Your Definition of Ethics

[Serena]

Ya know, everybody keeps saying, "I dont know of any reputable breeder". I hear this so much (and kudos fo knowing one) But I am beginning to wonder, if everyone that says this phrase actually knows a reputable breeder, then OMG! The reputable breeders out there actually should outweigh the BYBs, and the BYBs may not be the ones contributing to the over population of dogs in our shleters !!

Just a thought!

Those of us who know reputable breeders form these contacts by being involved and active within our breed.

I could say that those who don't know reputable breeders should take the time to form some worthy contacts in their breed.

I wouldn't even consider associating with anyone that is damaging to my breed.

When it comes to my breed I am very selective of the company I keep.

 

[Renee750il]

Wolfsoul:
Reputable breeder is such a loose term these days. Everyone has a different idea on what makes you ethical.

There are some things people said here that would describe me as unethical. While the litter my dog is pregnant with now is my breeder's, I will be starting my own kennel in two years. For one, I don't think both the parents need to be champions to be bred. My dog is not a champion. She has four points towards her championship, and I've been told by a judge that she is BIS quality and breeders that she is Specials quality...She is gorgeous. But she doesn't yet have her championship, and won't until next year. I do think it's important that the dog atleast be pointed, as I like to know that a dog will stand for a judge before I buy a puppy or use a stud, as Belgians can often be difficult in the ring. I also don't think that puppies need to be sold for thousands of dollars. In fact, I wouldn't even buy a puppy for thousands of dollars. For this litter, I get two puppies, and I'm GIVING one of them to a friend of mine. I have several people on my waiting list for her litter in two years that are such great homes I will probably give them a good discount, just as a thankyou for being such a great performance home. It's not a contest to see who can afford the puppies. A rich person can be just as horrible a home as a poor person. Money shouldn't be the main objective in any breeding program. The price is the breeder's perogative, but just because someone sells the puppy for under $1000, it doesn't make them a bad breeder. I will never sell my puppies for over $1000.

I think the dogs should be competed with. Whether or not the dogs are TITLED used to be of importance to me -- however, I've realised that it only matters if the dogs' temperments match up to be bred. A dog's prerequisites really aren't important to me -- in fact, the less working titles a dog has, the better match it is for Visa. She can only be bred to low drive dogs.
The dogs should be screened for any health problems that commonly occur in the breed.
The dogs should be registered and have pedigrees.
The breeder should be involved in rescue

Thank you, Wolfsoul, for stating something very, very important that no one else mentioned.

 

[Roxy's CD]

Ok, laugh point whatever.

But why should the breeder be involved with a rescue??? Sorry, I just don't get it.

 

[LabBreeder]

You are wrong. They do not require a tatto or perminate id to get a ofa certificate. You need to read up some more.
Pay close attention to the wording
Call your vet and ask.

Does the OFA require dogs to be permanently identified in order to be evaluated or included in its databases?
No, the OFA does not require permanent identification. However, all assigned OFA numbers will clearly indicate whether the dog was permanently identified through the use of the -PI and -NOPI suffixes. It should be noted that the AKC does require the dog to be permanently identified in the form of tattoo or microchip in order to include OFA or CERF data in their database.


http://www.offa.org/hdappbw.pdf -- States that OFA will post preliminary results if: A. The animal is at least 12 months at the time of radiography B. The animal must be permanently identified by microchip or tattoo C. The owner initials the authorization block to release all results.


The second one is what I was talking about mom.

 

[Saje]

Ok, laugh point whatever.

But why should the breeder be involved with a rescue??? Sorry, I just don't get it.

I think it shows they really care about the welfare of animals and that they are dedicated to their breed (if it's a breed rescue). It also shows that they aren't just producing puppies for money and that they are aware of the problems in the pet 'industry' and why it's important to breed ethically.

 

[corsomom]

I agree, If you dont rescue, dont breed.

 

[LabBreeder]

Does it have to be with an "official" rescue organization or can the breeder do their own "rescue". Ya know, they find a stray dog, take care of it, vet check, shots and find it a good home.

 

[Renee750il]

Actually, the best and most complete set of ethics I've ever read on this subject is contained in the aggregate of Love4Pits posts on breeding. She is the standard I measure any breeder against . . .

 

[Renee750il]

Does it have to be with an "official" rescue organization or can the breeder do their own "rescue". Ya know, they find a stray dog, take care of it, vet check, shots and find it a good home.

Rescue is rescue, whether you're affiliated with an organization or you just take it upon yourself. Just think what would happen if every dog owner rescued one dog . . .

 

[Saje]

I rescued four! All neutered. Who will rescue me? lol

 

[Squidbert]

Oh my.. what a heated conversation!

Well.. I think that Red and everyone who breeds the way she seems to be breeding are doing a great job in sticking to their morals and ethics. Right to the tee! And really that is wonderful. Now I said seems since I clearly can't know for sure how it's actually taking place.. I mean absolutely no disrespect in any way..

To me it is something they feel so strongly about.. and they follow their morals to the end.. whether or not you agree with their viewpoint, it still deserves respect. My best friend is a devout Christian.. though I don't necessarily believe everything she believes or live the way she does I still respect her for how she is since she follows what she believes right to the bitter end.

However there are others that have opinions, morals, ethics that clearly clash with these views.. Some people think it's ok to breed 2 healthy dogs as pets.. as long as they go to good homes and are well taken care of.. To me saying that you have to go by the breeders code of ethics.. ( I think that's what it was called) is like saying you have to go by the Bible.. I don't think it's fair to just assume the way you do things is always the right way, just because you have some code of ethics to back it up.

Now I'm not saying at all the these breeders who take it so insanely seriously are wrong.. not at all.. I think it's spectacular! I just think there needs to be a little understanding that not everyone is going to have the same code of ethics all the time..


For me I see dogs as mans best friend.. a helper.. a hard worker sometimes and a best friend. I do love all the breeds that have been developed and I love that there are people that keep those breeds intact. But I also think that sometimes the pet/friend purpose of the dogs gets lots in all the jumble.. that sometimes people take making all the breeds completly flawless and perfect a little too seriously.. and some focus sometimes needs to be brought back to making the dog a wonderful pet/worker/friend regardless of whether or not it's perfect in its breed standard. For people who try to make a perfect pet dog I can understand. And for people trying to keep all the breeds intact, I understand.. The people who don't spay/neuter their pets because they're lazy, don't think it's necessary.. don't think the animal is worth it, don't care at all about over population, don't give their pets the love and care they deserve.. those are the people I can't stand to be around. Those are the people I think all this negativity should be directed at..

But this is obviously all just my own opinion..

 

[LabBreeder]

If every dog owner rescued a dog there probably wouldn't be any left to rescue. The only problem is, it should be every GOOD owner rescuing a dog. It doesn't help if the dog goes from "free roaming street dog with no food/home" to "getting beaten and chained to a tree with no food/water".

 

[Renee750il]

I rescued four! All neutered. Who will rescue me? lol

Probably Nanook . . . with Sakari, Mikey and Maverick right behind her

It doesn't help if the dog goes from "free roaming street dog with no food/home" to "getting beaten and chained to a tree with no food/water".

Those aren't dog owners . . . those are, well, you know what they are

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

Does the OFA require dogs to be permanently identified in order to be evaluated or included in its databases?
No, the OFA does not require permanent identification. However, all assigned OFA numbers will clearly indicate whether the dog was permanently identified through the use of the -PI and -NOPI suffixes. It should be noted that the AKC does require the dog to be permanently identified in the form of tattoo or microchip in order to include OFA or CERF data in their database.


http://www.offa.org/hdappbw.pdf -- States that OFA will post preliminary results if: A. The animal is at least 12 months at the time of radiography B. The animal must be permanently identified by microchip or tattoo C. The owner initials the authorization block to release all results.


The second one is what I was talking about mom.

Ok, so I did it recently, and here is the deal on prelims.....

In order to have the info posted and displayed in the data base, you must do two things:

You must have the dog permanently ID's. Tattoo or chip will do.
You must you MUST check the box to release ALL RESULTS, normal or abnormal.

Any animal can be screened and evaluated by the OFA. Permanent ID is NOT required, however, dogs screened without permanent ID have this noted on their numbers....it will state NOPI at the end of the number. Or PI is the dog IS permanently ID'd.

If you have not visited the OFA's website recently, they have updated it, and it is an incredible pedigree research tool.

http://www.offa.org

 

[Saje]

Probably Nanook . . . with Sakari, Mikey and Maverick right behind her

Oh right. They have been so well behaved with their man around I don't know what I will go home to!

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

Yep, here is some evidence. What about Rottiegirl? Oh, and as far as Vaccaro goes, I do not in any way condone her breeding practices. But she lost a law suit by default, and it had nothing to do with selling a dog not registered with the CKC.

And yes, there are alot of Rottweilers with ED. That is why a responsible breeder breeds AWAY from it. You know, by not including them. Very easy to do. ALOT of ethical breeders have no problem. But I guess in your case what would you do, get yet ANOTHER bitch and start over. Nope, you are desperate for a litter.

And you never answered, how did your puppies get Parvo?

I believe the rescue I had on my property about 11 mos before this litter brought parvo with it.

There are more things to consider in a breeding than simply the elbow status. You may breed as you wish, but for me, a dog or bitch with one elbow grade 1 does not exclude it from my consideration for breeding at this point.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

This is a quote from a great friend and breeder of Rotties.

"I would not breed a dog who tested pos for DJD.
Some people do (certainly not people thinking of the future of the breed).
OFA says DJD is like a fair and still can be bred,but they have also told me (years ago) breeding a dog of Border line and mild is Okay.
When people put alot of money into their dogs and have all their hopes and dreams shattered because the dog did not pass a health clearence,they change the rules to suit them selves.
One of the top winning dogs has DJD II (supositly as there is no record on the OFA site to state other wise)and everyone is breeding to him.Soon no one will be able to breed to anything without these DJD lines in them
Back in the day when we found out about HD and started x-raying for that all Possitive dogs were excluted,DJD dogs should be also.
Another thing they tell you to justify them using DJD dogs is that over 40% of the dogs tested have it so you can't excluded.
Last year.
Normal elbows 462 dogs
indeterminate 0
DJD I 56
DJD II 11
DJD III 3
total 70 bad and 462 passing that is no where near 40%.They also say other countrys allow you to breed dogs with DJD I so we should too.It is a genetic thing and some lines have DJD for 3 generations and still they keep breeding them."

Your friend is entitled to her own views and opinions, as am I.

My statistics come DIRECTLY FROM THE OFA WEBSITE.

And there is no "they say". It is a fact that NO country disallows the breeding of Grade 1 ED individuals. I did not make these regulations. The breed wardens in Germany, Switzerland, etc. did.

 

[AndrewF]

I rescued four! All neutered. Who will rescue me? lol

ummmm.....no, I won't ask.....

 

[sportingdogs]

In my opinion, an ethical breeder is one who takes care of their dogs. If they're breeding labradoodles, pugs or mutts, they have to care for their animals as well as possible - they have to provide decent food, a clean living area, thorough vet care and a good partnership relationship with a human.

Finer points - I believe anyone breeding for show or pet homes has an absolute responsibility to make a gentle temperament their first priority. I don't care if the breed was originally intended to kill bears or guard estates, the puppies are going to be living in normal 21st-century homes and all the breed history in the world doesn't justify creating another generation of dangerous dogs. There are more than enough in the world already. The only exceptions are for people who breed exclusively for working dogs - dogs who, if they aren't good enough to work, will not be simply released to the general, unprepared population of would-be pet owners. This is a tiny subsection of the dog world.

I believe that it's possible that breeding mutts or 'pet-quality' dogs is a good thing. It's true that there are many dogs in shelters who need homes, but it's also true that many of those dogs are unsuitable for the majority of available homes. I love all three of my shelter dogs, and have never had any interest in breeding dogs, btw, I just think that playing the numbers game - there are 3 gazillion dogs in the shelter, and that labradoodle just doomed one! - is pointless. That argument behaves as if all dogs are equal. I'd rather have my shelter mutt than any purebred at the local AKC show, but I'd rather spend $1000 for a purebred than $50 for an ill-natured shelter dog.

The breeders who are really destroying dogs are puppy mill operators and the people who breed so-called fighting dogs. These are the dogs who, when they end up in shelters, are the most likely to be unadoptable, unhealthy and nasty. They create the large numbers of puppies and dogs who become unwanted every day. The lazy guy who never got around to neutering his dog, or the woman who wants her kids to experience the wonder of puppies before neutering their pet - they might not be the most responsible of owners but their output is just a drop in the bucket compared to the people who produce thousands of litters a year for pet shops and the people who intentionally produce aggressive dogs for fighting/posturing. The worst 'doodle breeder in the world would blush to be as openly craven and greedy as these two.

Statistics show that it IS those one-time breeders (your "lazy guy") that cumulatively make up the GREATEST population of puppies out there. Sure, ONE guy with an accidental (or out of ignorance) litter of puppies is a drop in the bucket...but multiply that by millions (look at the big picture)..and you've got a LOT OF DOGS. For every responsible owner/breeder, I can show you 20 people that have casually had a litter and sold through newspaper ads to the first caller or gave away without screening..maybe it was five years ago, maybe it was last week, or maybe they have a litter due next month; point is, THEY are the problem...these "breeders" and their ignorant buyers.

 

[sportingdogs]

I didn't mean that the question of ethics doesn't matter.....I should have phrased it as "What does it matter to Summit what other people's idea of ethics are?

I don't see anything wrong with breeding pets b/c they are nice or pretty. As long as everyone is healthy, go for it....AND, that the puppies will have a good home to go to or stay in the home they were born into. I do think that there are too many dogs in shelters, but I also believe that a lot of these dogs are in shelters b/c people are too concerned with having the perfect dog by "breed standards" and these shelter dogs are not good enough for them.

What I don't believe in is all this breeding to get the perfect dog so that the owner can win a title and get recognition. This to me is all about greed. And this goes back to my last statement about shelter dogs not being good enough for some....

I'm logging off, won't be back on until tomorrow... I'm sure I'll have a lot to respond to.

I respectfully disagree with you. Pish, tosh...the people that dump their dogs in shelters don't know the FIRST THING about breed standards...they don't care about "the perfect dog"....that is BS...dogs get dumped in shelters because people buy/adopt on impulse and get more than they bargained for...or they know NOTHING about dog behavior and cannot handle an unruly teenage puppy, or dammit, they just don't CARE about the dog anymore. It has NOTHING to do with show quality dogs, or dogs not being "good enough" for some...