Cities mull forced neutering of pets & Runaway pit bull neutered by SPCA

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Cities+mull+forced+neutering+pets/4142533/story.html

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Runaway+bull+neutered+SPCA/4136602/story.html


I say that if the general public refuses to accept responsibility for the pet overpopulation crisis, then somebody has to. Your thoughts?

i think it's a great idea,,if you look farther down at the comments people made one person hit the nail on the head " the people not wanted to adopt fixed pets are not looking for a pet, but breeding stock".

This is the comment in the second article that stuck out for me: "Leslie said an SPCA employee told her "there are too many pit bulls in Verdun, anyway. We have a freezer full of dead pit bulls. Want to see it?" " Bravo to this employee. I'd take the bylaws even further and, for those that dump their pets, if they don't get adopted and end up getting euthanized, the previous owners must pay for and be present for the killing...whether it be by Euthanol or the gas chambers. Take on a animal, then it's your responsibility for life...and death.

We actually saw the news report on this on CTV. I actually have mixed feelings on the whole thing. I truly believe that for the average Joe, neutering/spaying is the best option; however, I'm not sure I would want to be in that same situation if they had Loki. What would happen if it's a show dog and therefore a legit reason not to be neutered/spayed? Would they make the exception? I'd be curious to find out.

In this particular case, I was quite happy they neutered the dog. The owners apparently loved their dog so much and loved his temperament that they were thinking of breeding him... :wall:

What would happen if it's a show dog and therefore a legit reason not to be neutered/spayed? Would they make the exception? I'd be curious to find out.

As would I. I have a feeling that if the dogs' guardians had valid proof, then an exception would likely be made. I'm assuming that because this dog was neutered after his guardians found him at the shelter.

As would I. I have a feeling that if the dogs' guardians had valid proof, then an exception would likely be made. I'm assuming that because this dog was neutered after his guardians found him at the shelter.

Really? From the news report it sounded like the guardians went to pick up their dog and the shelter wouldn't release him until they neutered him..?

Something has to be done to control pet over-population....if peeps won't take it upon themselves to help the problem, then there is no alternative. It would be nice if the Veterinary Associates would help too, without gouging people.....It takes 10 minutes to neuter a male dog...how much should a Vet charge in all reality?

It takes the rights of citizens away to do as they wish with their "property", but something has got to be done to stop the killing.

As far as the Pittie is concerned....no question that it had to be done.....These poor dogs are being so victimized it's a :censored: sin.....it's the only way to stop the killing :(

In the case of the lady who can't locate her dogs spay certificate, if it was done through her Vet then they would/should have a record of it.

I think I worded that wrong :o. They did neuter after the guardians found him and the staff had a chance to speak to them. It makes sense to me that they would have waited to speak to the guardians before taking the decision to neuter. I do know that the shelter can't be held responsible because it's in the city bylaws and the contract b/n the shelter and the cities. It's up to citizens to inform themselves of all laws pertaining to pet guardianship :shrug:.

I heard somewhere that Toronto was gonna drop its licence fee, don't know if this is true or not, but instead of that why not make it mandatory that your pet is fixed and then give owners free licensing. Scarborough use to have if your pet was fixed and micro chipped it was a life time license but then amalgamation and that ended. But I think they should enforce this even my beautiful boy was fixed at 6 months.

I think I worded that wrong :o. They did neuter after the guardians found him and the staff had a chance to speak to them. It makes sense to me that they would have waited to speak to the guardians before taking the decision to neuter. I do know that the shelter can't be held responsible because it's in the city bylaws and the contract b/n the shelter and the cities. It's up to citizens to inform themselves of all laws pertaining to pet guardianship :shrug:.

Makes sense :)

I heard somewhere that Toronto was gonna drop its licence fee,



I read that in the Star last week Doggy Lover.

Doggy lover, in the town I live in, we register our dogs one time for life. And if the dog is neutered, it's free.

I think the aim of these bylaws are to reduce the number of unwanted pets and irresponsible breeding. I fully support it.

I loved the quote ""If you lose your dog you lose the right to own an unfixed dog," So true, I totally agree. I think the only exception should be made for registered showing/breeding dogs, which are few and far between. Someone who owns a dog like this is very unlikely to loose it, and have it stay lost long enough that it goes through the motions in the shelter system to the point where it is neutered.
Montreal needs help bad (well Quebec in general) animals really are seen like a product, and the value of worth is in reproductive value, essentially an animal is worth as much as it can make you.
Everyone look on MTL KIJIJI and look at the dog adds and see how many advertise "not operated" "has had litters of X amount" "good for breeding" it is around +80% of the adds. It's truly sad.
Moving day is the worst because so many places don't allow pets, again because of the irresponsible owners who let their animals trash the place or bark their faces off. So when moving day comes thousands get cast out and flood the shelters which are already packed. Less adoptable are the first to get the needles, which are usually the big dogs and pit bulls especially.

Something has to be done to control pet over-population....if peeps won't take it upon themselves to help the problem, then there is no alternative. It would be nice if the Veterinary Associates would help too, without gouging people.....It takes 10 minutes to neuter a male dog...how much should a Vet charge in all reality?


I agree .....if all vet clinics in all provinces and citites/towns would have reasonable charges for spaying/neutering pets then it would help considerably. :thumbs up


Doggy lover, in the town I live in, we register our dogs one time for life. And if the dog is neutered, it's free.

I think the aim of these bylaws are to reduce the number of unwanted pets and irresponsible breeding. I fully support it.

That is a good idea as well. :thumbs up I live outside of a small town's "city limits" and no one out here is required to license their pets. It's great for those of us that are responsible pet owners but I honestly don't agree with it as so many others aren't. :(

This practice is not in the bylaw of the burroughs (I wish it had been), it is rather part of the service agreement between the burrough and the Montreal SPCA. Therefore the citizens were not aware of this as the contracts were not made public.

I may be mistaken, but I believe this has been implemented in california already, except its for repeat offenders, I think you get one "freebie" where you just pay your impound fee, but the second time the animal will be altered or it wont leave...

at least that was my impression, I didn't pay that much attention as I don't plan on having my animals show up in a shelter...

personally, I like the idea of altering animals before they can go home, baring medical issues of course. We have freezers full of pit bulls here too. I can't imagine a shelter that doesn't.

After reading those articles, and especially this...

"If you lose your dog you lose the right to own an unfixed dog," Devine said. "Montreal has a pet overpopulation problem. It has to be dealt with."

.....I hope everyone with show dogs packs up and gets them out of Montreal. One thing is for sure, if they did you would find that Montreal still has the same problem. Loki Love, why don't you find out if they would release shows dog intact?

After reading those articles, and especially this...

"If you lose your dog you lose the right to own an unfixed dog," Devine said. "Montreal has a pet overpopulation problem. It has to be dealt with."

.....I hope everyone with show dogs packs up and gets them out of Montreal. One thing is for sure, if they did you would find that Montreal still has the same problem. Loki Love, why don't you find out if they would release shows dog intact?

I've just sent off an email to Ms Devine - I'll let you know what I find out :)

I agree for the most part. Like a few others have said, they should first make sure there are no extenuating circumstances. A great example is Nanook. He can't be neutered. I would hope if they know it isn't a stray, they would allow the owner to make a case prior to just sterilizing, otherwise, they'd have a lawsuit on their hands for his $17,000+ in medical bills if he didn't make it through the surgery.

Great law :thumbs up, show dog or not, policy is to spay/neuter, then no dogs should be excepted period. That is discrimination, just like a pit bull ban.

If you don't want your dog spayed/neutered, then I guess people should make darn sure they don't loose their dog.

The SPCA does not alter an animal until the animal is re-claimed. If the dog or cat went unclaimed for X days, passes evaluation for adoption, and then is placed in adoption, they will alter the dog or cat as he/she is now the property of the animal even if re-claimed after the fact.

As for show dogs getting lost and re-claimed...to be honest, I have yet to hear of something like this ever happening. But in my opinion, what is good for one, is good for another. With the present over population as it is, I just wish EVERYONE would take a darn break from breeding. So yes, pack up and leave Quebec if you must...tood-a-loo we don't need you..show dog and all!

With the present over population as it is, I just wish EVERYONE would take a darn break from breeding. So yes, pack up and leave Quebec if you must...tood-a-loo we don't need you..show dog and all!

I love you, girl http://bestsmileys.com/hugging/4.gif

L4H...I thought I was going to get hammered with my comment...and frankly I will stand by it. I am sick and tired of getting calls from people, in re-homing their pets. I am sick of my weekends be ruined completely because someone wants an animal out NOW. It saddens me terribly to be able to only help a few each week. I am ill literally, seeing all those that I cannot help being euthanized.

As for dogs that were sold from breeders....well I have to tell you that not ALL breeders take their dogs back. I currently have one right now that the breeder said she was too busy with others to take this one back. Sickening!

But in my opinion, what is good for one, is good for another. With the present over population as it is, I just wish EVERYONE would take a darn break from breeding. So yes, pack up and leave Quebec if you must...tood-a-loo we don't need you..show dog and all!


Seriously?

With all due respect - I AM a member here, and I do own a show dog.

If you don't want your dog spayed/neutered, then I guess people should make darn sure they don't loose their dog.

We often have dogs escape at airports here. They might be very expensive imports, or females just mated, show dogs etc., and it's usually the fault of baggage handlers that they get loose. Others get a fright and manage to escape at shows, it might be because they are with a pro handler, not their owner. So while you can make light of it, the truth is that such owners are not careless enough to simply lose their dog. Accidents happen. Oh, and searches for these runaways are major events, when a friend's sheltie took off for instance about 2,000 flyers were put in letter boxes and people searched the streets for more than a week before they got a call to tell them where he was hiding.

BenMax, for you to say this

But in my opinion, what is good for one, is good for another.

it shows you don't care about the time, effort and money it might take a breeder/exhibitor to get a top show dog, and if you are at a stage where you think there should be no exceptions, maybe it's time you had a break? Don't forget that that desexed show dog is now useless to the show exhibitor, therefore it becomes yet another dog that needs rehoming.
I'd reckon it's puppy farmers that cause so much grief anyway, certainly not responsible breeder/exhibitors.

What would happen if it's a show dog and therefore a legit reason not to be neutered/spayed?

I agree for the most part. Like a few others have said, they should first make sure there are no extenuating circumstances. A great example is Nanook. He can't be neutered. I would hope if they know it isn't a stray, they would allow the owner to make a case prior to just sterilizing, otherwise, they'd have a lawsuit on their hands for his $17,000+ in medical bills if he didn't make it through the surgery.

I would think it's for reasons such as these that, as in the second article, the SPCA only went through with the neuter after a certain delay, giving guardians ample time to locate their dog and to provide an explanation. I don't believe they spay/neuter as soon as a stray pet arrives.

I may be mistaken, but I believe this has been implemented in california already, except its for repeat offenders, I think you get one "freebie" where you just pay your impound fee, but the second time the animal will be altered or it wont leave...

Although I think this is better than no policy at all, it still means that an unneutered pet has two chances to create an unwanted litter. Just 5 strays per week can mean 5 accidental breedings, 5 unwanted litters...whose chances are pretty good to end up at a pound/shelter/dead. Just in our little town of +- 6000 residents, I've had 3 unneutered males, 1 unspayed female, and 1 puppy show up on our property in the last two years, I can just imagine what it's like in the large cities.

We often have dogs escape at airports here. They might be very expensive imports, or females just mated, show dogs etc., and it's usually the fault of baggage handlers that they get loose. Others get a fright and manage to escape at shows, it might be because they are with a pro handler, not their owner. So while you can make light of it, the truth is that such owners are not careless enough to simply lose their dog. Accidents happen. Oh, and searches for these runaways are major events, when a friend's sheltie took off for instance about 2,000 flyers were put in letter boxes and people searched the streets for more than a week before they got a call to tell them where he was hiding.

BenMax, for you to say this

But in my opinion, what is good for one, is good for another.

it shows you don't care about the time, effort and money it might take a breeder/exhibitor to get a top show dog, and if you are at a stage where you think there should be no exceptions, maybe it's time you had a break? Don't forget that that desexed show dog is now useless to the show exhibitor, therefore it becomes yet another dog that needs rehoming.
I'd reckon it's puppy farmers that cause so much grief anyway, certainly not responsible breeder/exhibitors.

I guess you could say breeders don't care about the time and effort that goes into saving the lives of their dogs/cats once the owner gets bored with them. BenMax gives up her WHOLE LIFE to save dogs and cats' lives.

As for the issue of the airport and prof handlers, then the dog owners fight is with the airport and handler, not the SPCA, they are not the ones who screwed up.

Great law :thumbs up, show dog or not, policy is to spay/neuter, then no dogs should be excepted period. That is discrimination, just like a pit bull ban.

If you don't want your dog spayed/neutered, then I guess people should make darn sure they don't loose their dog.

I understand how important spaying/neutering is. But to say that there should be NO exceptions is just not right imo. I take very good care of my boys, both of them. But... lets say he escaped from daycare (which happened a few times at the old daycare. Fortunately Nanook wasn't one of them). Nanook cannot go under for surgery of any kind. If he does, it could kill him. There is a high chance the meningoencephalitis will relapse and he has a high chance of getting an infection because he has a compromised immune system. We have spent over $17,000 trying to keep him alive and get him well. We have spent countless hours taking caring of him, loving and worrying over him. Not to mention all the time I have had to take off work to make sure he is taken care of. So I do not agree that there should be NO exceptions.

I'd reckon it's puppy farmers that cause so much grief anyway, certainly not responsible breeder/exhibitors.

Responsible pet owners in general. Accidents happen and pets sometimes get away no matter how well you take care of them.

Seriously?

With all due respect - I AM a member here, and I do own a show dog.

I never said that my words would be popular. I apologize for that however it is my simple uneducated opinion. Sorry it does not appease everyone and I humble ask that we agree to disagree.

No feelings are meant to be hurt. It is just my reality that dicates my sincere feelings on this subject which is off topic really.

[QUOTE=Goldfields;979189]

it shows you don't care about the time, effort and money it might take a breeder/exhibitor to get a top show dog, and if you are at a stage where you think there should be no exceptions, maybe it's time you had a break? QUOTE]

That is one heavy statement Goldfields...take a break! LOL - that would be ideal now wouldn't it.

I refuse to put my head in the sand which therefore does not give me the right to take a break. Though it would be very well deserved I can assure you.

I understand how important spaying/neutering is. But to say that there should be NO exceptions is just not right imo. I take very good care of my boys, both of them. But... lets say he escaped from daycare (which happened a few times at the old daycare. Fortunately Nanook wasn't one of them). Nanook cannot go under for surgery of any kind. If he does, it could kill him. There is a high chance the meningoencephalitis will relapse and he has a high chance of getting an infection because he has a compromised immune system. We have spent over $17,000 trying to keep him alive and get him well. We have spent countless hours taking caring of him, loving and worrying over him. Not to mention all the time I have had to take off work to make sure he is taken care of. So I do not agree that there should be NO exceptions.



Responsible pet owners in general. Accidents happen and pets sometimes get away no matter how well you take care of them.

Once again, your issue is would be with the daycare, not the SPCA. There is risk to all surgery and any animal can die. What if your dog needed emergency surgery by the SPCA??? The SPCA can't possibly have two sets of rules and there is NO guarantee owners will be found. If your pet is properly microchipped and your data has been kept up to date on the company's database so you can be contacted, I am sure with a vet's note, they would not neuter your dog. ;)

Something has to be done about the overpopulation of pets and I think this is one great step towards eliminating most of the unnecessary euthanasia.

Once again, your issue is would be with the daycare, not the SPCA. There is risk to all surgery and any animal can die. What if your dog needed emergency surgery by the SPCA??? The SPCA can't possibly have two sets of rules and there is NO guarantee owners will be found. If your pet is properly microchipped and your data has been kept up to date on the company's database so you can be contacted, I am sure with a vet's note, they would not neuter your dog. ;)



This is percisely what happens L4H. They don't just alter without having more detail about the animal in question. And I am certain for all the show dog people, that with the proper documentation they would not alter either. They are not radicals over there but rather level headed and will make necessary exceptions. Don't forget, it is THEY that have to deal with blood on their hands due to the over population. It is THEY that must make sometimes terrible decisions for animals that are not adoptable. It is THEY that have all the burdeon...

Once again, your issue is would be with the daycare, not the SPCA. There is risk to all surgery and any animal can die. What if your dog needed emergency surgery by the SPCA??? The SPCA can't possibly have two sets of rules and there is NO guarantee owners will be found. If your pet is properly microchipped and your data has been kept up to date on the company's database so you can be contacted, I am sure with a vet's note, they would not neuter your dog. ;)

Something has to be done about the overpopulation of pets and I think this is one great step towards eliminating most of the unnecessary euthanasia.

There is a HUGE difference between emergency and elective, so that arguement is silly. I hope he never needs emergency surgery, but if he does, he will be neutered at the same time. But to put his life at risk "just" to neuter him... that won't happen. And you're right... my issue would be with the daycare, but it would also be with the SPCA. And I guarantee there would be a lawsuit if that "were" to ever happen. My dogs have tags with contact info. I'm all for the program as long as they give responsible owners a chance to claim the dog and make a case against sterilization prior to doing it.

But to put his life at risk "just" to neuter him...

EVERY pet's life is put at risk with a spay/neuter or a dental cleaning.

I wonder how many pets the SPCA has picked up that aren't altered and the pet has run away due to dogs/cats being in season.

EVERY pet's life is put at risk with a spay/neuter or a dental cleaning.

I wonder how many pets the SPCA has picked up that aren't altered and the pet has run away due to dogs/cats being in season.

Actually, you would be surprised how many come already pregnant. My perfect example L4H was the old momma that had dead babies in her...remember that little foster?

Actually, you would be surprised how many come already pregnant. My perfect example L4H was the old momma that had dead babies in her...remember that little foster?

I do :( :cry:.

QUOTE=Love4himies;979236]I do :( :cry:.[/QUOTE]

A perfect example. And another example is my current foster that was originally from a breeder. He was found, owner located and the shelter was told they no longer wanted. With the tatoo, the breeder was located, and again, he was not wanted. Now with me.:)...and dying.

:offtopic: The other little one with dead babies has lived now 1 year..and a good life. Unfortunately, she is dying.

I cannot shake the comment: Take a break. Oh yeah...nice.

In the name of the discarded, unwanted, abused, abandoned...I will NEVER take a break..not ever.

EVERY pet's life is put at risk with a spay/neuter or a dental cleaning.

I wonder how many pets the SPCA has picked up that aren't altered and the pet has run away due to dogs/cats being in season.

I agree 100%, but that wasn't the focus of my comment. Mine was specifically pointing to the fact that I wouldn't put Nookie's life at risk just to be neutered. If he had to go under for emergency surgery, that's one thing. But to put him under just to neuter him... that won't happen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in favor of spay/neuter. My best friend and I always argue over that topic. She has a bulldog she wants to breed just becuase he's "pretty". I get so mad at her. I'm 100% against backyard breeders and irresponsible pet owners. But I also believe there can be extenuating circumstances and there are always exceptions to every rule.

I think everyone needs a break from that sort of thing, BenMax, including Vets. No-one is indispensable, and sadly no single person is going to stop what is going on.I also think that instead of responsible people and their dogs being penalised for the actions of irresponsible people, more should be done to crack down on puppy farmers.
Of course there should be exceptions to the rule . You know, a dog went missing here. Maybe it was stolen, who knows. It was a Grand Champion Sheltie that also was an Obediance Ch., a beautiful blue merle dog. He was never found. Do you think if he went through a Pound somewhere and was desexed he'd have a better life as someone's pet? I don't think so , his owner idolised him and was heartbroken, and his loss to the breed was immense.
There are plenty of dogs like Nanook that can't take a general anaesthetic too, does the dog get a thorough checkup or are they that keen to spey and neuter that it gets done regardless? Hypothetically, will they even listen to Rgeurt's important reasons for not neutering Nanook? I think these things could become court cases if dog owners are determined enough. Someone here spent over $500,000 and years of their time to save their dog which was wrongly labelled a Pit Bull. It's so wrong that they were put through that. Was the Council just power tripping that they refused to accept proof of the dog's parentage when it was put in front of them?

Interesting topic. I do know from first hand experience that the spca has returned show dogs to their owners on several occasions. One I recall was absolutely stunning and we laid bets as he walked in the door how long it would take for the owner to contact us as we had no i.d. on him whatsoever. It took the particuliar owner all of 35 minutes to call and show up with a lovely folder of all the dogs information and yes he was returned intact to the owners. The issue the spca has in my humble opinion is not with show dogs but rather with idiots who think it would be great to breed their dog and make a few bucks and sell the pups to whatever idiot shows up and has cash because hey,everyone wants a muscle bound pitbull right? of course, 75 pitbulls needing homes is just a drop in the bucket for some folks I guess? and it's not just pittbulls, seems most breeds eventually show up in multiples at the shelter. Pittbulls are what always distressed me the most as there are maybe 35% of the folks who show up to adopt who are responsible owners wanting them for the right reasons. What happens to the rest of them that slowly lose their minds waiting for a home? sad world we live in I must say........ thus ends my evening rant on pittbulls and abandonment as I truly do love the breed (and guess what they aren't a registered breed!)

I The issue the spca has in my humble opinion is not with show dogs but rather with idiots who think it would be great to breed their dog and make a few bucks and sell the pups to whatever idiot shows up and has cash

And those are the people who should be targeted. I understand why the SPCA is doing it, and I agree completely that too many pets die needlessly because of greedy, selfish, irresponsible people. I have actually had several people approach me to breed Nanook. I have told every one of them his LONG list of medical issues, many genetic. For the most part people understand and don't try to push it. But I actually had one couple who said "So? Just because he has those issues doesn't mean the pups would. And if they do, it's only going to be 1 or maybe 2 in the litter", and they continued to push it! I was so disgusted by the lack of compassion for the puppies AND the poor people who would end up with one, and even more disgusted that these people belong to the same race as myself. It truly made me sick.Trust me, I could use the $1500+ per pup. It would go pretty far in paying his medical bills. But I would never consider it, not even for a moment. And in saying that, again, I believe there should always be consideration given to animals with extenuating circumstance and to the owners/parents of those animals.

And those are the people who should be targeted. I understand why the SPCA is doing it, and I agree completely that too many pets die needlessly because of greedy, selfish, irresponsible people. I have actually had several people approach me to breed Nanook. I have told every one of them his LONG list of medical issues, many genetic. For the most part people understand and don't try to push it. But I actually had one couple who said "So? Just because he has those issues doesn't mean the pups would. And if they do, it's only going to be 1 or maybe 2 in the litter", and they continued to push it! I was so disgusted by the lack of compassion for the puppies AND the poor people who would end up with one, and even more disgusted that these people belong to the same race as myself. It truly made me sick.Trust me, I could use the $1500+ per pup. It would go pretty far in paying his medical bills. But I would never consider it, not even for a moment. And in saying that, again, I believe there should always be consideration given to animals with extenuating circumstance and to the owners/parents of those animals.There is. I know of a cocker spaniel who has a severe heart condition and is ten years old. He got picked up by local AC and brought in. The owners were contacted as he is microchipped and the owners had documentation as to why he was not neutered. They were charged the cost for pickup and boarding but the dog was not neutered as the point is not to put a dog in danger but rather to promote responsible reasonable pet ownership. The SPCA is not the bad guy here, they are just trying to make a dent in the volume in a reasonable fashion and better educate the public.

Rgeurts, those people remind me of the breeder of one of my shelties. I hip scored her and she was not suitable for breeding - fair enough, I considered her a rescue of sorts anyway. But, when I told the breeder she promptly asked could she buy her back. My reply was, yes(knowing she wouldn't agree) but first I'd have to spey her. LOL. She quickly said "Oh, perhaps I can't afford her." Stupid woman! Wicked woman! This girl would not have been able to carry a litter without a lot of pain. Her pups would probably have HD as well. She should have been thankful I didn't take her to court and have her paying that girl's vet bills for the rest of her life.
If your SPCA doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy, or lose a lot of donations, you'd think they would make it known that show dogs, or special cases like Nanook are the exception. I assume your SPCA, like our RSPCA relies a lot on donations from the public?

There is. the point is not to put a dog in danger but rather to promote responsible reasonable pet ownership. The SPCA is not the bad guy here, they are just trying to make a dent in the volume in a reasonable fashion and better educate the public.

And that, I agree with completely. The only problem I had was with the article. I believe it was the second link that stated once they have your dog you lose the right to have it remain intact and even if claimed it would not be returned to you until it has been neutered. Even that I agree with if you can't show a reasonable and responsible reason for keeping the pet intact. :)

Rgeurts, those people remind me of the breeder of one of my shelties. I hip scored her and she was not suitable for breeding - fair enough, I considered her a rescue of sorts anyway. But, when I told the breeder she promptly asked could she buy her back. My reply was, yes(knowing she wouldn't agree) but first I'd have to spey her. LOL. She quickly said "Oh, perhaps I can't afford her." Stupid woman! Wicked woman! This girl would not have been able to carry a litter without a lot of pain. Her pups would probably have HD as well. She should have been thankful I didn't take her to court and have her paying that girl's vet bills for the rest of her life.


That kind of greed and stupidity just make me ill. I'm a pretty peaceful person, for the most part. But people like that... I can't even begin to tell you how much I want to "neuter" them! :frustrated: :yell:


If your SPCA doesn't want to be seen as the bad guy, or lose a lot of donations, you'd think they would make it known that show dogs, or special cases like Nanook are the exception. I assume your SPCA, like our RSPCA relies a lot on donations from the public?

The SPCA does rely a lot on donations and volunteers. And I do agree that the largest part of the problem is backyard breeders, puppy mills and stupid people. I think the government should step in and make spay/neuter clinics affordable to low income families. I think pet stores should NOT be allowed to sell puppies/cats, which is why I refuse to support one of the major chains here. I think it should be illegal to breed a dog/cat without a license etc. There are many things that "could" be done. But until the right people (or enough people that it doesn't have to be the "right" ones) stand up for the pets, nothing is going to change. The SPCA may make a dent in the population with what they are doing, but for every dog they alter there will be several more who will be thrown into puppy mills and/or bred by just plain greedy people. Just look at Kijiji, it's full of them :(

That is one heavy statement Goldfields...take a break! LOL - that would be ideal now wouldn't it.

I refuse to put my head in the sand which therefore does not give me the right to take a break. Though it would be very well deserved I can assure you.

No-one has forced you into doing all you do, BenMax. I think you deserve a medal for it, for volunteering, but I wondered if your thinking isn't clouded if you say no exceptions, spey and neuter everything, no-one should breed, it sounds like you don't think there is a reputable breeder left in the world. A reputable breeder will inform the buyer that they will take back a dog they bred and sold, often to rehome, but sometimes to keep like our Bo. It's what our Canine Council here expect us to do. I've taken back a cattle dog in the past and found him a great home. Now, those that won't do that IMO aren't reputable.

The SPCA does rely a lot on donations and volunteers. And I do agree that the largest part of the problem is backyard breeders, puppy mills and stupid people. I think the government should step in and make spay/neuter clinics affordable to low income families. I think pet stores should NOT be allowed to sell puppies/cats, which is why I refuse to support one of the major chains here. I think it should be illegal to breed a dog/cat without a license etc. There are many things that "could" be done. But until the right people (or enough people that it doesn't have to be the "right" ones) stand up for the pets, nothing is going to change. The SPCA may make a dent in the population with what they are doing, but for every dog they alter there will be several more who will be thrown into puppy mills and/or bred by just plain greedy people. Just look at Kijiji, it's full of them :(

If I was a volunteer I'm afraid that the first incident I witnessed of a dog being desexed against the owner's wishes- when they have shown it is important for that not to happen - I'd be out of there. I was behind the RSPCA here getting a law passed to ban tail docking, but while I think it's great, I expect it hurt their pocket. It turned a lot of the dog world against them, even people who don't dock. It was like, what will they do next? Who will they target next? This no exceptions thing, well it'll be interesting to see what the general public think of that.

If I was a volunteer I'm afraid that the first incident I witnessed of a dog being desexed against the owner's wishes- when they have shown it is important for that not to happen - I'd be out of there.




I would be right there with you :)

I do know from first hand experience that the spca has returned show dogs to their owners on several occasions.

...I know of a cocker spaniel who has a severe heart condition and is ten years old. He got picked up by local AC and brought in. The owners were contacted as he is microchipped and the owners had documentation as to why he was not neutered. They were charged the cost for pickup and boarding but the dog was not neutered as the point is not to put a dog in danger but rather to promote responsible reasonable pet ownership. The SPCA is not the bad guy here, they are just trying to make a dent in the volume in a reasonable fashion and better educate the public.

Thank you, BMDLuver, for clearing that up for us :).

If I was a volunteer I'm afraid that the first incident I witnessed of a dog being desexed against the owner's wishes- when they have shown it is important for that not to happen - I'd be out of there. I was behind the RSPCA here getting a law passed to ban tail docking, but while I think it's great, I expect it hurt their pocket. It turned a lot of the dog world against them, even people who don't dock. It was like, what will they do next? Who will they target next? This no exceptions thing, well it'll be interesting to see what the general public think of that.

Certainly do not want a medal. Medals go to those that are responsible and loving people who commit to their pets and have them spayed and neutered.

I am not against good ethical, responsible breeders. What I am saying is there are so many dogs and cats in the system at the moment that are at risk. The vast majority of them are euthanized. I am saying that if breeders and others that profess about being loving animal people, one would think that they would start being a part of the solution by not breeding for a while (even a year..is that too much to ask?). If they are so concerned about their 'breed' then why not take a few from the shelters that are sterilized (or sterilize themselves) and find homes for them? Why not? This would help balance and remove some of these animals from shelters and pounds. It would save lives and contribute not only to their breed overpopulation (even if these dogs were not part of their breeding program of course) but it is 'giving back'...don't you think?

Let's look at the RODESHIAN RIDGEBACK why don't we since you bring up docking and what will they do next. The ridgeback is a defect...yet this is a requirement when showing. Puppies that are born without this distinctive spin line are destroyed...and these are the HEALTHY puppies. Am I against these types of breeders...YES.

I guess you are right in a way Goldfields, I really do need to take a break because infact I am tainted. I wish I could put on those rose color glasses and just say that there is nothing I nor anyone else can do..but I know better and my conscious gets the best of me.

I respect completely what you are saying, and I certainly am not saying that my thought process is the way to go. Everyone is intitled to their opinion and I respect that.:)

There is. I know of a cocker spaniel who has a severe heart condition and is ten years old. He got picked up by local AC and brought in. The owners were contacted as he is microchipped and the owners had documentation as to why he was not neutered. They were charged the cost for pickup and boarding but the dog was not neutered as the point is not to put a dog in danger but rather to promote responsible reasonable pet ownership. The SPCA is not the bad guy here, they are just trying to make a dent in the volume in a reasonable fashion and better educate the public.

Thank you so much for clarifying as you are in the front lines.
You ROCK!:thumbs up

There is. I know of a cocker spaniel who has a severe heart condition and is ten years old. He got picked up by local AC and brought in. The owners were contacted as he is microchipped and the owners had documentation as to why he was not neutered. They were charged the cost for pickup and boarding but the dog was not neutered as the point is not to put a dog in danger but rather to promote responsible reasonable pet ownership. The SPCA is not the bad guy here, they are just trying to make a dent in the volume in a reasonable fashion and better educate the public.

Exactly! and I believe the SPCA, if they can contact the owners in time, will not spay/neuter if there are medical issues. They are not out to kill dogs.


Showdogs, IMO, are no better than a mutt and should not be put on a higher pedestal or be given exceptions to the law.

No-one has forced you into doing all you do, BenMax. I think you deserve a medal for it, for volunteering, but I wondered if your thinking isn't clouded if you say no exceptions, spey and neuter everything, no-one should breed, it sounds like you don't think there is a reputable breeder left in the world. A reputable breeder will inform the buyer that they will take back a dog they bred and sold, often to rehome, but sometimes to keep like our Bo. It's what our Canine Council here expect us to do. I've taken back a cattle dog in the past and found him a great home. Now, those that won't do that IMO aren't reputable.

Her compassion doesn't allow her to take a break because if she does, there will be one or two more dogs that will die.

If you work in a shelter you see so much sadness due to the overpopulation of pets, including ones from reputable breeders that something needs to be done, allowing "show dogs" to be the exception is just not right or fair.

If I was a volunteer I'm afraid that the first incident I witnessed of a dog being desexed against the owner's wishes- when they have shown it is important for that not to happen - I'd be out of there.

Well, then I guess you don't see all the pets being gassed to death. De-sexing an animal is not a death sentence, but the overpopulation of pets is for many of them.

If they are so concerned about their 'breed' then why not take a few from the shelters that are sterilized (or sterilize themselves) and find homes for them? Why not? This would help balance and remove some of these animals from shelters and pounds. It would save lives and contribute not only to their breed overpopulation (even if these dogs were not part of their breeding program of course) but it is 'giving back'...don't you think?

Let's look at the RODESHIAN RIDGEBACK why don't we since you bring up docking and what will they do next. The ridgeback is a defect...yet this is a requirement when showing. Puppies that are born without this distinctive spin line are destroyed...and these are the HEALTHY puppies. Am I against these types of breeders...YES.



Here we do have a Sheltie Rescue Service for any shelties that end up in the Pounds and whenever I get puppy enquiries I do tell people about that, also inform them that our Puppy Sales person sometimes have older dogs requiring a good home. Shelties are very hard to breed, the demand for them far outstrips the supply here.

Don't worry, I am dead against what they do to Rhodesian Ridgebacks too, it's scandalous! I'm also dead against the Dobe breeders(in particular but I guess it just applies to all breeders of docked dogs) who said they would get out of their breed if they were banned from docking. If they really loved their breed they wouldn't be mutilating it in the first place.

Pity there's not some way of making potential puppy buyers take on a rescue from the breed they are after before being allowed a pup, but that's wishful thinking, Rgeurts had better ideas.
Love4himies, please tell me what benefit there is in desexing someone's show dog? Not all show dogs get bred from you know, even though they are intact, in fact when it is so hard to get a top show dog a lot of people won't retire them from the ring to breed with them. Like my first Ch.. I showed her for 8 years and never bred from her regardless of her quality. Actually, my beautiful red girl, Susie, another Ch. wasn't bred from either, and her brother, my best show winner, was not available at stud, or used by us either. We had a lot of fun at shows though. This dogmatic attitude that all must be equal puts me right off . And reading other posts it obviously is not the policy of the SPCA at all.

I see civil rights issues being discussed and court cases looming if there were no exceptions.

Oh, one thing that keeps some Ch's out of the breeding pool is our Grand Ch title here. That's 1,000 challenge points they need and some females are getting old by the time they get it. I think it's terrific that the greats of the ring stay there anyway, keeps the standards high.

Here we do have a Sheltie Rescue Service for any shelties that end up in the Pounds and whenever I get puppy enquiries I do tell people about that, also inform them that our Puppy Sales person sometimes have older dogs requiring a good home. Shelties are very hard to breed, the demand for them far outstrips the supply here.



As there are in Canada - breed specific rescues that is...for just about every breed you can think of. But why does not those that love the breed, that are REPUTABLE, ETHICAL breeders not participating in helping the breed that they so love that are sitting in pounds and shelters? Why can they not contribute to helping these dogs? I have tried here, and they will not even entertain the thought. My thoughts on this..they are snobs...S-N-O-B-S and contrary to what I would think they would be...compassionate AND passionate about their beloved breed.

I also have a problem with your statement ' Puppy Sales person'. It sounds so ugly. Sorry for my ignorance.:o

Here we do have a Sheltie Rescue Service for any shelties that end up in the Pounds and whenever I get puppy enquiries I do tell people about that, also inform them that our Puppy Sales person sometimes have older dogs requiring a good home. Shelties are very hard to breed, the demand for them far outstrips the supply here.

I'm sorry but those two statements kind of make a conundrum of each other, don't they? If the demand is so high then why is a rescue necessary? I would also think if that were the case then breeders should have a long waiting list. If I recall quite some time back you made a statement in another thread that went sort of like "Wouldn't it be nice to have waiting lists for all your litters?" I don't think Australia is any different than Canada. There's tons of issues there as well.

Exactly! and I believe the SPCA, if they can contact the owners in time, will not spay/neuter if there are medical issues. They are not out to kill dogs.
Showdogs, IMO, are no better than a mutt and should not be put on a higher pedestal or be given exceptions to the law.

Her compassion doesn't allow her to take a break because if she does, there will be one or two more dogs that will die.

Well, then I guess you don't see all the pets being gassed to death. De-sexing an animal is not a death sentence, but the overpopulation of pets is for many of them.

:thumbs up

The problem with enforced spay/neuter is that it doesn't address the problem, which is irresponsible ownership. You can pass laws to require all legitimate, ethical breeders to cease and desist--they will because they're ethical and law-abiding. But 20 years from the time the law goes into effect, your shelters will still be overflowing and there will still be a problem. Why? Because the puppymiller will move elsewhere, but still sell in your area; and the byb will still be around under the radar. All that law will do is put ethical breeders out of business and leave breeding of purebreds to puppy millers and bybs. That doesn't sound like a good solution--it certainly doesn't help the breed. Even the thought of that leaves those of us who love a breed, distraught.

There will always be irresponsible people who won't care and will do what they want to do...and the only way to ameliorate that problem is through education, so that prospective owners do care, and do their homework, and become instrumental in putting millers out of business by not buying from them... The market, unfortunately, drives the business--and IMO putting ethical breeders out of business is not going to change the market for millers--if anything, it will make it even more lucrative.

To be totally honest i don't get why a purebred in the show ring MUST be intact. How can a female beat a male when she doesn't have ummmmm danglybits. If you're so concerned with having a stud male,then bottle him. I do understand it's not as easy as that with a female. But seriously how does the dogs ability to still be able to produce make it any better than one that can't. Owning a golden that is show line on all sides for as far back as we can see on papers, i kinda resent the fact that he is now looked upon as less than because he is fixed,,and i have to say i applaud the breeder we got him from for allowing us to break our contract with her and letting us have him snipped due to an issue we were having with a rescue.

I think it's part of the breed standards as set by the kennel clubs because their stated goal is to improve the breed. That means using champioin stock that has passed the tests of the standard to get there. Or using master hunters that have passed tests of performance. If you're encouraging breeding only from proven individuals, they need to be intact... :shrug:

The problem with enforced spay/neuter is that it doesn't address the problem, which is irresponsible ownership. You can pass laws to require all legitimate, ethical breeders to cease and desist--they will because they're ethical and law-abiding. But 20 years from the time the law goes into effect, your shelters will still be overflowing and there will still be a problem. Why? Because the puppymiller will move elsewhere, but still sell in your area; and the byb will still be around under the radar. All that law will do is put ethical breeders out of business and leave breeding of purebreds to puppy millers and bybs. That doesn't sound like a good solution--it certainly doesn't help the breed. Even the thought of that leaves those of us who love a breed, distraught.

There will always be irresponsible people who won't care and will do what they want to do...and the only way to ameliorate that problem is through education, so that prospective owners do care, and do their homework, and become instrumental in putting millers out of business by not buying from them... The market, unfortunately, drives the business--and IMO putting ethical breeders out of business is not going to change the market for millers--if anything, it will make it even more lucrative.

I don't think anyone is favoring puppymillers and byb's to ethical breeders Hazel. What I am suggesting are a few ideas. One - to cease breeding for 1 year and two - to help 'rescue' their specified breed and rehome. Take a purebred out of a shelter/pound, rescues will help that one extra little mixed mutt. It is no skin off of the rescue's nose...so there should be no skin off of a breeder who cares nose either. So 2 dogs saved with one good will.

As for millers and byb's...they are underground. Some exposed of course, but one would think that reputable ethical breeders would be making EVER attempt possible to help expose them and stop them from ruining their beloved specified breed.

To be totally honest i don't get why a purebred in the show ring MUST be intact. How can a female beat a male when she doesn't have ummmmm danglybits. If you're so concerned with having a stud male,then bottle him. I do understand it's not as easy as that with a female. But seriously how does the dogs ability to still be able to produce make it any better than one that can't.

:thumbs up Don't they have those fake "balls" now for males so they don't lose the "look" of an intact male? And females are very difficult to even tell they have been fixed once they are healed and the fur has grown back. Yes, I understand the concept of show dogs being bred from show dogs. But if the case is that you don't get a champion for many years than that dog is too old to breed anyway. Maybe before being fixed do as aslan says - bottle them, take some eggs. It works for us. :shrug:

I think they do try to expose the millers and BYBers, BenMax. Least the ones I know do--and rescue, as well.

But these types of laws do favor millers and bybs because they don't care if they're breaking the law. The ethical breeders do, and they're the only ones that will stop breeding. It will not impact the shelter overcrowding at all.

Maybe before being fixed do as aslan says - bottle them, take some eggs.

It's also extremely expensive. I would imagine the costs of puppies would double or triple and send even more people to byb's :shrug:. And unspayed females would still be necessary :shrug:.

But these types of laws do favor millers and bybs because they don't care if they're breaking the law. The ethical breeders do, and they're the only ones that will stop breeding. It will not impact the shelter overcrowding at all.

You are absolutely right about this statement Hazel. The amount of breeder dogs that make their way into shelters are far far less than millers and byb's. I cannot dispute this fact.

I have yet to meet one breeder however that will take on a rescue. I am sure they are out there, but unfortunately I have not come across one..and I have made a few calls in my day.:)

i think they need to get as much input as possible from the Ethical breeders, things like don't breed before a certain age,only breed so many times, etc and start turning those practices into law.
You can only own so many dogs, any dogs of mixed breeds must be spayed/neutered.
A law needs to be passed changing them from being considered property to something more appropriate. change abuse laws, etc,,then they really need to find a way to enforce them. I'd much rather my tax dollars went to this than into some politicians vacation fund.

i think they need to get as much input as possible from the Ethical breeders, things like don't breed before a certain age,only breed so many times, etc and start turning those practices into law.
You can only own so many dogs, any dogs of mixed breeds must be spayed/neutered.
A law needs to be passed changing them from being considered property to something more appropriate. change abuse laws, etc,,then they really need to find a way to enforce them. I'd much rather my tax dollars went to this than into some politicians vacation fund.

YES Aslan!:thumbs up

It's also extremely expensive. I would imagine the costs of puppies would double or triple and send even more people to byb's :shrug:. And unspayed females would still be necessary :shrug:.

So true. I'll just go back to my corner now and read. :o:thumbs up

So true. I'll just go back to my corner now and read. :o:thumbs up

:laughing:

Truthfully, I first thought, "hey, what a great idea!" but then remembered how much a girlfriend of mine paid to go through that experience. I imagine it would be even more expensive for pets.

i think that depends on the situation Lp,,some breeders are capable of doing it themselves others will have a vet do it,,thus increasing the price,,unfortunately with a female it's got to be a vet. But as you said you still need an intact female either way.

:laughing:

Truthfully, I first thought, "hey, what a great idea!" but then remembered how much a girlfriend of mine paid to go through that experience. I imagine it would be even more expensive for pets.

Yeah but - farmers do it all the time with their prize bulls. :shrug:
Like I said, if they harvested eggs at the same time as a female is being spayed then why not take them and freeze them. Yes, I know it may be more expensive but really, to hold eggs, if there was a facility for that I don't think it would be that bad. In my eyes the price breeders charge now for a puppy is outrageous.

i think that depends on the situation Lp,,some breeders are capable of doing it themselves others will have a vet do it,,thus increasing the price,,unfortunately with a female it's got to be a vet. But as you said you still need an intact female either way.

They could let those females keep the baby holding part and when the time is right implant the eggs. ;) They do that all the time with humans too. Just do a partial and get rid of the ovaries.:laughing: I know, now I'm being really silly. :D:D

I really don't believe ethical/responsible breeders, nor show/working dogs are part of the problem (although I do agree it would be great if all were part of the solution). Maybe we don't see that very often here in Quebec because there are so few of them :shrug:. The few breeders, or ppl who show their dogs that I do know, also either help, or run, rescues as well. I don't see them breeding their dogs left and right nor do I see them letting their dogs run free. They have too much invested in them, both financially and emotionally.

In my eyes the price breeders charge now for a puppy is outrageous.

Don't laugh at me now :D....but, even though I don't know the first thing about breeding, I do have a pretty good idea of what it takes to raise puppies. Even a 1000$ a pup doesn't sound unreasonable to me for all the work involved. Add to that all the expenses involved with the parents, showing, traveling, health testing, and the vet visits including x-rays, vaccines, dewormers, food, toys, bedding, a tonne of laundry soap, sleepless nights :rolleyes: :D, etc., etc., I would imagine an excellent breeder losing money, not making it :shrug:.

I really don't believe ethical/responsible breeders, nor show/working dogs are part of the problem (although I do agree it would be great if all were part of the solution). Maybe we don't see that very often here in Quebec because there are so few of them :shrug:. The few breeders, or ppl who show their dogs that I do know, also either help, or run, rescues as well. I don't see them breeding their dogs left and right nor do I see them letting their dogs run free. They have too much invested in them, both financially and emotionally.

No, you're right. It doesn't happen often. Which makes half of the debate that has been going on now for what - 3 pages now - null and void. :thumbs up ;)
The problem goes back to irresponsible pet owners and "breeders". Quebec is on the right path. I'm sure that Bill Bruce had some naysayers as well when he first came up with his solutions.

Now I really will go and sit in the corner and read. :laughing:

Don't laugh at me now :D....but, even though I don't know the first thing about breeding, I do have a pretty good idea of what it takes to raise puppies. Even a 1000$ a pup doesn't sound unreasonable to me for all the work involved. Add to that all the expenses involved with the parents, showing, traveling, health testing, and the vet visits including x-rays, vaccines, dewormers, food, toys, bedding, a tonne of laundry soap, sleepless nights :rolleyes: :D, etc., etc., I would imagine an excellent breeder losing money, not making it :shrug:.

Yep, if you want to look at it that way, I suppose you are right. After all, breeding is a business. They don't just look at the individual puppy. They look at all of their investments. If you are looking at a breeding facility then yes, I would imagine they don't make much money. I myself was looking at the individual pup and one dog at a time being bred. There would be no showing or traveling. The rest, if broken down individually, can not cost 1500+ IF you are using sound, health checked dogs to begin with. Just my :2cents:. And isn't that what breeders insist they do in the first place? :shrug: Yes, if they had to do an emergency C on the mom, then it gets expensive. I have a customer who occasionally breeds his show girls too who just had an emergency section. They were in the States at the time and it cost him 4 grand.

Now can I go back to my corner? ;) Really, I have to go to Costco and still haven't showered between feeding kitties, being on here, and cleaning up after a sick dog. :(

Oh yeah, forgot - laundry soap. You, mf, are an exceptional doggie momma. You clean, launder, give pups toys, quality food, etc. How many breeders do all of that? Even ones that have posted on here I see cement and grass under the pups feet. :shrug:

The problem goes back to irresponsible pet owners and "breeders".

That's what I believe anyways. The SPCA, as per contract, neuters dogs of irresponsible owners/byb's. If people aren't open to learning about the pet overpopulation or, decide they're going to add to it, then yes, I believe they should be forced to learn the hard way :shrug:. And I'm glad this incident was brought to the public's attention because it will make more pay attention. I just wish that pound/rescue/shelter euthanasia statistics including some graphic photos be made readily available to the public as well. Like Hazel said, "and the only way to ameliorate that problem is through education, so that prospective owners do care, and do their homework, and become instrumental in putting millers out of business by not buying from them... The market, unfortunately, drives the business." If we cut the demand, we'll cut the supply.

Education is great :thumbs up....but it takes long......in that long time, 1000's of animals die :(

All the more reason to hurry, then.

True Chris. That's why I'm glad the SPCA has chosen the route it has. Unfortunately, it's the only one we have on the island of Montreal. The other pounds are a private business so I don't see them changing their practices any time soon.

That's what I believe anyways. The SPCA, as per contract, neuters dogs of irresponsible owners/byb's. If people aren't open to learning about the pet overpopulation or, decide they're going to add to it, then yes, I believe they should be forced to learn the hard way :shrug:. And I'm glad this incident was brought to the public's attention because it will make more pay attention. I just wish that pound/rescue/shelter euthanasia statistics including some graphic photos be made readily available to the public as well. Like Hazel said, "and the only way to ameliorate that problem is through education, so that prospective owners do care, and do their homework, and become instrumental in putting millers out of business by not buying from them... The market, unfortunately, drives the business." If we cut the demand, we'll cut the supply.

Once again LP...well written as usual. (how long did it take to write this time? :laughing:).

Seriously, it makes tons of sense. Thank you.

True Chris. That's why I'm glad the SPCA has chosen the route it has. Unfortunately, it's the only one we have on the island of Montreal. The other pounds are a private business so I don't see them changing their practices any time soon.

I think it's great....as long as they don't overstep their boundries. All help, any help is a win win situation.

@ Hazel.....it has taken years to reach the levels we are currently at, it is going to take years to make another small dent. Regardless of how fast one hurries, 1000's are still going to die :(

Love4himies, please tell me what benefit there is in desexing someone's show dog? Not all show dogs get bred from you know, even though they are intact, in fact when it is so hard to get a top show dog a lot of people won't retire them from the ring to breed with them. Like my first Ch.. I showed her for 8 years and never bred from her regardless of her quality. Actually, my beautiful red girl, Susie, another Ch. wasn't bred from either, and her brother, my best show winner, was not available at stud, or used by us either. We had a lot of fun at shows though. This dogmatic attitude that all must be equal puts me right off . And reading other posts it obviously is not the policy of the SPCA at all.



Please tell me why a "show dog" needs to be in tact??? Does that take away from it's physical appearance? Does it take away from it's mental capabilities?

You know, if there are going to be exceptions to laws (other than for medical reasons) why bother having the laws :shrug:?

Please tell me why a "show dog" needs to be in tact??? Does that take away from it's physical appearance? Does it take away from it's mental capabilities?



Like you and others I do not understand the importance of this. I would so like to be educated on this.

That's what I believe anyways. The SPCA, as per contract, neuters dogs of irresponsible owners/byb's. If people aren't open to learning about the pet overpopulation or, decide they're going to add to it, then yes, I believe they should be forced to learn the hard way :shrug:. And I'm glad this incident was brought to the public's attention because it will make more pay attention. I just wish that pound/rescue/shelter euthanasia statistics including some graphic photos be made readily available to the public as well. Like Hazel said, "and the only way to ameliorate that problem is through education, so that prospective owners do care, and do their homework, and become instrumental in putting millers out of business by not buying from them... The market, unfortunately, drives the business." If we cut the demand, we'll cut the supply.

I think the majority of people are aware of the pet overpopulation. It has been on Oprah, the news, and don't forget Bob Barker asking everybody to spay/neuter their pets. Humans are selfish and are going to do what they want with little regard to the outcome unless it will affect them directly.

Education is great :thumbs up....but it takes long......in that long time, 1000's of animals die :(

I think what needs to change is what is "socially acceptable", even though there will still be those selfish people...

I have yet to meet one breeder however that will take on a rescue. I am sure they are out there, but unfortunately I have not come across one..and I have made a few calls in my day.:)

But I thought breeders breed for the love of the dog :confused: Or is it only for the love of their own dogs:rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't resist, sorry :grouphug::D

From what I understand from the breeders of rottweilers that I know, showing is the full dog. From top to bottom, what they are born with that is the whole point for ethical breeders,, to maintain the correct standard. I have heard of some people who show neuter their males and through operation add what is missing so to say, LOL but it is not correct nor ethical in the showing venue.
I could be wrong or mis interpretated the whole standard vs showing.
Benmax I know of a couple rottweiler breeders that have taken on a rescue, and Make damn sure their dog comes back to them if situation should arise.
I am fully into rescue as you know AKA Mercy, but for some people Showing is a hobby, others it is their life. To better of the breed.

@ Hazel.....it has taken years to reach the levels we are currently at, it is going to take years to make another small dent. Regardless of how fast one hurries, 1000's are still going to die :(

That's true--but that's also true for any solution. Even if you can come up with the perfect solution to the mess, there will be inertia in the system and thousands will die. But the more the word gets out and the problem is addressed, the fewer will die in the future.

Like you and others I do not understand the importance of this. I would so like to be educated on this.

If you want to improve the breed, you breed from champions. If the champions are neutered, they can't breed. Then you have rely on less fit individuals to propagate your breed.

I think the majority of people are aware of the pet overpopulation. It has been on Oprah, the news, and don't forget Bob Barker asking everybody to spay/neuter their pets. Humans are selfish and are going to do what they want with little regard to the outcome unless it will affect them directly.

I think what needs to change is what is "socially acceptable", even though there will still be those selfish people...

Humans are selfish and need that added little oomph to get them to do what is right--which is why education is so important. No law will touch someone who is non-law-abiding--but taking away the market for their goods will touch them, and perhaps make them change.

Changing what is socially acceptable is the aim of the education. Change people's opinions of pet store dogs and you've won more than half the battle. And here, at least, we've seen some of that change for the better.

I don't think the majority of people watch Oprah or Bob Barker and the news has precious little coverage of the problem. Although I'm not a fan of Oprah, I did watch that one show of hers and laud her for her efforts. I wish more celebrities would jump on the bandwagon since people seem to put so much store into what celebrities say these days.

But I thought breeders breed for the love of the dog :confused: Or is it only for the love of their own dogs:rolleyes:

Sorry, couldn't resist, sorry :grouphug::D

Well I needed that grouphug for sure L4H..as there were times I was totally blue with frustrations and an inability to understand why they would not help.

LP knows of some breeders that do help so there goes my agrument.

I have yet to meet one breeder however that will take on a rescue. I am sure they are out there, but unfortunately I have not come across one..and I have made a few calls in my day.:)

All four of our rescues came through a breeder who also rescues :shrug:

All four of our rescues came through a breeder who also rescues :shrug:

That is wonderful to know Hazel. Kinda renews my faith.:thumbs up But as I stated, LP knows of breeders that do the same as yours...so my argument leads me to believe that I chose the wrong ones to call.

I really don't believe ethical/responsible breeders, nor show/working dogs are part of the problem (although I do agree it would be great if all were part of the solution). Maybe we don't see that very often here in Quebec because there are so few of them :shrug:. The few breeders, or ppl who show their dogs that I do know, also either help, or run, rescues as well. I don't see them breeding their dogs left and right nor do I see them letting their dogs run free. They have too much invested in them, both financially and emotionally.

I agree with you 100% on this one, my inlaws live in eastern Quebec and I don't know too many of them that have their pets neutered or spayed down there. I would hate to tell you how many people I have heard say oh I have a litter of so and so I'm selling sometimes mutts sometimes pure bred's but either way they are adding to the pet over population. I can't ever see stopping this in rural areas even here in Ontario or anywhere else and most of them don't charge much for the dogs they are selling they just ended up with a litter and want to get rid of them. Guess its better than the other thing I have heard of being done to unwanted litters:cry: DROWNING. Education is the only way we can even try to control this and maybe like free clinics that spay and neuter as a lot of these people just can't afford it... We can say all we want they shouldn't own pets if they can't afford it but lets face it they do and some are just ignorant of the amount of unwanted pets out there and some just don't care:(

If you want to improve the breed, you breed from champions. If the champions are neutered, they can't breed. Then you have rely on less fit individuals to propagate your breed.





Improve the breed how? Make their legs shorter so they have spine issues, their faced more pushed in so they have sinus issues? Their fur longer so they can dry off quickly after retrieving the bird???? Does a show dog actually show the judges how well it works on the farm? or accompany on a hunt? Does a farmer really need a purebred to get the job done, or can a mutt do just as well or better given the right training?

This whole idea that show dogs are somehow better than the average just really gets me wound up.

I really think that the amount of "show dogs" that will show up on the SPCA's doorstep are far and few between and won't really be an issue.

However, if you are going to exempt "show dogs" do you exempt all pure breds? Could all purebreds potentially be show dogs? What if the pup ends up at the SPCA before it has a chance to enter shows and win some ribbons? How would the SPCA handle that can of worms, cause you know there is going to be fibbers out there?

I was looking on kijjiji at dogs for sale what makes me laugh is some of he excuses that people use to give away their pets, oh after 7 years we don't have time for this dog so what the heck has the dog been doing for the last 7 years twiddling his paws...or 7 months dog we don't have time for it so why did you buy it did you think it was gonna just sit in the corner for the rest of its life..Its not just the breeders its the owners to come on people if you are going to buy a dog its gonna be for the life of the dog, not till you get sick of it.:wall: I can understand that say an older person with a dog gets sick and goes into a nursing home or if some drastic life change has made you have to get rid of your dog but maybe people should really think it through when they get a dog its like having a two year old for the rest of IT"S life...crap my pets are even in my will they must be taken care of and not put in a shelter or given away..

Improve the breed how? Make their legs shorter so they have spine issues, their faced more pushed in so they have sinus issues? Their fur longer so they can dry off quickly after retrieving the bird???? Does a show dog actually show the judges how well it works on the farm? or accompany on a hunt? Does a farmer really need a purebred to get the job done, or can a mutt do just as well or better given the right training?


Some choices have been bad choices--and for that reason, I'm not in love with bench dogs. But by and large, ethical breeders are breeding with an eye to improving the breed, yes.

Hunting trials do measure how the dog accompanies on a hunt. And certain breeds are much better at certain tasks than others. A farmer might find a mixed breed that can herd his sheep as well as a border collie--but how can he make an educated guess as to a dog's skill if it hasnt' been tested or comes from tested lines? The same for hunting--some mixed breeds also have the pointing instinct--but if you're looking for a pointer, you go to a breed that has that point as a strong instinct.

You can polish an instinct that a dog already has. You can't train an instinct into a dog that doesn't have it.

Improve the breed how? Make their legs shorter so they have spine issues, their faced more pushed in so they have sinus issues? Their fur longer so they can dry off quickly after retrieving the bird???? Does a show dog actually show the judges how well it works on the farm? or accompany on a hunt? Does a farmer really need a purebred to get the job done, or can a mutt do just as well or better given the right training?



Ohh great point L4H!:thumbs up

Some choices have been bad choices--and for that reason, I'm not in love with bench dogs. But by and large, ethical breeders are breeding with an eye to improving the breed, yes.

Hunting trials do measure how the dog accompanies on a hunt. And certain breeds are much better at certain tasks than others. A farmer might find a mixed breed that can herd his sheep as well as a border collie--but how can he make an educated guess as to a dog's skill if it hasnt' been tested or comes from tested lines? The same for hunting--some mixed breeds also have the pointing instinct--but if you're looking for a pointer, you go to a breed that has that point as a strong instinct.

You can polish an instinct that a dog already has. You can't train an instinct into a dog that doesn't have it.

And this is why we have BSL, because people think dogs of the same breed have the same characteristics :(. But this is off topic:sorry:.

My point being that if Montreal wants to make it a law that all dogs (excluding for medical reasons because a dog's life who is at higher risk of death due to anesthesia should not be risked just to spay/neuter) will be spay neutered before being returned to the owners, you can't exclude show dogs, they are no better, less loved, than a mutt. Plus, where do you draw the line at "show dog", that would be a legal nightmare.

There are too many dogs, not enough places or funds to house them all, something has to be done while people are being educated and this is a start.

Okay, so let's say, for argument's sake, that all the breeders are harming their breeds and you prohibit them from breeding. (I'll just go and cry into my beautiful English setters' fur and tell them they're a dying breed now. Better cry into your Himalayans' fur, for the same reason, L4H. Love rotties, BenMax? We can make it a cry fest :p)

Okay, breeding is done. What has that done for the problem?

Nothing. The shelters are still full of dogs on death row because the populace still hasn't been educated as to puppy mills, and even if they were, they have no choice if they want a purebred because you've just shut down all the breeders... :shrug:

And I'm now without my English setters, to boot. :cry:

Maybe you can live with that, but I'm not nearly 'PETA' enough to want to try.

Ooops...sorry, L4H, guess we were composing at the same time... :o

And your points are valid. The only thing that bothers me about the practice is that it can be hard to tell if a stray is skinny because it's been starving on the street or has something like IBD that keeps it skinny and unhealthy enough to not be a candidate for surgery. Our Evan was always at least 20 pounds underweight because of his IBD and one of our biggest nightmares was that someone would turn us in for starving him and before we could get paperwork to prove otherwise, he'd be confiscated, thrown in the shelter and die from being fed the wrong foods or being put under to be neutered. :(

Don't get me started on what breeders have done to Himalayans. Just makes me furious :mad::yell:. I will take a poorly bred one, than one bred to today's standards. They are subjecting them to a life of chronic sinus infections :( :sorry: :offtopic: again :o.

I don't think all breeding should be stopped for all time, that just doesn't make logical sense. In 10 years there would be no dogs/cats left :eek: :cry:. I especially don't think quality breeders should stop breeding, but just for a couple of years until the cat/dog population has subsided to a point that there is a manageable amount of cats and dogs. I also think there needs to be mutts. Not everybody can afford a $2K kitty or puppy and I think they deserve to have a pet too. They offer unconditional love to the poor as well as the rich.

If the SPCA feels that the only way to help manage the population (and I am sure it will stop a lot of male dogs from running off to find that female in heat) is to spay/neuter those who come into their possession, then they will make it law. The problem (as with any law), where do you draw the line? Who gets spayed/neutered and who doesn't?

This whole idea that show dogs are somehow better than the average just really gets me wound up.

I've read through this entire thread - I don't see anyone implying that show dogs are any 'better' in any sense of the word. :shrug:

I also think there needs to be mutts. Not everybody can afford a $2K kitty or puppy and I think they deserve to have a pet too. They offer unconditional love to the poor as well as the rich.

You do realize that by indicating there 'needs to be mutts' that you are fully supporting the 'oops' litters, the 'I want my children to witness the miracle of birth' litters, and other BYBs in general? :shrug: I'm not sure you can have it both ways?

As for paying $2K for a kitty/puppy - I would do it again in heartbeat. Knowing my dog has the best chance health-wise due to proper health testing as well as longevity in the lines (given it's a Great Dane) - why wouldn't I want to pay that amount? I wish more people would look at the bigger picture instead of the dollar amount. This is why BYB are so successful because people only ever consider the dollar amount and refuse to think about the whole picture :(

Keep in mind - I am all about rescue as well, and I really think rescue and responsible/ethical breeding can go hand in hand, but when we start passing judgements that are either black or white - it's a slippery slope.

As there are in Canada - breed specific rescues that is...for just about every breed you can think of. But why does not those that love the breed, that are REPUTABLE, ETHICAL breeders not participating in helping the breed that they so love that are sitting in pounds and shelters? Why can they not contribute to helping these dogs? I have tried here, and they will not even entertain the thought. My thoughts on this..they are snobs...S-N-O-B-S and contrary to what I would think they would be...compassionate AND passionate about their beloved breed.

I also have a problem with your statement ' Puppy Sales person'. It sounds so ugly. Sorry for my ignorance.:o

So many interesting posts and I'm only on page 2. BenMax, Puppy Sales person is the term used because breeders here notify her of any pups they have for sale so that when buyers contact the Sheltie Club she can tell them if there is anyone in their vicinity they could contact. Nothing ugly or sinister, she's a lovely caring person who has been doing that job, with the blessing of all the breeders, for a long time now. Once when I refused a sale because the people didn't have fences(and a bad attitude) I rang and her hubby said she would have refused that home too.
When you say breed people should contribute I assume you mean in all ways, fostering, adopting and financially. I don't know about that. Showing dogs is very expensive, the breeder/exhibitor usually takes excellent care of their own dogs and is there when dogs they breed and have sold need looking after, I just wonder why they should be made responsible for the sins of others, for all dogs? They should be the saviour so that all the people who puppy farm or are totally irresponsible owners can sleep at night? The over population is not of their doing. They're not all heartless really, I know of a Chihuahua breeder who had a houseful of little angels that needed a home, so she gave them one. Easy to do with a small breed, not so easy with the large or aggressive breeds. I would not bring an adult cattle dog in here for instance, not while my current pair are still with me.

I'm sorry but those two statements kind of make a conundrum of each other, don't they? If the demand is so high then why is a rescue necessary? I would also think if that were the case then breeders should have a long waiting list. If I recall quite some time back you made a statement in another thread that went sort of like "Wouldn't it be nice to have waiting lists for all your litters?" I don't think Australia is any different than Canada. There's tons of issues there as well.

14+, one figure my sister gave me, forget which year, was that there were 300 enquiries for puppies(to the Puppy Sales person) and only 70 pups born. A rescue service is necessary because we do have a dealer or two , maybe even the odd breeder, who doesn't give a damn what sort of home these beautiful little dogs end up in. I rescued one myself from a family that were letting the dog roam the streets(a sheltie! :eek:) and it kept ending up in the Pound. I got them to sign the dog over to me, I contacted its breeder and a couple of days later she did the 400 mile round trip to retrieve him, very glad he was safe and sound. He was a full brother to THE top show dog of the time, but because he was tall, he was a pet , and they made sure he got a much better home. You can't know, unfortunately, whether people will do the right thing by their dogs.
While that breeder travelled 400 mile to retrieve her dog, city people rarely want to go even 40 mile to buy one, which is why I never had a waiting list. Always got decent home for the cattle dogs though. Oh, people do ring me about shelties still but I'd never get back into breeding them.

To be totally honest i don't get why a purebred in the show ring MUST be intact. How can a female beat a male when she doesn't have ummmmm danglybits.
She can if she is a better female than he is a male of course. They only compete for Best of Breed, not in age classes.

If you're so concerned with having a stud male,then bottle him.
A friend did that with sperm from the sire of my red Ch's, and after his death there was an accident at the surgery and the canister got tipped over, everything broken. A lot of top dog's (different breeds, imports etc.) contributions were lost and I imagine it cost that clinic a fortune in compensation.

I do understand it's not as easy as that with a female. But seriously how does the dogs ability to still be able to produce make it any better than one that can't. Owning a golden that is show line on all sides for as far back as we can see on papers, i kinda resent the fact that he is now looked upon as less than because he is fixed,,and i have to say i applaud the breeder we got him from for allowing us to break our contract with her and letting us have him snipped due to an issue we were having with a rescue.

Your dog wouldn't be considered inferior just because he's desexed, Aslan. I've always thought there are nicer cattle dogs outside the ring than in it, in fact I've seen some real beauties kept as pets. No doubt your Golden is gorgeous.

And females are very difficult to even tell they have been fixed once they are healed and the fur has grown back. Yes, I understand the concept of show dogs being bred from show dogs. But if the case is that you don't get a champion for many years than that dog is too old to breed anyway. Maybe before being fixed do as aslan says - bottle them, take some eggs. It works for us. :shrug:

The fanatical showie, 14+, will sometimes spey a female, especially shelties, in secret because Shelties get better coat after speying. It also means of course that they don't come in season and have to be left at home. Other exhibitors are always suspicious when a glamorous top winner is not bred from and is always there in the ring. LOL.

It's also extremely expensive. I would imagine the costs of puppies would double or triple and send even more people to byb's :shrug:. And unspayed females would still be necessary :shrug:.

You're spot on, LP. And that cost for reputable breeders would be on top of hip scoring the parents, and doing any other health tests there are for your breed. In ACD's it's BAER testing(for deafness), and testing for PRA. Tests that are not done of course by puppy farmers.

Please tell me why a "show dog" needs to be in tact??? Does that take away from it's physical appearance? Does it take away from it's mental capabilities?

You know, if there are going to be exceptions to laws (other than for medical reasons) why bother having the laws :shrug:?

You are answering a question with a question here, but never mind. Some people do want to breed with their Ch dogs, and once upon a time one was not allowed to show a dog that is not entire or intact. Now though they do have separate classes here for neuters and I think their own Ch title, so that's a step in the right direction, Aslan's Golden here would get recognition if it is top quality. Our Canine Councils cater to the pet person beautifully, I'm rather proud of what they've done in all parts of the dog world.
Showing is just the way of keeping a breed's quality high.

Re showing photo's to the public of dogs being euthanased, a great idea. It should be handled like the TV advert's for smoking, with a certain shock element. Shake them up a bit, make them face what they are doing.

Oh yeah, forgot - laundry soap. You, mf, are an exceptional doggie momma. You clean, launder, give pups toys, quality food, etc. How many breeders do all of that? Even ones that have posted on here I see cement and grass under the pups feet. :shrug:

That comment made me laugh , 14+, as it reminded me of a snobby cocker spaniel breeder who thought she was better than everyone else because she washed her dogs' bowls. :D I thought "What?! Doesn't everyone?"

Anyway, have to tell you that pups here are born in heated whelping boxes and sleep on very expensive(but at least hard wearing) dry bed. From birth until the dam stops any discharge they have clean flannalette sheeting over that because it is easier to wash than dry bed, it drys faster. I have a great collection of stuffed toys for baby pups. I forget who complained about the cost of registered pups but I can guarantee I've never made a cent because of giving litters the care I think they deserve. And I am certainly not alone.

I've read through this entire thread - I don't see anyone implying that show dogs are any 'better' in any sense of the word. :shrug:
The whole idea that show dogs should be exempt from this law indicates that they are "better" than mutts


You do realize that by indicating there 'needs to be mutts' that you are fully supporting the 'oops' litters, the 'I want my children to witness the miracle of birth' litters, and other BYBs in general? :shrug: I'm not sure you can have it both ways?
The only reason "oops" litters are such an issue is due to the overpopulation of dogs. Get rid of puppymills that pump out hundreds of puppies monthly and an "opps" litter here and there won't create the overpopulation.


As for paying $2K for a kitty/puppy - I would do it again in heartbeat. Knowing my dog has the best chance health-wise due to proper health testing as well as longevity in the lines (given it's a Great Dane) - why wouldn't I want to pay that amount? I wish more people would look at the bigger picture instead of the dollar amount. This is why BYB are so successful because people only ever consider the dollar amount and refuse to think about the whole picture :(

Keep in mind - I am all about rescue as well, and I really think rescue and responsible/ethical breeding can go hand in hand, but when we start passing judgements that are either black or white - it's a slippery slope.

Well I guess paying 2K is OK for those who have the money, but there are seniors that love the companionship of a small dog and putting out 2K would mean not eating for months.

Well I guess paying 2K is OK for those who have the money, but there are seniors that love the companionship of a small dog and putting out 2K would mean not eating for months.

My concern with this is that if someone cannot afford 2K for a dog... how will they be able to afford to give it proper medical care when (and we all know eventually it will) become necessary. I think dogs SHOULD be expensive, so that people think twice before getting a dog and so that they realize from the get go that dog ownership (responsible dog ownership) is expensive. I also think spaying and neutring should be mandatory, with the exception of very strict rules to allow for some ethical breeding...

My concern with this is that if someone cannot afford 2K for a dog... how will they be able to afford to give it proper medical care when (and we all know eventually it will) become necessary. I think dogs SHOULD be expensive, so that people think twice before getting a dog and so that they realize from the get go that dog ownership (responsible dog ownership) is expensive. I also think spaying and neutring should be mandatory, with the exception of very strict rules to allow for some ethical breeding...

Well, I guess I think differently. Dogs/cats should not only be for the rich and not every dog/cat has expensive health issues. I, personally, would not pay 2K for a dog or a cat.

I don't know about you guys but here in the pet stores designer mutts go for $1800 and up, go to a breeder and you can get a pure bred for much less sometimes even half of what you would pay at the pet shop. Yes not all dogs get sick but how can you tell which one will. My last dog Travis berner x shepherd cost me over $5000 in vet bills over his life time and I'm not talking about regular check up and shots. Tucker other than a eye infection and a couple of ear infections in the last 6 years nothing...I believe its because the breeder did a good job from pregnancy till we got him, as Travis was a farm puppy and I felt so sorry for the living conditions he was in:( in a way it was my own fault I should have walked away but how do resist a puppy who's life you know you can make better.

Well, I guess I think differently. Dogs/cats should not only be for the rich and not every dog/cat has expensive health issues. I, personally, would not pay 2K for a dog or a cat.

My suggestion is that those who don't wish to spend the money on a well bred, health and temperment sound dog/cat go to a shelter and spend their money there. It's when you have people who wish to spend 500$ on a 'purebred' animal that is ridden with health problems that problems begin. That 500$ animal can potentially turn into thousands and thousands of dollars. Again - I'd much rather pay a higher amount upfront, have breeder support, etc than the pain and heartache and expense of a BYB. You will always have people who want that purebred and who will not want to go through a shelter - this is why BYB continue to be so popular.

The whole idea that show dogs should be exempt from this law indicates that they are "better" than mutts.
It's unfortunate that's your 'takeaway' on that. Show dogs should be exempt because they actually have a purpose for NOT being spayed/neutered. They are shown in the ring and the guidelines state that a dog must be intact in order to do so. This is something to bring up with the CKC or AKC if you are unhappy with this rule.

My suggestion is that those who don't wish to spend the money on a well bred, health and temperment sound dog/cat go to a shelter and spend their money there. It's when you have people who wish to spend 500$ on a 'purebred' animal that is ridden with health problems that problems begin. That 500$ animal can potentially turn into thousands and thousands of dollars. Again - I'd much rather pay a higher amount upfront, have breeder support, etc than the pain and heartache and expense of a BYB. You will always have people who want that purebred and who will not want to go through a shelter - this is why BYB continue to be so popular.

How much you spend on a dog/cat doesn't guarantee a healthy pet ;), there is no correlation


It's unfortunate that's your 'takeaway' on that. Show dogs should be exempt because they actually have a purpose for NOT being spayed/neutered. They are shown in the ring and the guidelines state that a dog must be intact in order to do so. This is something to bring up with the CKC or AKC if you are unhappy with this rule.

I personally don't care, I was responding to the original posting about the article on dogs being spayed neutered by the SPCA before being returned to it's owners and somebody brought up that show dogs should be exempt.

How much you spend on a dog/cat doesn't guarantee a healthy pet , there is no correlation.

Of course there are no guarantees, but you stand the best chance at having the healthiest pet possible when they do come from a reputable and ethical breeder who does the required health testing. With all due respect, to say there is no correlation is simply an ignorant statement and one I hope people will think twice about.

Of course there are no guarantees, but you stand the best chance at having the healthiest pet possible when they do come from a reputable and ethical breeder who does the required health testing. With all due respect, to say there is no correlation is simply an ignorant statement and one I hope people will think twice about.

So the correlation is to get from a rep/ethical breeder, not how much you pay ;).

Okay, so let's say, for argument's sake, that all the breeders are harming their breeds and you prohibit them from breeding. (I'll just go and cry into my beautiful English setters' fur and tell them they're a dying breed now. Better cry into your Himalayans' fur, for the same reason, L4H. Love rotties, BenMax? We can make it a cry fest :p)

Okay, breeding is done. What has that done for the problem?

Nothing. The shelters are still full of dogs on death row because the populace still hasn't been educated as to puppy mills, and even if they were, they have no choice if they want a purebred because you've just shut down all the breeders... :shrug:

And I'm now without my English setters, to boot. :cry:

Maybe you can live with that, but I'm not nearly 'PETA' enough to want to try.

Hazel..I am not saying STOP breeding forever. I am suggesting to take a break. I am not that unbalanced you know.:laughing:. I certainly would not want to see breeds extinct. To imply that, I would be a PETA person...which I am certainly not.

Yes you are absolutely right about shelters still having dogs and cats on death row. Again - as you stated before - tougher laws, penalities to be put in place along with education. I cannot dispute this either.

Really - we have no issue Hazel. I agree with you.

When you say breed people should contribute I assume you mean in all ways, fostering, adopting and financially. I don't know about that. Showing dogs is very expensive, the breeder/exhibitor usually takes excellent care of their own dogs and is there when dogs they breed and have sold need looking after, I just wonder why they should be made responsible for the sins of others, for all dogs? They should be the saviour so that all the people who puppy farm or are totally irresponsible owners can sleep at night? The over population is not of their doing. They're not all heartless really, I know of a Chihuahua breeder who had a houseful of little angels that needed a home, so she gave them one. Easy to do with a small breed, not so easy with the large or aggressive breeds. I would not bring an adult cattle dog in here for instance, not while my current pair are still with me.

Really?:shrug:. Wow sad that they could not pass on the same courtesy of spending a fraction of money to help an animal in need that is a breed that they hold near and dear. How selfish really. Is one dog really going to kill their wallet?

I never implied that breeders are heartless, but I can tell now that they are selfish if they cannot lend a hand.

And no - they absolutely do not have to be anyone's saviour - we can just leave that up to volunteers, rescues and shelters that open their arms to any breed or mutt for that matter. Not a problem as none of them think about the costs incurred. It certainly separates us all now doesn't it.

I really would rather stay out of this thread especially due to the turn of the topic, however, on the origional point of the thread.
We all have seen the one owner who lets their dog roam everywhere with no regard for its safety or for it to be breeding with other roaming dogs in the neighbourhood.
Especially in the country.
Now, owning intact dogs i can tell you that these roamers end up here once a year like clock work, lingering around the pen, marking up the property you name it.
IF we had animal control out here at all, and said intact males were picked up and neutered I wouldnt have a problem with it. Now, if Marv was to escape (a dog who holds some amazing genetics in his pedigree and a very costly boy for what he has behind him.) and be neutered upon pick up by the non existant animal control. i would be of course extremely ticked off, but I think more with myself.
I have paid a LOT of money for my TM's, between importing and health testing and I make DARN sure they are kept secure. Also, training goes a LONG way. If by chance he was to slip away from me on a walk for example and be now running at large, thankfully he has a decent recall.
I dont know if I agree with it being a law to have all dogs altered, I dont want to state that there is more value in a purebred than a mixed breed, I dont hold any of my dogs above another (Ok I'm lying, Kita my mixed breed is my heart dog, I have a smidgen more love for her but dont tell the others)
Not once has any of my dogs been picked up by a "dog catcher" or ended up in a pound. I have lost Meiko and Kita in the past, for less than a day, I had called every vet clinic, SPCA, Humane Society, animal control in the area ect... with in an hour of them running off. Had they not been altered and picked up, I wouldnt object to them insisting I altered before taking them home.
On the other hand though, isnt holding a dog until the owners agree to alter really taking up resources and space for a dog in need?

Anyway, back on my origional point... which is, for example the law was that if a dog was picked up by animal control it was to be neutered before leaving... then I would just take extra care in making sure they dont get out.
I think though what it would lead to is some very under excercised dogs, and those who chose not to alter as required would just hide.

Now, if Marv was to escape (a dog who holds some amazing genetics in his pedigree and a very costly boy for what he has behind him.) and be neutered upon pick up by the non existant animal control. i would be of course extremely ticked off, but I think more with myself.
On the other hand though, isnt holding a dog until the owners agree to alter really taking up resources and space for a dog in need?



As stated by someone who works with the shelter - your scenario is a non issue if your Marv is a show dog. It is case by case.

As for taking space - well the dog is better taking that spot, being altered to ensure that offsprings don't take more room in the future.

As stated by someone who works with the shelter - your scenario is a non issue if your Marv is a show dog. It is case by case.

As for taking space - well the dog is better taking that spot, being altered to ensure that offsprings don't take more room in the future.

Right now I would have no proof of it though, thats the thing, if at this exact minute he was sitting in a shelter to be neutered, he has never been in a ring. How does one prove that a show dog is a show dog, it gets tricky now. He will be in a ring this spring, but anyone can say this about their registered dog.

Your space taking point is very valid.:thumbs up

Right now I would have no proof of it though, thats the thing, if at this exact minute he was sitting in a shelter to be neutered, he has never been in a ring. How does one prove that a show dog is a show dog, it gets tricky now. He will be in a ring this spring, but anyone can say this about their registered dog.

Your space taking point is very valid.:thumbs up

erykah1310 - I have to tell you that I know this shelter better than I wish I did. They are not fantatics that are shut down to different scenarios. I am certain that there is reasoning that can be had in situations like this. They are well intended people, doing a job that is not so pleasant. I can tell you that they go to such lengths to accomodate all demands. They have been instrumental on saving lives, getting rescues to pitch in, and yes calling breeders to ask them to take their dogs back. I can CONFIRM 100% that not all breeders are fulfilling their obligations as per their contract. These dogs are sterilized and put up for adoption or find rescues to take.(Just thought I would throw in some added detail.:))

That comment made me laugh , 14+, as it reminded me of a snobby cocker spaniel breeder who thought she was better than everyone else because she washed her dogs' bowls. :D I thought "What?! Doesn't everyone?"

Anyway, have to tell you that pups here are born in heated whelping boxes and sleep on very expensive(but at least hard wearing) dry bed. From birth until the dam stops any discharge they have clean flannalette sheeting over that because it is easier to wash than dry bed, it drys faster. I have a great collection of stuffed toys for baby pups. I forget who complained about the cost of registered pups but I can guarantee I've never made a cent because of giving litters the care I think they deserve. And I am certainly not alone.

My point I was trying to make GF, is that this is not a recurring cost. Breeders have the whelping boxes, the flannelet sheeting (which btw is not that expensive here and can be picked up for next to nothing at second hand stores), the toys (you said yourself you keep for baby pups). You are not going out and buying brand new every time you breed as LP is doing now with her foster litter. Breeders can also write off a lot of those expenses because it is a business. People who foster can not write off their expenses. It's an old argument and not one about to be solved here.

Now back to case at point. I truly believe these shelters are on the right track. Neutering of strays needs to happen in order to help the overpopulation. That is the whole crux of the matter, isn't it? If medical causes are shown, as in Nookie's situation, of course then it needs to be written in as part of their "laws" that neutering can't happen. But I can't see Nookie taking off.:shrug:
I would think what they are trying to do is to cut back on repeat offenders - the dogs that always show up at their door. So if a "show dog" kept escaping then yes, it should not be given any more chance than an "average Joe's dog". Obviously the owner does not care much about their dog if that keeps on happening.
I am definitely in favour of all cats being neutered. Their situation is so heartbreaking at this time it requires drastic measures. The euth rate for cats is chilling.
As I said before it all goes back to education. We need a Canadawide blitz to be run on TV, radio, billboards, etc for about a month to get it through people's heads that we are in a crisis situation. We need to educate people about not buying from millers, brokers, bybs, pet stores (unless working with a shelter), etc. We need to show horrific situations such as animals being euthed, puppy mills being busted, etc. Maybe then it will get through people heads. Maybe. But there will always be those :loser:s that breed "just because".

We need to show horrific situations such as animals being euthed, puppy mills being busted, etc. Maybe then it will get through people heads. Maybe. But there will always be those :loser:s that breed "just because".

You know 14+K - as I have seen literally hundreds of euthanasias...maybe this is why I am so drastic in my thought process. Puppy mills are horrific to see and places with gas chambers...well I don't even want to talk about this.:(

Yes 14+K you are right...maybe shock is the only recourse.

I also agree 100% with the SPCA policy that is in conjunction with the demands of the municipality. I know for a fact that one particular dog will never see the day that she must endure another litter. And yes, I am darn happy about that.

Bottom line - and again, my opinion..I think that they are doing well by the animals in question, are helping reduce the overpopulation and are also providing a service that I hope extends to more municipalities that they have contracts with.:thumbs up

We need a Canadawide blitz to be run on TV, radio, billboards, etc for about a month to get it through people's heads that we are in a crisis situation. We need to show horrific situations such as animals being euthed, puppy mills being busted, etc. Maybe then it will get through people heads. Maybe.


IMO this will not help. Human brains are funny they block out what they don't want to see or hear the rest they bock out. and to the irresponsible owners that doesn't care it won't make a difference.
they will just turn their backs and walk away. :shrug:
I've seen it :(

IMO this will not help. Human brains are funny they block out what they don't want to see or hear the rest they bock out. and to the irresponsible owners that doesn't care it won't make a difference.
they will just turn their backs and walk away. :shrug:
I've seen it :(


What do you think would help breeze? I'm open to any suggestions. Especially dealing with the cat crisis.
When I was taking my degree one of the things I learned was how repeated advertising swings the market. That's how companies sell their products. They flood the market with advertising. People's minds work in mysterious ways. They may block out the images and sounds for a while but they eventually stick. Look at McD's advertising campaign. In it's heyday how many people couldn't sing the jingle for Big Macs? Not many. And Tide - look how successful it is with pretty basic commercials. Everyone knows what Tide is. That's why I said run the ads, etc for about a month regularly and often. Eventually the subconscious will retain it. JM :2cents:

You are right. To the irresponsible people it won't. But to the ones that are simple uneducated it may. :thumbs up

Even if the adds only got through to say 25% of the breeders and morons,,that's 25% that wont be breeding anymore or thinking their dog is better off intact.

Erykah you would be able to prove that Marv is show stock,,i assume you have his papers showing he is show line..

Human brains are funny they block out what they don't want to see or hear the rest they bock out. and to the irresponsible owners that doesn't care it won't make a difference.
they will just turn their backs and walk away. :shrug:
I've seen it :(

I know you have and you made the very best effort to help in that case :grouphug:. If anything, you played a very important role in teaching some people what the responsibilities of pet guardianship is all about. You educated. Chances are these folk won't make the same mistake again because of you :grouphug:.

What do you think would help breeze? I'm open to any suggestions. Especially dealing with the cat crisis.
When I was taking my Business Marketing degree one of the things I learned was how repeated advertising swings the market. That's how companies sell their products. They flood the market with advertising. People's minds work in mysterious ways. They may block out the images and sounds for a while but they eventually stick. Look at McD's advertising campaign. In it's heyday how many people couldn't sing the jingle for Big Macs? Not many. And Tide - look how successful it is with pretty basic commercials. Everyone knows what Tide is. That's why I said run the ads, etc for about a month regularly and often. Eventually the subconscious will retain it. JM :2cents:

I don't know :(
:sorry::offtopic: but take the cigs adds on pkgs even how gross those are people still buy the cigs, even the comercials don't work for smokers.
McD's is fun and cheep why wouldn't it work?? and tide everyone use laundry soap, everyone wants clean cloths :shrug:
I wish I had an easy answer but I don't..

I know someone that has a dog he is fixed cause they got him after it was done, then they required an other dog female, she is not fixed, and not planning on fixing her even thought they know the risks. (no medical reason for them not to fix her, and not a show dog) I have talked to them until I blue in the face... it all comes down to money (even though I have given them a low cost clinic) they just don't feel the "need" to do this... even with all the information, pictures and such that was given to them they still don't feel the need to do this. they turn a blind eye

... even with all the information, pictures and such that was given to them they still don't feel the need to do this. they turn a blind eye

Like lots of ppl, they won't do anything about it until it affects them in some negative way. At least you've provided the information so that if they're ever ready, they'll know what to do.

I don't know :(
:sorry::offtopic: but take the cigs adds on pkgs even how gross those are people still buy the cigs, even the comercials don't work for smokers.
McD's is fun and cheep why wouldn't it work?? and tide everyone use laundry soap, everyone wants clean cloths :shrug:
I wish I had an easy answer but I don't..

I know someone that has a dog he is fixed cause they got him after it was done, then they required an other dog female, she is not fixed, and not planning on fixing her even thought they know the risks. (no medical reason for them not to fix her, and not a show dog) I have talked to them until I blue in the face... it all comes down to money (even though I have given them a low cost clinic) they just don't feel the "need" to do this... even with all the information, pictures and such that was given to them they still don't feel the need to do this. they turn a blind eye

The cigarette pics don't work because people are addicted to cigarettes and think that the pics portrayed on the packages will never happen to them. I have a little inside as to how a smoker's mind works. I smoked for 32 years. :eek:
The point I was trying to make by pointing out those particular ads is that repeated exposure to their ads is what has helped drive up the market's wanting that particular product. If McD's didn't have the marketing program they have it would be just another fast food place in a sea of them. Mc'Ds spends at least 10% of their income on marketing so we know about their product. If Tide didn't flood the TV audience about how good their product is what stops people from going in and buying something cheaper? They wouldn't know that Tide is supposed to work better without that advertising. They would only see that it costs more than other products. Without their advertising blitz what product do you think consumers would buy? :shrug:

I do understand your point 14+ :)

I just feel that no matter what you/we do, pet owners that don't give a rats a$$ will do what ever they want, and see what ever they want and hear what ever they want .

don't get me wrong I will still talk to I'm blue in the face maybe I will get through to at least one person.:)

I know someone that has a dog he is fixed cause they got him after it was done, then they required an other dog female, she is not fixed, and not planning on fixing her even thought they know the risks. (no medical reason for them not to fix her, and not a show dog) I have talked to them until I blue in the face... it all comes down to money (even though I have given them a low cost clinic) they just don't feel the "need" to do this... even with all the information, pictures and such that was given to them they still don't feel the need to do this. they turn a blind eye

Like lots of ppl, they won't do anything about it until it affects them in some negative way. At least you've provided the information so that if they're ever ready, they'll know what to do.

You are right LP. Education is the key. At least I think it is. Maybe after that dog has an oops pregnancy or two those people may look at things differently. All we can do is provide the information to people. We can't force them to do anything. At least if they are aware there is a problem then they might think twice about their actions. Right now it's sad to say a lot of people just don't know there is a problem. :shrug:

don't get me wrong I will still talk to I'm blue in the face maybe I will get through to at least one person.:)

:grouphug: And that's all you can do. If it makes you feel any better you can think of me here doing that exact same thing - trying to get through to just one person. :thumbs up

I don't know :(
:sorry::offtopic: but take the cigs adds on pkgs even how gross those are people still buy the cigs, even the comercials don't work for smokers.


Its different though, this is a terrible addiction, I'm not addicted to breeding my dogs.

I'm sure the miller on the next road from me is though:shrug: not so much addicted to the dog breeding experience, but to the financial gain they get with their pups.:frustrated:

My man had a conversation with these people and they were boasting that they made $40 000 a year on their pups.:mad:
If people would stop purchasing their dogs, then they would stop breeding them, but its an easy buck to them and thats all. However at $300 a pup, those not wanting to go through an application or waiting list from a reputable breeder scoop the pups up like they're going out of style.
No one would know that they had upwards of 60 dogs in a house trailer in the back of their property, they're never out, so they wouldnt ever risk being picked up and speutered.

SPCA has been called countless times, they had all their dogs taken twice but got them all back both times. Every other time I dont even think they investigated.

SPCA has been called countless times, they had all their dogs taken twice but got them all back both times. Every other time I dont even think they investigated.

If they have shelter, food and water, they are 'clean' and in good shape :frustrated:, there is nothing that the SPCA nor Anima Quebec can do. All they can do if they see an infraction is to provide steps that must be taken and then follow up visit(s). Stinks doesn't it? Laws definately need to be changed. WOW - $40,000 on pups alone. Disgusting isn't it.:wall:

Absolutely is disgusting, everytime I hear that someone purchased one of the pups my heart breaks.
And want to talk about health problems... I have heard horror stories of some things these pups are born with. Is it because they are milled pups? Most likely, but you think about it, the amount of litters had in this one trailer in a year is more than I would have in say 15 years of breeding TM's.

Its different though, this is a terrible addiction,


yes I know :(

But what I'm saying is that scare tactics just doesn't work especially on owners that don't care. they will just walk away when pushed or backed against a wall.
these people don't care about the law either, they think they are above it..

I know some people will buy from puppymills, pet store pups cause of the cost, there's no questions asked, sign a contract but no follow ups..
I know people that went to these places cause they were refused at rescues or shelters even the SPCA cause of fencing or little kids or cause they didn't like the idea of home visits..

and the majority want what they want, when they want it, no waiting, no restrictions, no one to answer to.
:shrug:

sorry I think I'm off topic

Here is my two cents on how to control the problem by reducing the numbers:

1) Each breeder that supplies a pet store must pay a licensing fee to do so. Each puppy from that breeder is speutered before going to the pet store. ( I am using the term breeder loosely here folks!) Thus we have started reducing the Oops that folks claim they have... We have also reduced the number of health issues seen down the road as genetic defects cannot keep producing..

2) Absolutely no advertising on the internet sites as in Lespacs, Kijiji, etc for animals. Only licensed breeders may advertise on the www.

3) Breeders (and now I mean CKC types, that do testing etc...) have and enforce in their contract that should someone purchase a puppy and not show the puppy by two years of age that they are obliged to sterilise that once was puppy. Breeders are restricted to two litters in a lifetime from one bitch. Stud owners are required to breed only to a bitch that is fully certified and health cleared. Failure to do these things results in loss of Registration for the breeder.

4) Any dog that is used for breeding purposes and genetic defects or heriditary issues are noted by a veterinarian are required to be sterilised. Veterinarians are required to report these defects to the Registry.

5) Your dog gets picked up by AC once, it's this fee. Your dog gets picked up a second time the fee goes up. Your dog gets picked up a third time and you lose the right to own that dog as obviously you aren't keeping your dog very safe.

These are just ideas but at the end of the day I think at least some of them would reduce the numbers. My experience I'm afraid is mainly with dogs so I don't know how things work with cats. :o

Thats our society today though, we want what we want and when we want it. All of us are guilty of it to some extent. Be it our groceries, pets, ect...

2) Absolutely no advertising on the internet sites as in Lespacs, Kijiji, etc for animals. Only licensed breeders may advertise on the www.

I think these free sites should ONLY be for registered rescues. If you are a breeder, you have a paid website and your breed club links to you. They dont use Kijiji or the others. However right now on my show lists I'm on, they are talking about all flooding kijiji and setting the bar high for byb'ers. We have all seen the poodledoodles, cocadoodlepoos ect that are listed for well over $2500. Hopefully if people saw all sorts of guarantees from reputable breeders and then nothing from byb'ers plus contracts ect it could open their eyes to the difference.
Its just a debate going on right now.

3) Breeders (and now I mean CKC types, that do testing etc...) have and enforce in their contract that should someone purchase a puppy and not show the puppy by two years of age that they are obliged to sterilise that once was puppy. Breeders are restricted to two litters in a lifetime from one bitch. Stud owners are required to breed only to a bitch that is fully certified and health cleared. Failure to do these things results in loss of Registration for the breeder.
In my contract pups are required to be spayed/neutered by 2 years old, I offered a $300 refund once i recieved proof of said surgery.

5) Your dog gets picked up by AC once, it's this fee. Your dog gets picked up a second time the fee goes up. Your dog gets picked up a third time and you lose the right to own that dog as obviously you aren't keeping your dog very safe.
YES

Really?:shrug:. Wow sad that they could not pass on the same courtesy of spending a fraction of money to help an animal in need that is a breed that they hold near and dear. How selfish really. Is one dog really going to kill their wallet?

I never implied that breeders are heartless, but I can tell now that they are selfish if they cannot lend a hand.

And no - they absolutely do not have to be anyone's saviour - we can just leave that up to volunteers, rescues and shelters that open their arms to any breed or mutt for that matter. Not a problem as none of them think about the costs incurred. It certainly separates us all now doesn't it.

I wonder how many breeders/show exhibitors there are like me out there that are already caring for more than one dog that did not make the grade as a show dog? I personally know plenty of them. People who do their bit by looking after what they've bred rather than rehoming them in homes that are needed for your homeless dogs? I won't embarrass myself by counting how many of mine have just been much loved pets. :D Also, many people show dogs as a hobby, not as a business, so no, they don't get it easy, off their tax. A lot are pensioners, usually the ones who can't kick the dog showing addiction, and are battling to manage. None are making $40,000 annually selling the pups that are making your life so hard. So no, I don't think we're that different, it's just that we, the ethical breeders/showies, have to be responsible for what we breed first and foremost, and when we get into difficulties with bills, and we certainly do from time to time, we manage somehow , without dumping our dogs, without asking for help. I have 8 dogs at the moment, only 3 of which did well in the ring, be thankful I am not asking someone just like you to find homes for the other 5.

I still say that the judgement of certain people on this forum is clouded by the terrible things they are having to deal with, and my heart goes out to you, but I believe you are picking on the wrong people.

I still say that the judgement of certain people on this forum is clouded by the terrible things they are having to deal with, and my heart goes out to you, but I believe you are picking on the wrong people.

possibly some members views are abit jaded,,also possible that some members are a wee bit neive because they don't see what actually happens to these unwanted animal. How many have actually seen a dog or should i say several dogs at the same time, gassed to death(saves money to mass gas). It isn't nice and peaceful like when fifi is put down at the vets. just my:2cents:

Here is my two cents on how to control the problem by reducing the numbers:



3) Breeders (and now I mean CKC types, that do testing etc...) have and enforce in their contract that should someone purchase a puppy and not show the puppy by two years of age that they are obliged to sterilise that once was puppy. Breeders are restricted to two litters in a lifetime from one bitch. Stud owners are required to breed only to a bitch that is fully certified and health cleared. Failure to do these things results in loss of Registration for the breeder.

4) Any dog that is used for breeding purposes and genetic defects or heriditary issues are noted by a veterinarian are required to be sterilised. Veterinarians are required to report these defects to the Registry.


These are just ideas but at the end of the day I think at least some of them would reduce the numbers. My experience I'm afraid is mainly with dogs so I don't know how things work with cats. :o

On those two points, BMDLuver, our Canine Councils come down hard here on people breeding from females too early or too often, they get fined or their m'ship suspended. They also have to now do any genetic testing that is available for their breed. As for stud dogs ....
A member shall not permit any of that member's pure bred dogs to be mated to a dog of a different breed, to a cross bred dog, to an unregistered dog of the same breed, or to a dog not on the main register .......

You have some good ideas IMO. :thumbs up

The responsibility of a breeder is to care for all they put into this world. I thought that was a given? At least it is with the breeders I know. A reputable breeder is a responsible breeder, that should be a given. A breeder who refuses to take a dog back shouldn't be a breeder IMHO. So I don't think that anyone is refuting a responsible breeder doing for their breed but rather that sadly there are many irresponsible breeders out there as well. I think it is those who need to step up to the plate and take responsibility. If you love a breed then no matter what it takes, you care for the breed for it's lifetime. Caring doesn't just mean feeding, housing and loving but promoting the breed, assisting those bred who didn't have responsible breeders and educating the public on what a responsible breeder means and how to identify one. It also means that when you don't have a dog or pup available to a family looking that you point them in the direction of rescue or help them to find another breeder with your ethics who does have a suitable candidate. The bottom line is stand by your breed at all times and promote the breed to the best of your abilities. If that is what you do then Kudos to you as that is what everyone should do.

It's the indiscriminate breeders that unfortunately taint it for all the breeders doing the right thing. Breeding for volume is wrong, breeding for profit is wrong in my books. Those are the cases most seen by many of the folks who rescue and work with shelters. I happen to be fortunate enough to know some really great breeders who will bend over backwards to assist their breed in need but not all have that priveledge.

So I think that generalities are not necessarily a good thing. It's not an all or nothing kind of deal but rather a case of looking at each individual not as the group in whole? Make some sense?

On those two points, BMDLuver, our Canine Councils come down hard here on people breeding from females too early or too often, they get fined or their m'ship suspended. They also have to now do any genetic testing that is available for their breed. As for stud dogs ....
A member shall not permit any of that member's pure bred dogs to be mated to a dog of a different breed, to a cross bred dog, to an unregistered dog of the same breed, or to a dog not on the main register .......

You have some good ideas IMO. :thumbs up

Thanks. I would hazard that you are in the UK? Sorry if I am not UTD on folks on the board. Sadly the CKC and AKC are governed much more laxly which allows for some pretty unethical practices to occur. These cases drive the breeders I know around the bend because it can take a few years to finally have enough concrete evidence to have a breeders rights revoked. In the interim they are continuing on their merry way. :(

possibly some members views are abit jaded,,also possible that some members are a wee bit neive because they don't see what actually happens to these unwanted animal. How many have actually seen a dog or should i say several dogs at the same time, gassed to death(saves money to mass gas). It isn't nice and peaceful like when fifi is put down at the vets. just my:2cents:

Oh, I think some TV advert's at say 7pm, or whenever people are most likely to be sitting down to dinner, would be a good thing so people do wake up to reality. Not just showing euthanasia but what can go wrong if females aren't speyed - pyometra - and the problems they can get into when whelping. Maybe a vet explaining the costs, because on some level a bit of this might sink in. Also, do you have anyone teaching school children about how to care for dogs? Our Canine Council has teams touring the schools.

Thanks. I would hazard that you are in the UK? Sorry if I am not UTD on folks on the board. Sadly the CKC and AKC are governed much more laxly which allows for some pretty unethical practices to occur. These cases drive the breeders I know around the bend because it can take a few years to finally have enough concrete evidence to have a breeders rights revoked. In the interim they are continuing on their merry way. :(

No, I'm in Australia, in Victoria, and here we get people named and shamed each month in our gazette, fined and/or suspended if they do the wrong thing. We have Codes of Conduct we must abide by as breeders, as exhibitors(refusing to take a ribbon or throwing it on the ground, $300)(trying to stamp out poor sportsmanship), even the Judges have their Code of Conduct, and the Affiliates. Some might think it's being over governed but I reckon it's all good.

No, I'm in Australia, in Victoria, and here we get people named and shamed each month in our gazette, fined and/or suspended if they do the wrong thing. We have Codes of Conduct we must abide by as breeders, as exhibitors(refusing to take a ribbon or throwing it on the ground, $300)(trying to stamp out poor sportsmanship), even the Judges have their Code of Conduct, and the Affiliates. Some might think it's being over governed but I reckon it's all good.

I wish that were the case in North America. I think if it were then it would clean up an awful lot of the problems we see.

You asked about schools here. Sadly there are no programs really in place to educate the youth of today. I have done a few things with my daughters former school and did another at their summer camp. It went over very well and I had little children listening for an hour about that puppy in the pet shop window and it's means of getting there. Of course, I had two live subjects that helped bring the point home. I have offered in our new area but it was indicated that so many of the kids are farm kids who know a lot about animals and that there are rescues in the area. I would hazard that they don't really have the true picture but I'm not one to beat a dead horse too loudly so I will be patient and try again at a later date.

Puppy mills and irresponsible owners exist all over the world. This is not just a Canadian problem. Dogs are shipped into Canada from other millers around the world; just as millers in Canada ship to other countries. Every single country needs to work together to solve this issue. JMO

I wish that were the case in North America. I think if it were then it would clean up an awful lot of the problems we see.

Maybe they haven't realised yet how much money they can get by fining members? LOL.

You asked about schools here. Sadly there are no programs really in place to educate the youth of today. I have done a few things with my daughters former school and did another at their summer camp. It went over very well and I had little children listening for an hour about that puppy in the pet shop window and it's means of getting there. Of course, I had two live subjects that helped bring the point home. I have offered in our new area but it was indicated that so many of the kids are farm kids who know a lot about animals and that there are rescues in the area. I would hazard that they don't really have the true picture but I'm not one to beat a dead horse too loudly so I will be patient and try again at a later date.

Good for you. :thumbs up Must say I hate it when adults try telling me that kids don't have to be told things. A local mother told me her daughter knew the lot where horses were involved, which led to their pony foundering, which is dreadful. I hope they let you talk at the school, I think the RSPCA and the Canine Council got our education program started here.

Puppy mills and irresponsible owners exist all over the world. This is not just a Canadian problem. Dogs are shipped into Canada from other millers around the world; just as millers in Canada ship to other countries. Every single country needs to work together to solve this issue. JMO

You are quite right, some countries might be tougher on their puppy farmers though. One was shut down here that belonged to a Vet/Member of Parliament. :eek: I might be wrong but I think our puppy farmers would be breeding more for the Asian market than for yours.

I might be wrong but I think our puppy farmers would be breeding more for the Asian market than for yours.

:shrug: I don't even know how to respond to that. :confused:

Well, what don't you understand? It's a sad fact of life that dealers and puppy farmers exist and I know that the pitfall when breeding shelties here is that dealers try every trick they can to get hold of Sheltie pups for the Asian market, and I am sure that would apply to other breeds as well. It's one of the reasons I stopped breeding shelties. I had two different dealers approach me about one litter. I find them pretty stupid, easy to see through, and check up on, but could do without that hassle.

Well, what don't you understand?

Oh, I understood quite well what you said.

I'm sorry, 14+, I know nothing I say will please you so I won't lose sleep over your cryptic post.

Goldfields, as you breed or bred...just a question: if someone who purchased off you 8 years ago and now no longer wants this dog you sold them, do you take this dog back? Do you try to re-home, euthanize, or refuse to take?

The responsibility of a breeder is to care for all they put into this world. I thought that was a given? At least it is with the breeders I know. A reputable breeder is a responsible breeder, that should be a given. A breeder who refuses to take a dog back shouldn't be a breeder IMHO. So I don't think that anyone is refuting a responsible breeder doing for their breed but rather that sadly there are many irresponsible breeders out there as well. I think it is those who need to step up to the plate and take responsibility. If you love a breed then no matter what it takes, you care for the breed for it's lifetime. Caring doesn't just mean feeding, housing and loving but promoting the breed, assisting those bred who didn't have responsible breeders and educating the public on what a responsible breeder means and how to identify one. It also means that when you don't have a dog or pup available to a family looking that you point them in the direction of rescue or help them to find another breeder with your ethics who does have a suitable candidate. The bottom line is stand by your breed at all times and promote the breed to the best of your abilities. If that is what you do then Kudos to you as that is what everyone should do.

It's the indiscriminate breeders that unfortunately taint it for all the breeders doing the right thing. Breeding for volume is wrong, breeding for profit is wrong in my books. Those are the cases most seen by many of the folks who rescue and work with shelters. I happen to be fortunate enough to know some really great breeders who will bend over backwards to assist their breed in need but not all have that priveledge.

So I think that generalities are not necessarily a good thing. It's not an all or nothing kind of deal but rather a case of looking at each individual not as the group in whole? Make some sense?

:thumbs up BDMLuver, I think this is very well put. It just about sums everything up so well.:thumbs up

Not directed to me but I would take any dog back at any point in their lives.
I am responsible for adding 9 pups into this world last year, I did not breed this year and may not next as well, as in all honesty. I dont have room to take back 18 dogs in the event that all came back.
I dont see me getting back any pup as I am in contact with all the new owners and recieve lovely pictures of them all on a monthly - bi monthly basis.
HOWEVER... these guys live a long time and a lot can change.
If I got one or two back at 9 years of age, I would keep them and not rehome them. At that age a big black breed like this doesnt stand a chance at finding another home.

I wonder how many breeders/show exhibitors there are like me out there that are already caring for more than one dog that did not make the grade as a show dog? I personally know plenty of them. People who do their bit by looking after what they've bred rather than rehoming them in homes that are needed for your homeless dogs? I won't embarrass myself by counting how many of mine have just been much loved pets. :D Also, many people show dogs as a hobby, not as a business, so no, they don't get it easy, off their tax. A lot are pensioners, usually the ones who can't kick the dog showing addiction, and are battling to manage. None are making $40,000 annually selling the pups that are making your life so hard. So no, I don't think we're that different, it's just that we, the ethical breeders/showies, have to be responsible for what we breed first and foremost, and when we get into difficulties with bills, and we certainly do from time to time, we manage somehow , without dumping our dogs, without asking for help. I have 8 dogs at the moment, only 3 of which did well in the ring, be thankful I am not asking someone just like you to find homes for the other 5.

I still say that the judgement of certain people on this forum is clouded by the terrible things they are having to deal with, and my heart goes out to you, but I believe you are picking on the wrong people.

I think that GF answered perhaps indirectly how he/she takes responsibility for what was brought into this world by a breeding.

I'm going to express my opinion right now and that is that there seems to be an underlying current of personal attack on this thread which I wish would go away. I know that many are not comfortable with breeders and for good reason due to personal experience but the breeders you are referring to are those that breed indiscriminately for profit and not love of the breed. I've stood in court waiting to hear a verdict on these such breeders and desperatley wanted to beat one silly while waiting. I honestly think it would be a lot better if all shelters, rescuers and breeders worked together to weed out the bad apples. If we concentrated on that I think the numbers would be greatly reduced. I am now going to crawl behind the sofa and hope that this thread becomes a civil and informed discussion again

I think that GF answered perhaps indirectly how he/she takes responsibility for what was brought into this world by a breeding.

I'm going to express my opinion right now and that is that there seems to be an underlying current of personal attack on this thread which I wish would go away. I know that many are not comfortable with breeders and for good reason due to personal experience but the breeders you are referring to are those that breed indiscriminately for profit and not love of the breed. I've stood in court waiting to hear a verdict on these such breeders and desperatley wanted to beat one silly while waiting. I honestly think it would be a lot better if all shelters, rescuers and breeders worked together to weed out the bad apples. If we concentrated on that I think the numbers would be greatly reduced. I am now going to crawl behind the sofa and hope that this thread becomes a civil and informed discussion again

I don't see any personal attack on anyone BDM Luver. What I see is people like myself wanting desperately to be educated by a breeder. What I do not have any respect for however is breeders backing each other up by saying why should they take on any responsibility to help their own breed regardless of where the dogs came from???:shrug:. So yes, I would like to understand why it is rescues and shelter's responsibility only to take in 'sub standard' breeds that were not initially breed by a reputable breeder.

I agree 100% that rescues, shelters AND good flippen breeders work together in order to help eliviate at the very least the over population. I was 'expecting' perhaps a breeder to step up and say this...not someone like you nor me to make this very obvious observation. I was actually pressing to see if it was ever even a thought.

I as well will retreat and just read. I don't think I am getting my point across at all.

Goldfields, as you breed or bred...just a question: if someone who purchased off you 8 years ago and now no longer wants this dog you sold them, do you take this dog back? Do you try to re-home, euthanize, or refuse to take?

Definitely take it back, BenMax, at any age. Bo is an example. A sheltie bought for a nice woman who always wanted one. Her poor husband had 4 family deaths in a row. His mother, then his step daughter with cancer, followed by his wife with Motor Neurone, then his father with cancer. :cry: While he considered Bo to be " just a dog", his family and those dreadful losses being far more important, he did do the right thing and contacted us to see if we'd take the dog. He could have dumped him in the Pound. My sister kept saying I should rehome the dog seeing he was very well socialised and just loves everyone, but no, I think he's had enough trauma in his life, losing all his first family, he's back home to stay. He was 5 when we got him back. Also took back a young cattle dog that didn't become entire. Believe it or not the owner wanted to shoot him. I told them do that and you won't see a cent of your money back :evil: , so he was returned and spent his life as a really valued working dog on a dairy farm. His new owner thought the sun shone out of him. :) I've always thought that if you aren't prepared to take back any dog you've bred, to either keep or find the right home for it, you should not be breeding.

I've always thought that if you aren't prepared to take back any dog you've bred, to either keep or find the right home for it, you should not be breeding.

Understood and thank you Goldfields.:thumbs up

Lordy - this thread really has gone off topic...but it's rather educating and interesting to see everyone's take on all surrounding subjects.:thumbs up

What I do not have any respect for however is breeders backing each other up by saying why should they take on any responsibility to help their own breed regardless of where the dogs came from???:shrug:. So yes, I would like to understand why it is rescues and shelter's responsibility only to take in 'sub standard' breeds that were not initially breed by a reputable breeder.



It's interesting because I belong to a breed specific club. There are several members but very few who step up to the plate and assist. Seems the same one's do all the work time and again. The one's who are doing the most work are breeders who no longer breed but love their breed and continue to show those they have or breed once in a blue moon. Then, every once in a while, we get a member who will say, oh, does the dog have papers and I want to crawl through the computer and bang my head against the wall! Honestly, papers smaypers, it's your breed and it needs help! So yeah I see what you mean.

Everyone I know in the dog world would take on any dog needing help, pure or not.
Has anyone ever noticed the amount of non purebred dogs I have and do own? What you see in my pictures is what almost everyone I know who is active in the dog world in some way's yard looks like.
I have heard about horror stories of shelters refusing to adopt back a dog that a good breeder produced, found out about and has come forward for. This appauls me. Even if the dog is altered I have heard a few accounts of breeders having to fight for their pup.
What sense does that make? A breeder stepping up to get their dog out of the shelter and a shelter/rescue refusing to give dog back?

What sense does that make? A breeder stepping up to get their dog out of the shelter and a shelter/rescue refusing to give dog back?

What a horrible example erykah..how many times did this happen? I cannot tell you how many times breeders refused their dogs. I can attest to this fact as I have one right at this moment in my home. Also, countless other times that I know of personally.

I know of 3, which is far too many if you ask me. I can see if the dog was intact and the breeder sketchy, but these breeders were strong COE breeders.

I know of 3, which is far too many if you ask me. I can see if the dog was intact and the breeder sketchy, but these breeders were strong COE breeders.

It really depends on the SPCA you are referring to. The one I deal with does not hold back dogs if the breeder is 100% reputable.

3 dogs are alot...far less then those that refuse however...(don't kill the messanger..just saying):)

Oh Im sure the amount that refuse must be insane. Disgusting really

Oh Im sure the amount that refuse must be insane. Disgusting really

Indeed. Oops I just remembered about one case in regards to a breeder (I stand to be correct...by myself infact LOL) One experience I had with a breeder for a dog I received in rescue - she was absolutely amazing and it was not even her dog (as the original breeder did not give a hoot). She went above and beyond to help me and she was located in the states. I have to give it to her - she was genuinely concerned and did whatever she could to lend a hand...and she did. This however was the only wonderful experience I had in 15 years.

Not directed to me but I would take any dog back at any point in their lives.
I am responsible for adding 9 pups into this world last year, I did not breed this year and may not next as well, as in all honesty. I dont have room to take back 18 dogs in the event that all came back.
I dont see me getting back any pup as I am in contact with all the new owners and recieve lovely pictures of them all on a monthly - bi monthly basis.
HOWEVER... these guys live a long time and a lot can change.
If I got one or two back at 9 years of age, I would keep them and not rehome them. At that age a big black breed like this doesnt stand a chance at finding another home.

Kudos to you. I was under the impression that all reputable breeders took back their dogs if the buyer couldn't keep them. :shrug: It seems it does not happen often. Should all breeders not be put to those standards?

Not to take the focus off dogs seeing as this thread is about dogs but - on the rare occasion I manage to adopt out a kitten/cat the new owner is told that if at any time something happens they can't keep the cat I will take it back. There are enough already in the system. I would rather take back a cat than have it go to a shelter and face certain death. :(

Not to take the focus off dogs seeing as this thread is about dogs but - on the rare occasion I manage to adopt out a kitten/cat the new owner is told that if at any time something happens they can't keep the cat I will take it back. There are enough already in the system. I would rather take back a cat than have it go to a shelter and face certain death. :(

Interesting 14+K that you bring this up. Most rescues also take back if the animal is no longer wanted. Funny thing...the SPCA took in a cat that happened to be from the rescue I am with 7 years after she had it. They (SPCA) immediately called, and I immediately picked up. The woman got a call alright and BLASTED. The contract was read to her with the highlighted point ...'if for whatever reason the said animal is no longer wanted due to circumstances, the rescue must be notified and returned to the rescue'.

Interesting 14+K that you bring this up. Most rescues also take back if the animal is no longer wanted. Funny thing...the SPCA took in a cat that happened to be from the rescue I am with 7 years after she had it. They (SPCA) immediately called, and I immediately picked up. The woman got a call alright and BLASTED. The contract was read to her with the highlighted point ...'if for whatever reason the said animal is no longer wanted due to circumstances, the rescue must be notified and returned to the rescue'.

Was she then put on a "do not adopt to" list? Not that it would do any good when she could go to almost anyone and they could tell her where to find a "free" kitten. :frustrated:

Was she then put on a "do not adopt to" list? Not that it would do any good when she could go to almost anyone and they could tell her where to find a "free" kitten. :frustrated:

Well the SPCA now knows about it...and our president will definately NEVER adopt to her again. To be honest, I don't think this woman would ever even attempt to ask.:D

Kudos to you. I was under the impression that all reputable breeders took back their dogs if the buyer couldn't keep them. :shrug: It seems it does not happen often. Should all breeders not be put to those standards?



My answer is a resounding YES! It would slow the breeding right down, and even for the show scene that would be an excellent thing. That is enforcable too, it could be made part of the Code of Ethics here, though I've just spent 10 minutes searching for our Code of Ethics, I'm sure I've read where the Canine Council do already want breeders to accept that ongoing responsibility. If too many don't comply though, make it law. I would be shot down in flames if I dared say such a thing on a show forum here :D, (but I've never let that sort of thing bother me before.)
When I spoke of Bo and that red boy we got back because he was not entire, I forgot my mother's lovely ACD boy, Milo. He was hardly a dog that a fanatical showie/breeder would want in their kennels, a totally unacceptable chocolate colour that I fluked breeding, but when mum went into a nursing home, of course he came back here to us. I think I had him for 5 years till he got cancer and had to be put down. :cry: Another thing came to me this morning, I have supported the RSPCA and the Guide Dogs for the Blind for a long time, and it's only occurred to me that this could be what people here want to know. Truthfully though, I don't give it any thought, and I suppose I don't consider it anyone else's business how our money gets spent. I'm also certainly not used to defending myself like I've had to here. Sorry, but that had to be said. I think unless you've owned and cared for 12 dogs, as I have in the past, or have 8 like I do now, you've no right to tell me to adopt. I say, after you. What I already have is keeping us poor, and this talk of pedigreed or show dogs being better, heavens, any rescue or shelter anywhere, or even most pet owners would have better looking dogs(with sincere apologies to my baby boy) than our Dundee.
Erykah1310 said

Everyone I know in the dog world would take on any dog needing help, pure or not.

and that is true. My husband even wanted to keep an ancient Border Collie we thought had been dumped outside our place, and I wasn't going to argue with him. She was blind and almost deaf, but still a bolter during a thunder storm. Fortunately for her, her frantic owners reclaimed her after we put a notice up at the Post Office. She'd only come a couple of miles from her home. Don't you just love happy endings? :thumbs up

Well here's one very simple solution to help begin to eliviate the problem. Put pressure on the CKC and any breed clubs to have higher standards for their breeding members. Registries may not want to get involved in this and likely won't because it would be a loss of precious revenues for them to kick breeders out for unethical practices, but I would have more hope for the breed clubs.

For example, the SACCI (American Cane Corso breed club) has recently proposed a draft version of a breeding members code of conduct. It was met with mixed reviews as some people felt it was a too totalitarian approach but there were also many positive replies. Essentially the code would spell out the ethical basics such as, for the breeder to be considered in good standings they must do specific health tests, breeding dogs must be of a certain age, breeding dogs must have temperament/obedience/conformation titles, puppies must have shots and microchips before being sent to new homes, they must be of a minimum age, and the breeder must be willing to take back any of their dogs at any time. (that's the basic idea of it at least) NOT the send us a cheque and fill out a membership form and you're in approach.

Who knows, politics could get involved and some breeders may not be reprimanded for said offences, but THIS I think is a step in the right dirrection.

This may not take care of the puppy mill and byb problem but we all know that there are plenty of breeders out there who try to appear under the responsible breeders umbrella, attend shows, title their dogs, but then fail to take their dogs back. If that was seen as more of a no-no in those social circles and had some consequences publicly in those circles and could actually be detrimental to the show career of their next planned star puppy, I think these people would begin to change their ways. Hit em where it hurts so to speak. Right now they have a world full of excuses and no consequences.

:thumbs upChoochi you are on to something here. Again we would have to educate the public on what to ask for (question wise) in regards to searching for a reputable (recognized and approved) breeder.:thumbs up I think your comment is brilliant actually. How many times have we heard 'reputable breeder' and find out infact this is not the case.

Come to think of it, breeders must be furious that they are not distinguishable from even the BYB. There should be something to separate them.

I think that your comment is an eye opener Choochi and definately a step in the right direction.

The COE I signed for my TM's is pretty strict and much like what Choochi has described.
It would be wonderful if more enforcement went along with it, but the breeders who want to do things right are the ones signing. BYB dont give a hoot if they're in a breed club or not, they dont even really bother to worry themselves about registration half the time but instead will show copies of the parents papers which buyers are not educated enough to look ot see if parents are on non breeding or not.
Someone not related to dog/cat breeding would have to be enforcing said COE. Registries couldnt be bothered, they want their money. And breed clubs would never allow millers or byb in so their COE mean nothing to said people.
Great idea that everyone follow a COE, who would inforce? Government? Could they be bothered. If its not banning a breed it is clear that animals arent on the top of their priorities (here atleast)

The COE I signed for my TM's is pretty strict and much like what Choochi has described.
It would be wonderful if more enforcement went along with it, but the breeders who want to do things right are the ones signing. BYB dont give a hoot if they're in a breed club or not, they dont even really bother to worry themselves about registration half the time but instead will show copies of the parents papers which buyers are not educated enough to look ot see if parents are on non breeding or not.
Someone not related to dog/cat breeding would have to be enforcing said COE. Registries couldnt be bothered, they want their money. And breed clubs would never allow millers or byb in so their COE mean nothing to said people.
Great idea that everyone follow a COE, who would inforce? Government? Could they be bothered. If its not banning a breed it is clear that animals arent on the top of their priorities (here atleast)


Dear gawd I wouldn't want the government any where near this!! I don't have much faith in the registries, as I have heard so many stories of CKC breeders doing some very rotten things, being reported to the CKC, and the CKC simply doing a lip service to the investigation and then simply sending a renewal application and asking for another membership cheque. They are borderline bankrupt, and I think have showed where their interests lie when they opted to sign the lease on their pretty new building. The CKC cares about the CKC, and nothing else, make no mistake about it.

Breed clubs on the other hand still have a more personalized feel so to speak, and I think in general care more about the dogs of their breed. They are more hands on and are usually ran by people still heavily involved in the breed or who at least were at one point.

No, something like this would not solve the issue of the mills, the bybs, and the people who do not research and go out and buy a puppy the day after they had a thought they would like to have one because they saw a cute commercial on tv. To some people, a pet will always be just like another piece of furniture and the decision to get one will be taken just as lightly as buying another coffee mug. You will never change that. However.. drinking and driving has become socially unacceptable over time, which has put social pressure on people not to do it, even if they personally don't think it's a big deal.

If social norm in the breeder industry with the help of some consequences would change to better reflect ethical practices, even with market forces those new standards could begin to affect the byb's. Right now, there are many people who see reputable breeders as obnoxious and too much work to deal with then the easy breezy, here's my money thanks for the puppy transaction that byb's offer. If the reputable breeders stood for something much better, had a solid COE to obide by and actually stuck to it, their breed clubs could easilly take up a marketing campgain that from a pure market point of view would tell consumers: puppies from our members cost the same, and come with XYZ guarantees you couldn't dream about from a non-member (byb) breeder. That will never happen right now because breed clubs knows that not all members behave up to ethical par and wouldn't want to promote them all and possibly be responsible when something goes wrong.

The COE I signed for my TM's is pretty strict and much like what Choochi has described.
It would be wonderful if more enforcement went along with it, but the breeders who want to do things right are the ones signing. BYB dont give a hoot if they're in a breed club or not, they dont even really bother to worry themselves about registration half the time but instead will show copies of the parents papers which buyers are not educated enough to look ot see if parents are on non breeding or not.
Someone not related to dog/cat breeding would have to be enforcing said COE. Registries couldnt be bothered, they want their money. And breed clubs would never allow millers or byb in so their COE mean nothing to said people.
Great idea that everyone follow a COE, who would inforce? Government? Could they be bothered. If its not banning a breed it is clear that animals arent on the top of their priorities (here atleast)

Here, for you to be a member of the Victorian Canine Council, and to be able to register dogs, you must agree (and sign) to abide by their rules and regulations AND the Code of Ethics. This is policed strictly and is a good little money earner for the Canine Councils, as well as making breeders behave, because with each misdemeanor they get a worse fine and/or period of suspension. (Why wouldn't the Govt. like that money ?) Doesn't work for the byb or puppy farmer but at least our VCA members are seen to be doing the right thing. Oh, you get fined too if you don't register every pup, and we are not allowed to breed specifically for the pet market. Reputable breeders are quick to point out to the Council who might be doing the wrong thing.

Funny how this thread "s-t-r-a-y-e-d" into a thread all about breeding practices etc., :rolleyes:

Funny how this thread "s-t-r-a-y-e-d" into a thread all about breeding practices etc., :rolleyes:

:laughing::laughing::laughing: Nice play on words mf. But you are oh so right.

yeah it has strayed quite a bit, but is remaining quite civil suprisingly

In all due respect, I fail to see how monitoring the "reputable breeders" is going to help an issue that is caused by bybs, millers and "breeders" who are only in it for a fast buck. IMO if you breed the dog be responsible for the dog for it's lifetime. It doesn't matter what breed - take it back if things don't work out.

I think now we should be trying to figure out a way to come together as a whole to work to get laws changed in Canada. The guys that sit on their ivory thrones and never see the horrific conditions these poor puppymill dogs have to endure need to join us in the real world long enough to change those laws. They need to start earning the tax money they insist they need. Heaven knows we pay enough of it. I wonder what would happen if we refused to pay those taxes until the laws were changed? :rolleyes:

Funny how this thread "s-t-r-a-y-e-d" into a thread all about breeding practices etc., :rolleyes:

:laughing::laughing::laughing: good one, chris

In all due respect, I fail to see how monitoring the "reputable breeders" is going to help an issue that is caused by bybs, millers and "breeders" who are only in it for a fast buck. IMO if you breed the dog be responsible for the dog for it's lifetime. It doesn't matter what breed - take it back if things don't work out.



It is not going to 14+K, but what it will do is weed out the breeders that are umbrella'd by the CKC. The CKC does not monitor the breeders at this time very well, but it may push them into doing so.

My point in all this (though we have really strayed away from the main topic) if reputable breeders would pitch in and help those in shelters, we would be in a better situation in regards to rescues taking on the non breeds. The purebreds are almost ALWAYS the first pick to go which leaves behind the mutts (in particular the black dog) which are at risk of being destroyed.

If the breeders took on a more active roll in turning in bad breeders, helping with the rescues more actively and start monitoring the dogs and the breeders breeding them, we may have less in the system.

One would think that breeders trying to ensure that their breed is well represented...they would take on a more active part to provide solutions in shutting down BYBs and other clandestine places.

One would think that breeders trying to ensure that their breed is well represented...they would take on a more active part to provide solutions in shutting down BYBs and other clandestine places.

One would think. Can't see it happening. Unfortunately we have already seen lots of signs that once dogs are sold they remain sold. Courtrooms are filled with people suing breeders because their puppies got sick shortly after they bought them and breeders refusing to pay up. :shrug:
The problem will go on. :(

One would think. Can't see it happening. Unfortunately we have already seen lots of signs that once dogs are sold they remain sold. Courtrooms are filled with people suing breeders because their puppies got sick shortly after they bought them and breeders refusing to pay up. :shrug:
The problem will go on. :(

Maybe for now 14+K, but the movement against petstores, byb's and mills is getting bigger. It is only going to take one special person who is very intelligent, very driven and very determined to carry this all the way home. A leader and spokesperson is needed and there is someone out there, somewhere who will take over this campaign.

Maybe for now 14+K, but the movement against petstores, byb's and mills is getting bigger. It is only going to take one special person who is very intelligent, very driven and very determined to carry this all the way home. A leader and spokesperson is needed and there is someone out there, somewhere who will take over this campaign.

:lightbulb: Oprah's giving up her day job!! :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Yes, you are right. Things are slowly turning around. Let's hope it speeds up. :fingerscr Maybe we could get Ellen to do a continuing piece on her show about not buying from millers, pet stores, etc. :shrug:

if reputable breeders would pitch in and help those in shelters, we would be in a better situation in regards to rescues taking on the non breeds. The purebreds are almost ALWAYS the first pick to go which leaves behind the mutts (in particular the black dog) which are at risk of being destroyed.

If the breeders took on a more active roll in turning in bad breeders, helping with the rescues more actively and start monitoring the dogs and the breeders breeding them, we may have less in the system.



My first thought when I read that first paragraph was "Gah, most of us do already" but then I thought a second, I have spoken to and dealt with many breeders over the years, even if just for inquiries on what they're breeding ect. And come to think of it, my one mentor only has a yard full of her dogs, retired and current breeding ones. I dont forsee her taking in any rescue really, but would take back her pups fast.
Another of my mentors, same situation.
I think the sad thing for many (not all) breeders is they fill up on available space for breeding dogs only.
Here, I will always have a spot open for a rescue, if one of mine passes on, that spot will not be filled with a TM but more for someone in need (be it a TM then that would be who came but breed or mix doesnt matter)

As for the second paragraph, many of us do turn in bad breeders, but really CKC doesnt seem to care as long as said breeder is paying their dues, and like said either earlier in this thread or another one, when we do call places like the SPCA on the miller on the next road, nothing happens, they have their basic needs met, food and shelter.
So who else do we report to? Until our province/ COUNTRY gets tougher on what is acceptable and what is not everyones hands are tied.

I could explain and educate to those millers till the cows I dont have came home and they would never see the moral or ethical side of why they are creating a problem, all people like them see is the dollar signs, they're not just going to stop pumping out these little dogs because of shelters, euth rates, or anything because it has been rewarding for them to produce like this.
Until people stop purchasing from them or our government places animals a little higher in importance and protects them more, these people will not stop.

My first thought when I read that first paragraph was "Gah, most of us do already" but then I thought a second, I have spoken to and dealt with many breeders over the years, even if just for inquiries on what they're breeding ect. And come to think of it, my one mentor only has a yard full of her dogs, retired and current breeding ones. I dont forsee her taking in any rescue really, but would take back her pups fast.
Another of my mentors, same situation.
I think the sad thing for many (not all) breeders is they fill up on available space for breeding dogs only.
Here, I will always have a spot open for a rescue, if one of mine passes on, that spot will not be filled with a TM but more for someone in need (be it a TM then that would be who came but breed or mix doesnt matter)

As I said before - kudos to you if you do that. Unfortunately we have proof right in this thread that not all breeders do and, so to speak, right from the horses' mouth. Read back and you will find it I'm sure.
Maybe part of the answer to your breeders' spaces filling up would be to not breed as much or as many. Then you would not have so many breeding dogs you can't bring in any rescues you may have to. Basically what I am suggesting is to leave that space, or two, for unforeseen incidents. As you yourself said - if you are breeding quality dogs you should not have to take any back for health reasons. Or words to that effect.

As I said before - kudos to you if you do that. Unfortunately we have proof right in this thread that not all breeders do and, so to speak, right from the horses' mouth. Read back and you will find it I'm sure.

Erykah1310 wrote
Here, I will always have a spot open for a rescue, if one of mine passes on, that spot will not be filled with a TM but more for someone in need (be it a TM then that would be who came but breed or mix doesnt matter)

The relevant words being IF ONE OF MINE PASSES ON, so obviously she has a limit to what she can do too. Same goes for you, 14+, you were begging for food coupons and wanting your cattery registered and funded so you do know darn well that no-one's money can stretch as far as they'd like it to. Not every ordinary person could expect such help.

Maybe part of the answer to your breeders' spaces filling up would be to not breed as much or as many.

Can you cast aspersions without even knowing how many pups people breed over what period of time, or how many need rescuing, how good a job breeders might make of finding the right homes,how financially capable they are of taking in extra dogs?

Then you would not have so many breeding dogs you can't bring in any rescues you may have to.

Why do they HAVE TO? They are looking after their dogs, not asking you to, and as it's been pointed out, the problem with all these unwanted dogs is due to byb's and puppy farmers, so shouldn't they be made to rescue their dogs too? Wanting to penalise reputable breeders for something they haven't done is not going to stop the byb and puppy farmer. If your energy went into figuring out how to stop the puppy farmers it'd be wiser.

Basically what I am suggesting is to leave that space, or two, for unforeseen incidents. As you yourself said - if you are breeding quality dogs you should not have to take any back for health reasons. Or words to that effect.
I defy any breeder to breed THE perfect litter, especially when a breed is as young as my two are, and the important thing is that the breeder is(or should be) willing to take any back that owners aren't happy with, isn't it? Brings to mind that saying ' charity begins at home.'

I think what you need there, as someone pointed out, is an outspoken leader who can inspire people to do the right thing and get Government on side. Here it was Dr Hugh Wirth, dare I say "My hero" :lovestruck:. Last I heard he was head man in the RSPCA, a wonderful caring man, passionate about animals and very outspoken. The public love him. :)

Really off topic... do you have any Himalayan or siameseish kitties 14+? I still have a kitty "spot" available since Booger found his home :D

This thread has gone far off the original topic, while it's great to see healthy polite debate it is turning into a bash thread. Can we politely get back to the topic at hand please?

If you have an issue with another member or a specific post there is the Ignore Button and the Private Message system for you to use.

If you know what you are writing is going to be deleted, don't post it, send a private message.

GateKeeper

Really off topic... do you have any Himalayan or siameseish kitties 14+? I still have a kitty "spot" available since Booger found his home :D

In all due respect there are plenty of shelters in your area that will have lots of kitties that need help. There are no Himmies or Siamese here. Mine are more the common garden variety. They are the ones that get thrown out like yesterday's garbage more so than pure breds.

In all due respect there are plenty of shelters in your area that will have lots of kitties that need help. There are no Himmies or Siamese here. Mine are more the common garden variety. They are the ones that get thrown out like yesterday's garbage more so than pure breds.

:offtopic: 14+K is correct..the purebreds have purebred rescues to take. It's the black and black and white that really have no chance of survival. There are so many you can help in shelters and high kill pounds.

As for this thread itself, we have collectively learned alot about the issue at hand, how not cut and dry it is or isn't and about breeders.
BDMLuver has direct contact with this shelter and is the one that can provide direct insight. I think she sumed it up well.

I support what they are doing, and I hope that more municipalities take on this action regardless if an animal is a purebred or not. I stand by this belief and support them 100%.

Same goes for you, 14+, you were begging for food coupons and wanting your cattery registered and funded so you do know darn well that no-one's money can stretch as far as they'd like it to. Not every ordinary person could expect such help.

Let's try this again. I do not believe what I did was "begging". What I suggested was that if anyone had coupons they were not using that they pass them on to other members who could use them. NOT just for me. :shrug: Where is the begging?
Also - registering is a lot different than getting funding. Registering is something you do when you want to register a business - at least in Ontario. That means you pay to have your business under the name of your choice. It is not cheap. There is no funding available for private cat shelters here. Any funding that my sanctuary would get would come from my direct efforts. That would mean garage sales, bake sales, dinners, etc to help raise money and make people aware of the problem. Hardly funding.
Last thing - A "Cattery" is defined as either a boarding facility or a breeding facility. I do neither. Boarding suggests I would be getting paid for keeping these cats. I do not. Breeding - that is the last thing I would be doing when there are so many dying. :( My paycheque every single week of the year goes directly to my cats. I am just about tapped out as far as credit. What would you suggest I do? :shrug:

:offtopic: 14+K is correct..the purebreds have purebred rescues to take. It's the black and black and white that really have no chance of survival. There are so many you can help in shelters and high kill pounds.

I know purebred cats are at a shelter for only a matter of days then they find a home.

As for this thread itself, we have collectively learned alot about the issue at hand, how not cut and dry it is or isn't and about breeders.
BDMLuver has direct contact with this shelter and is the one that can provide direct insight. I think she sumed it up well.

I support what they are doing, and I hope that more municipalities take on this action regardless if an animal is a purebred or not. I stand by this belief and support them 100%.

I also support this law. I don`t believe the `top breeding stock`dogs will end up in the shelter, more those who are owned by careless owners, or those who are waiting for their dog to turn a certain age before neutering.

It would be interesting to see the stats on how many of the dogs that the shelter takes in as strays are not altered.

so obviously she has a limit to what she can do too. Same goes for you, 14+, you were begging for food coupons and wanting your cattery registered and funded so you do know darn well that no-one's money can stretch as far as they'd like it to. Not every ordinary person could expect such help.

She doesn`t have a cattery, she provides shelter, food and vet care for cats who have been thrown out like garbage. She is an angel to all the strays in her area. I don`t recall her `begging` for anything and I pretty much read every one of her posts. We, on this forum, help out as this is a very close knit `community` and it is was close knit communities do for each other. What she does is the ultimate in selflessness.

Same goes for you, 14+, you were begging for food coupons and wanting your cattery registered and funded so you do know darn well that no-one's money can stretch as far as they'd like it to.

GoldFields this is a totally unacceptable comment and if I were on the receiving end I would feel pretty bad!

The issue above came to light from many other members here as well! so to center one member out is completely ignorant. Thats just my :2cents: I bet you would be really surprised to see just how many of us cut coupons! so what? if I can save money why not? or if 14+ or anyone else can benefit from a free bag of food here and there why not?

I just got 2 bags of free cat food for my mother who is on a pension and finds it very tough to make it sometimes? so anyone who wants to say something to me about coupons go right ahead! I will laugh right back at ya!

You know my mom volunteers at a food bank and she tells me how heartbreaking it is for her to have many folks ask for cat or dog food because they cant afford to buyt it? isnt that sad! people do what they have to do to take care of their pets and I think its unfair for any of us to be judges of one another!

I did want to say how impressed I am with this thread for the most part! I learned some things I never knew. I cannot comment because I really dont know enough to comment.

This thread stayed reasonably civil for the most part anyway, and now I think its lots its purpose :shrug:

Cindy

Same goes for you, 14+, you were begging for food coupons and wanting your cattery registered and funded so you do know darn well that no-one's money can stretch as far as they'd like it to.

GoldFields this is a totally unacceptable comment and if I were on the receiving end I would feel pretty bad!

The issue above came to light from many other members here as well! so to center one member out is completely ignorant. Thats just my :2cents: I bet you would be really surprised to see just how many of us cut coupons! so what? if I can save money why not? or if 14+ or anyone else can benefit from a free bag of food here and there why not?

I just got 2 bags of free cat food for my mother who is on a pension and finds it very tough to make it sometimes? so anyone who wants to say something to me about coupons go right ahead! I will laugh right back at ya!

You know my mom volunteers at a food bank and she tells me how heartbreaking it is for her to have many folks ask for cat or dog food because they cant afford to buyt it? isnt that sad! people do what they have to do to take care of their pets and I think its unfair for any of us to be judges of one another!

I did want to say how impressed I am with this thread for the most part! I learned some things I never knew. I cannot comment because I really dont know enough to comment.

This thread stayed reasonably civil for the most part anyway, and now I think its lots its purpose :shrug:

Cindy

Well said. :thumbs up

This thread has run its course and will now be closed.