What the kennel property was used for.

Because we tend to agree about the level of care dogs should recieve, including breeding operations, all we do is jump on the bandwagon?

I see what FK and Dizzy are saying and I do agree *a bit*.

There is leeway about what one considers ethical and what another considers ethical.

Many people here only think it's okay to breed titled dogs, then there are those that only want to breed working dogs. In toys it can be considered by many okay to not health test- the majority of 'reputable' breeders don't. That's why there's only 229 OFA'ed Japanese Chins. It isn't even mentioned in our COEs, whereas in other breeds, it's integral.

Many people want breedings to have multiple generations of health clearances, other breeds are absolutely impossible to do this with. Is it okay to breed a toy to an uncleared stud? Or how about if they're both the first generation with health clearances? You've got to start somewhere. There is no 'one size fits all' breeding scenario.

That doesn't mean that I still don't have my own code of ethics and morals.

That said, it's the conditions of the property that I have a problem with. I can't see how breeding and keeping dogs in those conditions or in those numbers can be considered ethical at all. And I doubt anyone will change my mind on that.

Depends what you think of dogs.

To some people they are a tool - a herder, or like a dairy cow is to a farmer.

To some people they are awful.

Some people's favourite animals are pigs, or tortoises. They would say we should all feel the same about pig or tortoise welfare.

Why should we pick and choose which animals we favour?

Not ALL people have dogs as pets. Not ALL people have house dogs. Not ALL people advocate puppymills because they don't judge a breeder by the kennel, but by how they are with their dogs, how happy their dogs are etc etc.

You are judging a person by a photo which isn't even linked to them.

And just because I appreciate other people don't have the same ideas as ME, it doesn't mean I agree with mass breeding.

Oh, wait... because I said something about someone you think does, that makes me too, right?

Judging by the logic here.

Now who's making assumptions.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I can say that's NOT what I am judging her on. I can think for myself, thank you, and I don't need someone to tell me "Hey this is a bad breeder" to come to that conclusion.

FYI, I knew of Goldiepaws, aka Adrienne Wilder, aka Adrienne Wilder Loggins, aka Frenchkissed before she became a member here.

So you judge people by things you see on the net?

Do you believe everything you read in the papers and see on TV too?

Dizzy, the things people have found on the net SHE put there herself.

Honestly, by you sitting here saying that we are judging her on a picture that has nothing to do with her and basically telling us to leave her alone because "you can't believe everything you read on the net", comes across as you defending her.

Oh and "you can't believe everything you read on the net" applies to you as well. You sat there and said that people said good things about her on the net remember?

I have done my research, been on her *3* websites, counted as many as 53 different dogs, saw pictures of concrete runs set up in an SPCA fashion. I am judging her buy what she has said here and what I have seen with my own two eyes that she HERSELF posted on HER websites.

I am not here to defend her.

See - none of you actually READ posts.

You look at them, then fill in the gaps.

I said TWICE now.

Face it - you know nothing about her... Nothing. You know as much about her as I know about you, or you know about me.

You see a few pics, and fill the gaps in yourself.

I can show you a few pics... write a few lines... I could be anything you want me to be.

Get this through your head dizzy. We know who she is, what she is like and what she is doing!!!!!! Apparently you don't read posts because I JUST explained that to you. Everything we are having a problem with came from her websites and her mouth!!!

Do you not agree that there is a problem with what I just posted about her in my previous post???

Hate to break it to you Dizzy, but to people who are in support of ethical breeding practices, she's not breaking news....

Defend someone who deserves it.

Oh dear....

Really... You're not getting the jist of it are you?

Nopes...

Ok... At ease - assume your positions men. You may arry on saving the world now. Carry on not reading what people are saying, and carry on making up your own fairytales....

I can see just by how you responded to MY post what kind of mentalities you're in...

And that mentality is... focussed on one person. When I have said repeatedly that's not what I was addressing.

But carry on.

If you like, I'll play along? If it makes your evening more fulfilling?

I, for one, would hate to see the thread/topic locked yet again, so long as the personal attacks/insults stay out of it.
Why? Because I, and FK especially (and quite a few others who may be apprehensive about posting in fear of being 'outed' and 'labled' for speaking what they feel), have done nothing more than try to present the 'big picture' that appears to be getting bigger every day in the pet/dog world...and backing it with the facts. And after reading through some of the more recent posts it appears that a few here are beginning to 'get it' and understand what it is we are trying to get across. I am sure there are many more 'lurking' that are learning from this as well but refuse to be 'labeled' for admitting to such.
The one thing I find alarming (but not unusual) is that there seems to be a different set of 'ethic' rules for a few (or group) here. One one hand you have some saying that unless you 'prove' your dogs in some kind of sport venue, you are unethical for breeding them, but it is ok for someone else to do that very thing because they have a CH pedigree and bred to a CH. I have seen dogs with nothing pedigrees far superior to dogs in the ring with 'red letter' pedigrees...but it is wrong to breed those dogs, regardless of the fact that the beeder chooses to breed dogs to better the breed and provide sound stable healthy 'pets' to those actually looking for quality instead of the first thing they see, but not to show them. I have even heard show folks mention that it is a shame they don't show them because they are very nice dogs, but if someone DOES decide to show one of those pups they are frowned upon in the show community and called BYB/PM dogs all because they have a 'nothing' pedigree after only a few generations.
FK does prove her dogs, does all the required/needed health screenings, raises them in a safe, clean, loving enviroment, but is persecuted because of the 'number' she has and how she chooses to raise them. Nothing is hidden and is quite public as many of you have found out by actually looking for yourselves. And then someone else makes a comment about her sending them out with a handler to show?....now that is a ethic 'crime' as well??? I am sure the professional handlers would like to hear that one...as well as others that use handlers because they may or may not have a choice in showing their own dogs for any variety of reasons...staying home with the rest of their dogs, health reasons, or whatever. Ever think about that?? Or is it because some 'assume' it is only about the ribbons to increase the profit? What's also funny is everyone 'assumes' she does it all by herself...with no help. Did anyone ask? Gee, maybe if she does have help she DOES have the time to give all the attention and love and time she needs to make her dogs happy little campers.
Many have gotten upset at the insinuation of being ARist in their thinking.
Just what DOES the acronym 'PETA' mean. People for the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals....and all I hear on these posts over and over is 'Ethics'...yet ethics is no more than an individual or group opinion or belief when broken down to the basic definition. The very thing you say you despise is the very thing that is being supported through the posts...and that is just what the AR's want...that division between what one believes is ethically right and what someone else believes is ethically AND legally right.
And, I wasn't even going to touch the subject of comparing dogs to children...but give some thought to those children that are aborted, put up for adoption (and yes, even sold through private adoption), or abandoned. All of that is 'legal' here even if many think it is ethically wrong...even the abandonment if it is done legally. And then there are the countries that still practice culling their children because it was of the wrong sex...both before and after birth.
I for one have enjoyed finally seeing some open minded debate in this area and if even one person 'gets it' it makes it all worth the effort.

Dizzy, I get what you are saying.

You are telling us to quit reading between the lines, assuming things, that we know nothing about her, etc. right?

Most of us are not assuming, we are not reading between the lines and we DO know what she is like . We are telling the TRUTH!!!

You are telling us that we are not reading your posts or anyone elses here. We are!

You are assuming that we have no clue what we are talking about.

I understand what you are getting at. It's impossible to really agree on one idea of an ethical breeder. Really, it's hard to get everyone to agree on anything 100%. But all I know is what I'd look for in a breeder and what I hope others would look for too. In your example, I would consider breed C ethical as long as they spayed/neutered all the dogs when they realized a problem existed. I want the breeder of my future dog to make a true effort in producing a healthy pup, by doing all the proper screenings of the parents. I understand that it wouldn't guarantee a dog that's free of health problems, but I'd have better chances. I'm not a risk taking type of person. Some people are, but I'm definitely not. That's why I wouldn't agree with breeder Y or Z, too much risk of pups being born with problems. When getting a puppy, I want the best odds that I can get that it will be healthy. As far as I know, the only way to really do that is by careful screening and testing. In my personal opinion, that's the major issue that separates good breeders from bad breeders/uninformed breeders.

Nope - that was just a side line.

I was asking about hypocrisy.

About breeders on this board who in my eyes should be shunned in the way you shun others.

I know someone on this board who purchased their dog from a mass breeding kennel, and woah - it wasn't even QUESTIONED.

In fact... that kennel was HIGHLY regarded.

THAT is the hypocrisy of which I speak.

Geddit?

Or is that ok because they are..... established members?

Or - is that just favouritism?

What is being discussed here has been discussed many times with many JCCA memembers...so don't you worry.

Apparently I miss a lot of the drama as Ihave no idea who you're talking about. lol


All of my statements were in general and talking about what I believe to be right, not aimed at a specific person.

After all this I still believe that keeping dogs in the pens that were shown in the original picture is still not right.

*wanders back to her own little world*

Dizzy, I apparently have NO CLUE who you are talking about that bought a dog from a "reputable" mass breeder, so I am not being a hypocrite.

Boo - I have to go to sleep.

Before I go though, and you continue with the witch hunt...

Perhaps you should look at the ethics of some people closer to home... on this very board... before you continue to be judge and jury to someone else.

If you didn't speak in circles, maybe someone COULD follow.

So you accuse me and others of judging a person on a picture. I clarify that this is not the case. But now that's not what you were talking about?

Whatever. This is boring, running in circles, getting no where, and quite frankly tiresome.

Go back to whatever it was that you were trying to prove. Maybe someone else will get it.

I surely don't.

The treatment of animals, the ethics behind a breeder's practices, etc....that's what I have been speaking out about all along. It could be Frenchkissed, it could be YOU, it could be anyone here....my opinions wouldn't change.

To regard a dog as a piece of property, no more important than a shoe, is the first step to seperating it as a living animal. If one does not hold a living animal in higher esteem, how can I possibly believe they are ethical as a breeder....even as a person.

Maybe that's what it takes to be a successful multibreed puppy farmer....reducing your living breathing animals to nothing more than "stock" and treating them as such.

I'm done, seriously, it's been fun, but it's gotten no where.

Just don't accuse me of witch hunting when there is more to it than that.

My dog was bred by a lying unethical piece of crap. She had a wonderful pedigree.....grandaughter of the top titled US dane in history....She is two years old and has almost died twice now, some days she can hardly walk. She has massive problems that cost me upwards of $400 a month, and those are the GOOD MONTHS.

So yeah, when I see people breeding dogs that don't have the best interest of the dog in mind, IT PISSES ME OFF. People deserve better than that, and most certainly the dogs do as well.