The local BYB is advertising her litter in this morning's paper. Part of the ad states that the litter is "vet bred." She uses the same repro vet that others in the area use--AI, TCI and surgicals. This really crosses the line.

What a nosy person you are. Who really cares? MYOB

What line does this cross and why are you making such a big deal how or why this person breeds?

Ditto!

I don't care one way or another, but I do love finding out about all the new "marketing" crap the BYBs pull to sell a litter. Champion lines is an oldie but goodie. Vet bred sounds like it's a good one trying to hoodwink the public. Like when BYB's say I don't do testing but my vet checked the dogs and they were fine to breed.

Why does any of this concern you as to how they want to market their pups? Do you know these breeders personally? Do you know how they breed, what tests they do or are you just stereotyping them by labeling them without having any first hand knowledge of how they breed, what clearances they do or don't do? I don't understand your attitude or your judgement against people you don't know personally. If they don't fit into your perfect realm of what it is to be a reputable breeder, does that give you the right to finger point and label others that you don't know. Why is wrong for people to breed differently if they are not breaking any laws?

Don't you have a life??? Nobody cares about what you think. Go and get someone to love this Christmas and stop being so lonely and pathetic.

Just curious, but if the litter is really vet-bred, the person spent money to do AI. Perhaps they researched pedigrees, did clearances, etc. I thought BYBs where those who just bred their girls to whatever dog happened to be nearby.

In my neck of the woods there is a volume breeder that shows a little, does clearances,and floods the market with pups year round sired by her own stud dogs. She has several litters per month, not per year. Give me one little BYB to compete with any day.

BTW, I wish people would be kinder on this list. I respect that everyone has the right to disagree, but do it politely. After last week's tragedy we should all try to be a little nicer to one another.

Another one! You need to relax and back off. You need to be kinder to others by letting other people live their live the best way they can. The fact that other people do things differently, doesn't mean that they are wrong. Ultimately, it is not of your business. if you think that the dogs are being neglected, then call the authorities.

Thank you Breeder, I totally agree. You took the words right out of my mouth.

If people want to learn from this recent school tragedy and not just use it as an excuse to try to influence behavior, then let's all learn to live and let live.

There is a big demand for purebred puppies in this country. There are many ways to obtain one. There are many types of breeders and many types puppy buyers out there. Most puppy buyers are happy with their choices. There are no unbiased statistics to show that dogs obtained from one source is any better than another.

Does it make us feel better to what we do? Of course it does. We are a dedicated group and we will always have those people who want a dog from us. Well unless of course you continue to bash and hate on everyone else who doesn't breed like you. How can we tell the public that we are the best breeders when we behave in a hateful, catty, degrading, nasty manner towards other breeders? I don't even keep friends like that, let alone want to buy a dog from someone like that. With this type of attitude, we are our own worst enemy when it comes to the passing of legislation. We side with the Animal Rights group as we try to shut down those types of breeders, all the while, the legislation includes clauses that hurt all breeders. Don't let your vigilante, elitist, self-righteousness get the best you. Again, live and let live and if you feel these dogs are being abused, call the authorities.

Please re-read what I posted. Never did I say the volume breeder didn't have the right to breed as he/she does -- I just said I'd rather compete with one BYB than someone who breeds to that extent.

You're correct in saying that I could contact authorities to check on the conditions at the kennel, but it's not my business to do so. Actually I like this person -- but I find having him/her in my area has made it more difficult to find good local homes for the one litter of puppies I breed each year. Would I breed to that extent? No, I wouldn't -- I couldn't afford to vet and feed forty to sixty dogs! I don't know how any of the volume breeders do it.

I thank you for your opinion and hope you will respect mine.

So it's a matter of competition for you then? Does she honestly have that many dogs or are you just guessing? Have you ever visited her facility or are you just guessing? Do you know if she is licensed and inspected? Do you think it's wrong for her to breed that much? Why?

Is this volume breeder making it harder for your puppies to find homes? I don't see why. There is a market for every type of breeder. I've had most prospective buyers say that they don't want to buy a puppy from a commercial kennels and they prefer to get their puppy from somebody that has the dogs indoors and puppies that have human contact from day one.
If you can't compete (financially) with this high volume breeder, you are doing something wrong.

Obviously for those all in a huff about us minding our own business, makes me think they are feeling a little defensive. I certainly don't want folks in my business but at least I sleep well at night knowing I've tried to do the right thing. And most of us know what the wrong things are.

You may be feeling "to each his own" but I would never steer a friend or an enemy towards a BYB if I knew better. And if your website or newspaper ad screams BYB, then if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I am betting it's a duck.

Kids and tragedies have nothing to do with people supporting BYB practices.

Believe it or not "ME" you have people in your business. They are called animal rights advocates. They hate you and hate what you do because like you, they have their own set of self-righteous, vigilante morals that tell them you are dead wrong. They believe that for every dog you breed, you are responsible for the death of a shelter dog. They will not harass you to your face, but they will spread the same hatred and lies about there is no such thing as a responsible breeder to the public. The work to get laws passed to take away all rights to breed dogs. The public as we know are not all that educated as to the difference types of breeders. Frankly most don't care. They want a dog. They are told don't go to a breeder, they are all evil and you must adopt a dog. So where are your morals and righteousness in all this? Lumped all together with the other breeders.

I am not saying you don't continue to educate you puppy buyers about why we do health clearances and why we raise our puppies the way we do, just do it without bashing those you disagree with. It's really not that hard to do. Spotlight your strengths and virtues without tearing down others in the process. Once you've educated that person, if they choose to go to another breeder, that is on them.

If you'd like to justify your wonderful breeding program with those opposed to you, I dare you to go to the "I Hate Dog Breeders" group on FB. Almost 11,000 people like this page. Side with them about how you abhor various types of breeders just like they do. But mention you're a reputable breeder and you'll be ripped to shreds. Exactly like you and a few others are doing to the breeders your mentioning on here.

You know, if it became illegal to advertise any animal in a newspaper I think there would be a lot less BYB litters because there wouldn't be an easy way to market them. This isn't saying the person mentioned in the OP is a BYB, how do you know that she is? I know responsible breeders who have advertised in the paper.

Marketing? We all market our puppies in some way. How many people have websites? How hard is it to find a puppy selling site on the internet?

Why are you all so concerned with limiting how other people breed? You know the minute you start restricting breeding you're just as much under the knife as they are. Why is that so difficult for you all to see? Thinking you're safe because you do things the "right" way? Please, get over yourself.

See, the problem is that people take things out of context and think that because they have a few that support their ways, they can bully others that are "different". I know of a FB group that was created to educate and point out rare color breeders. They ended up insulting regular owners that had no idea about the breed standard. They didn't know that Silver is not an accepted color. They bought the puppy because it was cute, period.

I opposed and spend lots of time educating people about what a reputable breeder (in my opinion) is and what truly are rare colors. It is as much as I feel I should do.

There are two ways to get to the top: one is working hard going up one step at a time and the other is knocking others down. Which one are you? I can tell you that you are not going to feel too good when you are at the top all by yourself. Go up by your own merits and help others follow you.

Shut up already. I'm only talking about newspaper ads and thinking about the irresponsible breeders whose puppies end up in shelters. You need to chill and use your energy to write politicians and lay off of us. Get over yourself! We see and know what's going on.

If you know what's going on, then you'd be writing your legislators as well. But you're just narrow-minded with blinders on thinking that you're safe because of your self appointed morals when you breed.

A survey done by some shelters surveyed roughly 4,000 people about where they had acquired their animals from before relinquishing them to the shelter. About 10% came from breeders, less than 4% came from Pet Stores.

It is also estimated that about 23 million new homes open up annually for a pet. Only about 3-4 million animals die in shelters these days. That leaves about 19-20 millions homes available for pets. How many reputable breeders will be upping their breeding programs if you got rid of all the breeders you deem irresponsible and not worthy to breed? Where will people get their pets from if the market was left up to those you deem reputable if they already have waiting lists a mile long?

"Only" about 3-4 million dogs die in shelters these days?????

Holidays got you down? In a fighting mood or just want to show off? Give it a rest already, shut the hell up at least for the holidays or take it to your facebook page.

Back in the 1980's it was close to 20 million. So yes, the number of animals dying in shelters is way down. Some shelters no longer have an over population problem. The CDC estimates about 500,000 dogs are imported by shelters annually. Sheltering in some parts of the country have become the new pet shop and money making venture.

About 30% of dogs adopted from shelters have gone through one or more returns too. Not everyone wants someone else's problem. It's sad that any dog has to die for lack or home.

And no "comment", holidays are going fine for me. I just happen to be on vacation at the moment and spreading some breeder education. Why are you so hostile? You don't like hearing the truth? It's easier for you to be bitter and blame other breeders and scapegoat them to make yourself feel more superior?

I'm not fighting anyway. I am simply having a debate and educating others who may be reading. You're the one who is resorting to personal attacks.

Who says we need educating and why do you think it's your responsibility to do any educating. I didn't blame anybody for anything so how could I feel more superior? You are the one trying to show your superiority. I just had an idea that if newspapers didn't allow advertising of animals (like ebay) then maybe irresponsible breeders would think twice about breeding since it would take more effort to market their puppies (that fill up the shelters). I know the definition of marketing, why did you take offense and show hostility to that word anyway? The word itself doesn't carry a negative connotation yet you jumped right on that one. You called me narrow-minded without even knowing that I have contacted my legislators. You don't know what my morals are. You are the hostile one, not me.

I don't know if you are the original OP or not but you're the one who seems to think it is wrong for people to advertise in a newspaper. Nonetheless this thread started as a breeder bash. The OP saying this breeder "crossed the line" with her ad. Another poster, well maybe it's you too because on here you can change your name like underwear. Went after a breeder near her saying she "floods the market". All you guys have given the reader nothing but your biased, self-righteous, vigilante opinion.

Who says that only irresponsible breeders are the only ones who advertise in newspaper? Who says that dogs sold through the newspapers are the ones filling up the shelters? You have nothing to back up your claims. You're just flapping your gums about something you know nothing about because you do not feel that people should be advertising their dogs in the paper.

I do not have a problem with the word marketing. We all market our dogs. That is your perception or perhaps a projection you have on the word. Our dogs are a product. A product of our breeding program. A product of putting two dogs together and the results are puppies. To sell the product we must market it. Shelter dogs are marketed, pet store dogs are marketed, breeders dogs are marketed. No I have no problem with that word.

Also, fat chance of my shutting up. Someone has to warn people about your twisted, delusional, illogical thinking and how damaging and misguided it is. Energy is well spent pointing it out so someone else doesn't think it actually makes any sense or does any good. You don't see what's going on if you think those dogs landing in shelters has anything to do with anything. Even if there were zero of those dogs in shelters they'd still be calling for your sorry hide. They'd make them up...they make up most of it anyway. I'm over myself, that's why I don't mind standing up to this lunacy. Mocking someone taking action by writing to politicians just proves how off base and irrelevant you are. Also why your attitude is largely responsible for all the trouble we're in and why so many do nothing about it. And that goes for all those demeaning other breeders on here.

How you got all that about me is beyond me. You are a hostile lunatic with a superiority complex, PLEASE GET HELP.

Well it all depends, it may not just be all about you and includes those others who commented negatively about peole they know nothing about. But you, you're the one who wanted to resort to personal attacks because you have nothing to back up your false claims. As I stated, I am over myself. I have no superiority complex. I am simply relaying a message. I know what we are up against when it comes to fighting anti-breeding legislation. I am not the one name calling breeders who choose to run an ad in the newspaper. Perhaps you are just projecting again.

You shouldn't be commenting negatively about people on this forum that you know nothing about. You are sick. You attacked me for posting an idea. How can I run out of facts for an idea?

I am not personally attacking you. I am not calling you names. You're the one calling names. I am simply educating others on here about the importance changing our attitude when it comes to how others breed. You've posting nothing but contempt for people who use the newspaper to advertise their litters without having anything to back it up and really what does it matter how other breed or advertise as long as they are taking care of their dogs? Isn't this what it started out to begin with, MYOB? You've called me names for expressing my opinions. If I observe the words you chose to attack me with as perhaps a projection of yourself, that is not an attack. It is an observation of our conversation. I have also not said a single word about you as a breeder because you're right, I don't know how you breed. And for that, I've said nothing negative.

You were hostile and attacked me for an idea. Go back and read my original post. I don't have contempt for people who use the newspaper to advertise, I even said I know responsible breeders who do this. I asked why the OP thought the advertisement was from a BYB, they might be right because the majority of newspaper ads are the BYB variety but maybe not.

I'm really sick of self professed know it all's like you picking on people's opinions, your not the morals police. I wasn't having a conversation with you as you say, I was asking the original poster a question.

You said **I have also not said a single word about you as a breeder because you're right, I don't know how you breed. And for that, I've said nothing negative.** Too funny, I never said I WAS a breeder, maybe you should stop analyzing posters since you have a preconceived notion who they are without any knowledge of their situation.

Give it up already, go to bed. I call em like I see em, you are a hostile lunatic with a superiority complex.

I'm hostile? Who was the one telling me to shut up? I simply was making a statement about "you all" and not even you personally and you came after me with:

"Shut up already. I'm only talking about newspaper ads and thinking about the irresponsible breeders whose puppies end up in shelters. You need to chill and use your energy to write politicians and lay off of us. Get over yourself! We see and know what's going on."

You made a very derogatory, twisted and false statement about those who advertise in newspapers and others whose puppies you believe end up in the shelters and are "filling them up". It's that illogical way of thinking that I was responding to.

I am very calm and relaxed. I have been all day. You're the one who has had to resort to name calling and personal attacks.

It is what it is. Dogs and puppies in shelters are not well bred puppies from responsible breeders, if one was a responsible breeder they would take the puppy back and it wouldn't go to the shelter. I have never heard of one BYB that takes their puppies back, have you? I never said all who advertise in newspapers are BYB's or irresponsible, quite the opposite, I said I know some responsible breeders who have advertised in the paper. I really don't want to repeat this again because I believe you know how to read.

Breeders know that anti-breeding laws will affect them, it is frightening and very depressing. Your intentions are honorable but you're going about it all wrong and this isn't the first thread you've used to belittle people. If you want letters written for a specific legislation that is pending by all means start your own post so breeders can help fight but don't assume the people here are ignorant and aren't aware of what's going on.

Again, there you go making assumptions and stereotyping breeders. I have known of small home-based breeders who don't necessarily show or prove their dogs in any venues that have taken dogs back. I have known of larger breeders who take their dogs back. Just because you haven't personally, does that give you the right to judge all breeders? How do you know well-bred dogs don't end up in shelters from time to time? Situations change, things happen. Never say never.

Using your words again: "I just had an idea that if newspapers didn't allow advertising of animals (like ebay) then maybe irresponsible breeders would think twice about breeding since it would take more effort to market their puppies (that fill up the shelters)."

Again how do you know their puppies fill up shelters? More assumptions.

Did you hear about the proposed APHIS rules? They were pushed the H$U$ as a way to crack down on internet selling breeders. They deemed them all to be unregulated, large kennels, and they need no newspaper to sell their dogs in since they were all allegedly sold online. Perhaps we should shut down the internet and prevent all irresponsible breeders from selling on there too? Do you see how idiotic this line of thinking is? Back to the APHIS rules. The AKC opposed them and took heat from the animal rights groups and even from the Girl Scouts over this. Why? Because they knew the proposed rules will hurt the smaller breeders as well. How many breeders were even aware of these rules? How many wrote in letters of opposition? How many figured it wouldn't affect them? I'm not going into it all here, but this is why we need to change our attitudes about how we bash, belittle and degrade breeders who don't breed the way some believe they should. Laws do not care what titles you get on your dogs or what health tests you do. All they want to do is restrict and eventually end all breeding. And no, I don't think most breeders are as aware of what is going on as they should be. They are too busy fighting amongst themselves as to who should breed and who shouldn't. We need to stop this and look at the bigger picture.

As I said above, before you hijacked this thread screaming for me to shut up and hurling personal insults at me, we don't have to agree with how others breed. We don't have to sell them dogs. We may try to educate them as to what we do and why. We educate our puppy buyers as to why we do what we do, but there is no need to bash others. Spotlight your strengths and virtues without tearing down others in the process. If you see blatant disregard for others dog that constitute abusive situations, then turn them in to the authorities.

Not an assumption. Dogs from responsible breeders don't end up in shelters BECAUSE responsible breeders take their puppies back. It's a simple concept, can't you get it? On a rare occasion a dog from a responsible breeder can wind up in a shelter but it's not the norm. It has nothing to do with whether a breeder is a small hobby breeder or a large breeder why are you bringing this up?

Your sounding more and more like a BYB that just got wind of anti-breeder legislation. If people have a dislike for BYB's or silver breeders what's it to you? I'm interested in what all breeders are doing whether I agree with them or not. Maybe others want to hear what's going on. Just because you told the OP to MYOB others can't talk about the original post without you judging them, maybe take your own advice, I didn't see where the OP was interfering with anyone. You got on your soapbox and steered the topic to anti-breeding legislation, a whole new topic unrelated to the original post and a depressing one at that, give it a rest for the holiday's.

Are you for real? Please show me your proof of this?

This type of attitude and assumption is why we are losing the fight against the animal rights group. We've become elitist self-righteous and feel that we're the only group who should be breeding dogs. Newsflash, when all the other breeders have be legislated out of existence, who will stand for the very small group of those with whom you deem reputable?

It's one thing to be aware of what's going on around you, but you do so with an open mind. You don't blame or scapegoat all other breeders by saying they're the ones who are somehow responsible for their dogs filling up the shelters. To the breeder haters, we are all responsible for that. There is no justifying your actions. Breeding in itself is irresponsible. I cannot make this stuff up. Have you visited the I Hate Dog Breeders group on FB yet? You want to see why I have had a change of heart about being more open minded and tolerant of other breeders? I strongly suggest you visit that site. It's a real eye-opener about what we're up against. "Why we hate dog breeders? Because they are selfish, money making, puppy producing morons who are responsible for overpopulation and full shelters. Because we choose to save a life instead of buying. That's why. Don't breed or buy while shelter animals die."

Personally I don't care what others think about how others breed unless they are spewing out misinformation, blatant lies, painting everyone with a broad brush on a public forum. This type of behavior is what people latch onto and instead of becoming more open minded and focusing on how better to fight anti-breeding laws, they get side tracked fighting among themselves. I don't understand the intent of the OP to even post this type of trash on here. What was he/she trying to accomplish? Did the OP post this hoping to reinforce the derogatory term used against the breeder? Were they hoping to start a bashfest about how this breeder breeds? Is this a personal vendetta aimed at and eventually exposing a person he/she doesn't like? I don't know. I'm glad it didn't take off in that direction. It was a great opportunity to educate. Which I've done and will continue as long as you want to keep this conversation going. You keep coming up with your twisted, nonsensical assumptions blanketing breeders you know virtually nothing about.

I agree that a big part of being a responsible breeder is to be responsible for every single puppy until the day they die. That includes taking them back when and if the family asks for it. There is a number of people that will not contact the breeder and will take the puppy/dog to a shelter because it is easier. The breeder might live too far away.

Chill, being open minded about being open or closed minded is part of being open minded. Accept that the other people is not as open minded as you are. Keep educating in a nice way and move on.

BYB's and anti-breeding legislation are two different topics. This thread isn't about anti-breeding legislation, start your own thread. Enough said, your too much, I pity the man that ends up with you. Have a Merry Christmas!

Oh and talk about changing names like people change underwear, it's obvious your (Chill) the only one doing that in this thread.

Thank you and you're right about those being closed minded. I am aware of that. I used to be that way myself. I hope that others have learned to be a little more tolerant of other breeders.

And yes, I will keep on educating.

I know the person has that many dogs because his/her spouse told me. (They live together and are a happy couple; we were simply conversing about Labs when it popped up. I deliberately left out the exact number in my post because this was told to me last year when the numbers were at the high end, but they were trying to place some of the dogs, so maybe they're now at the low end.)

I wouldn't do that because I don't think it's fair to the dogs, especially Labs who love human contact so much. I also don't think it's fair to the puppies because you can't give each one the kind of attention he/she needs. But that's just my opinion; it doesn't have to be shared by anyone else.

Have a nice Christmas

So really you don't have any idea about the number they have now or how they care for their dogs? You just felt sorry because you assume with "that high of a number" that they couldn't possibly give them all the proper attention? I'm not saying they do or they don't I am not at their home so it is not up to me to judge their situation or relay my feelings on a public forum.

I was just curious since you brought it up and originally your beef was that they "flooded the market" in your area and you had a hard time selling your pups.

So again you don't personally know their situation, other than sharing your opinion on here, what would you want to do about it?

The recent federal laws proposed (APHIS and PUPS) would classify anyone who had 4-5 intact females as a volume breeder and thereby forcing them to become USDA compliant. Is this what we want?

The original point was--to place an ad stating you have a litter of puppies "vet bred" when the vet is not the owner of the litter seems just a little dishonest. When a potential puppy buyer comes to see the pups and asks who/where the vet is...?? It implies a stamp of approval by a vet that might or might not exist.

Wow... Merry Christmas, everyone. My guess is there was a lot of coal handed out this year