Did anyone catch the news and see that stupid Virginia Fort talk about how buying from a breeder or a pet store is like killing a dog at a shelter.

Dressing like KKK outside of the Westminster show?

What the hell is wrong with them???

I think there are a number of factors at work: One, they feel really strongly about the welfare of animals. Two, they love attention of all kinds, particularly media attention. And three, they aren't real big on logic and rationality -- maybe because it doesn't get them enough media attention, I don't know.

To me, they're part of the lunatic fringe.

I agree that buying from an irresponsible breeder or a pet shop keeps a homeless animal from getting a home - but I am not going to stand outside of Westminster and make a fool of myself. I won't ever buy a dog, but that doesn't mean that there aren't responsible breeders out there for folks who want to. I think PETA tries to make a point, but the way they deliver their message makes everyone not a hear a thing they are trying to say.

I know that it grieves me to see how many animals in the State of GA get put to death each year due to the ignorance of the human race and I think if more people could see and totally comprehend the suffering these animals go through because of our stupidity.....that's the point that PETA probably wants to make, but their garish behavior makes the message really unclear.

PETA goes so far over the top that their original intent and message get lost in their scrabble for media attention. It's a shame they can't realize that they don't help nearly as many animals as they could if they weren't so extremist.

Well don't forget that the intent isn't so much to help animals as it is to liberate them from slavery or whatever. At least that's what I recall Ingrid saying.

That's true...I guess it would help if they changed their original intent too!

Yes, their goal is no pets, no dairy, no fishing, no hunting, no medical research. No animals in contact with humans, period.

They are insane.

They would rather kill pets than let them be adopted.

They aren't too open about that agenda, though, and they don't say it to the news cameras in front of Westminster. Heh heh.

A friend of mine who is a cat owner donated to PETA for two years before she read enough to realize that their aims were not at all what she thought they were when she signed up -- she switched her donation to a local no-kill cat sanctuary.

I think it really illustrates the point that when you give money or support to an organization, you have to research it and not just accept the promotional literature as fact.

I particularly like the Penn & Teller Bullsh*t episode on PeTA. I'm not a huge fan of Penn & Teller but they do have a video of Ingrid outright stating their goals to an audience.

I would love to see that video. Hmmm, let me see if I can find a link. Anyone have a link to that video?

I googled, and found this. I am in the middle of watching it, I don't know if it's actually the one you are speaking of.

http://vegweb.com/index.php?topic=18713.0

Yep that's the one, Debbie

Penn & Teller are pretty, erm, blunt, if you know what I mean, but everything they say there is right on.

Well, I have to say that I wish people WOULD stop "buying" from breeders and pet stores...

While I agree with not buying from pet stores, commercial breeding facilities and back yard breeders - who would maintain current breeds if it weren't for the dedicated, responsible breeders who put a lot of time and effort into their breeding program to produce sound, healthy dogs with good temperaments?

It's not just black and white.

Right on, Mordy. As someone who wanted a Norwegian Elkhound for years, I chose a rescue dog of iffy breeding. But someday I would gladly buy a pup from the many very conscientious breeders I now know through the "moosedog" network.

It's an interesting question and to me, it really depends on the breed!

For most working breeds, there are breeders who concentrate on the working ability of that breed and preserving and improving it. Those are the breeders who are a benefit to the breed.

For the breeds that don't work, it's a different story, I think: it's often about breeders, as Colleen said in another thread, concentrating on conformation and on their next great show dog, or on making money (by producing pet-quality dogs).

Since I am a Sheltie person, I see the latter situation all the time. I can count on the thumbs of one hand the Sheltie breeders I know of who produce working Shelties. The overwhelming majority of Sheltie breeders that I know of are breeding "for show." And in doing so, they are neglecting the temperament of the dog, by putting it down the list of their desired traits. The truism is that Shelties have nice temperaments as a rule and are smart and biddable. Well, not so much anymore -- they are fearful and neurotic as often as they are stable and friendly, and I do lay that at the door of the "responsible" breeders.

Jean, you would be totally correct, to me, in going to the moosedog network to find a breeder of an Elkhound pup. And I am delighted that I have found a Lappy breeder, who will probably produce MY next pup!

But for some other breeds, including Shelties, I do wish that people would shun breeders in favor of rescues and shelters, at least for a few years. Only by sending that message will the breeders who are producing a lot of dogs and NOT improving the breed get the message. And I know for a fact that that group includes more than just BYBs.

I don't know... No matter what is being bred for health and temperment should still be priorities, and I think that when they aren't then maybe we shouldn't call the breeders "responsible".

That said, the more I learn the more I think that education is really the only way to solve this. If puppy buyers wanted a nice stable temperment, and knew how to find a puppy that had one, then the market would produce more of them.

That shunning breeders thing is a slippery slope.

Of course, temperament should be a priority in breeding. My point is that in quite a few breeds, it isn't.

In a working breed, it's harder to ignore temperament, because it absolutely affects the ability to work. No one who produces border collies that can work sheep will allow a dog who is skittish or fearful to be bred, because that temperament is a handicap to the dog in its work. No one who produces pointers that are used for hunting will allow a dog who is aggressive, or gun-shy, or in some other way temperamentally undesirable, to be bred.

But in too many breeds that exist only as companions now, temperament is not given enough weight as a breeding factor, I believe. I believe it pretty strongly, based on the experiences I have had with Sheltie breeders over the last decade. I also see it in breeds like Shih Tzus and the other small-to-medium sized companion dogs. And yes, I'm sorry to say that I do shun breeders because of it.

As for not calling such breeders "responsible": good luck with that. As long as they are members in good standing of their breed clubs and the AKC and they do the requisite health tests and they produce dogs that are shown and titled, they will call themselves responsible and a shift in public perception will be well-nigh impossible.

I'm just saying.

I understand that, and I agree, but it should be. I can't think of a single breed where I would accept that temperment shouldn't be considered.

Are we going to let people decide if they are responsible? Actually I think we should, but we don't have to accept their decision. My personal definition of "responsible" doesn't agree with many who consider themselves to be so, and the more people I can educate to agree with me the fewer will buy puppies from them.

I completely utterly and absolutely believe that YOU should shun most sheltie breeders, given how you feel, and hopefully at least some of them will notice. I just don't think we can say that everyone should shun all sheltie breeders, unless we don't want there to be any more shelties. (opening another can of worms here) It is like when people say that they think everyone should spay and neuter their dogs - I think they have a right to that opinion but I think they are being hypocritical if they say that and still want to own dogs, because the logical end result of their opinion is that there would be no dogs.

Nah, I don't want everyone to shun Sheltie breeders -- I just want everyone to shun about 80% of the current Sheltie breeders.

Interestingly, I was noticing lately that in my neighborhood, one of the main sources for family dogs is: the streets in bad neighborhoods. The area of Chicago that I live in is also home to many people who are on the police force or fire department. I can't count how many dogs I've met in the local parks that came to their current owners through a police officer or firefighter who found the dog(s) in some awful conditions in some rough neighborhood. The dogs are usually interesting mixes: last night I met a very handsome Rottie mix who probably had some GSD or Lab, or both, in his parentage. He'd been found, with his littermates, out on the street in an area of the city where I wouldn't like to be, by a cop who took the puppies and found homes for them with his neighbors.

Breeders aren't going to disappear anytime soon, no matter whether or not they should, but I think that the vast majority of people who want a dog as a family pet -- to hang out in the yard, go for walks, play with the kids, and bark when the mailman comes to the house -- will do better to go to a rescue or a shelter than to a breeder.

I'm with Tracy on this one.

And no, I wouldn't call a breeder who only breeds for looks without taking temperament into consideration "responsible".

I know I have a different perspective on this since I grew up in Germany, to me AKC is an irresponsible organization in itself. Butchered breed standards, from breeding dogs much larger than they should be, to defining problematic colors like double dapples as a permitted color in the breed standard instead of making it a disqualifying fault like it should be, and not including severe character flaws as disqualifying faults are just a few things that comes to mind. Endorsing the sale of dogs in pet stores and pushing people to register them is another.

And why isn't AKC a member of FCI? Big can of worms.

I don't disagree. I was pointing out that in some (many, perhaps?) breeds where temperament is not crucial to the dog's performance, it is not in the top three factors for breeding, that's all. And in Shelties, as I said, breeders dismiss it with "oh, Shelties have great temperaments, we aren't worried about that!" -- because Shelties don't rip the faces off children, I guess. But if Sheltie breeders would set out to eradicate the hyper-shyness from the breed, then a huge percentage of breeding dogs would be s/n immediately. Which ain't happening.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't say that breeders don't care about serious temperament flaws. After all, Shelties don't rip the faces off children. But I agree with Colleen's comment in another thread, that it's not unusual to find breeders who are overly concerned with conformation -- producing a ring champion dog -- and with income -- producing pet-quality puppies.

In the local breed club, years ago there was an attempt to discuss this temperament issue, and one of the most prolific breeders dismissed the topic by attacking, in effect, the puppy buyers. "Everyone knows," she sniffed, "that we don't control what happens to the dogs after they leave our homes!" True enough, but given the number of rescue and accidentally-bred dogs who have lovely temperaments even after having been in dreadful circumstances, I would say that temperament is a bit more resilient than that, and I would also say that it's very difficult to take a stable dog and make it hyper/shy/whacko, in a normal family situation.

I'm in total agreement with you on this.

Well, I don't agree with how the AKC handles things but I think that some of the other registries take things too far in other directions. Requiring performance titles or minimum conformation evaluations before breeding has a result of narrowing the gene pools even faster than we narrow them on this continent. But then again I'm not in favour of closed registries - and I don't just mean that I think we should be able to open them occasionally. I think that we should go back to being able to breed whatever we want together and if it looks like a sheltie and acts like a sheltie we should judge it as a sheltie - even if it's paternal grandfather was an otterhound.

(pickin' on the shelties again just cuz...)

Gah! I want an otterhound now! http://www.petplanet.co.uk/petplanet/images/breeds/otterhound.jpg

I understand what you meant, Connie, but in my opinion even a dog that isn't strictly bred for one working use or another has one major job today even moreso than just a few generations ago - fitting into human society and being able to handle interacting with the general public.

In my opinion it's an important part of responsible breeding to produce puppies with sound temperaments that will fit nicely into whatever household they end up in, be it doing what the breed was developed to do (hunting, herding, guarding, etc.), performing in various dog sports, or just being a well-rounded companion either at home or doing therapy dog visits.

More and more dogs live in crowded urban areas these days, and are more likely to interact with many people (and of course their dogs), increasing the odds for undesirable outcomes. The more dogs with poor temperaments are thrown into this mix, the higher the chances for undesirable outcomes, be it dogs injuring people or other dogs/animals.

Of course it's also important how a puppy is raised once it goes to a new home, and I do realize that a lack of training is one of the major reasons why people dump dogs at shelters, but just like a dog with a healthy body has an advantage in life, so does one with a solid temperament.

And I'm totally with Tracy on not being in favor of closed registries. A shrinking gene pool is very problematic and outcrossing could do so much for restoring good health in any breed plagued by severe health problems.

Some of the most beautiful Jacks I've ever seen came from a litter of a female who was 1/4 Lakeland. Obviously they were bred by a breeder who cares more about a sound dog able to do the work it was bred for rather than being purebred for the sake of being purebred, but at least two of these "not quite purebred" dogs would have left many "show" dogs in the dust in the conformation ring.

I do beleive that there are some dog shows in england where you can show working terriers of mixed terrier lineage in conformation. I'm not sure if they're UKC or what though.

In Norway you can't get a championship on an Elkhound unless it has won in the hunting trials. So they are working dogs. I bet most people don't know that.

Yep. And there in the US we have the JRTCA for example.
http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/register.php