I very much like the sentiment of Chis Dignan's blog The Value of a Dog's Life on the Dog Saving Network.
I know Chris. A good guy, a talented trainer - wants to do the right thing, and typically I enthusiastically agree with him. I hope this turns some of you on to his blog. Having said that - I disagree with his well-meaning post.
I could write a book on this - it's a complex issue. The shocking fact is that we actually don't have a dog over-population issue as defined by some. And responsible breeders are not to blame for the complex web of dogs in shelter issues. The "blame" goes to what we want as a society, the animal rights groups themselves, our willingness to give up on pets so easily, those who breed that should not and our unwillingness to get real bad guys who run puppy mills.
Listen, up front, let me point out, absolutely too many dogs die in shelters and I support American Humane's Adopt-a-Dog Month 800 gazillion percent. Robin and I currently have an Iams Home 4 the Holidays shelter dog (named Ethel) who was dumped at Chicago's Animal Care and Control. But in many big cities, that box of a litter of pups dumped at shelters is actually a rare event nowadays.
The good breeders may be easy target to growl at, but that's not a bang wagon that makes any sense to jump on. Not only are they not a part of the problem, I argue they are part of the solution.
By mandating spay/neuter in contracts and demanding that if for some reason - even years from now - the dog must be given up that they are contacted. They carefully screen about who they sell to in the first place. What have they done wrong?
In fact, reproductive experts concur - we need the good breeders if we want to continue to have pure bred dogs. And, you see, the
public - right, wrong, otherwise - wants pure bred dogs. Or at least many do, about 35 to 50 percent of dog owners have pure bred dogs. That's a significant number, obviously.
To continue to have those pure
bred dogs that people demand, with our supply/demand economy, the
choices: Either good breeders to meet the demand, or there will be MORE
puppy mill type places and more sloppy breeding done in secret. That's because animal rights groups are writing "puppy mill laws" which happily could go after puppy mills, but are so wide-sweeping they discourage good breeders from bothering to continue their hobby. Most people unknowingly support these bills because they are marketed as puppy mill laws.
Fact is there IS NOT an over-population of dogs issue as many describe (cats are another story). While, as I mentioned, some shelters with low numbers relieve filled shelters in other counties or states; some even look to Mexico or Puerto Rico to get dogs.
A part of the problem are the population of dogs found at shelters. People don't want what's in their backyards. In some parts of the country (greatly rural places) the shelters are filled with sporting
breeds which won't hunt.
In many shelters, everywhere, particularly urban areas, it's Pit
Bull type dogs from one end to the other. In California, as has been in the news, shelters are overrun with Chihuahua looking dogs.
In fact, some shelters don't alert pure bred rescues when they have
found that pure bred Beagle or Miniature Schnauzer because they KNOW
they can adopt them out, even though if by alerting rescue they
can free up cage space for another Pit Bull-type dog, for example. The shelters are also in the "business" of adoption.
As I said at the start...I am not suggesting that shelters aren't killing (euthanizing is in some ways too kind a word here since many dogs in shelters don't need to die). Yes, far too many people still consider dogs disposable, or don't know how to deal with behavior issues and give up and then nowadays there's the economy. YES YES! YES! There remains a problem....and every needless death matters...absolutely, we need to encourage adoption, but we don't need to discourage responsible breeders. In fact, for the benefit of dogs; we need to find a way to encourage responsible breeders, as their hobby has become expensive, never mind political obstacles. Sometimes the largest donors to shelters have the Labradoodles of the world (ironic). And those are nothing more than expensive mixed-breed dogs.
As for puppy mill laws - fine - I suppose. The truth is, we have laws on the books today - it's a matter of enforcement, and then the willingness to prosecute.
There's much more here - as I said, a complex issue.
But the over-population is not the fault of the good breeders. I am grateful for those who care the most.
I have very little problem with shelters helping each other out by transporting dogs from full shelters to ones where adoption is more likely. I STRONGLY object to shelters importing dogs from other countries just so they have "adoptable" animals. When they start doing that they are in the business of "selling" dogs, not adopting them.
Did you look at the blog he was talking about? It has absolutely nothing to do with responsible breeders. It's a "how to" for making big money breeding and selling dogs. There most certainly is an over-population problem in many areas. One shelter in MO received 366 dogs in the first 10 days of July. Many shelters are euthanizing every single day. Internet rescue boards are jammed with pleas from shelters and pounds from every state. They are slammed with animals. Some have three or four or more dogs in each run, trying to make room and put off euthanizing. It's not the fault of "responsible breeders", but they aren't helping, either. Parts of the east coast have done a good enough job educating and promoting spay/neuter that they have less of a problem and actually welcome transports of shelter dogs and pups from southern states to meet the adoption demand. Most parts of the country are not so fortunate. The need for education and low cost spay/neuter in many areas is huge. I really don't think you have an understanding of how big the problem is. The economy has made the problem worse than ever and the carnage is unbelievable. You say shelters are in the "business" of adoption. Yes. some of them pick and choose the dogs they take for adoption. Often it is because the more desirable the dogs, the quicker they are adopted and the more dogs they can take in and save. I think you do a terrible disservice to rescuers and shelters and all the people working so hard in the trenches when you say there is no over-population problem. I totally agree that part of the problem is what people want. Now it's the "doodles", two years ago it was "puggles". I can go on-line and find dozens of each that have been dumped in shelters already. The problem with breeders is that everybody thinks they are one. "Responsible breeders" are very few and far between. I know you are acquainted with many in your circle, but when it comes down to it, the percentage of good breeders in pretty low. I agree that not all of the legislation that is being presented is good, but something has to be done to stop the slaughter. Education is sorely needed. People don't know how big the problem is and don't grasp the importance of spay/neuter. We have to drastically cut down the number of animals born in order to be able to stop the mass killing.
Hey JT,
I was trying to point out exactly what you said about it being about big money and selling dogs. Responsible breeding is a separate subject. I was truly alarmed to see the EBook I referenced in my post and most of that post was dedicated to the issue of breeding for profit, not for the integrity of the breed.
I meant to say the EBook you referenced in your blog. Not your blog. I know you weren't pushing indiscriminate breeding, Sorry!
So to defend reputable breeders everywhere you ignored doing research on the initial material(the ebook), not really sure how I feel about that. The situation about homeless pets is a very complex problem, but that does not mean it can not be tackled bit by bit. The ad for the ebook claims he made $230,000 in 2007 selling pups, and further on he mentions he gets 2200 a sale, that is a lot of puppies sold in a year. Greed does not even begin to cover it. Yes I get that you were trying to explain how one issue, breeding, is complex and breeders can help not be greedy, but you ignored a huge part of Chris' blog the initial reason he wrote it, in order to help explain to people the complexity of all this ignoring the ad really does hinder it.
yup - you are right. I did say somewhere in all this, I am not commenting on, nor defending the ebook.
Sorry grammatical change - Yes I get that you were trying to explain how one issue, breeding, is complex and breeders can help, and not be greedy. But, you ignored a huge part of Chris' blog- the initial reason he wrote it. In order to help explain to people the complexity, all of this ignoring hinders it.
Aside from the comments here - I've received MANY private comments, most agree with me, some don't. As well as some posts on my Facebook Fan page (agree or not, hope you become a fan). Chris knows this is not about him personally, and I have enormous respect. I just took this opportunity to talk about an issue some see as taboo.
I don't know about the ebook - and AGREE many so called breeders are no breeders at all, but instead just people who hook up dogs to make a buck, or just because. I absolutely believe these people should be neutered,or their dogs should be - or both. Responsible breeders, I suggest, would agree.
As for JT's comments - Yes, there are many places in America where there remains a canine over-population issue. And in many of those (not ALL of those) places, the dogs the shelters are filled with are mostly of one or two types, Pit Bulls, sporting dogs, Chihuahua types are now common. Though shelters do get everything. And I wrote in my first post that the economy has made it all more of a problem.
Saying I do a disservice to shelters makes my point. Shelters are amazing (the good ones, and rescue groups too)...The individuals who work there are in the trenches and underpaid. Sometimes, I think they deserve combat pay. But because I admire their work, doesn't mean I need to dislike or want to ban the really responsible breeders who follow a code of ethics. And anyone who knows me, or simply Googles my work will know my support of shelter adoption, and individuals who work at shelters.
As for breeders profiting or not? They can comment here - if they like...most good ones, actually lose money these days with the vet care and testing required for most breeds. But if they make a buck, fine by me. I don't care. Maybe they should charge a little more. Maybe, just maybe if people paid more for dogs, they wouldn't as likely give them up (though I'm unsure of this theory).
Actually, there is a pet over-population problem. And two of the major players are puppy mills and irresponsible people who don't spay or neuter and allow their dogs to produce more homeless dogs.
Millions of dogs and cats are dying in shelters every year, partly because there are not enough willing homes to adopt them. Some people rightfully suggest we need better programs in local shelters to promote adoption and spay/neuter. But in the meantime, we've got an overpopulation problem, most notably in the South.
In one respect, puppy mills are producing a percentage of dogs with physical and emotional problems. Too many of these dogs die an early death, due to the illness or after being turned over to a shelter because of their emotional 'issue.'
Also - the anti-puppy mill bills typically focus on requiring regular veterinary care, larger cage sizes to allow the dogs to move around, regular exercise, clean food and water and in some cases - inspection systems.
All of these requirements go to the health and care of the dogs and are not "wide-sweeping" or discouraging to good breeders. The good breeders offer their dogs regular vet care and regular exercise and clean food and water.
Good breeders do not cage their breeding dogs 24/7.
What we need to do is leave the breeding to the good breeders and shut down the puppy mills. And that means shutting down the breeders who do not or will not meet the standards set forth in many of the proposed or enacted anti-puppy mill laws.
Tom, more appropriate bills to go after puppy mills...written appropriately, fine. But right now, at this moment - there are laws in each and every state which could and should be closing down Puppy Mills. No one wants puppy mills. I can't tell you why these laws aren't enforced. And when they are, which is rare, why the courts don't take it seriously.
Of course, Puppy Mills are WORSE than awful places....and their conditions right there are reason to be closed down by the Department of Agriculture. So what the heck?
Many of the proposed bills DO go after anyone breeding, limit good breeders at the very least. Interesting you say, they are all about vet care - then (generally) why are veterinary groups not so thrilled, even opposed? Have you actually read the bills? Moreover, who is supporting them? One organization, spending tons and tons on lawyers, lobbyists, etc. Instead, this organization could be doing more than raising money through headlines, but instead not exploiting puppy mills for their own publicity.
Meanwhile, no one seems to really answer this question - why aren't the laws we have now - which could shut down puppy mills instantly - not enforced? Actually, I do get answer, a lack of employees at the Dept. of Ag is one (how will new laws change that?)....We don't need new laws, just resolve to enforce what we have. Of course, we all want to see puppy mills go away. I wonder why that mostly is not happening. I don't know the complete answer to that.
In part, though, it's supply and demand. If we stop purchasing dogs originally from these places, they will need to go out of business - but the American public isn't educated enough, or doesn't have that resolve either.
Steve,
You're right. More should have been done to date to shut down the mills. But on the federal, level there is the loop hole these breeders have been leaping through to avoid FDA inspections, with fro example sales over the Internet. Hopefully, that loophole will soon be closed.
Funding and resources are - as you suggest - real problems at the local, state and federal level.
But we need to set these standards for cage sizes and exercise (and minimal vet care) that are not currently written into the laws.
Why can't the mills be shut down "instantly?" Law enforcement agencies are calling for these better regulations because currently the conditions have to be especially bad before they can move in.
Again, the better breeders do not cage their dogs 24/7. We are learning more about animal cognition, self-awareness and state of consciousness. (I research in this area and write about it often.)
Caging an animal, with no opportunity for play and exercise is cruel. We need regulations to prevent this.
I have no problem with the good breeders who live with their dogs or have facilities that allow for the best possible lives for the dogs in their care. I've visited breeding operations and breeders' homes where this is the case.
Again, on these topics, the good breeders will not be effected because they offer play areas and overall good care.
I suspect some of the veterinary organizations might oppose these bills might be doing so for the same reason I suspect the AKC opposes them - fear that it might cut populations and thus overall sales (registrations and customers). I suspect this because why would they oppose better vet care and requirements for larger cage sizes and regular exercise, which all go to the health of the dogs?
By the way - great blog. And I really enjoy these discussions where people can intelligently debate all sides of an issue.
The good news is - more light is being shined on the puppy mill issue, in local and national media outlets.
Well, we agree - Of course, it is cruel to cage animals 24/7. What's more, the result will be problem animals which are sold due to the insufficiency of how they are raised. That is wrong. YES!
However, the laws you say we need don't only focus on this -
And it's not that law enforcement agencies are greatly saying they need better laws. The animal rights group has lobbyists, they sway politicians, who then suggest to law enforcement what they 'might' testify. I say we greatly have the laws in place now. If not, sure, lets write appropriate enforceable laws. Right now, the problem (or excuse) is that there isn't anyone to enforce.
Internet sales - not what I am referring to here...We didn't have laws because there was no Internet. Now, we do have some laws. I thought some of that 'loophole' was closed.
I can't comment on AKC positions. I can on the veterinarians. I can assure you they are not opposed for the reason I think you describe here. In your previous comment, you suggested more vet visits, actually...They oppose for reasons I describe, although I certainly don't want to speak for the veterinarians.
At this moment there are Federal humane standard laws - and most local municipalities and all states have similar laws...I don't believe the worst of puppy mills could be considered humane by any standard, and even they continue to operate.
No matter, responsible breeders don't want to see these places continue either....nor do you or I, or the veterinarians, or people in animal welfare....yet, they are here. What's the deal?
Truth is responsible breeders have nothing to do with these places.
The public want pure bred dogs - that is a reality. So, yes, let's work to close down the bad places, but also encourage the good places to do it right and help them, even. That's right. Use positive reinforcement, just like how we train dogs.
Steve,
Legislation is in the works currently to close the Internet loophole at the federal level.
http://packmentality.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/proposed-federal-puppy-mill-regulation-is-a-good-step/
As far as the state bills go, I've read many of the bills in question - and across the board, they typically contain the health and exercise standards I've noted above. None of it is an attack on good breeders, who already adhere to the better standards.
I've read and heard people suggest the guidelines would hurt good breeders, but I'm yet to see particulars on how specifically these guidelines would do harm to good breeders who already meet and exceed the minimum guidelines.
In NC for example, inspections were not even required, other than in cases where people might witness problems and report them.
The NC bill very simply set the number dogs that determine the category of commercial breeder - and health and exercise guidelines. Yet, the AKC and other groups opposed the measure.
I guess I'm not getting the opposition from these groups, to minimum standards of care. I'll admit I'm really stumped by the veterinary groups opposing these - again - minimum standards of care. It leads me to question their motives.
You're my hero, Steve! So many don't understand that adopting a rescue and careful breeding are not mutually exclusive.
Hey Steve,
Thanks for the comments. I am very new to this blogging thing and I know overpopulation is a complex issue. I was trying to keep the issues of responsible breeders and breeders for profit as two separate issues. Looks like I failed in that regard. But I do have one recurring thought when it comes to responsible breeding...Is it truly responsible for people to continue to breed animals when there are far too many animals available for adoption? My personal thoughts are that the preservation of life is more important than the integrity of a breed. Not to say that I don't enjoy the diversity of the domestic canine but how can we create life at the expense of another? I love the conversation that has been started on here. I hope it continues.