No, I do get it. Of the four or five rescues I contacted several years ago, they all had home visit requirements (ETA: ranging from 6 months to 3 years after the dog was mine). Was that a thing your rescues required? In any case, I understand I'm part of what many people on and off this board consider a problem here. I just don't agree. I think the problem is that animals are bred carelessly. I think this is best regulated by law and penalties for not following that law. I'm very aware that not all rescues are bad. I believe you that most aren't. But there requirements for the ones I contacted were burdensome for what is an acquisition of property, and yes, I didn't want to deal with that. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong about the problem and how to best fix it. Regulation and legal penalties for bad actors would, in my opinion, cut down on both bad breeders, and the few bad rescues out there, as well as help prevent people from randomly deciding to not spay/neuter. Population control and reduction is what would relieve euthanization rates. Fix that and who cares where someone gets their dog as long as they love and care for it?
No, none of the rescues I’ve worked with have stipulated that. But my guess is that they include that language to scare off people who wouldn’t be good adopters. They probably rarely pay a post adoption visit unless they think there’s a problem.
And it makes sense. So many people surrender their dogs for bullshit reasons, rescues just want to be extra careful.
Our breed specific rescue has a post-adoption inspection clause - only if needed, only in extreme cases. It's been utilized less than 10 times in the 17 years I've been there when we do 300+ adoptions a year. Three times the neighbors called the rescue after the owner died or moved and left the dog behind, a handful of divorces, etc. I always explained it to people as "if we get a heads up that you're using this dog to guard your secret meth lab that I didn't see during my 10 minute home visit, that's when we'll come back."
No, none of the rescues I’ve worked with have stipulated that. But my guess is that they include that language to scare off people who wouldn’t be good adopters. They probably rarely pay a post adoption visit unless they think there’s a problem.
And it makes sense. So many people surrender their dogs for bullshit reasons, rescues just want to be extra careful.
Our breed specific rescue has a post-adoption inspection clause - only if needed, only in extreme cases. It's been utilized less than 10 times in the 17 years I've been there when we do 300+ adoptions a year. Three times the neighbors called the rescue after the owner died or moved and left the dog behind, a handful of divorces, etc. I always explained it to people as "if we get a heads up that you're using this dog to guard your secret meth lab that I didn't see during my 10 minute home visit, that's when we'll come back."
Exactly. And thank you for being involved in rescue!
The problem is that any bernadoodle breeder IS a backyard breeder by definition since bernadoodles are not a real breed with actual breed standards and oversight (registration, showing). So anyone breeding a mixed breed and pretending they are good because of some self-imposed restrictions is still doing harm. And cannot guarantee the quality of their dogs, period.
Mine was definitely not.
SHE IS A BACKYARD BREEDER. DEAL WITH IT. No reputable breeder will breed mixes.
Y'all. Her breeder is not good. They have 14 breeding moms on their webpage, and that's just the start of it. It's bad. It's not byb level, it's puppymill level.
The problem is that any bernadoodle breeder IS a backyard breeder by definition since bernadoodles are not a real breed with actual breed standards and oversight (registration, showing). So anyone breeding a mixed breed and pretending they are good because of some self-imposed restrictions is still doing harm. And cannot guarantee the quality of their dogs, period.
Mine was definitely not. She had a very good recommendations, certifications, and was clear about the lack of guarantees. As I said before I had to wait almost a year for my dog. And I had to apply to be able to get one from her too. She did checked me out to make sure I was suitable to care for a dog. That wasn’t a problem I just didn’t want to be bothered after obtaining the dog. As I said before I had to wait almost a year for my dog. And I had to apply to be able to get one from her too. She did checked me out to make sure I was suitable to care for a dog. That wasn’t a problem I just didn’t want to be bothered after obtaining the dog.
I don't care what the demand is. There is no such breed as a bernadoodle. It is a mutt. Reputable breeders do not breed mutts - intentionally OR as a "oops" litter. There is no standard. You do not know what you'll get. Go look up bernadoodle on the AKC or Westminster kennel club sites. I'll wait.
Y'all. Her breeder is not good. They have 14 breeding moms on their webpage, and that's just the start of it. It's bad. It's not byb level, it's puppymill level.
14 breeding females is INSANE. Did you see her litter pairings?
"60lb Old English Sheepdog, docile, easy going, and observent nature. Not a big playtime mom, but totally great with pups." "15lb Toy Poodle, amazingly gentle and quiet temperament, only alerts at house door opening."
Only barking when the door opens is not a good qualification for breeding. Omg.
Y'all. Her breeder is not good. They have 14 breeding moms on their webpage, and that's just the start of it. It's bad. It's not byb level, it's puppymill level.
Y'all. Her breeder is not good. They have 14 breeding moms on their webpage, and that's just the start of it. It's bad. It's not byb level, it's puppymill level.
I’m gonna go snuggle my weird looking rescue chis now. I don’t even know what their mixes really are. One is potentially a chug and she is certainly built like a pug in her body region (she’s a fatty).
Also I have had a purebred from a reputable breeder (a bichon). I adored Annie but there are so many babes who need homes. I could never do that again.
Performance line labs that have multiple titles in multiple venues. One litter produced 3 obedience champions and a few agility champions. Every dog’s page has OFA results along with the rest of their genetic testing. Clear performance goals in breeding and 1-2 litters a year. That’s what I look for as I look at breeders and think about whether or not I would consider them reputable.
SHE IS A BACKYARD BREEDER. DEAL WITH IT. No reputable breeder will breed mixes.
My definition of a backyard breeder is someone who lets their dogs get pregnant willy-nilly and dump them at a shelter when they can’t home the puppies. I have seen that several times and have a neighbor down the street that does it. It’s disgusting. And it literally takes place in his backyard.
Just because someone specializes in mixes does not disqualify them from being a good breeder in my opinion. I looked for a lot of things when choosing one. One of the things I looked for was making sure that breeding the dogs was the persons livlihood to make sure they had a vested interest in the animals care, I looked to see that they limited the number of litters for the dogs health, I looked to see that they provided veterinary care and genetic testing. I looked for third party certifications and recommendations, and a number of other factors. Given the reputation of so many purebred breeds for serious health problems I don’t think that a dog being mixed should disqualify the breeder from being reputable.
This is awful. Chuppathingy now that you know better, will you do better?
Nope, she wants what she wants, when she wants it.
I wouldn’t go to her again necessarily knowing this. But I just posted my definition of what makes a backyard breeder. I am concerned that she’s upped her number of litters per year since I got my dog but she’s also upped the number of parents. I would still look for the same things I look for last time. This woman has a very vested interest in her dogs since this business provides her livelihood. She had good recommendations and at the time, she also had an AKC stamp on her website. No idea why that’s gone. She did provide proof of genetic testing and vet care, allow me to meet the parents, etc.
I really don’t expect we’ll come to agreement on this. I do respect your positions but to me obtaining a pet is obtaining property. Regardless of the ethics that is legally the case. The next time I get a dog I have no idea if I’ll go to a breeder again but it is equally likely as any other method of obtaining a pet. I will get my next dog in whatever manner is best for me at the time. It’s not shopping for a car but it is transactional in the same way to me. I’m just far more emotionally attached to my dog then I would be to a car.
I also still don’t agree that ending breeding as a business model will eliminate the euthanasia problem. Over population is a problem with lack of regulation of human actions. No number of rescues is going to fix that. Licensing regulation and a combination of positive and negative legal reinforcement has a much better shot
SHE IS A BACKYARD BREEDER. DEAL WITH IT. No reputable breeder will breed mixes.
My definition of a backyard breeder is someone who lets their dogs get pregnant willy-nilly and dump them at a shelter when they can’t home the puppies. I have seen that several times and have a neighbor down the street that does it. It’s disgusting. And it literally takes place in his backyard.
Just because someone specializes in mixes does not disqualify them from being a good breeder in my opinion. I looked for a lot of things when choosing one. One of the things I looked for was making sure that breeding the dogs was the persons livlihood to make sure they had a vested interest in the animals care, I looked to see that they limited the number of litters for the dogs health, I looked to see that they provided veterinary care and genetic testing. I looked for third party certifications and recommendations, and a number of other factors. Given the reputation of so many purebred breeds for serious health problems I don’t think that a dog being mixed should disqualify the breeder from being reputable.
she has a vested interest in the marketability of her dogs - the cute factor, the “I want” factor hence the ridiculous ‘breeds’ and modifiers.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
I bought from a breeder that produces a max of 3 litters, one per set of parents, per year and is the owners full time business.
I had to come back and highlight this, as it's obviously not true from the website.
I would like to point out that I bought my dog several years ago. I would consider that she expanded her business before buying again, but the fact that her dogs were her livelihood and her entire means of financial support for her family to me is a good thing. It means she has a serious investment in the health and life of these dogs. Given the demand for them, I’m not going to necessarily fault her for that.
SHE IS A BACKYARD BREEDER. DEAL WITH IT. No reputable breeder will breed mixes.
My definition of a backyard breeder is someone who lets their dogs get pregnant willy-nilly and dump them at a shelter when they can’t home the puppies. I have seen that several times and have a neighbor down the street that does it. It’s disgusting. And it literally takes place in his backyard.
Just because someone specializes in mixes does not disqualify them from being a good breeder in my opinion. I looked for a lot of things when choosing one. One of the things I looked for was making sure that breeding the dogs was the persons livlihood to make sure they had a vested interest in the animals care, I looked to see that they limited the number of litters for the dogs health, I looked to see that they provided veterinary care and genetic testing. I looked for third party certifications and recommendations, and a number of other factors. Given the reputation of so many purebred breeds for serious health problems I don’t think that a dog being mixed should disqualify the breeder from being reputable.
It actually shouldn't be their livelihood. Maybe the showing/titling and whatever else comes with breeding show dogs could assist with living expenses. But the actual selling of the litters shouldn't net them much, if anything at all.
A reputable breeder is breeding to better the breed. As doodles are NOT breeds (they don't breed true) they cannot get better, therefore the breeders cannot be reputable. It's like an SAT if/then question.
I had to come back and highlight this, as it's obviously not true from the website.
I would like to point out that I bought my dog several years ago. I would consider that she expanded her business before buying again, but the fact that her dogs were her livelihood and her entire means of financial support for her family to me is a good thing. It means she has a serious investment in the health and life of these dogs. Given the demand for them, I’m not going to necessarily fault her for that.
It’s NOT a good thing. It means the she can and sometimes needs to make decisions based on money, not on the well being of the dogs. The actual reputable breeders I know rarely make enough from litters for this to be a livelihood.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
Nope, she wants what she wants, when she wants it.
I wouldn’t go to her again necessarily knowing this. But I just posted my definition of what makes a backyard breeder. I am concerned that she’s upped her number of litters per year since I got my dog but she’s also upped the number of parents. I would still look for the same things I look for last time. This woman has a very vested interest in her dogs since this business provides her livelihood. She had good recommendations and at the time, she also had an AKC stamp on her website. No idea why that’s gone. She did provide proof of genetic testing and vet care, allow me to meet the parents, etc.
I really don’t expect we’ll come to agreement on this. I do respect your positions but to me obtaining a pet is obtaining property. Regardless of the ethics that is legally the case. The next time I get a dog I have no idea if I’ll go to a breeder again but it is equally likely as any other method of obtaining a pet. I will get my next dog in whatever manner is best for me at the time. It’s not shopping for a car but it is transactional in the same way to me. I’m just far more emotionally attached to my dog then I would be to a car.
I also still don’t agree that ending breeding as a business model will eliminate the euthanasia problem. Over population is a problem with lack of regulation of human actions. No number of rescues is going to fix that. Licensing regulation and a combination of positive and negative legal reinforcement has a much better shot
Did you visit her breeding area? Where the dogs live? Not just the parents in her living room, but the actual place where all these dogs live? Because I am 99.9% certain she's running a puppy mill.
I wouldn’t go to her again necessarily knowing this. But I just posted my definition of what makes a backyard breeder. I am concerned that she’s upped her number of litters per year since I got my dog but she’s also upped the number of parents. I would still look for the same things I look for last time. This woman has a very vested interest in her dogs since this business provides her livelihood. She had good recommendations and at the time, she also had an AKC stamp on her website. No idea why that’s gone. She did provide proof of genetic testing and vet care, allow me to meet the parents, etc.
I really don’t expect we’ll come to agreement on this. I do respect your positions but to me obtaining a pet is obtaining property. Regardless of the ethics that is legally the case. The next time I get a dog I have no idea if I’ll go to a breeder again but it is equally likely as any other method of obtaining a pet. I will get my next dog in whatever manner is best for me at the time. It’s not shopping for a car but it is transactional in the same way to me. I’m just far more emotionally attached to my dog then I would be to a car.
I also still don’t agree that ending breeding as a business model will eliminate the euthanasia problem. Over population is a problem with lack of regulation of human actions. No number of rescues is going to fix that. Licensing regulation and a combination of positive and negative legal reinforcement has a much better shot
Did you visit her breeding area? Where the dogs live? Not just the parents in her living room, but the actual place where all these dogs live? Because I am 99.9% certain she's running a puppy mill.
My definition of a backyard breeder is someone who lets their dogs get pregnant willy-nilly and dump them at a shelter when they can’t home the puppies. I have seen that several times and have a neighbor down the street that does it. It’s disgusting. And it literally takes place in his backyard.
Just because someone specializes in mixes does not disqualify them from being a good breeder in my opinion. I looked for a lot of things when choosing one. One of the things I looked for was making sure that breeding the dogs was the persons livlihood to make sure they had a vested interest in the animals care, I looked to see that they limited the number of litters for the dogs health, I looked to see that they provided veterinary care and genetic testing. I looked for third party certifications and recommendations, and a number of other factors. Given the reputation of so many purebred breeds for serious health problems I don’t think that a dog being mixed should disqualify the breeder from being reputable.
It actually shouldn't be their livelihood. Maybe the showing/titling and whatever else comes with breeding show dogs could assist with living expenses. But the actual selling of the litters shouldn't net them much, if anything at all.
A reputable breeder is breeding to better the breed. As doodles are NOT breeds (they don't breed true) they cannot get better, therefore the breeders cannot be reputable. It's like an SAT if/then question.
So this is a serious question, but how on earth do purebloods better their breed? They are inbred for certain qualities. They may not be very closely inbred, but after so many hundred years of pure breeding practices they all most certainly are. Purebreds are known for serious health problems because of this. Why on earth would I want that in a family pet?
Nope, she wants what she wants, when she wants it.
I wouldn’t go to her again necessarily knowing this. But I just posted my definition of what makes a backyard breeder. I am concerned that she’s upped her number of litters per year since I got my dog but she’s also upped the number of parents. I would still look for the same things I look for last time. This woman has a very vested interest in her dogs since this business provides her livelihood. She had good recommendations and at the time, she also had an AKC stamp on her website. No idea why that’s gone. She did provide proof of genetic testing and vet care, allow me to meet the parents, etc.
I really don’t expect we’ll come to agreement on this. I do respect your positions but to me obtaining a pet is obtaining property. Regardless of the ethics that is legally the case. The next time I get a dog I have no idea if I’ll go to a breeder again but it is equally likely as any other method of obtaining a pet. I will get my next dog in whatever manner is best for me at the time. It’s not shopping for a car but it is transactional in the same way to me. I’m just far more emotionally attached to my dog then I would be to a car.
I also still don’t agree that ending breeding as a business model will eliminate the euthanasia problem. Over population is a problem with lack of regulation of human actions. No number of rescues is going to fix that. Licensing regulation and a combination of positive and negative legal reinforcement has a much better shot
Why are you being so obtuse?! Getting a dog in “whatever manner is best for you”?! That’s awful, you don’t even care about these poor dogs! Do you know what breeder dogs go through? Their lives suck, used only for profit, they’re not valued family members.
And you’re 100% wrong that it’s better to go to a breeder where it’s their sole livelihood. It’s way, way worse! They want profit, that’s what they care about. As evidenced by the large number of dogs your breeder is now cranking out. Why won’t you listen to people who are clearly more informed than you on this topic? We’re talking about defenseless animals here, it’s important!
Post by cattledogkisses on Oct 1, 2019 19:28:03 GMT -5
Look, whether you want to believe it or not, you bought from an unethical breeder. Obviously what's done is done at this point and you can't go back in time. But now that you know that, do better in the future. I think that's all posters in this thread are hoping for.
Post by basilosaurus on Oct 1, 2019 19:28:52 GMT -5
I came back after a few hours. The fuck? Puppy mill defender? Here I was coming in to commiserate crying as much about my dog as the gramma who raised me. But WTF?!
I mean, I guess I agree with Chuppathingy in that her dog dealer is not a backyard breeder, as it sounds like a full on puppy mill. Even if there were less bitches in the mix when you bought your dog. Making your livelihood on selling mutts is a puppy mill. And I 1000000% bet that if you contacted this dealer to give back your dog, she wouldn't take it, ebcause there is zero profit in it for her.
I had to come back and highlight this, as it's obviously not true from the website.
I would like to point out that I bought my dog several years ago. I would consider that she expanded her business before buying again, but the fact that her dogs were her livelihood and her entire means of financial support for her family to me is a good thing. It means she has a serious investment in the health and life of these dogs. Given the demand for them, I’m not going to necessarily fault her for that.
All that means is that she was invested in turning out as much of her stock as she could. Which is obvious from the growth of her breeding facility.
Chuppathingy , by buying your dog a few years ago, you financed the building of a puppymill. That's the end of the story right there. Full on actual physical consequences of your buying of property. Capitalism on full display.
Look, whether you want to believe it or not, you bought from an unethical breeder. Obviously what's done is done at this point and you can't go back in time. But now that you know that, do better in the future. I think that's all posters in this thread are hoping for.
I disagree. At the time I purchased my dog I saw no animals kept in cages, none of the puppies were separated from their mothers before 12 weeks, no dogs were being killed when they couldn’t find homes for them. I saw no signs of it being a puppy mill. You are welcome to think my breeder was unethical. I saw no indication of that at the time. I don’t fault her for running a profitable business. Properly cared for dogs are expensive and she was definitely properly caring for them. I saw no indication that the parents were being forced to breed repeatedly. At the time I was told they breed one litter per mom per year, and on a full tour of this woman’s farm I saw no evidence to the contrary.
Puppy mills have a definition. I don’t believe she met it. She’s expanded her business but I still don’t have any reason to believe she would meet it based on my experience. www.animallaw.info/article/what-puppy-mill
Chuppathingy , by buying your dog a few years ago, you financed the building of a puppymill. That's the end of the story right there. Full on actual physical consequences of your buying of property. Capitalism on full display.
Based on the definition of a puppy mill, I don’t believe I did any such thing.