poor breeding thread

[Eileen Stein]

The poor breeding thread was apparently deleted by Spottydog, the Original Poster.

[Jodi]

Bummer. Why? What did I miss?

 

Jodi

[mike goracke]

Hey Eileen,did you catch my post wondering what percent of the ABCA member's also belong to the HA? Thanks

[PennyT]

Someone said: "The registry will do everything in its power to appease these breeders in effort to maintain the working Border Collie. A sad by product of catering to said breeders is unscrupulous breeders reaping the benefits of registering their product with a well known registry and thus bringing into this world, and selling, many unneeded dogs. These damaged souls end up in rescue if they're lucky, most die- but hey! we've still got those working dogs we're striving for."

 

Nobody cares about appeasement. This is off kilter. Appeasement? That's bizarre.

 

Yes, we do have those working dogs we're striving for, and we will continue to strive for.

 

I get tired of every thread being hijacked by the folks who think rescue and their nonbreeding policies are the only ones to be considered.

 

So, if pups aren't killed by hitting with a spanner or smacking against a wall but are drowned, is that okay?

[Gary M]

It was an accidental deletion.

She was deleting posts from that topic and did not know that by deleting the first post, it would delete the topic.

I can't say as I blame her for wanting to remove herself from the discussion. She started the thread looking for ways and suggestions on how to keep BC's out of rescues and shelters and being poorly bred (That is an ABCA desire, right?) and ended up being chastised multiple times for a "slip of the toungue" so to speak even after a couple attempts to clarify what she meant. (Most of us got it the first time.)

 

Congratulations gang!

 

Now we can go back to discussing important stuff like being seen naked or why BC's were not in Brokeback Mountain.

[Gary M]

Penny,

It was not hijacked, poor breeding practices were the topic

[IronHorse]

Hmmm,how dissapointing,,this was an intelligent thread and I looked forward to reading the well thought out posts that were being made.

[Howdyjabo]

In the end it comes down to the buyers have the power to control breeding practices.

No amount or Kinds of regulations can.

 

ABCA couldn't control Swafford-- they can't control anyone.

 

If you want to solve the rescue problem-- it has to be done thru education of buyers.

 

END of STORY

I'm sorry SPotty dog felt like she was beating her head against a brick wall-- but she was.

[Kyrasmom]

I get tired of every thread being hijacked by the folks who think rescue and their nonbreeding policies are the only ones to be considered.

And I get tired of being hit over the head that working dog breeders (of good dogs of course) are beyond reproach. This thread was about bad breeding practices, something that runs rampant in the world of dogs, in the world of border collies, regardless of registry. Yes, even in the breeders of the real working border collie.

 

Truly, how are we collectively supposed to educate the masses when we can't even listen to each other with an open mind, much less an open heart.

[Denise Wall]

Someone said: "The registry will do everything in its power to appease these breeders in effort to maintain the working Border Collie. A sad by product of catering to said breeders is unscrupulous breeders reaping the benefits of registering their product with a well known registry and thus bringing into this world, and selling, many unneeded dogs. These damaged souls end up in rescue if they're lucky, most die- but hey! we've still got those working dogs we're striving for."

But this isn't the way it works. I think there was at least one example provided, Swafford, an example for which I have extensive personal knowledge, where the involvement or not of ABCA has had zero impact on the bringing into this world, and selling, of many unneeded dogs, damaged souls who end up in rescue if they're lucky.

 

So given that this person and no doubt the other person dismembered have without a hitch continued to contribute to the misery of dogs, and that those like them for whom new regulations could be written, would find ways to continue what they were doing unabated, what justification is there for incurring the disapproval of good working breeders who make up the core of the working registry?

 

I've seen the horror with my own eyes. I'm the one who proposed the litter limitation to the board. I feel very strongly about it. And even I can see the problems it might create with no actual benefit toward the intended goal.

 

Sure I'd prefer these puppy millers not be able to register dogs with ABCA. But since it hasn't, and apparently won't, actually help the suffering of the dogs, I'd rather not risk losing the people who breed the dogs that define the breed. Remember this group of people has a history of pulling out and forming a new registry when they view things as becoming too restrictive in the old one.

 

So what is the discussion? Is it really about preventing misery in dogs? Or is it just about not having this misery within ABCA specifically? Because the way I see it, ABCA will not be capable of stopping the misery no matter what it does.

[Gary M]

"If you want to solve the rescue problem-- it has to be done thru education of buyers."

 

Cool..

So we can now end the war on drug dealers, underage liquor and tobacco sales, illegal gun sales, lawsuits against the manufacturers of anything, mandatory seat belt and helmet laws, get rid of the EPA, OSHA, FDA, FDIC, HHS and the DOA with one simple phrase "Educate the buyers"

My lower tax bill thanks you!

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Spottydog, you complained that everyone was taking what you said personally and getting all offended, but isn't that what you're doing here?

 

I've been trying to figure out why everybody got so emotional toward the end of the deleted thread. I can't help thinking it's because people feel so much anger about puppymills and their consequences, and so frustrated that there's really not much anyone can do about them, that they feel a need to displace their anger onto the registry, or "bigwig" breeders, or each other. At least I hope that's what it is. I would hate to think that what I wrote was so badly expressed that it could give rise to Spottydog's and Christi's total misinterpretation of it otherwise.

 

>

 

Thank me AGAIN? I don't know what you mean, but if you're asking me to delete your user profile, sorry, I'm not going to. There's a compulsory cooling-off period on these Boards. You don't have to post ever again, but if you choose to, you'll be able to.

 

 

Now we can go back to discussing important stuff like being seen naked or why BC's were not in Brokeback Mountain. >>

 

Congratulations gang? How is it the gang's fault? They were engaged in discussing a subject you apparently feel is worth discussing, when the thread was deleted, and not by them.

 

And Spottydog wasn't "chastised multiple times for "a slip of the tongue." She expressed disapproval of raising pups in a barn, TWO people said raising pups in a barn wasn't necessarily bad, and she felt they were being obtuse because by "raised in a barn" she had meant "neglected," and how could they not understand that.

 

See what I mean? Where is all this anger coming from? It's way out of proportion.

[paddyCA]

Originally posted by PennyT:

Nobody cares about appeasement. This is off kilter. Appeasement? That's bizarre.

How is that bizarre? In the original thread it was said that rules and regulations regarding ethical breeding aren't put into place because the big hats don't like them. When someone doesn't like something what do they do? Complain. The lack of regulations appeases these breeders, making them content with the no rules. Look it up, "appease" is used in the right context.

 

Originally posted by PennyT:

Yes, we do have those working dogs we're striving for, and we will continue to strive for.

That's great. No one ever said they shouldn't be strived for. I'm very much an advocate of working dogs being bred solely for working, just as much as you or any other devotee on this board.

 

Originally posted by PennyT:

I get tired of every thread being hijacked by the folks who think rescue and their nonbreeding policies are the only ones to be considered.

That's a shame that you feel the plight of the rescue and shelter situations are merely "hijacking" your more important matters of paperwork and politics. I don't know how often they've "hijacked" in the past but this thread began with questioning poor breeding practices. I don't see how it is irrelevant. As I said before, I think priorities are askew. I'm not at all against breeding, only unethical and/or unneeded breeding and buying. I also don't think my opinions are the only ones to be considered. Quite the opposite actually. That's what I was looking for- opinions on WHY rules and regulations are omitted just to give the big important breeders what they want, while ignoring the dogs truly in need. Why don't these breeders lighten up and accept a few rules that really don't affect them anyway, since they abide by them with responsible breeding? Wouldn't this PREVENT the bad breeders from producing yet MORE unwanted dogs?

 

Originally posted by PennyT:

So, if pups aren't killed by hitting with a spanner or smacking against a wall but are drowned, is that okay?

Now -that- is bizarre as I have no idea where it is coming from or the relevance to the issue at hand. No, it's not ok if pups are drowned? I don't remember anyone saying they advocated that.

[Eileen Stein]

And Gary provides another example before I could even hit the "Add Reply" button.

[Howdyjabo]

Aww hon---- we HAVE listened and tried and rehashed. FOR YEARS.

Thats the point ---we are done banging our heads against the wall. and can't understand why you can't hear us telling you that we have already been there done that and it doesn't work.

 

No one here advocates that there are not down right bad and subpar working dog breeders--- Thats not the point. There are no regulations or rules that will control them or anyone else.

 

I was disappointed that ABCA hasn't been able to do more--- But I talked and listened and realized what most of the board realized-- They aren't in a position to do much of anything constructive. Except work on getting a ban on dual registration-- and even that is shaky but worth pursueing.

 

I gave a very good outlet to use to make a productive use of this kind of conversation and your ideas and enthusiasm. And no one took me up on it.

 

Lets try again...... USBCC is the entity that has the scope to "contribute" to curbing bad breeders of all avenues.AND educate buyers.

 

Lets talk about what USBCC could do and just leave ABCA out of it--- other than having them support USBCC efforts.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

That is a gross a misstatement of what was said.

 

>

 

NO. It would not. That's one of the points you seem to be just too angry to see.

[paddyCA]

Ok then let's talk about USBCC, I wasn't speaking of ABCA in particular anyway.

 

Is it really just a lost cause? Will we always have this "bad breeder" problem?

 

(Please note, I am not trying to be derogatory or antagonistic with any of my posts and comments, I am truly wanting your opinions on this subject.)

[Howdyjabo]

Gary you really are pissing me off.

You have already been told this at least once.....

 

The government can pass regulations that are not popular-- everyone has to put up with them unless they want to start a revolution-- which isn't too likely. And a huge amount of our tax dollars go to having the personel to enforce things.

 

ABCA is a membership-- and not all the membership cares. I hate that too-- buyers could make them care(ooo education again).

Regulations just make them go elsewhere and do the same exact thing. What does that gain the dogs????

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by PennyT:

I get tired of every thread being hijacked by the folks who think rescue and their nonbreeding policies are the only ones to be considered.

Hey! That's a tad harsh.

 

The fact is, it's nice to educate buyers but breeders need to be educated too - because the facts are, they are RESPONSIBLE for the dogs they bring into this world and they are RESPONSIBLE for taking part in ensuring they go to the right homes. If Rescue make that effort, why the hell can't breeders to it too?

 

In the last 4 weeks I have gotten in THREE registered dogs under the age of two. TWO of these dogs come from some of the most respected, well known Big Hat breeders in my parts. BOTH of those breeders sold to people who should not have a BC (and one sold to people I turned down to adopt!). NEITHER of them want their dogs back or even seem to care that they ended up in a rescue situation in the first place. One said "just make sure you transfer the registration papers."

 

This is NOT all the buyer's fault. They could not have bought dogs if someone didn't sell them to them in the first place!!

 

I know several breeders whom I respect and admire. I don't think there is any one solution. I also don't think breeders are above reproach. I do think it's hard not to be jaded when I keep getting these so-called reputable breeders' dogs.

 

RDM

[paddyCA]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

<< In the original thread it was said that rules and regulations regarding ethical breeding aren't put into place because the big hats don't like them. >>

 

That is a gross a misstatement of what was said.

What was said then? I remember something to the tune of "Why can't rules be set into place to prevent this and that?" and the reply was akin to "Because this and that breeder won't accept rules put on their breeding programs. Who are you to say so and so can't have x amount of litters?"

 

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

NO. It would not. That's one of the points you seem to be just too angry to see.

I'm not too angry to see the point, I'm not angry at all. I just haven't been adequately convinced that these rules won't help. I'm not a rescue zealot who thinks no dog should be bred, I believe in moderation and wish a medium could be found somewhere to fix this problem in our society.

 

There is no way to salvage that darn thread?

[Howdyjabo]

Reality check--- Yes we will ALWAYS have this bad breeder problem. And yes there will ALWAYS be bad breeders even among the working dog breeders.

Sad but true.

 

 

Are there things that can be constructively done to help minimise their proliferation -- I think so.

 

We have to fight fire with fire--- Bad breeders sell lots of dogs because they are actively marketing. Good breeders tend to abhor marketing- and since they don't tend to have litter after litter they don't set up a permanent marketing systems.

 

Buyers are STUPID about buying-- they will jump at the easiest pup or dog to pick up--and its usually an impulse buy. Guess whos there ready and waiting for them-- The bad breeders.

 

We need a format to make sure that buyers find the good breeders easily and FIRST.

 

Eileen and others have been tinkering with an idea that could very well serve that purpose thru USBCC.

[Gary M]

Eileen,

I read and understood it to mean the first time she said it as "out of sight, out of mind"

 

The problem, as you stated in the deleted thread, is one of culture.

I was at a trial a while back where trialers were talking about trading dogs and such like football players and draft picks. That is somewhat "business as usual" in the working world, but is so foreign as to be almost unthinkable to a pet home.

It's almost like we are talking in 2 different languages here.

 

Penny partially quoted PaddyCA then stated

"Nobody cares about appeasement. This is off kilter. Appeasement? That's bizarre.

 

Yes, we do have those working dogs we're striving for, and we will continue to strive for.

 

I get tired of every thread being hijacked by the folks who think rescue and their nonbreeding policies are the only ones to be considered.

 

So, if pups aren't killed by hitting with a spanner or smacking against a wall but are drowned, is that okay? "

When PaddyCA specifically in the quoted post said that was how she was reading it and was asking not once but twice for the kind of clarification or explanation that Denise gave on this thread. (I believe these would have been on the other thread in time had it not been deleted)

 

And on Penny's "I get tired... hijacked" comment sorry, but what thread was she reading? It was STARTED by "rescue folk" and they did not state their non-breeding policies were the only to be considered. They were trying to start a dialogue on how (or if) their belief could be somehow harmoniously included.

 

Anyway, its late, I'm tired, and I am sure I have said something objectionable to someone. I usually do.

[Jodi]

"What was said then? I remember something to the tune of "Why can't rules be set into place to prevent this and that?" and the reply was akin to "Because this and that breeder won't accept rules put on their breeding programs. Who are you to say so and so can't have x amount of litters?"

 

You know ... I'm not angry either, but that's the way I understood it also ... and as a matter of fact, I posed a question asking if the "big hats" were breeding their females every heat from the time they were a year old to the time they are 10 or 11 years old, is this okay because of who they are, what they know, and how well they do in trials? In the time I stopped at the store and got home from work, the thread was deleted, and I never got to see an answer to it. I don't think it would be unreasonable to expect them to work within certain reasonable guidelines for the health of the dogs, and the breed as a whole. And if they are reputable, it probably would not even change their breeding program, considering the dogs are usually working too much to have time to stop and have litter after litter. What am I missing here?

 

Jodi

[Howdyjabo]

RMD-- USBCC could eaily list dogs that have gone thru rescue that the breeders refused to take back-- that way the buyers that cared about that would know not to support them. Not to mention a little public pressure might make them alot more concerned

[Howdyjabo]

Jodi-- USBCC could easily ask for breeders listed to sign an oath not to breed but so often. Then buyers would know who to support if they cared about that.

Again a little public pressure might make those breeders a little more concerned about how often they bred a dog.

 

USBCC has much more leverage--- they are a club that people can join or not. If they don't like the rules Revolt or leave.