big breeders vs. backyard breeders
I may get some flack for this but I just wanted to let you all know what I think about this and get some opinions. I work for one of the "best" OES breeders in the country. By best I mean she's produced a huge number show champions, has dogs across the country and in other countries, and is just in general one of the most well known reputable breeders there is. Now everyone on this board warns of all the health problems you could end up with buying from so called "backyard breeders" such as hip problems, neurological diseases, thyroid issues, and all kinds of other things. Well my employer supposedly one of the best has got it all. Of the 25 or so dogs she own two I give thyroid medication every day, one is diabetic, three can't get up on their own due to hip and back issues, and others are on medications for various other things as well. These $2000 dogs aren't perfect and buying from a reputable breeder doesn't mean that youre free from worry about your dog. (Though they do all have the sweetest personalitities) Now I know of two "backyard breeders" who sell their puppies for $400 have only one male and one female that have no show background. This is where my Romeo came from. I met the parents the puppies, got all the same advice my boss gives people, I'm still in conctact with his breeders, and I ended up with a wonderful puppy. Now my boss says I got lucky but I think that with some research that not all backyard breeders have to be eliminated from the puppy search. Of course puppy mills are another story but I wanted a good pet, and I got one. Romeo's has no history of medical problems back to his great grandparents, has a perfectly sweet non-agressive personality, and is beautifully within breed standard with a perfect head, gait and everything. So he isn't from a long line of best in shows, I don't care. Just let me know what you think on this topic, I know that not all big breeders are like my employer but considering her line is mixed in with almost every other line of big show champs it kind of makes you wonder what your really getting for all that money. |
|
|
| I'm really interested to see the comments on this post because it is a very "hot topic"! Before the replies begin rolling in I would like to compliment you on your 'non-agggressive' tone in your post. Although this topic is sure to bring a lot of different opinions rolling in it seems like you are well-educated and here to express your opinion and learn in a friendly way! Thank you for that!
As for myself, I have decided to get my puppy from a 'reputable breeder' because I know that she will do everything within her power to improve the breed and keep it as close to the breed standard as possible. The puppy isn't guaranteed to be healthy for the rest of his or her life, but at least I know that my breeder is breeding to improve the breed, not just because it is a fun pastime. On another note, both of my foster girls are from 'back yard breeders' and they are very healthy at the ages of 10 and 11. |
| I don't think this board really condemns "backyard breeders". I think the most important thing that is preached here is responsible breeding. I would hope that if anyone is doing a planned breeding they would do everything they could to insure their dog's health.
I would hope that the breeder that you work for does in fact discontinue those bloodlines that have serious health issues. Health issues can come up in the most "perfect" of bloodlines but if the breeder is perpetuating those issues than I think it is not out of line to question her/him about it. If your employer is a member of the Old English Sheepdog Club of America then they should have signed the "code of ethics" in regards to breeding. One of the things in the contract is: "The seller will assist the buyer in accessing information regarding health issues common in the breed. It is recommended that the seller assist the buyer in becoming knowledgeable on the subjects of hip dysplasia, monorchidism, cryptorchidism, cerebellar ataxia, eye or hearing defects, thyroid disease, and dental irregularities, to name a few. The seller should provide information as to the presence of any of these known hereditary defects in the dog’s lineage and what testing has been done to lessen the incidence of these defects." Most of the people on this board that direct people to The Old English Sheepdog Club of America referral program are under the understanding that this code of ethics is followed. The bottom line is to try and be as educated as possible to make the best decision. |
| I know this really isn't what the purpose of this thread is, but how did your boss feel about your getting a dog from another breeder? I would think that, as an employee, you'd be a good spokesperson for the kennel and that she'd be offended by your not getting one of her dogs-- especially if a potential customer would ask you where you got your OES from and you had to tell them that it wasn't from the kennel that you worked for! |
| Breeders operating on a much smaller scale than your boss are not necessarily "backyard breeders". Many of these people put more research and care into the dogs they breed than some of the largest and most respected kennels. I believe that anyone who has been in the business for any length of time has had their share of health problems. They're probably not being completely honest if they say they've never had a problem.
Of course you would love your dog no matter where it came from. I've had a dog from a "backyard breeder", (similar situation as where you bought your puppy). He had Cushing's disease but lived to a ripe old age. We've had a rescue from a puppy mill and she's still doing fine at 13-1/2. We now have a wonderful 14 month old from a small breeder that is an OESCA member and follows their Code of Ethics. We've loved them all equally, no matter what their pedigree. We just encourage people to buy from a responsible breeder, regardless of the kennel name or size. |
| What an interesting subject!
No living creature is perfect and with 25 dogs, some health problems are inevitable. The real question is how your employer deals with these health problems. I give your employer credit for providing good medical care for his/her dogs and I would expect that if there is some genetic issue, he/she uses that information in the ongoing development of his/her breeding program. Those are some of the big differences between a "reputable breeder" and a "breeder for profit". One concern I have about the reputable breeders who show is that they tend to overuse the "stud of the moment" without looking longer-term at what health issues develop. It's been happening for ages. Two of the major studs in the early 2000's were closely related (uncle & nephew), and some of their more successful offspring were used fairly extensively as well. It constricts the gene pool that "reputable breeders" use in their programs. That's not good for the health of the breed. But, the same thing happens with BYB's. They use what's available and oftentimes that's a dog from their own breeding. Inbred dogs have a boatload of probems. Another aspect of the issue....I saw a statistic from one of the humane society groups that three-quarters of the dogs that end up in shelters come from BYB's. If I had to make a choice between getting a purebred OES from a BYB and a mixed breed from a shelter, I'd get the one from the shelter because in my view, odds are it'll be healthier, plus I don't want to give BYB's any incentive to continue breeding. If I get another OES, it'll be from a reputable breeder who does health screens and can explain why she put the dam and sire of the litter together. In other words, it'll be from someone who wants to improve the breed. Another positive thing about reputable breeders is that most of them belong to OESCA and support it financially. OESCA's Health and Research committee does an admirable job in advancing the health research for the breed. |
Maggie McGee IV wrote: We just encourage people to buy from a responsible breeder, regardless of the kennel name or size.
AMEN! I wish more people had this outlook. |
| One major cause of the pet over population problem is a result of the "just one litter" mentality.
Another major cause is the backyard breeders doing it for fun or money. Puppies don't ask to be born, so when they are, we need to ask "why?" Here is a comparisan that looks at the differences between a "good" breeder and a "backyard" breeder. http://st15.startlogic.com/~justonel/breeder.html I think the most important thing is "Why" is this litter bred.....If it is for money, or to experience the "fun of having a litter", or "because we want to" or "because all my friends want a puppy" then it is just contributing to the pet overpopulation problem. There are already too many dogs that are euthanised every day becasue there are not enough homes. Many good dogs, that would make excellant pets, if given the chance. Anyone who brings more puppies into the world needs to be aware that they are making a direct impact to the problem. There is no way around it. If each litter was bred for the right reasons, and that would be "to improve the breed" we would not have the problem that exists today. Homeless dogs die every day, and every one of us can help stop the flow, should we choose to. Or we can ignore it. |
| Why bother breeding "to improve the breed"? Why not just make all breeding of any dogs illegal? Then there'd be no "over population" problem at all.
Does improving the breed mean simply adhering to or perfecting the "Breed Standard" as laid down by some Kennel Club? If it does, then I wouldn't be in favor of breeding to the AKC standard for OES. I'd want a little more in-depth standard on personality and temperment than the density of the dog's coat, or the shape of the dog's stop. Some breeders may have strange concepts of what "improves the breed". So is it OK to breed a dog to "improve the breed" if your notion of what the breed should look like differs from other people's ideas? Why should it be so wrong for people to have "just one litter" to entertain themselves, or to educate their children? Of course, we'd all want them to find good homes for the dogs, and hope that they didn't breed a sick or genetically suspect dog... Why is it wrong to breed dogs for money? Don't you think a lot of breeders breed their dogs to earn money so that they can help pay to show their dogs? |
Quote: Why should it be so wrong for people to have "just one litter" to entertain themselves, Watch the homeless dogs get euthanised at the shelter for entertainment. What about the lives of the dogs that live the next 12-15 years in misery, for 8 weeks of "fun". Quote: or to educate their children? Give me a break. Foster a pregnant dog for a shelter. Having a litter for kids teaches them irresponsible breeding practices. Quote: Of course, we'd all want them to find good homes for the dogs, and hope that they didn't breed a sick or genetically suspect dog... But they dont'....and they do..... Every puppy brought into this world takes the home of a dog that is already here.What about those dogs? Don't they deserve a home and a life? Or do we just forget about them.. Quote: Why is it wrong to breed dogs for money? Greed. Dogs have real live puppies who often do not end up in nice homes forever. Where do the dogs that are in shelters and rescues come from? They were born somewhere....and a human could have prevented it. Quote: Don't you think a lot of breeders breed their dogs to earn money so that they can help pay to show their dogs?
No. If someone wants to show their dog, they don't HAVE to breed them. But if their dog is great,and is a good match with another dog, then that would be improving on the breed, not to make money. Breeders who do it right spend a lot more money on their dogs then they ever get back from puppy sales. They do it becasue they LOVE the breed,not because they want a few extra bucks. |
Well, that answers the softballs I tossed. How about the other questions?  |
| I am not a breeder, anymore, so do not feel it is in my place to justify why any breeding of dogs occurs, until all the existing dogs have homes. If I had my druthers it would be illegal, for now, until the problem was solved.
But anyway, here goes: Quote: Why bother breeding "to improve the breed"? Why not just make all breeding of any dogs illegal? Then there'd be no "over population" problem at all. See above. Quote: Does improving the breed mean simply adhering to or perfecting the "Breed Standard" as laid down by some Kennel Club? Yes. Quote: If it does, then I wouldn't be in favor of breeding to the AKC standard for OES. I'd want a little more in-depth standard on personality and temperment than the density of the dog's coat, or the shape of the dog's stop. Then get another breed that better suits you, or join the existing breed club and fight to get some changes done. Quote: Some breeders may have strange concepts of what "improves the breed". So is it OK to breed a dog to "improve the breed" if your notion of what the breed should look like differs from other people's ideas?
The breed standard dictates the perfect example of the breed. Again, if you don't like it change breed. And if you breed your two dogs to get one that you like, keep the whole litter yourself, and don't dilute the population with ill-bred dogs.....and don't fill the shelters with homeless dogs. You answer my question, now. What do we do about the ones that are here, now, with no homes? Just forget about them? Maybe they will just go away? Or just kill them off, becasue they are not exactly what we are looking for? I'd love to stay and chat some more, but , I have at least an hours worth of emails to catch up on, as I try to help some existing homeless dogs get into new homes. Oh, and drum up some money to spay and neuter them so they don't contribute to the problem. Gee...I wonder where all the breeders are of the thousands of dogs that have crossed my path in rescue the past few months? And we contact every breeder we can, on every dog we can trace. That's my entertainment. |
| I don't think that the AKC has any kind of standing to dictate what is best for a breed, especially when all they really seem to care about is dog show conformity for the sake of dog show conformity (and of course registration fees).
If they did, there would be more than a single toss away line about temperament, herding ability or instinct or some other metal abilities of the dogs. But that's just the smaller point of "who made them boss" of all things doggie? They declared themselves, a club, as the keeper of the standards, and many people don't agree with what they see as the goal for this or other breeds. I think people ought to have the right (and with that right comes serious responsibilities) to breed their dogs (or not) for whatever purpose they see fit. Part of the responsibility they assume are for the selection of a suitable mate, for care and placement of the litter, and for humane treatment of all. |
Ron wrote: I don't think that the AKC has any kind of standing to dictate what is best for a breed, especially when all they really seem to care about is dog show conformity for the sake of dog show conformity (and of course registration fees).
If they did, there would be more than a single toss away line about temperament, herding ability or instinct or some other metal abilities of the dogs. But that's just the smaller point of "who made them boss" of all things doggie? They declared themselves, a club, as the keeper of the standards, and many people don't agree with what they see as the goal for this or other breeds. Maybe I'm confused but I thought the parent breed club dictates the breed standard to the AKC for judging, not the other way around? I know part of the process of getting a new breed recognized by the AKC, is by having a parent club establishing some kind of standard and having a track record to follow it. |
| A breed club is usually a member club of whatever registry, (AKC,CKC)
It is not just a "club" It's members are people who love the breed, and want what's best for them. If anything is changed it is discussed, debated, mutually decided upon etc... No, it is not a perfect system, no it doesn't always run smoothly, but it is better than nothing. |
| That's kind of like saying that the United States always knows and does what's best for the rest of the world. The US does what it believes to be in it's best interests first, then worries about the world. Sometimes (most of the time?) the two interests are the same, but not always.
Yes, the AKC is filled with people who love the breed for all different reasons, but the AKC does what is best for the AKC first, and the breed second. Otherwise they wouldn't issue papers carrying their imprimatur to disgusting, filthy puppy mills or BYBs who do nothing correctly in the way of health checks and placements. As a community, we can concern ourselves with trying to eradicate BYB through attack and insult, or we can try to gently dissuade by guiding people to doing things the right way. I think the latter has more of a chance of not producing ill puppies. I think that the problem of the AKC issuing papers to puppy mills producing sick dogs is the single largest preventable cause of sick dogs being sold. If the AKC would get serious about its position and become an investigation organization and then "do its job" before issuing papers, producers of sick pups would lose their market overnight, or have to raise the quality of their breeding programs. Of course I could be completely wrong in all of my assumptions, and all of my opinions. I really do want to hear your (and everybody's) opinion on this issue. I've had my mind changed a whole lot of times through this forum. I'm just one guy who, as a guy with a website, happens to sit in a position that gives me an "air of authority". Just like the AKC.  |
| No, I don't think they always do what is best, but it is better than nothing.
IMO |
| If breeding was banned until the problem got resolved, then that seems like it would be the end of dogs. I mean, they automatically neuter/spay all the shelter dogs, so let's say there comes a time that all those dogs are adopted out, then the only non spayed or non neutered dogs would be too old to breed and it would be the end for dogs.
I agree that there are a ton of dogs in shelters that need homes, but it is up to people to decide if they want to adopt them, or start with a puppy from a breeder. Don't get mad as I know it's not the same thing, but, it is like with the environment--there is a ton of pollution created with car manufacturing facilities, and there are many many used cars out there that no one is driving or wants to drive, but would be a perfectly good car to get from here to there. If people stopped buying new cars and either bought used or kept their own cars longer, then there would be less pollution. If a person has done research and has tested their dogs for health issues, etc. I don't see why they can't breed--and if they are doing it merely for entertainment, for the kids, etc. and if they have a whole neighborhood full of friends waiting to take the puppies, I don't see why not... |
| I think Ron nailed it already when he mentioned Responsiblilty. It is
breeders (all sorts) not being responsible and owners/buyers not being responsible when they decide they want "a puppy". I do not believe that back yard breeder and responsible breeder are mutually exclusive terms. I also do not believe the AKC is being responsible in their role. I talked to an old fiend yesterday and he was telling me about his dog situation. I asked how his dog (a Doberman) was, he said they (the wife) got rid of it last fall. They had only had her about a year! The wife decides not a month later that she wants a Bichon for Christmas. So he looked high and low for a Bichon (any would do) that would be in his area, ready for Christmas. Don't even ask how I reacted to his story, and I don't think I will be hearing from him again for a while. This is classic irresponsible dog buyer/owner to me. BUT-To suggest that people only buy from breeders breeding to show standard is totally unrealistic IMO. Many of the big breeders are totally unapproachable to the average owner. I think there are many reasons and goals in breeding and the AKC or breed club standard is not necessarily golden in my book. That isn't to say when I do begin breeding that I won't strive to achieve and improve the breed. I think it really comes down to responsiblilty of breeder and owner. Being a really excellent breeder regardless of kennel size is the point. I understand that Breed Standard is a 'perfect example' of the breed, but that is only a formulated opinion, an educated one - granted. But I do not believe that if you are not breeding to the AKC standard as it is, that you are necessarily going to have ill bred dogs. I think that sometimes worshipping the almighty standard is terribly short sighted, especially when they really haven't, IMO, stepped up. Shellie |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|