How widespread is rescuers hate for breeders?

[juliepoudrier]

Tunnel vision about breeding for any particular purpose is going to have a significant reject rate. Is it fair to expect another group of people to mop up the surplus? It's often said on here that sport people should take on working bred dogs that are not wanted to work rather than buy from a sport breeder. It could be viewed as a convenient arrangement for those who want to breed to encourage sport buyers which could allow them to breed more litters in the quest for the ultimate working dog.

Hmmmm...as others have said, what you seem to derisively refer to as "tunnel vision" is the very process that created the breed that you apparently like enough to own and care enough about to participate in a forum dedicated solely to that breed. I have a difficult time understanding the comments bashing breeders coming from people who clearly want a dog of that very breed. Where do you think those dogs came from? They just sprang from the earth fully formed and good working dogs (which of course also = good dogs for sport) to boot? Or was it breeders with "tunnel vision" who created the type of dog that so many want, for whatever reason?

 

I see nothing morally or ethically wrong with a scenario where breeders pass on working washouts to other folks who might want them. The catch there, or course, is that there's no way to know if puppy is going to be a washout, so working washouts are never going to feed into the puppy market; instead they would feed into a market for young dogs who are ready to start doing other things with (sport, therapy, SAR, etc.) without having to wait for them to grow up.

 

Your comment about the "ultimate working dog" is a bit misleading. As the geneticists among us have often stated, the only way to keep the working ability in the breed is to continuously select for it, in every generation. Granted, you may not care about working ability, but you seem to forget that the traits you do like in your breed of choice stem directly from that working ability. Stop breeding for that and how long do you suppose a border collie would be the dog of choice for sports? All you need do is look at the KC version of the breed to see where that road leads. Would you then just go choose another breed? Of course all the arguments you make here against breeders of border collies would apply to any other breed, so I don't know how you'd square getting any dog.

 

As for whether it's fair for another group to mop up any surplus, I think that would apply to any breeder. But it's a double-edged sword, or maybe a chicken-egg thing: If breeders didn't breed, would rescues be necessary? Which came first? The breeder or the rescue? Or is it possible that the irresponsible owner fits in to that scenario somewhere?

 

At least the rescuers who argue against all breeding are consistent in their thoughts. They believe that no breeding will eventually equal no rescue, and that's probably correct. What they fail to recognize is that dogs have a finite lifespan. At some point if none are bred, then there won't be any for people to have for any reason. Have they thought about that? Who knows? But a no-breeding policy will also eventually affect them, too, if they own dogs. Some groups would be perfectly happy if no dogs were ever owned by people. But most rescuers do what they do because they love dogs. I'm not sure how they could then square a future when no one could own a dog with a push for no dogs to be bred now.

 

As someone else noted, there are alternatives to unwanted dogs/pups going into rescue. No doubt the people who decry rescues having to "mop up" after breeders would also decry those unwanted dogs being destroyed as well. And if that's the case, then what is the alternative? No breeding? And so we come full circle to the OP on this thread.

 

J.

[NRhodes]

Hmmmm...as others have said, what you seem to derisively refer to as "tunnel vision" is the very process that created the breed that you apparently like enough to own and care enough about to participate in a forum dedicated solely to that breed. I have a difficult time understanding the comments bashing breeders coming from people who clearly want a dog of that very breed. Where do you think those dogs came from? They just sprang from the earth fully formed and good working dogs (which of course also = good dogs for sport) to boot? Or was it breeders with "tunnel vision" who created the type of dog that so many want, for whatever reason?

 

I see nothing morally or ethically wrong with a scenario where breeders pass on working washouts to other folks who might want them. The catch there, or course, is that there's no way to know if puppy is going to be a washout, so working washouts are never going to feed into the puppy market; instead they would feed into a market for young dogs who are ready to start doing other things with (sport, therapy, SAR, etc.) without having to wait for them to grow up.

 

Your comment about the "ultimate working dog" is a bit misleading. As the geneticists among us have often stated, the only way to keep the working ability in the breed is to continuously select for it, in every generation. Granted, you may not care about working ability, but you seem to forget that the traits you do like in your breed of choice stem directly from that working ability. Stop breeding for that and how long do you suppose a border collie would be the dog of choice for sports? All you need do is look at the KC version of the breed to see where that road leads. Would you then just go choose another breed? Of course all the arguments you make here against breeders of border collies would apply to any other breed, so I don't know how you'd square getting any dog.

 

As for whether it's fair for another group to mop up any surplus, I think that would apply to any breeder. But it's a double-edged sword, or maybe a chicken-egg thing: If breeders didn't breed, would rescues be necessary? Which came first? The breeder or the rescue? Or is it possible that the irresponsible owner fits in to that scenario somewhere?

 

At least the rescuers who argue against all breeding are consistent in their thoughts. They believe that no breeding will eventually equal no rescue, and that's probably correct. What they fail to recognize is that dogs have a finite lifespan. At some point if none are bred, then there won't be any for people to have for any reason. Have they thought about that? Who knows? But a no-breeding policy will also eventually affect them, too, if they own dogs. Some groups would be perfectly happy if no dogs were ever owned by people. But most rescuers do what they do because they love dogs. I'm not sure how they could then square a future when no one could own a dog with a push for no dogs to be bred now.

 

As someone else noted, there are alternatives to unwanted dogs/pups going into rescue. No doubt the people who decry rescues having to "mop up" after breeders would also decry those unwanted dogs being destroyed as well. And if that's the case, then what is the alternative? No breeding? And so we come full circle to the OP on this thread.

 

J.

 

The whole line of thought Julie is talking about here, and people like mum24dog has expressed as their opinion, is rather confounding to me. Basically what I'm reading is dogs shouldn't be bred because even good breeders will have dogs that aren't up to snuff but breeders shouldn't put those dogs down but rescues don't want to mop up the excess? Maybe I'm not wording that well but hope you get what I'm saying. And apparently one of the main criteria for being a good breeder is that you make no money and go in the hole doing it? Even Diane seems to qualify herself with the no money thing.

[Mark Billadeau]

I don't think Diane was saying that to qualify as a good breeder you must lose money; I think she was saying that as a good breeder making a profit is not one of her breeding goals. The not making a profit at breeding is a consequence of current puppy pricing and the costs of her breeding goals (training for stockwork, proving working performance, evaluating the other half of the breeding pair, health testing, etc). Good breeders continue to breed (while losing money) because they love and/or need the breed and want to improve it.

[NRhodes]

I don't think Diane was saying that to qualify as a good breeder you must lose money; I think she was saying that as a good breeder making a profit is not one of her breeding goals. The not making a profit at breeding is a consequence of current puppy pricing and the costs of her breeding goals (training for stockwork, proving working performance, evaluating the other half of the breeding pair, health testing, etc). Good breeders continue to breed (while losing money) because they love and/or need the breed and want to improve it.

 

Oh I agree with what you're saying about Diane. Was just picking someone because out of the references in the last two pages of this topic that breeders shouldn't make money or that breeders who do are just greedy selfish sorts, Diane was actually a breeder. I've been seeing it everywhere, said by breeders of all sorts of dogs, where when they're explaining how or why they are a good breeder they throw that part about "I don't make money!" in there. There are lots of people, like the group I started this thread because of, who will insist breeders make oodles of money selling dogs. So if "good breeders" don't make money then anyone who does make money raising dogs is a "bad breeder" automatically? I'm not just talking about breeders of herding dogs but of all dogs. Is this actually a fact or a notion that's been introduced to our society by the growing influence of the animal rights movement?

 

Personally, I think this is something like the term "puppy mill," which was created by animal rights to describe "bad breeders" and eventually all breeders. Have an article: http://thecavalrygroup.blogspot.com/2012/08/that-which-we-call-puppy-mill-by-any.html

 

The Calvary Group is a pretty neat thing by the way, some people here might be interested in reading up on them. http://thecavalrygroup.com/

[geonni banner]

I don't think anyone is trying to say that good breeders don't make money and bad ones do, as a definition. It's just that it's virtually impossible to do much more than break even on a litter if you are doing things right for the dogs. So willy-nilly, good breeders rarely make money on a litter of pups. If a breeder is consistently turning a profit on their litters, then it very likely that some, or several, aspects of their breeding program will be found to be sub-standard.

[Maja]

I've been seeing it everywhere, said by breeders of all sorts of dogs, where when they're explaining how or why they are a good breeder they throw that part about "I don't make money!" in there.

I know of only a couple of good breeders who admit they turn a profit (and I know most of them in my country). I know a bunch of bad breeder who swear they don't make a profit.

 

So for me there is a couple of issues in this attitude. By swearing off any profit the good breeders are aligning themselves with the upper class breeders (KC), because one must be loaded to regularly breed puppies (by regularly I mean at least once a year) and lose money on it or at best put all the work that needs to be put into it and not get paid for it.

 

The other thing is that people see no issue about paying millions to a guy who puts a ball in a basket, and nobody thinks of saying: hey dude, you love this then why don't do it for free and buy your own ball, and best yet, pay folk to come and see you. Or try to go to a doctor and pay maybe 30% of his fee, just to cover his/her expenses.

 

Do we have to hate what we do to feel guilt-free about getting money for it? Because it looks like if you love it and do a darn good job of it you should not make a profit on it, because the you'd be making money, yuck .

 

 

With this logic I should give up teaching, translating, farming and dogs because I love it all and try to do my darnest to do a good job, and I love it on the farm - hence off with me, back to the high rises of Warsaw where I can "honestly " hate it all and make oodles at an office.

 

So somethings not ok here. There is a long way between making a profit on something and doing something just for the money.

 

If it is impossible to turn some profit on good breeding then there is something seriously wrong with the buyers. If they demand that breeder sells at a loss/breaks even a top quality pup to them. Again, why don't they goto a lawyer and ask them to represent them and pay for it just enough for the lawyer to break even, or ask to have a house built and pay just enough for the builder to break even. And not just any house, a slip-shod house they can build at a profit alright, it's the good quality house they should build at no-profit.

 

Maja

[terrecar]

So if "good breeders" don't make money then anyone who does make money raising dogs is a "bad breeder" automatically? I'm not just talking about breeders of herding dogs but of all dogs.

 

I think it's important, on a working forum, to make a distinction here. Good breeders don't, in general, make money on puppies. On the other hand, if you are starting and/or training for stockwork, I, for one, certainly wouldn't expect you to invest that labor without compensation for time spent training. This may be self-evident to people on this board, but I just wanted to throw it out there because the snippet quoted above is using "dogs", rather than puppies.

[MaryP]

Coming to the discussion late. . .

 

I can't speak for all rescuers, but I can speak for myself. I don't hate breeders or people who purchase dogs from breeders (I'd lose quite a few friends, if that were the case). I don't support mandatory spay/neuter laws or BSL. What I do hate are irresponsible and lazy pet owners. That is what makes my blood boil. That is the crux of the shelter dog problem. Breeders, especially unscrupulous ones, do play a role in the problem by pumping out the puppies. But, if people would take responsibility for their pets for the life of the pet, we wouldn't need as many shelters/rescues, and the unscrupulous breeders would not have the endless customer base that they do.

 

I do hope that people consider shelters and rescues when looking for a new dog, instead of just assuming that the only way they will get the dog that they want is to go to a breeder. I have several friends who thought that way and it came back to bite them in the ass when the dog turned out to be nothing like what they wanted, or ended up with health or behavioral issues.

 

I know there are rescuers out there that are extremists like the ones in the OP's post. But, there are always going to be extremists. Rarely (ever?) do they represent the majority of views.

[Mark Billadeau]

....if you are starting and/or training for stockwork, I, for one, certainly wouldn't expect you to invest that labor without compensation for time spent training.

Since, ideally, breeding selection is made after training and proving working ability the same could be said for producing working bred pups.

[terrecar]

Since, ideally, breeding selection is made after training and proving working ability the same could be said for producing working bred pups.

 

That very well may be. I don't know. For hobby breeders, it is assumed that hobby losses offset hobby gains. No idea what specifically goes into the actual calculation of that figure. I have never done a tax return for a breeder, so I don't really know what they factor in for purposes of declaring income or loss (assuming they report the income or loss), or even what the IRS would accept as an expense.

[juliepoudrier]

What I do hate are irresponsible and lazy pet owners. That is what makes my blood boil. That is the crux of the shelter dog problem. Breeders, especially unscrupulous ones, do play a role in the problem by pumping out the puppies. But, if people would take responsibility for their pets for the life of the pet, we wouldn't need as many shelters/rescues, and the unscrupulous breeders would not have the endless customer base that they do.

 

Well said, Mary! Lack of responsible ownership is at the very heart of this issue.

 

J.

[OurBoys]

I don't hate breeders or people who purchase dogs from breeders (I'd lose quite a few friends, if that were the case). I don't support mandatory spay/neuter laws or BSL. What I do hate are irresponsible and lazy pet owners. That is what makes my blood boil. That is the crux of the shelter dog problem. Breeders, especially unscrupulous ones, do play a role in the problem by pumping out the puppies. But, if people would take responsibility for their pets for the life of the pet, we wouldn't need as many shelters/rescues, and the unscrupulous breeders would not have the endless customer base that they do.

Well said, Mary! Lack of responsible ownership is at the very heart of this issue.

 

J.

I agree with you guys. It's easy to blame a breeder if they have a website and you see 6, 7, 8 litters on the ground but the bottom line is lack of responsible ownership for the life of the pet.

 

ETA: In regards to "the life of the pet", I’m not referring to working dog breeders. I understand the need of having a working dog and if that dog didn’t work out, the need to re-home it.

[Mark Billadeau]

For hobby breeders, it is assumed that hobby losses offset hobby gains.

What about farmers/shepherds/ranchers who raise livestock and also breed, train, and use dogs to manage their livestock; are they hobby breeders?

[terrecar]

What about farmers/shepherds/ranchers who raise livestock and also breed, train, and use dogs to manage their livestock; are they hobby breeders?

 

I have never done a tax return for a farmer, shepherd or rancher either, so I can't answer that question. I guess my question would be, if they are making money off of their dogs, are they reporting it to the IRS? If they are, I would imagine they don't consider themselves hobby breeders.

[Mark Billadeau]

My point was that if you think training for livestock work should garner appropriate compensation, then the investment in labor for breeding selection (livestock training and demonstration) and producing a litter should also garner appropriate compensation. In other words, to be a good breeder doesn't automatically mean you should be taking a loss on the effort. However, the reality of puppy prices often causes a loss to be taken.

 

 

[terrecar]

My point was that if you think training for livestock work should garner appropriate compensation, then the investment in labor for breeding selection (livestock training and demonstration) and producing a litter should also garner appropriate compensation. In other words, to be a good breeder doesn't automatically mean you should be taking a loss on the effort. However, the reality of puppy prices often causes a loss to be taken.

 

Well since I didn't make the claim that "to be a good breeder automatically means you should be taking a loss", I didn't think I needed to expand on my initial post. But here is something else to consider: you are (presumably) spreading the training of the bitch among a number of puppies.

[Mark Billadeau]

Yes

2, 3, or more years of training the bitch

costs proving the working ability of the bitch

 

"good" working breeders are unlikely to breed to an unproven bitch

[terrecar]

Yes

2, 3, or more years of training the bitch

costs proving the working ability of the bitch

 

"good" working breeders are unlikely to breed to an unproven bitch

 

From an ethical standpoint, I see no problem with factoring in those costs. From a "what is income" (IRS) standpoint, I don't know if it is legitimate or not. But then again, I don't know if the labor cost for training one dog is either. It would be interesting to investigate. Another consideration: are you assuming only one litter per bitch? Is that the norm? If it isn't, wouldn't that further dilute the amount expensed on a per puppy basis? I dont' know how often working Border Collies are customarily bred.

 

 

ETA: I changed the quote as a courtesy to reflect the poster's change (particularly since I often edit the *^*#$% out of my own posts for clarification)

[alligande]

Well said, Mary! Lack of responsible ownership is at the very heart of this issue.

 

J.

 

Thanks for putting it so much better than I did.... I fully agree with you Mary.

[terrecar]

Just another observation for the OP. There is a difference between "animal rights" and "animal welfare". PETA is an animal rights group, so naturally they are going to be on the extreme end of the spectrum.

 

I don't know how one would decide that animals have "rights". Who confers rights? Admittedly, I haven't read Peter Singer or any of the animal rights proponents, but I can't imagine how one would be prepared to argue 'natural rights' theory for animals. But then, I can only speculate how the concept of animal rights might be rationalized and presented. And I am rambling again...

[PSmitty]

Spot on, Mary!

[terrecar]

 

Personally, I think this is something like the term "puppy mill," which was created by animal rights to describe "bad breeders" and eventually all breeders.

 

 

 

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. A puppy mill is generally described as a high volume breeder, and the label has further connotations of substandard care. That is a far cry from someone who is breeding for the preservation of working traits and love for the breed (with concern for the attributes that make up the breed).

 

 

ETA: I also want to give a nod to Mary's point. There remains a disturbing number of people who seem to think that pet dogs are disposable commodities.

[NRhodes]

I think this is a bit of a slippery slope. A puppy mill is generally described as a high volume breeder, and the label has further connotations of substandard care. That is a far cry from someone who is breeding for the preservation of working traits and love for the breed (with concern for the attributes that make up the breed).

 

Then why not just call them a substandard breeder?

[terrecar]

Then why not just call them a substandard breeder?

 

I guess labels are easier for people to use? I don't know. I guess labels are also easier for people to throw around as well.

[juliepoudrier]

"Substandard breeder" doesn't necessarily conjur the same sort of image in someone's mind's eye the way "puppy mill" does. It's why we refer to "factory farms," for example. The words themselves evoke images and feelings that wouldn't necessarily be triggered by a more mundane term. It's all about spin and what you want people to imagine, good or bad, when they hear a particular word or words.

 

J.