but it is essentially how it happens.

LOL that was a little random, but my point is that depending on the kinds of regulations you want to impose on mills, it could potentially hit the small breeder the hardest because of sheer numbers involved. Registeries are going to support the mills because that is where their volume in terms of numbers comes from. Numbers is money!! I realize that many small breeders are not in it for the money but the betterment of the breed, but you can only lose money (I mean really lose money) for so long before it becomes not worthy of your money and less enjoyable. So, again, I am not here to argue with you fine ladies, just trying to make you understand what you are saying when you start to talk about imposing regulations and fines and how it could potentially come back to bite you in the badonkadonk! :)

ETA: And I am sorry I didn't reference the corvette instead of the Ford! What was I thinking we are not even Ford people! A corvette much better fits the Yorkie persona!

Great thread V!:thumbup:
Should I decide to add another to my group I would rescue. I personally like the idea of getting a dog from people who can match me to the dog that will do best with me.:) I would choose a rescue I trust and understand that it may take time to find the right girl, no boys allowed;), for me.

Unfortunatly, there are so many drop-offs in my area, I could eventually have any number of dogs.:( But I hope to add another Yorkie to my family....one day.

Thanks Red98Vett!
 

I responded to your post the other day about adopting. I said that I couldn't afford another dog, but since my response all I've done is obsess about getting a sister for Max. I've been looking on petfinder.com and other rescue websites, but nothing in my area. Mostly males. With Max's personality, I think he would welcome a sister easier than he would a brother. I checked out my budget and I probably could afford another one. Oh boy.....

awww - good luck ! I hope you can find him a little sister. I totally love my 2- yorkies are my dream dog

my first post said I would never 'purchase' another pet and I wanted to clarify ....it only pertained to IF I ever added another pet to my life....

Good luck with finding a new yorkie -

and to everyone else - this whole thread has been really interesting Thanks !

Now THAT is well worded and such a good way to talk about rescue :thumbup: I see so many posts against it but to look at it as they are actually 'matching' dogs to YOU is the perfect way to describe it

LOL .....watch out...... you have been biten by the "The More the Merrier bug"!
It is very contagious, and once you have it, it never goes away!

Good for you for going with adoption.:thumbup: There are some very dedicated rescues in the U.S.

Morning -

Yes, ask V, a corvette is a much better fit for the Yorkie and herself...:p

You know I was thinking about what you said about the small breeder and you know Mary who (in theory) believes in making breeders pay fines is a very small breeder (she only has 1 or 2 litters) per years so I really think it will impact the volume breeders more ....as it should. As a child we only had small breeders and we certainly didn't have the over population of pets that we do now. Just a thought.

haha - I will ALWAYS be a corvette lover and really miss mine (had to sell it to pay medical bills when my husband was diagnosed) :(- but ya - there's nothing like driving a vette - problem is.... I still drive like I have one:D I have to really watch myself

I would rescue in a heartbeat if I could, but they always have some reason or another why I don't qualify to rescue a dog. Ive tried 3 rescues in the past for different breeds and it's either, you don't have a fenced in yard (live in a condo), or you work full time or you have 'other pets' at home. Some reason or another. I would buy from a reputable breeder from now on, but rescue seems almost impossible for me as long as I keep working and living in a condo. (even though my 2 boys are happy and well taken care now) :(

Ummm it really does look silly that you gun your pinto...:D oh I am sorry it is a gremlin...:eek:

Really? Ok, what if you have to pay a $1500.00 (or more) licensing fee just to be licensed to "breed" dogs of any nature? What if that license has to be renewed every year with a $300 or $400 renewal fee. Sounds steep? To a small breeder it certainly does, but to a mill that is a drop in the bucket. There could be facility licensing, breeder licensing, litter tracking fees, inspection fees. Heck, You may have to be inspected before you are even allowed to breed your dog. Maybe your house is not deemed fit for raising dogs, and you are denied because of these new rules and regulations. How can you impose a law or regulation on a mill that is not going to be in effect for a "reputable" breeder as well?

Some of you that raise very nice quality Yorkies get a good price for them (as you should) or maybe you are financially in a position to put up that fee personally for your hobby business, may not have a problem with those fees. I will give you that. But again, what about the other small breeders that breed for the betterment of their breed, but their breed doesn't bring in the "Yorkie" prices. Remember, the fees will not be based on the popularity of the breed, it will be a one fee fits all. Many reputable, or even quality hobby breeders will simply be put out of business, or decide that the rewards are not worth the hassel.

And, I will say it again. These kinds of fees will raise the prices of puppies to where it becomes a status symbol to have a dog. Because even people who may be able to afford one will opt out because of the cost involved.

To go after mills without imposing on the rights of everyone else who doesn't need uncle sam checking up on them you have to go after where it hurts. Put limits on their numbers and where they are allowed to disperse ther puppies. (Petstores)

I wanted to add.....someone said that they didn't have puppy mills growing up. I live in Kansas, I am 40 years old, and I have always known of puppy mills only when I was a kid they were called kennels.

I also want to clarify. Someone else said earlier that I oppose all the ideas and said that everything mentioned will only hurt the small breeders, not the mills.. I am in total support of small reputable and quality hobby breeders. I completely agree that something needs to be done to stop puppy mills. But think of it like this. Think of all the things you do in your life already that requires a fee, a license, a renewal to your government. (I am not anti-government I just feel like they already get enough of my money) Any fees or regulations imposed will go to ..... guess where..... our government. It will not be someone's personal profitable business, that you choose to support, to keep and track these regulations and fees it will be your government.

Your arguments are the types of arguments, commercial breeders use to scare home breeders. If you read the laws being passed, these sorts of things only impact breeders who have lots of litters per year, if a breeder is having over 20 litters a year, is it really a small breeder? We do have to be diligent in protecting the small breeder, but small breeders have to be careful to not to be misled by the propaganda put out by commercial breeders.

I'm sure large kennels and puppy mills have been around for a long time, but it not until lately that the majority of the population is learning about the inhumane conditions of some.

I'm sorry, I'm sure this is very frustrating and discouraging. I feel like this can be the Catch-22 of rescues, even though I totally support rescue work. If it's any consolation, I would not qualify for a rescue yorkie either, because I don't have a yard, even though I am a great mommy to Thor if I do say so myself. A delicate balance has to be struck, because people less patient than yourself will then say, "what's the point of rescue, I'm just going to get a dog wherever I can."

WRT regulations: Cha Cha, it seems like you are bringing up fixed cost fees to argue against the variable-cost fines livingdustmops is proposing. When I came on this site a year ago, I felt much as you do, that we don't want simply owning a dog to be out of reach for the average person. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot more now of what the average person can do to their innocent dog, and I think whatever we do, it has to be different than what's done now. Our pets are not only powerless, but speechless. If no one chooses to bring their suffering to light, then it goes unnoticed. I'm starting to think that owning a dog is NOT a right, and if it got a lot harder to own a dog, but our shelters were empty, I think I could live with that.

livingdustmops, I have been turning over your idea in my mind, and it's very interesting. The one flaw I think is that BYBs will essentially be exempt. Very large scale breeders will be forced to comply, and good breeders will comply. But breeders who sell "under the table" won't chip their dogs, and the buyers won't care. I also wonder about brokers selling over the internet. Thoughts?

After seeing this thread I started wondering myself, why are so many pets in shelters ?.....After trying to do some research I found very little information was available in regards to this problem. There was one study done by The Regional Shelter Relinquishment Study sponsored by the National Council on
Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP)……..Here are some stats they found……..even though it's a little dated....

Top 10 Reasons for Relinquishment*
Dogs:
1. Moving (7%)
2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
3. Too many animals in household (4%)
4. Cost of pet maintenance (5%)
5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
6. Inadequate facilities (4%)
7. No homes available for litter mates (3%)
8. Having no time for pet (4%)
9. Pet illness(es) (4%)
10. Biting (3%)


Characteristics of Pets Being Relinquished
In addition to the reasons for relinquishment, the study collected data on the pets being relinquished. According to the study:
• The majority of the surrendered dogs (47.7%) and cats (40.3%) were between 5 months and 3 years of age.
• The majority of dogs (37.1%) and cats (30.2) had been owned from 7 months to 1 year.
• Approximately half of the pets (42.8% of dogs; 50.8% of cats) surrendered were not neutered. Many of the pets relinquished (33% of dogs; 46.9% of cats) had not been to a veterinarian.
• Animals acquired from friends were relinquished in higher numbers (31.4% of dogs; 33.2% of cats) than from any other source.
• Close to equal numbers of male and female dogs and cats were surrendered.
• Most dogs (96%) had not received any obedience training.


The survey also revealed :

......on average, 42.5 percent of pets that entered animal shelters were submitted by animal control authorities and nearly 30 percent were surrendered by their owners. The remainder was relinquished by other sources…..

In addition, the majority of respondents--62 percent--were under 30 years of age and 52 percent had at least finished high school…….

Findings included that 30% of dogs and 6% of relinquished cats were purebred. Most animals were between 5 months and 3 years of age. Twenty-seven percent of dogs and 36.5% of cats were reported to live outdoors always or almost always....

……..Dogs were at increased risk of relinquishment if they were obtained at no cost or if their purchase cost was less than $100………. dogs obtained at no cost and with little effort are at increased risk of relinquishment. This might reflect a lack of value to the owner or a lower level
of attachment or commitment.....

Mixed-breed animals were at increased risk of relinquishment. Dogs
who came from an animal shelter, friend, or pet shop or who had been a stray were at increased risk of relinquishment compared with dogs who entered households as gifts. ………

Of the 71 reasons for relinquishment recorded in the study, 24 were classified as behavioral. Behavioral reasons accounted for 27% of the single-reason canine relinquishment's……

…… Significantly more people relinquishing dogs and cats felt that a female dog or cat would be better off if she had one litter before being spayed…….


I was very surprised that 62% of the surrenders are from young people. If moving is the number one reason for relinquishment I would venture to guess it's the younger pet owners doing so.

Also I found the "31% of relinquished dogs acquired from friends" a sad statistic. These dumped pets could have been prevented if neutering or spaying had been done ....It's just a sad situation ........

Working and living in a condo are not reasons for rescues to turn someone down.

It all depends on the dog you are looking to adopt.

If you applied for a dog that was a "runner", then the rescue might be looking for a secure yard.

If you applied for a dog that does not socialize with other dogs well, the rescue might be looking for an only dog home.

If you applied for a dog that the rescue felt would not do well for long periods alone, then job might be a problem

A thorough and careful rescue will weigh everything when adopting. A pup should be kept long enough to do a thorough evaluation of its needs and then a home found that is a good fit for the pup.

If we turned down every home that had people who work. other pets, and/or no fenced in yard, we would not be adopting many

As I said above, lack of a fenced in yard is not a reason to be turned down for a rescue!

You are right and I appreciate the custom home for the custom pup... however, I tried Yorkie, Rottie and Dobie rescues. I was never told as to WHY the dog would not fit in my home. I wish they would have told me something like "This dog is a runner" or "this dog is not social with other dogs" or "This dog has severe separation anxiety"... something. I was JUST told I worked full time and had no fenced in yard. At the time I tried to rescue I had no other dogs. After 3 attempts to rescue I finally went out and bought my dogs from a local breeder. The rescues made ME feel like I was inadequate, not good enough to take care of a dog. Also maybe rescues can suggest alternative pups they have for adoption for someone who IS a good home and a good person so they don't give up hope on rescuing and just go buy their own pup. That is eventually what I did... bought my own pups.

Ladyjane, I admire rescues and the work they do, I am not meaning to sound unappreciative of any rescue at all. I think you need to LISTEN to what others are saying. It is a COMMON occurrence that people are getting turned down for not having a fenced in yard, for working full time, for having other pets, or having children. Maybe YOUR rescue does not work like that, but other rescues in other places DO. I've heard it and read it on here time and time again. I, always, tell anyone I know looking for a dog to try a rescue first. I most definitely support them, they just didn't work out for me and others for the reasons stated above. 3 - 4 people on this thread alone have mentioned they were turned down for those reasons stated above. This does happen. I think you need to understand that too.

First of all, it is a COMMON occurence for people to be turned down. That is not something we love, but it happens. Sadly, the majority of applications rescues get are not as great as people might think they are. It is a whole picture...not just a fence...or a stay at home owner. I have seen GREAT apps turn into nightmares once a vet check or home visit is done. Call a vet and find out that the FIRST time they saw someone's 14 year old pup was when they brought it in to be euthanized (YES that actually happened to me....and I DID tell the person because I thought that SURELY she had used another vet. Oh ...no....but she begged me for days on end to let her adopt my foster.....said she had learned her lesson. Well, so sorry, but my pups are not experiments. I have no problem saying no, heck no. Maybe she did learn her lesson....I told her to go to a shelter and find a pup. THere are SO many in need of homes. Not going to get one that I have spent my time rehabbing. I will not gamble with the life of a pup...ever. ) Do we miss some great homes? Probably....but rather that than to send a pup to the wrong one.

I do hear what people are saying and I also know that when people say it they often refer to rescues as if to say ALL rescues follow the same guidelines. I also know that they often times guess why they were not approved for a pup because many rescues do not give the reason why they are not approved. There is good reason for that.....once a person knows they were turned down for a particular reason, they will hide that from the next group.

The groups I know and work closely with do pretty much the same thing that we do.

What a lot of people do not understand is that rescues are not in the business of placing pups in homes just to make the people happy. Their goal is to place a pup in the home that best fits that pup.....the goal is to STOP the cycle of recycled pups! Of course if it fits the pup, it will fit the home and everyone is happy. Are we perfect? No, but we do our level best to be perfect and we will take back any pup for any reason. Now, in saying that, if we were turning them over to just anyone to make people happy, do you think we could offer that guarantee? Of course not....the numbers would be mind boggling. That is WHY there are so many homeless pups....because byb's and mills do NOT screen carefully the way that rescues do.

What I tell people who are turned down is to go to a shelter if they want a pup. The rules are less stringent in most.

Anyone telling me that they were forced to BUY from a breeder is just saying that for effect because there are so many ways to get one rather than pad the pockets of bad breeders. I don't buy that attempt to try to make rescues guilty.