Click here to Register

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > K9 Mania Dog Park > DRAWING FORUM » New Drawing Contest 2/16/08 to 4/1/08
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-20-2008, 08:45 AM   #11
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
Furbilator, thanks for helping with this!

I really like numbers 1,3,6,7,and 8.

Number 2 worries me.
2. All dogs/puppies sold from one licenced breeder to another licenced breeder should have a contractual obligation to breed to insure breed purity.
Breed purity does not = quality. Having licensed breeders would likely weed out many unscrupulous breeders, but some very promising puppies grow up to be simply pet quality dogs. For example, OFA certs can't be done accurately prior to the age of 24 months. You wouldn't want to give someone the obligation of breeding dogs with bad hips, or any other health issue.

9 and 10 are both are great ideas, and I've been grappling with enforcement ideas myself. Inspections would be ideal. Just not sure who would do them.
Most animal control agencies are underfunded and minimally staffed. I'm thinking they will still have their hands full trying to manage the spay/neuter problem.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 09:07 AM   #12
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
[quote=Furbilator;28793]As far as the AKC, I don't know the ins and outs of what they consider a pure-bred vs the breed standards.[/QUOTE]

I've been thinking about this also. Requiring dogs to meet standards is not as easy to tackle as health certs, as standards are set by breed clubs, judges, and breeders themselves.

[quote=Furbilator;28793]A friend of mine works for the agriculture department and he was called on to investigate a puppy mill, he was greeted by a shotgun.[/QUOTE]

Which should remind us that the biggest opposition may not come from breed clubs and registration groups. According to the AKCís 2006 audit report, the AKC made more than $33 million from registration fees, accounting for almost half of the registryís $72 million in total revenues that year. My guess would be that the puppy mill owners make even more than that. In an earlier post, I naively stated that opposition would be minimal if animal welfare was kept at the forefront. Now that I'm looking at the dollar amounts that could be affected, I will have to retract that statement. Puppy mills are multi-million dollar businesses.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 01:46 PM   #13
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Ann, you misunderstood my breed purity statement. When I purchased my pure-bred lab I was obligated to sign an agreement that stated that if I bred my dog she would be bred to another registered pure-bred. Also in the contract, the original breeders stated they wanted records of all breeding. This was used to make sure that inbreeding would not take place.

The contract was to insure that the bloodlines that they have so carefully created were maintained in the following generation and that we would be responsible owners. There was a stipulation that the dog was guaranteed free of hip or other breed specific (known) genetic abnormalities. I as the purchaser was paying for this guarantee, hence the expensive price tag. There was a careful screening process involved in the purchasing of my dog. Some would say that they were being 'over the top', I say that they were being responsible breeders. They did this on their own and that was one of the reasons I purchased my dog from them. I could have purchased a dog with a reasonable assurance of breed-purity (lab X lab), even registered, but for me it was the fact that they were responsible breeders who cared about where their puppies went that was the deciding factor.

I did not suggest that any breeder or owner MUST breed their dog, only that there should be stipulations (as suggested above) to insure that the dog isn't bred to another breed creating mutts that may or maynot be saleable and ultimately end up in the shelters.

I reiterate that if there were fewer mutts, fewer breeders (purebred or otherwise), tighter restrictions on ownership and breeding out there then there would be fewer dogs in shelters.
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 01:56 PM   #14
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
Also, just to clarify it to anyone who reads these posts, I am not a mutt snob (someone who doesn't like mixed breeds). Some of the best pets are those who have different breeds in them. I am just stating the reality that most dogs found in shelters are mix breeds. Few pure-breds end up in the shelters simply because owners have had to fork out considerable cash to purchase the animal and will be less inclined to toss that $1000 animal to the curb on a whim. Also, it is more likely that the owner has thought long and hard about the dog purchase when there is considerable money involved.

It does happen, but rarely in my experience.
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 02:28 PM   #15
doc2boc
Been Around A While
 
doc2boc's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 222
Question

I dont know if I got the time to write and essay here but what does PETA DO? DOES THEIR SITE HANDLE THESE ISSUES?

Last edited by doc2boc : 02-20-2008 at 07:31 PM. Reason: edit
doc2boc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:01 PM   #16
rannalabs
Site Regular
 
rannalabs's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North West
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furbilator View Post
As a Canadian I think the focus should be on non-purebred, backyard breeders and commercial breeding (puppy mills) instead of regulating the AKC or in our case CKC requirements. Trust me, those that pay the big bucks for purebred registered (AKC or CKC) dogs will get animals with sound, breed quality dogs.

My suggestions:

1. Only licensed breeders should be allowed to breed and sell dogs
2. All dogs/puppies sold from one licenced breeder to another licenced breeder should have a contractual obligation to breed to insure breed purity.
3. All owners of un-fixed animals will be fined the cost of the spay or neutering and the animal will not be returned to the owner unless/until the animal is spayed or neutered.
4. No animal will be sold from or in relation to a commerical establishment (example: pet store)
5. No exotic animals will be allowed/sold (wild-domestic mixes)
6. All breeders must tatoo/chip each dog produced at his/her breeding facility.
7. All breeders must allow one season of non-breeding between each breeding
8. All breeders must cease breeding a female after X number of breedings - as defined by a non-biased organization (eg. vets and AKC/CKC).
9. All licensed breeders must undergo regular (monthly) inspections for health and wellbeing of all animals.
10. All aspects of these rules will be monitored and inforced by the Animal Control Agency. The Animal Control Agencies will be funded though breeder/owner licensing fees, agriculture divisions and federal policing divisions of the country. All actions taking and authorities provided will be upheld by all levels of government.

Not that I have thought a lot about this or anything...LOL
Don't agree with #1. I honestly don't think that is going to stop these Millers and BYBrs. They make money of their pups, so what is a $200 to $500+ a year fee going to do to them ? Not much !. Think about it. Lets say a BYBr breeds 5 litters a year, of, well I'll go with Labs. They breed the "rare" colors and sell their pups at an avrg. $1200. The "common" colors are $ 600. Ok, they have 5 litters a year, avrg. litter is about 8 pups- that's 40 pups. Out of the 40, say 30 were the "rare" colors - that's $36,000. The remaining 20 were "common" colors = 12,000. So in that one year, the BYBr made $48 THOUSAND dollars off their pups. They spend about $200 per litter because they do no clearances and everything is done by them. So they make FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. What is a small $500 fee going to do to them ???? Really ? Small reputable breeders, well they'll loose that money and it would be that money they use to TEST and SHOW, and WORK their dogs.. See how this comes back to BITE the good breeders... Yes, I think ANY money for ANY fee would improve our problem, as the reputable breeders would be pushed out of breeding because they can't afford to keep up with the fees and doing all what is right (Health testing, Showing, Training, Working , and having a litter with all the Vet fee's, well it's quite spendy !)..

#2, Good Idea actually. I think each breeder who places a pup in a show home should add that their dog CAN NOT AND WILL NOT, be bred to any thing other then that of the SAME BREED... But, who will inforce that of the Millers and BYBRS ??? What about BYBRS and Millers breeding Out of Standard colors, like Silver in labs for example ??

#3 ) Don't agree. What if a VET said that dog would actually be lost on the table.. The owners are not goiing to chance that.. So would you still fine them ?? This won't work, but of course, there are already Manditory Spay/Neuter laws and you all know what He** that is doing. I think we need to educate people and help thoughs that can't afford to Spay/Neuter- NOT FINE ! I actually have an idea for our local All breed club, that would raise money to give out vouchers for a free Spay/Neuter to people who could not afford to do so. This is what we need. NOT LAWS !

6) I TOTALLY AGREE !!! This would actually help !

7) Agree to some point, but who would inforce ? The Registries ? Would this require the Registry to not Register a litter from a Bitch who had, just 6 /8 months ago, whelped a Litter ? What about Bitches who don't come in, but every 12 to 14 Months ? It would apply to them, as the law would require the bitch skip 1 heat..

8) Agree to some point, but again, what about Bitches who, from Reputable breeders, have Small litters (2, 3 or 4 pups per litter) ? Of course, for a med. large breed, this is small.. I know a few Lab breeders who have bred a bitch 5 times, but her litters are small (3 and 4 pups per litter) . How would this law apply to these bitches ?? For a Lab, that's 15 puppies in the 5 litters... A Lab bitch could actually have 20 pups in 2 litters. See where I am going with this ?

~ Becky n Crew ~
Labrador Retrievers- A Breed Like No Other

rannalabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:15 PM   #17
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
If only licensed breeders can breed or sell dogs then byb and puppymills will be breeding illegally. If we put legal clout (jail time) and financial (heavy fines) behind these infractions then the frequency and number of unwanted animals will be reduced. Of course there will ALWAYS be ways in which any system will fail or will be circumvented by the criminals, but to not put some form of legal and financial ramification behind breaking the regulation makes the 'rule' or 'law' not worth the paper it is printed on.
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:26 PM   #18
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
As for the fine for failing to spay or neuter, the fine will pay for spaying/neutering and the owner gets their dog back. This would just be a way of making certain that this particular animal will not be contributing to the dog over population problem.

In the hands of a qualified vet, very few dogs die as a result of spaying or neutering. If done at the appropriate age it is better for the health of the animal anyway. An alternative solution to the spaying in high risk animals would be birth control. But I'm not convinced that this would be done by most of these dog owners.

As for the cost of spaying and neutering. Owning animals is costly, factor that into the purchase or ownership of the animal BEFORE you get him/her.
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 07:40 PM   #19
Furbilator
Been Around A While
 
Furbilator's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,675
PETA is an organization that provides for the ethical treatment of animals. There are people in the PETA organizations that beleive that having an animal in your home all day while your at work is considered mistreatment. Although some of their points about animal treatment I agree with, their tactics and more extreme views make them an 'iffy' organization in my book. I personnally wouldn't want to have them write any sort of laws.

I'm not a vegan and I wear leather so I wouldn't be welcome. LOL
Furbilator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2008, 11:55 PM   #20
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furbilator View Post
Ann, you misunderstood my breed purity statement.
Sorry for that. After reading your explanation, I totally agree with what you're saying.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > K9 Mania Dog Park > DRAWING FORUM


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:53 AM.