[Jeff Oehlsen]

Give this a read

http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Battaglia_06/battaglia_506.html

THen the second part:

http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Battaglia_06/battaglia_606.html

These are some of the things I was mentioning in previous posts.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Give this a read

http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Battaglia_06/battaglia_506.html

THen the second part:

http://www.caninechronicle.com/Features/Battaglia_06/battaglia_606.html

These are some of the things I was mentioning in previous posts.

"Undefined labels" --- scary no matter where they accumulate power.

I have to print it out, though; the tables and graphs are teeny on the screen.

 

[Kristen Cabe]

In [animal rights activists'] words, a “responsible breeder” is expected to screen and test all of their stock before breeding. This idea sounds great on the surface but this is only the first step. As the breeders and their clubs continue to embrace this label, the animal rights activist slowly begins to lobby for the required use of both DNA and health screening. This follow-up step is called “raising the bar”. It is unfolding one step at a time. We already have heard their voices asking that more testing be used on breeding stock. Next they will push for testing as a condition of breeding and then as a condition to register breeding stock and their pups. In some quarters, they already are asking that it become a condition for entry in some AKC venues.

What's wrong with that?

Notice in Figure 1 how quickly the breeders responded when they were told that in order to be a "responsible breeder" they should sell their pups on limited registrations or on spay/neuter contracts as a way to control “overpopulation” a problem that does not exist.

I'd really like to know where THIS idea came from, because it's certainly untrue. :? I don't think that EVERY pup should be sold with a spay/neuter contract, but I believe in the limited registration until the pup is older and can be determined to be breed-worthy or not, and if not, it should be neutered to prevent its owners from breeding it.

The animal rights movement believes that all breeders should screen and test all of their breeding stock as the first step to producing the pups they will sell.

Again, what the HELL is wrong with that??

Since the AKC has already collected DNA on more than 350,000 dogs, one would think that the breeders would have learned more about how the parentage tests works and how the DNA health tests can be used in their breeding program. The truth is that very few breeders can explain the DNA parentage test or how it is being used to preserve the integrity of the stud book. One would also expect that because of the widespread support for DNA health testing more breeders would be using the 35-plus DNA health tests that are already available for screening diseases. The record shows just the opposite. Most breeders do not use the DNA parentage test unless it is required and only a small percentage are using the DNA health tests, x-rays or other clinical protocols as a way to eliminate or manage the carriers in their pedigrees.

Why is this?

...it seems fair to say that the animal rights movement will continue to ask that all breeding stock be screened and tested. In time, they will demand health and parentage testing of every litter.

Again?

. Breeders are selling pups on limited registrations and/or spay/neuter contracts in the belief they will help to control the problem that we know does not exist (Strand)

Ok, here she sites a reference, but it's from a 7 year old source.

Why would breeders want to remove their pups from the gene pool of their own breeds if nothing was wrong with them?

They shouldn't. I agree with this point.

Most breeders have not noticed how testing has been linked to a way to measure breedings and the quality of the pups produced. The second problem for the "responsible breeder" to solve involves the use of DNA technology, x-rays and other clinical protocols. The goal is to require widespread testing of those saved for breeding. Theoretically this would produce the better individuals. The problem with their logic is that the pups saved may not be the better specimens of their breed based on the breed standard. Saving those who have been tested for health and parentage is not the same as saving those who are the better specimens based on their conformation and temperament.

It should go without saying that pups without proper conformation and temperament should not even have been considered for breeding in the first place, and therefore would not be a candidate for DNA testing anyway. :roll:


I also don't like that the author is referring to breeding as "a sport."

 

[Woody Taylor]

I guess I'm having difficulties with the article as well. How exactly is the animal rights movement to blame for the possible "extinction" of AKC breeds? How about because nobody wants a POS AKC Belgian Tervuren or AKC Bedlington Terrier? Or the fact that there are 1000x of Greyhounds availible to the public because of the racing industry...why buy a purebred Greyhound?

It would seem that any trends downward in AKC breeding might be more reflective of economics than some conscious effort by ALF to rid the world of , say, Pharoah Hounds.

There are a lot of things that don't hold, logically, with what this article suggests...I can't get to the actual numbers because they're too small, but the ones I can see do show an increase in "Belgian Sheepdogs" and "Miniature Bull Terriers." I'm happy to dig into raw numbers if people have them, but everyone should be wary of anything communicated to them quantitatively like this without the benefit of statistical analysis.

But if AKC sees a downward trend...so what? Maybe people have figured out that the AKC has enabled a fashion/lifestyle dog mentality for people and created a culture where people can sell C-sectioned bulldogs for $2500. Shame on them. And maybe, just maybe, people are starting to realize that 99% of the population will do just fine with a shelter animal that's probably there as a result of the breeding mentality the AKC has enabled in this country.

I know there is at least one person here affiliated with the AKC, and I mean no offense to you directly, but to link weaknesses in breed sales (particularly breeds like a Skye Terrier???) with the animal rights movement is just irresponsible conjecture, at least as this article is proposing.

And...anyone here who would argue that, for example, Germany's strict breeding policies generated in the 20s-30s-40s-50s meant better dogs should readily embrace the notion of using the best technologies to determine what dogs are suitable for breeding. God forbid we come up with a DNA test for 7 wk old puppies that indicates they will, absolutely, develop severe HD.

Again, no offense, but I just don't get this. Blaming the dog breeding culture in America, and people waking up to the fact that it's diseased, on the animal rights movement is a non-sequitur. If the AKC wants to save a breed, pay Paris Hilton a few thousand bucks to tote around an Ibizan Hound in some ridiculous Louis Vuitton backpack for a few days. I guarantee the next article you see from the AKC will be bemoaning all these irresponsible people buying and breeding Ibizan Hounds.

I mean, come on.

 

[susan tuck]

What would they be looking for in a "skin punch" other than being able to identify the animal? What is the reason for wanting to do DNA testing?

I personally would not buy a dog on a limited registration. When I buy a dog, that dog is mine. I have no problem honoring contract agreeements, however.

 

[susan tuck]

In todays' world, what kinds of things can they test for with a DNA skin punch?

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Everything that baffled me about this article has been mentioned already above.

Well, except for the storm metaphor that was beaten to death and the strange ( :lol: ) emphasis on the loss of AKC registration revenue.

Oh, and the statement that breeders "support" DNA testing that they don't understand or use. How do they do that?

And the hidden implication under the term "responsible breeder," which seems to be that "if a pup is of poor quality, unhealthy or has something wrong, it should not be bred." This is all said with an air of unveiling a sinister secret motive.

There might be really good points hidden in the purple prose, but re-read the final paragraph of Part 2. The usual place for a summation is given over to another spooky storm metaphor that says nothing at all.

 

[Selena van Leeuwen]

didn´t read the article yet, but the thing Kirsten quoted..I don´t see anything wrong to test a dog on deceases or inhereting this diseases. All my non pedigreed dogs are x rated on hips, elbows and back. Before I work a dog hard, I want to know if the joints are good to perfect before working. AND I want to know if my dogs don´t inherate bad hips for example. If there are new diseases or problems discovered, I want to test on that too. My goal in breeding is to breed a healty, good working dog, with perferably a DS appereance. I don´t have race standards to hold up, ´cause i breed crosses.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

Jeff, did I miss something in particular you were pointing out?

If the article hadn't been posted here and recommended, I would've quit reading it about two-thirds through.

 

[susan tuck]

This is why I'm curious to know exactly what health issues can currently be detected using DNA/

Honestly, the AKC bewilders me. I'm just glad my pup is registered through the SV!

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

I thought it was showing (in a long drawn out way) how the animal rights people are trying to narrow definitions so they can use them later in legislation against breeding in general.

Limited registration is and always will be crap. It is a way to dump off the crap puppy you just bred without having to cull, or at least nueter it. Show people, and newbies loved this when they first came out with it, and so did the AKC. More $$$.

I have been in this dog thing a really long time. Most people that are starting nowdays really don't even try to have a clue. They come to the internet and gorge themselves on opinion and BS and fact, not having a clue what is what.

PETA will do anything possible to get where they want to go. It is starting to work. Think about your definition of a responsible breeder. If you had 60 litters a year, would you think that this is a responsible breeder? Don't even try to say yes, I have seen too many posts from the noobs about these "millers".

The Mal is a good example of how these definitions, readily sucked up by NOOBS (read idiot) was turned around AS A BREED by one guy. One guy that by "todays" definition would be considered a "miller" and an animal rights abuser.

Luc Vansteenbrugge had 60 brood bitches, bred untold numbers of litters, and killed more puppys than all of us on this board will ever own collectively in our lives.

But, in 20 years or so, he took the Mal from being a nervebag unable to be selected for service work in some countries, and set the foundation for what the Mal is today, the premeir working dog worldwide. His kennel name is Du potois.

The Du Potois name is behind nearly every Mals pedigree today. However, could Luc have done what he did in the late 60's today? Or would public opinion crucify him? What about his non dog loving neighbors?? How long before they took his dogs from him on a noise complaint?

Sad that she really did a bad job of getting the point across on this one. Many of you enjoyed her article on raising puppies though I did see.

 

[Woody Taylor]

I thought it was showing (in a long drawn out way) how the animal rights people are trying to narrow definitions so they can use them later in legislation against breeding in general.

The notion of creating labels isn't new. Hilter, William Hearst, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove all excelled in the art of binding slogans and language to concepts that may not be true. My overall point here is that this article does exactly what she tries to blame the "nuts" for doing...i.e., a bunch of unrelated crap and innuendo to get baked up into some lame argument against animal rights people.

I have been in this dog thing a really long time. Most people that are starting nowdays really don't even try to have a clue. They come to the internet and gorge themselves on opinion and BS and fact, not having a clue what is what.

So educate me.

PETA will do anything possible to get where they want to go. It is starting to work. Think about your definition of a responsible breeder. If you had 60 litters a year, would you think that this is a responsible breeder? Don't even try to say yes, I have seen too many posts from the noobs about these "millers".

If you're talking about 60 litters a year out of a ******* farm in chicken coops, with direct sales into the pet store market with either misleading or purposeful info about the quality of the animals to misinform idiots like me, yes, those are mills. If you're talking about a legit breeder who's culling, okay, but I would prefer a smaller breeder who's got a year-long waiting list and is able to help a buyer handpick a pup suitable for them based on their direct interaction with the pup.

Sad that she really did a bad job of getting the point across on this one. Many of you enjoyed her article on raising puppies though I did see.

Yes, I did, and I'd love to try out the notions she suggests. But scientists can make really bad advocates sometimes. They sometimes have the handicap of thinking their particular world-view doesn't allow for shades of gray or, more importantly, allowing data that doesn't line up with their thesis to be discarded. There's a long list of folks like this.

It was just an unsuccessful article to me.[/quote]

 

[Connie Sutherland]

I thought it was showing (in a long drawn out way) how the animal rights people are trying to narrow definitions so they can use them later............Sad that she really did a bad job of getting the point across on this one. Many of you enjoyed her article on raising puppies though I did see.

Dr. Battaglia is a "he," BTW.

http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com/author.html

I see what you're getting at now, Jeff; it was a badly written article, IMO, but it's bringing out some interesting points here. You and he are suspecting animal rights activists of popularizing undefined labels as part of a long-term plan to legislate against breeders and breeding on many fronts.

It came across to me as a long and ill-supported rant about declining AKC registration income. Now I have to re-read it. BTW, if you print it out, the tables and graphs are (barely) legible.

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

Quote: If you're talking about a legit breeder who's culling, okay, but I would prefer a smaller breeder who's got a year-long waiting list and is able to help a buyer handpick a pup suitable for them based on their direct interaction with the pup.

Here is exactly what I am talking about. Over and over on the internet you see advice to choose the smaller breeder. Definitions that are stupid becomeing general opinion.

I call the guy that breeds a few litters a year an amatuer. This is not a slam, but WTF will you really know about what lines produce at this low level. NOTHING. This is why Americans really can't breed for shit.

I want to go to the guy that has bred a lot of dogs, and is sucessful in what he is producing, and has his own lines. We don't have that here. I don't want some small time guy's GUESS breeding. Sure they work out sometimes, but who cares. Can't build off of it.


Quote:If you're talking about 60 litters a year out of a ******* farm in chicken coops

Here we go again. This is PETA propaganda regurgitating itself. They are very successful at getting people to do this. Automatically, the assumption is that there is something wrong, someone is guilty. They do a good job of getting the masses to think this way.

Look how they shit all over the rescues that grabbed to many dogs from the Katrina disaster. OK, the dogs where in crates and conditions were not perfect, but they crapped all over these people until they realized that at least the dogs had a chance of living, and it was better that the alternative. Guilty first. Not how our people are supposed to think.

Quote:Next they will push for testing as a condition of breeding and then as a condition to register breeding stock and their pups. In some quarters, they already are asking that it become a condition for entry in some AKC venues.

This is another one. We have screened hips in this country since the 70's early 70's. How much difference did it make?

Not much. Here is the problem. I take my X breed dog in to get his hips done. So the vet looks at them and says they are OK, nothing to worry about. Why spend the 50$ (at that time) to send them in to OFA to have them say the same thing? Then there is the other way, bad hips, why spend the money???? Then OFA publishes hip results for the different breeds, but the facts are all screwed. How does this help the general public???


Quote:Quote:
The animal rights movement believes that all breeders should screen and test all of their breeding stock as the first step to producing the pups they will sell.


Again, what the HELL is wrong with that??


How does it help the guy that breeds a few litters a year? The only breeder that will see any results from that work is the guy that breeds 60 a year. He is going to see the big picture, unlike the guy that breeds "a few quality" litters a year (what a bunch of crap)

So here are a few examples of what PETA is promoting. This is not necessarily their (the people who responded) fault, but when you have people with very little experience spouting off what others have said that on the surface makes sense, you can see how disinformation would spread.

This is the danger of PETA. They are here for the long run, long term, ect and will do whatever it takes to get their agenda moved forward.

I can remember when clients put on a pinch collar w/out hesitation. They had enough common sense to realize that the abuse would only come from themselves, unlike the NOOBS of today that have to question everything to death instead of just thinking about it.

 

[Connie Sutherland]

This is a question and not a quarrel:

How do we reconcile your points with the approximately three million dogs who enter shelters every year? A quarter of them are pure-breed dogs. So say 750,000 pure-breed dogs *every year* enter shelters.*

Where do they come from, if not from someone who's breeding "a lot of dogs"?

I'm asking this seriously. Is there a different way to look at that problem (to me, this is not the problem that doesn't really exist, as described in the article) besides this way? It seems on the surface that at least a quarter of these millions of dogs entering shelters every year are the product of breeders (as opposed to accidental litters).


*About 5% are reclaimed by their owners and about 50% are euthanized.

 

[Woody Taylor]

Here is exactly what I am talking about. Over and over on the internet you see advice to choose the smaller breeder. Definitions that are stupid becomeing general opinion...I want to go to the guy that has bred a lot of dogs, and is sucessful in what he is producing, and has his own lines. We don't have that here. I don't want some small time guy's GUESS breeding. Sure they work out sometimes, but who cares. Can't build off of it.

Like...Selena? Or Al? If I were aware of large-scale breeders that put out high-quality dogs that were properly socialized, and bred with great lines I had confidence I could check, and wanted to stay in touch with me (in Selena's case, to the point of not shipping them overseas)...I guess I'd feel differently. The bottom line is that a high-volume breeder is doing so for profit, more likely than not, and in my experience (outside of your dog world) tends to screw up motives and intent. And an operation with lots of litters but lots of culls is not the same as one that churns out puppies. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I say puppy mills, and you know they're disgusting. That's not a definition PETA fed me.

So here are a few examples of what PETA is promoting. This is not necessarily their (the people who responded) fault, but when you have people with very little experience spouting off what others have said that on the surface makes sense, you can see how disinformation would spread.... They had enough common sense to realize that the abuse would only come from themselves, unlike the NOOBS of today that have to question everything to death instead of just thinking about it.

You know, as I sit here in my fuzzy slippers, sipping on my wine cooler, wondering if my dog will come out from under the table (the ice clinking in my thin-stemmed wine glass scared the daylights out of her), I could go back over the exchange you and I have had twice now about newbs and their right to info and their right to be exposed to information before they figure it out the hard way and wreck a dog. I guess all I can say at this point is just because I do not know as much about dogs as you doesn't mean I never will, and just because I don't know much about working dogs now definitely does not mean I don't know a little bit about other things that happen in the world beyond ringsport.

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

Quote:So say 750,000 pure-breed dogs *every year* enter shelters.*

How many people live in America? I am not sure but how about 200 million? Someone with the fancy math skills that I don't have today can figure out it really isn't that many in comparison. I also don't see what that had to do with what I was talking about. I guess it is just a good example of how NOT culling affects the shelter population.

Quote: And an operation with lots of litters but lots of culls is not the same as one that churns out puppies. You know exactly what I'm talking about when I say puppy mills, and you know they're disgusting. That's not a definition PETA fed me.

Again, not what I was talking about, but the immediate reply contained the rediculous and predictable "dogs in chicken coops" vomit. It is easier to argue the rediculous, something I was not talking about at all.

Quote:Like...Selena?

Lets face facts here. Nice person, but I would put her husband as the breeder and the trainer, not Selena. Nice to have access to her husbands training thoughts though, and possibly the rest of her family, who are accomplished trainers. She is on her first dog, if I remember correctly but has an incredible advantage over the rest of us with all her family around.

Quote:The bottom line is that a high-volume breeder is doing so for profit,

So is the low volume breeder for the most part. I have seen some of the crap that "working/show" breeders are producing, and it is to pay the rent, or pay for a trial don't kid yourself.

 

[Woody Taylor]

Quote:Like...Selena?

Lets face facts here. Nice person, but I would put her husband as the breeder and the trainer, not Selena. Nice to have access to her husbands training thoughts though, and possibly the rest of her family, who are accomplished trainers. She is on her first dog, if I remember correctly but has an incredible advantage over the rest of us with all her family around.

Lame. Let's pretend this wasn't a real person on this forum who knows a great deal about dogs, dog lines, and has spent most of her life around animals that you--by your own admission a few weeks back--would love to have, and a person who we all to a member seem to respect and gives up a lot of her time to answer questions from people half-way across the world. Selena is still a small-time breeder who, I bet, barely breaks even. That's why I'm encouraging her to sell to the States to hunyucks who will pay out ear for dogs that many of them may never really appreciate.

Show me the breeder with a quality lines who breeds less than five-six litters a year in quality conditions and only sells to quality buyers. I guarantee you they break even and do it out of the love for the dogs.

So is the low volume breeder for the most part. I have seen some of the crap that "working/show" breeders are producing, and it is to pay the rent, or pay for a trial don't kid yourself.

And I'll bet you I could spot them thanks to my time here interacting with people like you (and I mean that in a good way, Jeff).

 

[Jeff Oehlsen]

Lame? Where would you go to breed one of her dogs? Sure, it would be cool to have one, no doubt. And with the inbreeding that has been done, there aren't many negative recessives, or not so bad that the litter is gone. but with that tight a breeding, where would you go??

But still it is her HUSBAND, and not SELENA. Try to keep that in mind. If you like, there is a post on Leerburg that she herself admits that it is her family that trains dogs, and she is working on her first one. I predict sucess for her. =D>

 

[Woody Taylor]

Side note...before I get any more PMs...I was kidding about the dog being scared of ice in a glass! Sarcasm! :lol: She's quite sound and confident.

And before I get any other PMs...the wine cooler, the slippers, and the wine glass was also a joke! :lol: I'm trying to provoke Jeff!!!