Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M
I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty | 
 | | Barked: Sat Feb 9, '13 11:41am PST |  | |  | | There's also an overt concealing of addresses on the site and also, as noted, enough comments on the testimonials to where I know puppies are relocated onto the the home farm when someone is coming to pick up their puppy.
I admit having gotten some sick fascination watching the videos. I found some with kids with the puppies who were patting them oddly....like with a cupped hand? And some odd breed cap fascination at what breeds seem to hold up better. Golden puppies who still manage to be bubbly, vs the GSDs I put up.
I think a primary upsetting thing to me is to spend time on facebook there and basic web searches and how you can see the benefits and limitations of education, and it really backs up a gripe fest I have had for MANY years that promoting against puppies mills is NOT best served by showing the most hellish scenes (grossly matted, broken legs, eyes popping out, etc. during HS seizures). Plenty of mills are not THAT bad and leave the door open for someone to rationalize that mills less extreme are not mills. Some mills have dogs in pens, outside, in example.
I dealt with a pet store owner in RI, very nice man. Truly. He personally did his own inspections of his puppy sources. He would quarantine his own puppies, had weekly vet visits, and his puppy buyers were taken to a room where they watched educational films on puppy rearing and good ownership. He also had puppy classes held at his store. He was earnest. But it was very hard to explain to him why his breeders were still mills. Granted, they were better than a lot of these Amish are, but mills still, and he could not conceptualize. It's not as if I had drag down fights with him. I felt bad because he was a very nice man who couldn't grasp some critical points of why things were bad.
And on my internet searches, plenty of Keystone buyers who know better than to get from a pet store, and who truly do want to avoid mills, and are so easily swayed to believe that is not what they are doing.
We have this one end of education where pet stores are bad and mills are these places with deformed, matted dogs, and then the other end with "responsible breeder" protocols that are too complicated, and in some views controversial, even amongst the responsible breeders. Quite a few, in example, have more than one breed, may breed a good bitch multiple times, or are large in size.
We need to make it simpler.
1. Return clause in their sales contract.
2. Spay/neuter in their sales contract.
3. Health testing, as defined by the national breed club. This said because for all the different tests for different breeds, even we ourselves can get confused. Elbows, in example, aren't a particularly strong need in some breeds, but huge in others. I don't really care if elbows are done in Giants, but I know it's significant in Goldens....or I think it is  I would have to check my list again 
There really are two lines, in other words. The guidelines to separate the excellent from the fair responsible breeder, and those to seperate the mill or BYB from the not. And even my point #2, the spay/neuter, can get controversial. As to that definition. There is not agreement between the dog fancy and S/R. A lot of large dog breeders do not believe in early neuters. Which is their right. Many will withhold papers until proof of neuter is done. To some that is not enough, but that is a dividing line. Rescue typically/hopefully has a policy where speuters are done prior to placement, which is not compatible with many breeders' outlooks.
Really, the biggie is the return clause, and even THERE....well, you need to be educated. For many BYB contracts do have a return clause tied into a health problem. Then they will take the dog back and refund. Versus a more specific clause that for the life of the dog they will take the dog back. So being told of the need for a return clause, the novice sees the former and presumes all is well.
And there is yet ANOTHER complexity! Is it "will" or is it "you must." Meaning, does the breeder obligate themselves contractually to take the dog back at your discretion, or is the pet owner REQUIRED to return the dog rather than rehome? For there is another hot spot. When someone has paid $2,000 for a dog (not unheard of), some may not want to be blocked from resale. Or simply blocked from getting to approve of where their dogs goes. I personally would not sign a "I must"; only a "they will." Because you never know. If I had, say, a dog who for whatever reason turned out massively SSA and the dog had to go but I had a good hunch the breeder would euth the dog? There is no way I would sign a contract forcing me to return a dog. Ever. Which sort of foils S/R ideals.
So parameters are hard to set. And here we have the fallout, for a place where it is overt these are mills, where it is easily found out how many of these breeders have past run ins with the law, and yet even those meaning not to service mills end up duped by not having near the dog savvy or analytical skills that I do. And even with my savvy and skills, I see points of controversy and so much left open to interpretation.
Very depressing.  |  |  | |  |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
1
