[xoxluvablexox]

Just wanted to add that it's your daughters life and she has HER right to not have a child just as much as a dog should have the right to not be condemed to death because of some idiot that doesn't know how to breed but thought it would be something nice to try out.

[cshellenberger]

I have to sign for her to get a HPV shot or birth control, I should have a say about her pregnancy too. Abortion is a dangerous procedure, if done incorrectly or an incomplete medical history it's not just the fetus that won't be around anymore. Abortion can also be mentally devistating NO woman should have to go through it alone. She is MY child, I gave birth to her and I should have a say too. I'm actually Prochoice, but I don't think teenaged girls realize what they are going to go through with this procedure and the choice should be made as a family.

[xoxluvablexox]

I agree but in some cases people are so against it that they would rather force the girl to go through having the child and then taking care of it. I don't think that's right. Even if she is their child they shouldn't be the final say in what she does with her body.
Just as I don't think people should have complete control over breeding dogs. Their needs to be a way to weed out the people that aren't responsible enough for breeding dogs and there needs a way to prevent them from breeding. A law is the only thing that comes to my mind that would be able to have some control over the breeding of dogs.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

And just who would be qualified to make such a judgement?

Assuming this is about the "breeder seal of approval", who is qualified to write the various club's COE's? In my opinion, breeders who are truly responsible should be doing more to educate the public about what it means to be a responsible breeder. Doesn't it seem odd that breeders can ban together to fight laws, but they apparently aren't banning together to promote responsible breeding, and educate the public? I've been "educated" by a lot of supposedly responsible breeders, and yet I keep finding others who also claim to be responsible, who contradict each other. If breeders can't figure it out, and come up with a consensus, how do they ever expect the public to figure it out?

[Alpha]

Just like on this thread, between breeders their standards are going to vary.

My trainer won't sell a puppy to someone who takes their dogs to dog parks, while another thinks it's ok.

I think the law is absolutely ridiculous. Having the pitbull ban here, I know it won't work. People will still keep intact animals, most likely the ones that the law is designed for. While the responsible dog owners suffer.

I know, I'm going through it now with my dog. I abide by the rules, and the ones with Pitbulls doing illegal dog fighting do not.

It's sloppy, goes completely against what new studies are showing with animals altered before 14 months and according to science is NOT good for dogs.

If this is all about what's best for our dogs, why does the law include altering them before they are fully matured? What's best for dogs is having responsible owners. Instead of dealing with upfront problem, overpopulation, why don't they deal with the core problem, people.

[ChRotties]

Well, here's an FYI for ya'.....yes, we responsible ppl do TRY to educate the puppy/dog buying public....I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and while the folks may HEAR the words, not all of them actually LISTEN!

Showing and breeding is subjective...what I consider correct temperament, may not be to another, in other breeds...our health concerns are not prevalent in other breeds....while on the outside, a dog/bitch may seem mediocre to me, that doesn't mean that brood animal can't produce better than what they are.....one of the true marks of a responsible breeder is taking responsibility for what they have produced for the ENTIRE life of that dog....and I don't care how much showing, research, testing, blah, blah, they have done....if they bred it, they are responsible for that puppy for it's entire life should something happen to it's owner and have to take it back...

Breeders and breed clubs try to educate....but you can't force people to do the right thing and heed your words....

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

You find a breeder that strives for all pieces, Conformation + Temperment + Health + Work ability. Personally, for what I want, I would put conformation on the bottom of the list with temperment and health on the top. YOU have to know what you want, then find a breeder who looks for the same thing. THAT'S where education on the breed and on breeding ethics comes into play.

The most important thing for a breeder to do IMO is to STAND BEHIND THIER DOGS no matter what. If a breeder accepts dogs back for any reason and is there for the puppy's families THAT is the most responsible breeder, THAT is a breeder that isn't adding to the overpopulation.

An EDUCATED buyer/adopter

The problem with deciding if a breeder is responsible based on whether they will take their dogs back is that one would have to buy a dog from then in order to find out. A breeder saying they will take the dog back is no guarantee that they really will if the time came. And unfortunately, this isn't something that can be learned from other breeders or other buyers because it's unlikely that they would know if a breeder who claimed she took all her dogs back, truly turned one, some, or all - away. The decision that a breeder is not responsible comes AFTER they have done something irresponsible - not before.

So again, how does someone know whether the breeder they are buying from is responsible or not? If there were a "seal of approval" process, at least breeders that hadn't lived up to their promises could lose their "seal." Buyers could be advised who the responsible ones were, as well as be educated on the process, if there was a "seal."

[Alpha]

Owning a dog to me, is a priviledge.

When I go to the television store and buy a tv, I do my research, I find a brand that I know from other hearing from other people is a good one. Sure Sony's sale service wants me to buy theirs, and tell me this and tell me that, and promise me this and that, but seeing as I've done MY RESEARCH (just making this up I have no idea if it's true) I know that Sony's are known to break down within two years.

I don't bug the government to make up a law that states anyone that sells tv's HAS to make them this way.

It's my money, it's going to be MY property, I do my research.

Part of the problem is people going out, buying a dog from God knows who, without doing ANY research on the breed to find out health problems, what the temperment SHOULD be, or asking the breeder any questions.

Stop blaming responsible breeders.

Potential buyers need to do their OWN RESEARCH and stop relying on everyone else to make an informed decision for them.

ETA- Responsible breeders will have contracts that not only bind the potential buyer but themselves. Just as buying a Hyundai (I believe) which has the longest warranty of any vehicle. It's a big hit, because the company puts their reputation and livlihood on the line, behind their product. Like I believe Carla was saying.

When you buy a dog from the petstore, there's no contract. If you didn't do your research than your not going to know that a responsible breeder, will have a contract, with all sorts of information. Including what happens if you surrender the dog, or can't keep it anymore.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Alpha

Just like on this thread, between breeders their standards are going to vary.

My trainer won't sell a puppy to someone who takes their dogs to dog parks, while another thinks it's ok.

I think the law is absolutely ridiculous. Having the pitbull ban here, I know it won't work. People will still keep intact animals, most likely the ones that the law is designed for. While the responsible dog owners suffer.

I know, I'm going through it now with my dog. I abide by the rules, and the ones with Pitbulls doing illegal dog fighting do not.

It's sloppy, goes completely against what new studies are showing with animals altered before 14 months and according to science is NOT good for dogs.

If this is all about what's best for our dogs, why does the law include altering them before they are fully matured? What's best for dogs is having responsible owners. Instead of dealing with upfront problem, overpopulation, why don't they deal with the core problem, people.

If early altering is so bad for the dogs, why is the California Veterinary Medical Association backing this law? Why do shelters regularly do early spay/neuter and why aren't the same breeders who are fighting this law, also fighting the early spay/neuter policy in shelters? Though anecdotal, I've had my dogs early spay/neutered for years, with no problems. And it makes no sense to me that those against this law keep trotting out their fears about medical problems when good vets are doing it and shelters are doing it. If they cared about dogs, why haven't we heard them speaking out about it before this?

I'd love to hear your ideas on how to deal with "the core problem, people" though. I hope your ideas include something besides just education.

Originally Posted by ChRotties

Well, here's an FYI for ya'.....yes, we responsible ppl do TRY to educate the puppy/dog buying public....I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and while the folks may HEAR the words, not all of them actually LISTEN!

Showing and breeding is subjective...what I consider correct temperament, may not be to another, in other breeds...our health concerns are not prevalent in other breeds....while on the outside, a dog/bitch may seem mediocre to me, that doesn't mean that brood animal can't produce better than what they are.....one of the true marks of a responsible breeder is taking responsibility for what they have produced for the ENTIRE life of that dog....and I don't care how much showing, research, testing, blah, blah, they have done....if they bred it, they are responsible for that puppy for it's entire life should something happen to it's owner and have to take it back...

Breeders and breed clubs try to educate....but you can't force people to do the right thing and heed your words....

No you can't, but as I see it, there ARE people who want to listen, but they are hearing too many different stories, and frankly, I've been listening to the education for years, and I would be just as lost as the rest of the public if I wanted to find a responsible breeder. I know the things that I think they should be doing, but then not only are there some things that can't be ascertained until AFTER I buy the dog, but also breeders can't seem to agree with each other about what is responsible, so how is a layman to know?

Do understand that I have no interest nor intent to buy from a breeder, but as rescue I am asked to recommend responsible breeders. In all good conscience, I can't do that. I can't put a seal of approval on someone who has no penalties in place if they decide not to be responsible. I can tell people what I think they should look for in a breeder, but even then it's a crap shoot. What amazes me is that breeders don't aspire to a better system.

[Alpha]

Actually no, it has nothing to do with education.

The only way I see the core problem being fixed, is taking away the RIGHT to own a dog, and making it a priviledge.

If people were forced to take tests, much like driving, paying a fee to be licenced I can bet a large number of irresponsible owners would not take that test. Large fines for those who are not licenced, but have a dog.

Having specific licences for breeds like APBTs, Amstaffs of EST would also help with much of what's going on with these breeds nowadays. Most of the riff raff owning these breeds in dire need of a responsible owner who understands their heritage, have no idea how to care for them, or simply don't want to. They also don't want to be registered with the government, or have to pay money for the right to own this dog.

I couldn't tell you why the California Veterinary Medical Association is backing this law.

It IS PROVEN, NOT DEBATABLE, the NEGATIVE effects of early neutering.

Do you understand? Scientifically proven, that there are a number of NEGATIVE effects? Get it yet?

Most decent vets won't perform those surgeries until a dog is 6 months old, and even then they reccomend to wait until the dog is over a year around 14 months old.

Most females hit their first heat cycle around 6 months so this is why so many people, (including vets who do these surgeries at this age) want the spay done so soon, so they don't have to deal with any heat cycles.

Not to say that there are not proven benefits to neutering, but you still get those benefits when you neuter at 14 months old, and I'm sure a very small number of dogs suffer from mammory cancer at 14 months old.

I won't post links to those studies, if your so dam*ed interested in the topic you would've researched it by now and read those studies.

ETA- Thanks for posting the link to that website CaptBob. There were a lot of points I'd never thought of, including how this bill will affect working dogs.

There's nothing irresponsible about waiting to assess a dog's working ability before breeding.

[ChRotties]

I so agree with you, Alpha, the buyer must RESEARCH ......responsible education will only get them so far...they have to do their homework.

I always tell ppl when they ask where to get a good quality "flukehound" (or whatever breed, trying to be generic here), to attend a dog show, talk to ppl, visit the breed club's website (as almost all have one nowadays)...and most importantly...above all else...NEVER, EVER, buy from an internet or newpaper ad...and certainly NEVER from a petshop or the walmart parking lot.

A responsible breeder's reputation is their stock in trade....a responsible breeder will have a binding contract stating the health guarantee, the buyback options, etc.....spay neuter...etc....however, a lot of the pet buying public don't want a contract, don't want to be "tied down" , so, guess where they go anyways? The byb or petshop down the street where they can buy a dog with no strings attached....so, it's a double-edged sword sometimes, responsible breeders try to do the right thing, try to educate, try to get across that this isn't just a dog , it's a very precious member of their family that they are selling that has often times been years in the making and planning ....all we can do is continue to educate...and it is working...around here anyways, in my neck of the woods...

All I'm saying is that all ANY of us can do is the very best we can....but we cannot guarantee that people will always make the right choices.....soo, I will keep on educating and trying to help people make the right decisions...I give them the tools to the best of my ability, but again, it's up to that individual on how to use them.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

The problem with deciding if a breeder is responsible based on whether they will take their dogs back is that one would have to buy a dog from then in order to find out. A breeder saying they will take the dog back is no guarantee that they really will if the time came. And unfortunately, this isn't something that can be learned from other breeders or other buyers because it's unlikely that they would know if a breeder who claimed she took all her dogs back, truly turned one, some, or all - away. The decision that a breeder is not responsible comes AFTER they have done something irresponsible - not before.

So again, how does someone know whether the breeder they are buying from is responsible or not? If there were a "seal of approval" process, at least breeders that hadn't lived up to their promises could lose their "seal." Buyers could be advised who the responsible ones were, as well as be educated on the process, if there was a "seal."

You check referances. TALK to other buyers. That's how I found the breeder I'll get my next puppy from. I've talked to nearly 30 people who have her dogs (she's been in the breed for nearly 20 years) they all say thesame thing, if something happens T is there! Of course, I'm heavily involved in a mastiff board that is VERY owner oriented. There are breeders on there, but it is MOSTLY Mastiff families and a few show people and breeders. The board has nearly 4000 members, with nearly 500 active and we talk about what is important to us. We don;t allow breeder bashing, but if a breeder is mentioned that is a problem breeder, you WILL get PM's telling you the person isn't what they seem.

I guess what I'm saying is you have to get involved in the breed. A smart person will do that well in advance so they can sort the grain from the chaff.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Alpha

It IS PROVEN, NOT DEBATABLE, the NEGATIVE effects of early neutering.

Do you understand? Scientifically proven, that there are a number of NEGATIVE effects? Get it yet?

Yea, and do you get it yet that I disagree with you? There are studies that say that coffee is bad for you, and there are studies that say it's good for you. You can't turn around anymore without bumping into a study, and it's counterpart saying just the opposite. I again ask if early s/n is so bad, why is it being done so successfully on shelter animals with no apparent opposition?

Originally Posted by Alpha

Most decent vets won't perform those surgeries until a dog is 6 months old, and even then they reccomend to wait until the dog is over a year around 14 months old.

Whether they are decent or not is nothing more than your opinion. Since female dogs increase their chances of mammary cancer with each heat, waiting til the dog is 14 months is risky and any vet that would recommend that would be one that would never touch my dog again. There are vets that think that dogs should have one litter too, but they are just as bad as the ones you think are so decent.

Originally Posted by Alpha

Most females hit their first heat cycle around 6 months so this is why so many people, (including vets who do these surgeries at this age) want the spay done so soon, so they don't have to deal with any heat cycles.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Are you saying they do it earlier or later to avoid heat cycles? You do realize that a dog can be spayed while in heat? And you do realize that if the vet chooses to do it when the dog is not in heat, s/he won't have to wait long?

Originally Posted by Alpha

Not to say that there are not proven benefits to neutering, but you still get those benefits when you neuter at 14 months old, and I'm sure a very small number of dogs suffer from mammory cancer at 14 months old.

The risk of mammary cancer is not at the 14 month mark, it's later in life but that risk increases with each heat cycle the dog goes through. A dog that is spayed before her first heat has minimal risk for mammary cancer, or no risk at all.

Originally Posted by Alpha

I won't post links to those studies, if your so dam*ed interested in the topic you would've researched it by now and read those studies.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to swear, but I've researched it, and I've talked to vets that highly endorse early s/n and have been doing it for years, with no ill-effects.

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

You check referances. TALK to other buyers. That's how I found the breeder I'll get my next puppy from. I've talked to nearly 30 people who have her dogs (she's been in the breed for nearly 20 years) they all say thesame thing, if something happens T is there! Of course, I'm heavily involved in a mastiff board that is VERY owner oriented. There are breeders on there, but it is MOSTLY Mastiff families and a few show people and breeders. The board has nearly 4000 members, with nearly 500 active and we talk about what is important to us. We don;t allow breeder bashing, but if a breeder is mentioned that is a problem breeder, you WILL get PM's telling you the person isn't what they seem.

I guess what I'm saying is you have to get involved in the breed. A smart person will do that well in advance so they can sort the grain from the chaff.

How does one find other owners that have bought from a specific breeder if they don't have access to a message board where mostly anonymous posters hang out and sing the praises of that breeder? The references that you suggest checking - where do they come from? If they come from the breeder, is s/he going to give you contact info for her dissatisfied customers?

I realize that the more the buyer does, the better chance they have of finding a truly responsible breeder, but it still seems like a crap shoot.

One of my rescues came from someone that did all their homework, researched and followed all the advise they had gotten, and finally chose a breeder who they thought was responsible. They bought a puppy, but when the pup was 4 months old an extreme family health problem arose that caused them to have to give the pup up. They contacted the breeder, who had a return policy in her contract, and the breeder told them that her husband wouldn't let her take the dog back. So they had to turn to rescue. From everything they told me, I couldn't find anything that I thought they did wrong.