NYTimes: Battle Between AKC & Designer Breeders

[Groch]

Today's Sunday New York Times Magazine has an in depth article about the ethics of Designer breeding vs purebreds.

Here is the Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/magazine/04dogs.t.html?ex=157680000&en=8e6ce1dbb8bde76f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink free registration may be required.

There is something here sure to offend everyone. The author visits a puppy mill and hears its owner defend selling dogs for profit and pet stores.

He talks to an AKC breeder who euthanized and entire litter of her puppies because they were accidental mutts ("I didn't want them"she said).

There are some serious ethical issues raised on all sides.

Highly recommended.

 

[RD]

Interesting read. Sad all around . . .

 

[Laurelin]

That's interesting.

I'm shocked by this statistic: Puppy Haven produces about 3000 puppies a year. :yikes:

 

[lakotasong]

Funny you bring this up - not five minutes ago my dad was reading this and told me I should give it a read as I was leaving the room. My only comment was "Doodles suck, the article will probably just pi$$ me off."

Will read it after I've had a couple beers tonight and am less likely to get annoyed.

 

[Laurelin]

This is another odd quote from Puppy Havens-

"I feel like all dogs should be bred in a kennel just like mine.”

And things like this just plain bother me:

'A Shar-Pei presided over a crowd of beagles like a crumply-faced shogun. That was an experiment, Havens said, “just to see what happens.” "

That's just what we need, genetic 'experiments'

"Havens retired 75 adult dogs, no longer useful to him as sires or dams, to the Wisconsin Humane Society over the last year. "

That's horrible...

 

[Groch]

Funny you bring this up.....Will read it after I've had a couple beers tonight and am less likely to get annoyed.

Ashley, please do read it and give us your input. The most interesting aspects of the article for me have to do with the ethics of breeding for purpose. This applies equally to AKC as it does for breeding designer dogs.

In looking at your signature links I see you rescue purpose-bred dogs so your insight should be very relevant to this discussion.

For example, is it ethical to breed sled dogs for purpose and then consider the less desirable dogs "pet quality" as is described in the article.

Isn't it likely far more of these dogs would end up in shelters and euthanised than doodles that were bred to be family pets?

 

[Laurelin]

Since you're asking for responses, here's some of my opinions on the matter.

One of the problems highlighted is the sheer number of dogs these designer dog breeders are producing. Puppy Haven alone is producing 3000 dogs a year and in the last year sent 75 retired breeders to the shelter. A responsible breeder such as the one I purchased my dogs from ALWAYS places their retired dogs themselves. She retires and places an ex breeder maybe once every 3 years or so. Many she's kept herself. This mill is throwing out 75 dogs to take up room in a shelter that shouldn't be taken by these dogs. That's not even remotely responsible. Many of them were in poor health which would deplete funds from shelters and also fill shelters very quickly. Like I said, they produce 3000 dogs a year in one place alone with little regard to health or temperament. where do these 3000 puppies go once the new owner gets bored or finds out they're not the dog they were cracked up to be? I can assure you Puppy Haven does not take them back. A responsible breeder may have one to two litters a year, all of whom are matched to families and have contracts. They always take their dogs back. I think it's clear where the majority of unwanted dogs that cause this overpopulation are coming from.

 

[2dogmom]

I also highly doubt that it is the "responsible breeders" who are the majpr cause of overpopulation, but instead the puppymills. And it was not that long ago that the AKC was about to have an agreement with Petland, who does not get their dogs from responsible breeders.
Does anyone have any statistics on the number of purebreds being churned out by the puppymills and who are sold in petstores?

 

[Groch]

According to the article the AKC is required to register any dog that is the result of breeding 2 registered (same breed) parents.

If this is true, then Puppy mills would churn them out to the extent that there was a demand.

I have never seen statistics on where shelter dogs come from.

My assumption was always that the majority are the result of either "accidents" from unspayed/neutered dogs or because the owners wanted to teach their kids "the facts of life"....

Here's a thought, why not require these facts of life owners to bring the whole family down to the shelter to watch them euthanised as well. Why not teach them ALL the facts.

 

[Laurelin]

According to the article the AKC is required to register any dog that is the result of breeding 2 registered (same breed) parents.

If this is true, then Puppy mills would churn them out to the extent that there was a demand.

I have never seen statistics on where shelter dogs come from.

My assumption was always that the majority are the result of either "accidents" from unspayed/neutered dogs or because the owners wanted to teach their kids "the facts of life"....

Here's a thought, why not require these facts of life owners to bring the whole family down to the shelter to watch them euthanised as well. Why not teach them ALL the facts.

I read somewhere that the VAST majority came from mills and BYBs(the majority alone come from your average BYB), not oops litters or things like that. Let me try to dig up the stats....

EDIT: this is crossposted, so I don't know where the stats came from, but here's what I've heard.

Of the 52.9 million dogs who live in the United States, approximately 2.9 million of them are killed in shelters annually (AVMA, 1998, and AHA, 1998). Where do all these dogs come from? Puppy mills churn out 20% of the total number of dogs whelped yearly, and roughly 1% are the results of feral dogs reproducing on their own. Less than 12% come from breeders who actively test their stock in conformation, obedience, and field trials. Backyard breeders, or people who breed their dogs without testing and certifying their stock, produce nearly 67% of all the dogs born annually in this country (Gardner, 1994)1.

Like I said, I'm unsure of the authenticity of these stats. And these are just birth stats, not who ends up in the pound stats.

 

[RD]

Well, think about it. How many mills are there in this country? How many puppies do they put out?

IMO, mills pump out more puppies each year than BYBs oops litters and reputable breeders combined.

 

[Groch]

Laurelin,

I just found a site that has some statistics on this, supposedly from the ASPCA

http://www.geocities.com/s_u_n_pa/ShelterFacts.html

Here are some key facts:

Approximately 8-12 million companion animals enter animal shelters nationwide every year and approximately 5-9 million are euthanized (60% of dogs and 70% of cats)

25% of dogs that enter local shelters are purebred.

Only 10% of the animals received by shelters have been spayed or neutered. 75% of owned pets are neutered. Comment- If you care enough to neuter your pet then you care enough not to take it to a shelter!

And: About 65% of pet owners acquire their pets free or at low cost.
The majority of pets are obtained from acquaintances and family members. 15 - 20% of dogs are purchased from breeders, 10 - 20% of cats and dogs are adopted from shelters and rescues, and 2 - 10% are purchased from pet shops.

Comment- this survey does not distinguish "Serious" breeders from "Back Yard Breeders for Profit"....but it clearly indicates that the biggest contributor to overpopulation is not serious pet fanciers or for-profit breeders. Perhaps simply being willing to spend $200-$1000 for a dog from ANY source means you are less likely to throw it away than if you got it free from the neighbor's kid.

If these statistics are correct it does indicate that breeders and puppy mills are not the major source of the overpopulation problem....and that if we are to distinguish the ethics involved in purebreeding vs designer dogs we need look at some of the other serious issues raised by the article.

Is it ethical to purebreed a dog to the extent that it can no longer physically breed on its own (like the Pugs described in the article). Or, if the same gene that causes dalmatians to have spots is also responsible for serious health problems is it fine to continue breeding spotted dalmations?

 

[ihartgonzo]

Craaazy. =( If you think about ALL of those puppies are real, living, breathing puppies instead of just a big number... it sucks.

I do feel that BYB's produce the most pups, that are ending up in shelters. Volunteering at the SPCA, every single day, there was at least a few puppies brought in that a BYB couldn't place. However, Puppy Mills & BYB's go hand in hand, because those BYB's have to get their dogs from somewhere... and they definitely aren't getting them from reputable breeders, who require spay/neuter contracts on pets.

That's not to say that PM's don't produce TONS of unwanted & homeless dogs, they do. But if you think about it, many people do not see dogs as we see dogs... to a lot of dog owners, their pups are breeding machines, and they have the right to breed their dog until it dies. And PM's promote that by selling unaltered pets and even encouraging more bad breeding!

 

[2dogmom]

groch I finally digested the article. I guess I don't see what is offensive, maybe I am used to reading this stuff. Two things I found noteworthy:

Apparently back around 1880 when "breeds" were emerging from groups of dogs (herding dogs, gun dogs, etc) the "purists" had about the same things to say about people who wanted "purebreds" as today's "purists" have to say about people who buy designer breeds. The prices were astronomical, too. $5000 for a purebred St Bernard? That is a lot of money today, I cannot believe how much it would have been back then.

Also the author notes that the breeding of Labradoodles in Australia has apparently been done in a away that it has NOT been done (for the most part) in the US, namely the Australian breeders are making an effort to have the dog breed true, have deliberately introduced other approved breeds to get the "new breed" fine tuned.

But as your OP stated, definitiely worth reading! It can be read online too.

 

[jupiter11600]

From what they said on the radio this morning (The bill press show, nationwide i think it is) i didn't want to read it. What they were saying (Including one picking up a low shedding golden doodle this weekend) just made me sick....

 

[jason_els]

$5000 for a purebred St Bernard? That is a lot of money today, I cannot believe how much it would have been back then.

It would be $139,479.50 in 2007 dollars.

Thank you Woodrow Wilson!