An innovative approach to puppy mills

[Alchemist]

And, for anyone who is interested, here is "the list" for 2014.

[chene]

Glad to see it's not a terribly long list. I don't know any of the names, so I suppose I'll wait and see what others have to say about them.

[Sue R]

And it generated quite a firestorm of response on FB.

[waffles]

And it generated quite a firestorm of response on FB.

was curious how people would react. I don't think the names are surprising. Anyone with a discerning eye can take a guess from someone's website how many pups they produce. I mean, for the most part they list the dams, sires and litters when available. To me it is always obvious which places sell a lot of pups per year.

 

If you don't want people to know you make a business selling puppies then why do it?

 

Bill Barnes has rave reviews online selling AKC pups now. People will care about what they think is important. Clearly a lot of puppy buyers don't care about him being kicked out of a registry or see it as a red flag to buy somewhere else. I doubt this list will really hurt sales for the people at the top of it.

[Tommy Coyote]

Does producing 30 pups or more get you kicked out of the registry? Did I miss something?

[Eileen Stein]

Does producing 30 pups or more get you kicked out of the registry? Did I miss something?

 

No. This is mainly educational, for both buyers and breeders. It is to tell people that the ABCA does not approve of high volume breeding, and to let people know who our high volume breeders are, so that they are informed about that when making the decision where to buy.

[GentleLake]

And it generated quite a firestorm of response on FB.

 

Is this an open group on FB? Or do you have to join?

 

I was admittedly in a rush and maybe didn't look hard enough, but I didn't find a FB page for them that seemed like the one you're referring to.

 

Would you mind posting a link? Thanks.

[Sue R]

No, this was not any particular page. Several people posted with a link to the website (those people who posted it were some of those in favor of it) and then the replies to those posts were either supportive (others in favor of it) or very not supportive (those ranged by skeptical to vehemently opposed to it).

 

Some very thoughtful arguments were raised that questioned the validity of the list, there were some very civil comments, and there were some very upset commentators. I only saw comments by those who post and reply to things that appear on my news feed and since I have a fairly limited "friend" and "group" base, I'm sure I did not see a very large sample of the reactions and comments made.

 

One objection was that this list is a "shaming" list that "paints a target" on certain breeders, without providing any other data at all. Apparently there are some on the list who immediately began received "hate" emails and threats as a result of their being named on the list. While some people blamed that on the list, that would be like blaming a victim of religious discrimination on a posting of who belongs to their congregation. To me the fault lies in the person making the nasty comments/emails/threats. But I do see their point of view.

 

In my circles of friends and acquaintances who said something that appeared on my feed, I'd say that the majority felt this was generally a good thing, a step in the right direction towards providing potential buyers with information (in my mind, a criterion but not the entire gamut of things to consider when buying a pup or dog as breeding large numbers of pups is considered, in general, a red flag), and something that was long overdue.

 

But those who disagreed raised some very good points also. This can provide fodder to AR groups and also single out individuals that they can harass (people that they likely would not have been aware of otherwise). This is simply one criterion and does not take anything else into consideration: whether or not the breeding choices are good; how the breeder stands behind their pups/dogs/buyers; what sort of conditions are the pups and dogs kept; etc. In addition, people who use multiple names (family members, kennel names, "associates") on registration papers or registers many of their pups with AKC and not ABCA would not be flagged here while a person who honestly registers the pups they produce with ABCA would be. There are obviously people who would be on this list that have ways of avoiding to appear to produce as many puppies as they actually do.

 

In the argument, I think what's lacking is that a list like this is going to be of use primarily to people who don't know very much about the breed - they don't know enough to know people but this might give them pause as it gives them information to use, and then they need to continue to research and do their homework. I wish there could be a suite of information available instead of this but I don't see how that can be done.

 

As "information", I decided to see what this list could do to help me. So I Googled several of the breeders (one from about each quarter of the list, to get those who bred larger numbers and those who bred smaller numbers, but still a lot of pups in a year). Then I went to the website of each of those breeders to see what they seemed to be doing - real stock work, sports, pet breeding, color breeding, etc. I also looked at what results I got back at Google, to see if they were listed on things like Puppyfind and other disreputable internet puppy sale sites that tend to service backyard breeders and low-quality breeders.

 

I found quite the gamut from breeders that, while they seemed to have a lot of dogs and bitches, also seemed like they might very well be proving their animals on stock on the farm or ranch, to breeders that were obviously aiming at the color/pet/sport (not "educated sport" but "hobby sport") market. But how many people new to the dogs or just investigating getting a Border Collie would be able to differentiate? The "Read This First" is very helpful and points out an array of red flags but I'm sadly afraid that not many people seem to do any real research but largely buy based on what they see first and on impulse.

 

I do think this can serve as a first step and just wonder where we can go from here, sensibly, affordably, accurately? I passed out a number of ABCA's nice leaflets at the Bluegrass one year, which are helpful and well-written - but how do we really get the information out to the very people that need it?

 

I applaud the reasons for this list, the desire to "protect and promote" good dogs. I don't know how helpful it will be but am hopeful it will have a positive effect. I am also hopeful that it is just a first step towards recognizing the problem of sub-par breeding and marketing of those pups, and figuring out how we can deal effectively with educating people.

 

Just some thoughts and ramblings - I've been home sick a few days.

[chene]

Does producing 30 pups or more get you kicked out of the registry? Did I miss something?

 

I believe the point was that, unrelated to this list, Bill Barnes was kicked out of the registry and he's still considered a good breeder to those looking for the kind of dog he puts out (AKC). So if someone was the kind of person who was going to buy from a high volume breeder, they wouldn't care about the high volume, the same way the kind of people who buy from Bill Barnes don't care about him being kicked out. If that makes any more sense.

 

Sue, I agree with everything you've mentioned. It's a lot of the reason I wanted to put together some sort of breeder database. I believe the more information people have the better.

[juliepoudrier]

One argument that Sue didn't cover was the one regarding preservation of the working border collie. The reasons for why high-volume breeders, in ABCA's viewpoint, can't also be preserving the working border collie have already been stated in this thread, so I won't repeat them here. My concern about pointing out these high-volume breeders as being antithetical to ABCA's stated mission to preserve the working border collie is the number of dogs registered each year, from any size breeder, who clearly aren't being bred with any regard to ability to work stock. So the ABCA is pointing out these particular breeders but essentially ignoring all the others who also aren't breeding for working ability (and per some of the FB discussions I saw, at least some of the breeders on that list are working farms breeding and selling working dogs to other farms, mainly cattle operations). As was mentioned earlier in this thread, ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, but it seems a bit unfair to me (and I am NOT saying I agree with breeding lots of pups, just pointing out what I consider to be a disconnect in this way of going about pointing out who is NOT preserving the working border collie) to point a finger at these breeders and not at others. I would personally would be much more comfortable with the list if ABCA simply stated that they are opposed to high-volume breeding and left the comments about preserving working ability out of it, because as far as I can tell looking at what's being bred and sold just in my part of the world, a majority of those dogs, no matter how many litters the breeder has produced in a year, are NOT being bred or sold for stock work.

 

J.

[Sue R]

Thank you, Julie, for adding some good thoughts to ponder.

[Eileen Stein]

Just a couple of points.

 

 

One objection was that this list is a "shaming" list that "paints a target" on certain breeders, without providing any other data at all. Apparently there are some on the list who immediately began received "hate" emails and threats as a result of their being named on the list.\

 

The list was first posted Jan 21, the day before yesterday. It is very, very hard for me to believe that anti-breeding or AR people are perusing the ABCA website (which, sadly, is seldom updated with anything newsworthy) on a daily basis. I would have to seriously question whether people on the list actually have already received hate mail as a result of the list being posted. Has any of this hate email been shown?

 

As regards "without providing any other data at all," well, that's right. It says it's a list of the number of pups ABCA's most active breeders produced in 2014 and registered. And that's what it is -- no more, no less. Are there other factors that one should take into account in determining whether someone is a good breeder? Definitely yes. But ABCA is really not in a position to know that information about all the breeders across this great land of ours, and even if it were, much of that data would be subjective and conclusory. This is information ABCA does know, it is objective, and so it was provided.

 

How to get information about the quality of breeders into the hands of buyers before they buy is a question that has been discussed and agonized over within the ABCA (and on these Boards) for many, many years. There are people who say there are ways, but in all the discussion that has taken place over that time no one has ever presented a really good one, or one that is on balance better than what is already being done. This list is pretty minimal, but at least it lets people know that in the opinion of the ABCA (which may matter to some and not to others) high volume breeding is not a good thing, and lets people know who, according to ABCA records, are the high volume breeders. Is it better than doing nothing? Some folks will say yes and some will say no. But there comes a time when it's too hard to watch a bad situation playing out while continuing to do nothing.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

It is probably true as Julie stated that many - perhaps most- of those who breed their ABCA Border Collies are not breeding for their ability to work stock. As a practical matter what I realistically hope for is: by keeping breeding within the livestock working priented ABCA where influential dogs are always stock working and trial dogs, we won't lose the genetics and so far so good.

 

It may be some of the high volume breeders do use some of their dogs for stockwork. But one thing is absolutely rock bottom certain - they cannot be testing/training their breeding pairs on stock - there aren't enough hours in the day.

 

Since they do have time to train and test, some of the low volume breeders - like Mark and others on this forum - are producing those influential sires and dams. The high volume breeders, whether they have livestock or not can't be. If the high volume breeders are testing their dogs at trials, I can't recall seeing them. And since high volume breeders sell so many pups they have a disproportionate effect on the breed.

 

Should their names be out there? Yep.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, but it seems a bit unfair to me (and I am NOT saying a agree with breeding lots of pups, just pointing out what I consider to be a disconnect in this way of going about pointing out who is NOT preserving the working border collie) to point a finger at these breeders and not at others. I would personally would be much more comfortable with the list if ABCA simply stated that they are opposed to high-volume breeding and left the comments about preserving working ability out of it, because as far as I can tell looking at what's being bred and sold just in my part of the world, a majority of those dogs, no matter how many litters the breeder has produced in a year, are NOT being bred or sold for stock work.

 

J.

 

Julie is right that the ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, and therefore that is not something we can concretely address. It may be that some of the cattle dog breeders on that list are breeding carefully bred dogs going to working homes, and it may not be -- claims on FB or on breeders' websites may or may not be true. It is undeniably true that many low volume breeders are breeding without regard to working ability, and they are not on the list. The list serves only one function -- it tells people who produces the most pups. Those people are making the largest proportional impact on the gene pool, and in ABCA's opinion it's unlikely that people who breed at these levels are really breeding for working excellence.

 

Think for a minute about all the good working breeders you know who are NOT on this list. Superior breeders, trainers, trialers and handlers who make their living with the dogs, whose puppies are always in demand by knowledgeable people, yet still do not breed in these quantities. To me that says something about whether high volume breeding is desirable and compatible with producing high quality working dogs.

[Sue R]

I hope that you, Eileen, and ABCA, do not take my comments as criticism. They are not meant to be critical but rather a discussion of a number of points I have seen made elsewhere.

 

I have no objection to this list. I think it's a good first step. The obvious majority of people I've seen vehemently arguing against it, for whichever reasons listed, seem to either be on it, have friends on it, know people on it that they believe are responsible breeders (while others who are not so responsible do not qualify to be on this list or maybe employ practices that would avoid being on such a list), or have other personal reasons to object to it.

 

It is a highly-charged topic. I thank the ABCA for seeking ways to carry out the mission to preserve and protect the working Border Collie. I don't think it's an easy task.

[diane allen]

I'm not knowledgeable enough to really comment on the pros and cons of this list.

I think it is a good first step though.

Two points:

 

1) It was pointed out by someone I know (not me!) that at least two of the breeders listed routinely place dogs in agility homes. (Whether any other dogs from those same litters are working dogs remains unknown.)

 

2) Years ago, I adopted a 3.5 yr old dog whose owner had died. She was ABCA registered at a young age, and believe me - she didn't have a herding bone in her dear body. Her "breeder" didn't breed many times at all, and AFAIK, only when he wanted a pup; but he certainly had no qualms about placing a pup in a non-working home (dog's previous owner was in no way into herding). But to me, that ABCA registration meant nothing.

 

Back to lurking and learning,

diane

[Journey]

Interestingly there are names *not* on the list that surprised me.

[Debbie Meier]

The list was first posted Jan 21, the day before yesterday. It is very, very hard for me to believe that anti-breeding or AR people are perusing the ABCA website (which, sadly, is seldom updated with anything newsworthy) on a daily basis.

At 5:01 on January 19th a notice was posted on Jay Kitchener's personal FB page by Jenna Vermette which is monitored by a couple of breeder hate groups about the list with a link to the ABCA webpage. Jay is not a border collie person.

 

It wouldn't be unreasonable for someone high on the list to get hate emails and messages on the evening of the 19th due to how fast things spread on social media.

 

The webpage was also shared by others on FB as early as 1pm on the afternoon of the 19th.

[juliepoudrier]

Karen,

I think there are plenty of breeders out there who have already (long before a list was even considered) taken steps to make it appear as if they are not breeding large numbers of puppies. Five or six years ago I knew of one well-known breeder who registered dogs under family names, presumably for just that reason. I have no idea if they're still breeding a lot, but at least some folks might be surprised by the name, which I will not divulge because it's really immaterial to the discussion. It's another reason I find this list problematic. At least the folks on the list are being honest about their breeding practices, FWIW. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of them didn't end up doing something similar. Easy enough to transfer a registration and let someone else register a litter.

 

J.

[emilyfalk]

I won't quote others from one of the "hot threads" on FB, but here's what I wrote:

 

"Is the list *the perfect solution*? Of course not. But come on, if you sell 100 pups at $500 each, that's $50,000 in one year from puppy sales!! Those numbers say that on some level you are breeding for quantity, which makes you in the business of producing pups, ie a commercial operation. I do not support that, because I can't think of a situation where that many brood bitches and their pups can get what they deserve in terms of work and human interaction. Both the physical and mental health of those dogs are at risk. Are there ways to be a "bad breeder" other than producing a small army of pups in a year? Absolutely. But how would we agree on what characteristics are "bad enough" to put one on that list? This is simply an objective list. If you are on the high end of the list (I could see an occasion to hit the 30 mark in an uncharacteristic year) then feel free to explain why you think it's OK to produce so many puppies."

 

People have provided anecdotes: I bought a dog from X breeder and it's a fantastic working dog; I have seen the facilities and they are really nice; I have seen dogs that they produce and they're good workers. I say, OK, good to hear! If I made that much on puppy sales I, too, could have nice facilities (oh wait, mine live in the house

[Eileen Stein]

Sue, I didn't take your comments as criticism of the ABCA -- just as contributing to the discussion.

 

Deb, you are right and I was wrong about when the list first appeared on the ABCA website. I posted yesterday (Jan 21) that it had gone up "the day before yesterday," which I erroneously stated was Jan 21 (the "day before yesterday" at that point was actually Jan 19, which is what I meant to say.) Jan 19 was the day the ABCA directors were notified that it was up, but It actually went up on Monday, Jan 18. So what I wrote was incorrect two different ways.

 

Since I'm not on FB, I don't totally understand who posted what where, but I gather the "breeder hate groups" you mention picked it up from FB postings about it, not from the ABCA website itself. That makes more sense, but I'm still a bit surprised that anyone would have picked it up on the ABCA site so fast. Once it was posted on FB, I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long to reach the world at large.

[wsp]

Is this an open group on FB? Or do you have to join?

There is a big discussion about this on Border-Collie-cowdogs. Most are against it. Those against it aren't all high volume breeders either.

I see it as listing these breeders as bad without knowing what they are producing.

I would much rather see something on the website about not supporting those who breed for color, agility, obedience, or just pets, as they are doing more harm to the breed in general.

I am also in favor of some sort of working requirement in order to be able to breed a dog. Doesn't have to be much, but more than an instinct test for sure.

Look back a few years to some of the foundation dogs, and breeders. Think any of them produced 4 or 5 litters in a year? You bet. Look at some of the breeders who have had an influence on the breed.

[denice]

I know there are some countries that require the dog to pass a working test before being registered. It would be interesting to see what countries require a test and what is required, the criteria and how it is done.

 

I would say it would difficult to do something like here not only because the vastness of the country but also because Americans are so in favor of personal freedoms and most regulation is not look on as favorable.

 

Short of testing on stock before registration I am not sure how to keep actual working dogs "pure."

[wsp]

Working registration-proof of ability. I like the idea of showing open field work including outrun, gather, fetch, and pen.

Pet registration automatic, but offspring would not be eligible for registration.

[Debbie Meier]

Eileen, I honestly don't know why it was picked up so quick the first post around noon was from someone who has border collies and then Emily picked up not long after.

 

BTW, I wasn't trying to correct you on the date, just picked up for the quote.

 

It's just amazing how fast things travel, well, except good news.

 

 

One of Wayne's customers just shared this video, 2 year old that they are hoping to take to sheepdog finals, for certain cattledog finals. This dog wasn't trained to outrun, he just does it, he wasn't trained to quietly handle sheep, he just does it that way, same with how he can take a charging momma cow by the nose and make her think better. That's what one of the high volume breeders is producing... and he also has some 1/2 siblings and siblings getting it done to, so he is not a fluke.

 

I just hope that people are going further then making judgments and assumptions. It also costs a lot of money and time to get where Wayne is with his breeding program. He's not making money hand over fist, in fact being careful to make certain there is enough to make ends meet so that he can continue to build on the successful cross to hopefully produce a higher percentage of what he already has. If he has to continue without ABCA's support he will.