View Single Post
  #57  
Old October 11th, 2007, 11:32 AM
Dean55 Dean55 is offline
banned user
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 12
From research,experience, and MHO , a list of what makes for a reputable and ethical breeder varies accordingly to each individual and circumstance and certain absolutes in lists are debatable. Here are some examples.

1. A reputable and ethical breeder need not be concerned with the medium in which they advertise as it is all about the screening process of anyone interested that may be judged a responsible owner which includes the details in the contract to cover all important aspects of the dogs ownership and care. Who is to say that responsible people do not read,listen,or view a particular medium and should be excluded from consideration. So to say that a reputable/ethical breeder does not advertise in xxxxx would not be on my list .

2. I do not agree with the suggestion that a responsible/ethical breeder "needs" or is "required" to have a waiting list or *buyers/homes* lined up before choosing to initiate a quality breeding. I can think of a number of examples for this reasoning as not all responsible/ethical breeders have the same goals in a quality breeding program and utimately the responsible/ethical breeder has considered all of the aspects in how to properly care for,manage,socialize,and train regardless of how long the dogs remain with the breeder. Some breeders have very focused and strict critera on whom they will approve to acquire thier dog/s and the window of opportunity for a quality/desired breeding can often be rather a relatively quick decision. For example in some cases as in herding breeds bred for actual work/performance goals a responsible/ethical breeder may need to keep the dogs for a indefinite period of time to observe which dogs they want to retain.

3. On the subject of ethical breeding or breeding with a emphasis of improving the breed this is a hot political topic and is higly charged with contrasting opinions in the dog world (varies from breed type and purpose for breeding) that makes for lots of unfriendly interactions amongst the humans.. For example a responsible/ethical breeder of working/herding dogs who strive to maintain and improve the breed by a wide range of average and perferably above average screening critera to include parents and grandparents performance and health history feel that certain breeds are *******ized by breeders who do not consider working ability/temperment/biddability (health always top consideration) primarily over all else.
For example responsible/ethical breeders of working Border Collies find it unexceptable that someone would even consider breeding a Border collie without understanding the concept of maintaining or better yet improving the herding aspects of the breed and would not classify or consider such breeders as responsible or ethical guardians of the breed.

4. Belonging to a particular registery or organization does not in itself indicate that a particular breeder is either a responsible or especially a ethical one. I can think of dozens of examples to illuistrate this opinion and anyone familiar with such organizations or registries would have little problem in understanding my thoughts on this point.

5. I also am of a different opinion on what critera goes into a "HEALTH GUARANTEE" as thier are in reality only a few things that can be "GUARENTEED" when it comes to health and genectic issues. Warrenties are of course anything one chooses to come up with and to say that to be a responsible/ethical one breeder must provide a specific warrenty for a specific amount of time (or a one size fits all approach) is in my opinion questionable,debatable,and unrealistic as critera varies according to circumstances.
Here is a example of a varied approach on the subject of health guarentees by a breeder.

6. Not all people who acquire dogs from responsible/ethical breeders (even those under strict contractual agreement) or any other source to include rescues and shelters are or turn out to be responsible/ethical people and thier simply are no guarantees in this matter except in one doing as much as reasonably possible in the screening process (everyone has different critera) when turning over a dog to another person/s care.


7. Responsible/ethical* breeders who ultilize sound health screening and other critera to include in-depth screening of potential owners are not the problem to negative dog condition...ir-responsible owners and ir-responsible breeders are the heart of the problem . A responsible/ethical breeder in my opinion will have a contractual agreement to take backany dog that they breed and should the owner allow for such dog to end up in dire consequences it is not reasonably the responsible breeders fault.


8. In my opinion the assertion that ALL responsible/ethical breeders will/must participate in rescue is unreasonable and in no way negates that person in being classified or considered as a non responsible/ethical breeder. As a breeder and one who has been involved heavily in rescue for 20 years I can think of dozens of examples to illustrate this point...


I have about 20 others points of comment on my opinion as to what constitutes a responsible/ethical breeder which I will add later as I am late for work


cheers

Last edited by Blathach; October 11th, 2007 at 03:54 PM.
Reply With Quote