Notice that I did not include "only breeds purebred" and "must conform to AKC standard" or "must be a dog show champion" anywhere on my brief list. I'm speaking in very general terms. Think of showing, competing or testing in a very broad sense. I consider an LGD working on a ranch a form of basic testing since the owners are performing some type of evaluation about the dogs working ability on a daily basis. I don't want to be nit picky about specific criteria and black vs white since there is so much along the spectrum.
@lindsayt - Yea, I get it... I was really just wondering if you felt that testing had to be done in a competitive environment as you only mentioned showing and competing and not "working". I wasn't picking, just curious if you felt it needed to be proven exclusively in a competitive venue or if non-competitive workability was also acceptable.
I understand that there could be ways in which good breeders don't fit into all the things on the list, just as there could be ways that bad breeders might slide by, but I think the purpose of such a list is to give puppy buyers, esp. more inexperienced buyers, a list of things to look for so they can evaluate the huge variety of possibilities in some breeds. So I would say, yes, I'd look for someone who was active in SOME breed activity, whether it was showing, agility, working with livestock, or whatever. What I'd be looking for is not so much that the dogs are tested, but that the breeder shows a commitment to the breed, and is active in a community of breed fanciers or at the very least canine fanciers. To me, that shows that they should be exposed to some new ideas/information about dogs, other than just going it alone, you know? So the laundry list is more a way to get a sense of what the breeder is doing, and how involved they are in the breed. At least, that's how I see it.
I did like the idea at the end of the video, about breeders working with the puppies, handling them a lot, doing all the beginning training with them, and it seems to me that would be a good question to ask: what kind of early socialization/training does the breeder do with the dog?
The reason we have all of these rules and codes of conducts is ultimately to prevent the suffering of dogs. I think everyone's ideas of achieving that end are different. I'm not saying much here, just that nothing's black and white. And, I agree with Brad that a buyer should match their values with the breeders' values.
I know it’s been said before, but I do think there’s a difference between a “reputable” and “responsible” breeder. While we hope that only the responsible ones gain repute, one can certainly be one without the other. The history of many breeds bears this out.
My bottom line for a “responsible” breeder is that she does no harm to dogs generations down the line from what she produced (arbitrary pronoun). This includes “intentional” harm, like knowingly breeding a dog with a genetic disease or breeding without testing for known diseases. I would also hold the breeder accountable for unintentional consequences if they were in ANY position to prevent it -- like allowing their dogs to end up in a mill situation, in rescue, or in a plastic bag in a dumpster behind an animal control facility.
And while I understand that the reality will always fail to match this ideal – that people lie, that accidents happen, that dogs will be put into compromised situations that were never imaginable by the breeder – I believe that a responsible breeder will still do everything in their power to be just that – to be responsible and accountable for the life they have made possible.
So maybe I misunderstand the thrust of what led up to your statement, @brada1878, but I would completely disagree that “it’s a crap shoot” when it comes to finding or defining good breeders. I think statements like this suggest that the public is in no position to make rigorous demands of breeders, when the reality is that breeding should probably be a demanding practice that is performed well by only a select few. Is there room for exceptions? Sure! Especially when you’re talking about exceptional breeds (granted, we all think “our” breeds are “special,” but just on the level of sheer numbers, I would never argue that the issues relevant to a Shikoku ken are comparable to, I dunno, a Yorkshire Terrier). But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth.
Taking a cue from the Ian Dunbar video, and on the note of breeders who lead by example, I would say that some Basenji breeders have really raised the bar for how I think about responsible breeders. It’s not just about conducting health tests for every known issue before breeding, the method of raising and socializing a litter, and all the things that a breeder has direct control over. It’s also about adequately screening puppy buyers, fully informing them of breed specifics before ever taking their deposit, keeping in touch with puppy buyers for the life of the dog, making themselves open and available as the first available resource if the puppy buyer has any questions from crate training to cremation, following up on causes of death, taking the dogs back if ANYthing should happen…
This is one reason why basenji rescue, for example, contacts every breeder they can track down for the dogs that are surrendered into the system and asks if they will take their dog back (though they don’t return dogs to millers) – the breeder is given a chance to do the responsible thing. If the breeder refuses, this is noted and there is a record of it. While it is not BRAT policy to publicly disclose the names of breeders who refuse to take their dogs back, I have heard that other breed clubs do, and consider this actionable basis to deregister a breeder.
Okay, digression… but ultimately, breeders, breed clubs (formal or otherwise – you need a critical mass of breeders who know what they’re talking about to give some perspective to narcissistic evalutions of one’s own kennel), puppy buyers, and breed rescue work synergistically to create the breed that they deserve. And in my humble opinion, the breed and more importantly, the dogs, are at risk if any part of that equation is lacking.
I have contributed heavily in the past to the "laundry lists" that @lindsayt referred to. And, the truth is, there was a time where I cared about all of those things. But, after a few more years of experience and perspective, I've come to the following decisions:
1) "reputable" is a great term to describe a breeder if we take it at face value. Reputable means "having a good reputation." It doesn't mean: does health exams, follows a standard, etc.
2) There are really only two criteria that truly matter when judging a breeder: Are they honest?; and Do they put their dogs/puppies health and well being above all other goals they may have? If the answer to both of those is yes, then I believe they are a good breeder. What remains is to determine if their goals line up with what your expectations are. If they do, fantastic! If they don't, it doesn't mean the breeder is bad. It just means they are working toward something different than what you expect and I strive never to make value judgements about that. I can't say I always succeed, but I do try.
@curlytails you said: "But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth." - I feel like you're making a declaration of independence here, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Unfortunately, they aren't. Everybody has a different perspective on what their role and responsibility is. If a breeder strives to put the health and well being of their dogs first, that's really all you can ask for. That is the only "self-evident" truth I think we can hold breeders to. And it doesn't mean they will always be producing healthy dogs, because genetics don't always cooperate. But it's the move in that direction that we can respect, even if the outcome is sometimes less than desirable.
Are they honest?; and Do they put their dogs/puppies health and well being above all other goals they may have? If the answer to both of those is yes, then I believe they are a good breeder.
Bravo!!!! I too have seen lots of laundry lists on here, and for a point in time I got sucked in a bit. But they become too stringent and too narrow minded. I remember reading over one of the lists and thinking that Koda's breeder would've been labeled a BYB because she only has the breeding pair and didn't do the health checks that some might do. But seeing the lineage of her two Kais, I don't think she had to. In the end, I found a breeder with two great dogs, who was 100% honest about their personalities, and her home (how she lived with her dogs) values matched mine. I adore Koda's breeders. I would recommend them to anyone.....and I have a very healthy handsome Kai who has one of the best demeanors I've ever seen in a dog. I feel blessed that they let me have a pup.
This is just me, but I expect a breeder to have a sensible explanation for why or why not they decided to do this or that. I'll respect them for having a differing opinion and/or differing values based on knowledge but not out of ignorance or kennel blindness.
I also want to see a response to a gain of knowledge. Do they bury their heads in the sand, or are they going to act upon it.
"I think statements like this suggest that the public is in no position to make rigorous demands of breeders, when the reality is that breeding should probably be a demanding practice that is performed well by only a select few."
The point I was actually trying to make was that the public, the politics, and the system make it so that breeders can escape being held to rigorous demands, or it allows breeders to hide less-responsible choices behind titles and health tests. I think I am actually on your side here, I am just arguing that breeding dogs should be done with the same type of systems as a business, and be held accountable to certain standards like a business would be.
I'm sure the idea of breeding dogs as a business sounds horrible, and I'm not saying it should be done that way. But I think a lot can be taken from the consumer business economy on how to breeders could be held more responsible. And I don't mean BIG business or even for-profit business.
My point is really that, our capitalist market and federal government already has a system in place where companies that produce a product are held to either the market's standards or federal/state standards (or both) and that forces companies to produce the best products they can in order to compete in the market. Today, consumers even hold companies to choices they make for manufacturing and care of their employees (think about the back-lash against Apple for the suicides at the manufacturing plant that built the iPhone in China - consumers slowed their purchasing of Apple products due to that situation and Apple setup a system to better monitor the Chinese facility which has greatly improved the life of the employees). If breeders were held to a system like that then it would be much easier for a puppy buyer to find a reputable breeder and much harder for less-reputable breeders to function in the system.
Instead we have a system where breeders have to walk this narrow line between "mill" and "BYB", where all it takes is one person in an inner-circle, whether they are being truthful or not, to label someone as a BYB and basically ruin the breeder's reputation. Meanwhile these same inner-circle breeders, who are considered "reputable", hide their less-responsible choices behind very select health testing and show titles. Look, for example, at the Neapolitan Mastiff - the inbreeding done in that breed is insane (brother x sister, father x daughter...)! Inbreeding that any of us NK enthusiasts would scream "BYB" or "irresponsible" yet those same Neo breeders go on to place well in the show ring and that only ends up adding merit to their "reputable breeder" titles.
--
"but ultimately, breeders, breed clubs (formal or otherwise – you need a critical mass of breeders who know what they’re talking about to give some perspective to narcissistic evalutions of one’s own kennel), puppy buyers, and breed rescue work synergistically to create the breed that they deserve. And in my humble opinion, the breed and more importantly, the dogs, are at risk if any part of that equation is lacking."
This sounds wonderful, but it's not even close to reality in most breeds. From my experience, the majority of the people working in the rescue and the rescue groups themselves despise breeders and refuse to work with them no matter how "reputable" they are. Actually, I know of many breeders who spend more time working in rescue than breeding, and still most rescue groups refuse to work with them and go as far as to block rescued dogs from going to their facility. Perhaps its different in a few breeds (like maybe the Basenji or Shikoku), but the bulk of my experience has been that of negativity toward breeders from the rescue community.
--
"But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth."
You know, some of this argument here is semantic. I stand corrected: when I say reputable, I meant responsible. I will use that term from now on. However, that doesn't change the argument: I don't think any of us using the term "reputable" meant "people with a good reputation who may or may not hide behind that reputation and not do things they should do (such as health checks)." We were using it as a synonym for responsible.
I agree, that in an ideal world, Dave's points should be all we should need: is the breeder honest and do they put their dog's health first. The thing is, how is a potential puppy buyer supposed to know that without depending, somewhat, on a "laundry list"? It's not like we're really able to get to know the person in a lot of detail before buying the puppy (if they live far away, etc.) So there has to be something to judge by. I'm not saying that judgement is perfect, but it's better to have some tips to look for, especially for the inexperienced, rather than just say "oh you have to trust them." How does someone know to do that?
I like Ann's point, too, about a person has to have explanations for why they do or don't do things. If it's based in knowledge, it could be just a disagreement. I've had disagreements with breeders I think are quite responsible, and while we may not in the end agree, at least we've discussed it, and I know why they hold such an opinion.
And frankly, if a person doesn't health test their dogs for genetic issues, then yes, I think they don't deserve to be called "responsible" breeders. I do think that is a core issue that must be addressed.
I understand we disagree on this, but also, a number of people here are saying "now that I'm more experienced....etc" which suggests that if we who are insisting on "lists" were more experienced we wouldn't feel this way. I suppose if I were a breeder who had bred many litters I might have a different take on it, but the more experienced I become on the other side of things, the more I AM insisting on a list of things to look for. People may disagree with my "list" but it's not because I'm not experienced, and just don't know better.
And if people really think we need no "lists" whatsoever, then go spend more time on the Shiba side, where the really inexperienced dog buyers are, people who have NO CLUE how to evaluate breeders. Are you really going to tell people with no experience whatsoever that there is no way to evaluate potential breeders other than "trusting" them? The idea that a lot of the things on these lists don't hold up across the board is true, but I think there are some things that we can suggest in general.
In the vein of presenting something for thought, I'll bring up a specific instance that has bothered me a lot . I don't have a "dog in the fight" and aren't on any wait lists, so I have a degree of freedom bringing this up.
The Shikoku import, Yamato, was born in Nov. 19, 2009. Based on what I read on this forum, he has produced a litter that was homed in Jan. 2011. Given the ~60 day pregnancy of a dog and 8 week puppy rearing, this would mean he was bred before he was a year old.
@ayk - An oops breeding (female somehow escaped a closed-roof kennel) with DNA testing to confirm sire and preliminary health screening done before pups went to homes with puppy buyers being made aware of the situation. I'm sure Peggy would be happy to share the story with you if you asked her.
----
@shibamistress - For me and the experiences I have had, the reason why I downplay the value of a "list" is because I have purchased dogs from breeders who hit all the point on the various "laundry lists" and still ended up with a health issues or temperament problem.
I have had my hand in the purchase of 35 puppies/dogs of various breeds (not all have lived with us, some were purchased for other breeding programs). All of those 35 dogs had some type of title on their sire and/or dam and in some cases on them. Of those 35 dogs 18 of them ended up having health or temperament issues (51% failure rate).
Out of those 18 "culls" 14 of them came from breeders who were referred to me by other "reputable" inner-circle breeders, or from high-profile kennels who are said to be "reputable" breeders. Of those 14 "culls" from "reputable" breeders (as defined by the inner-circle or a list of criteria), only 2 of those breeders made (or offered) any retribution to me. (and one of those breeders is in Japan)
So, in my case, what value did "the list" really provide me?
This is why I don't place much value on a list of criteria as I think the listed criteria just gives mediocre breeders the knowledge they need to market their (unhealthy) dogs as effectively as possible to anyone shopping for a pup with "the list" as a guide.
If had the best results ignoring a list of criteria and buying a dog from a breeder who I was 100% comfortable with and who allowed me to meet their dogs. I've also found that I've had the best results buying from breeders who share the same training philosophy as I do.
@brada1878. I'm not one to let this issue be diverted off-forum so easily. That smacks too much of inner circle.
female somehow escaped a closed-roof kennel
Given that there is some mystery in how this female escaped, what steps were taken so there is not going to be a repeat of the same female or another female having an accidental litter when there is a hot male around?
@Brad....I understand. After all, I have a dog with a genetic issue, also from a breeder who did fit into everything I wanted in terms of a "list." I can't blame her for that--it's a recessive gene problem, and she was shocked and upset when it was diagnosed. That's why I do know that the list doesn't guarantee good health...really, nothing can.
I still maintain, however, that a list is at least a guide for people. Not a guarantee, but a guide. Otherwise, seriously, how would an inexperienced pet buyer ever make a decision at all? Don't they need some guidelines (not rules, but guidelines) to help them? (That's a general question, not directed just at Brad).
I wonder, btw, if this shouldn't be in a different thead, now, as we've gotten quite far away from the original topic....(at least in terms of specifics)
@ayk - I hear you, but I can't speak to the management of another breeder's dogs, which is why I suggested the questions be directed at Peggy. I can only speak to my dogs, my kennel, and their management. Really, I probably should have left that question to be answered by Peggy.
But, having written that, Yamato is back at Katja's place now and I know Peggy and Bob are working hard to install some new fencing (they recently moved to a new property).
I'm not one to downplay this type of thing, but mistakes do happen. I know I was surprised to find Ayu had jumped our 7 foot fence when she was in season earlier this year. Luckily nothing came of it, but it freaked me out (she had never jumped the fence before) and Jen and I are purchasing a 12'x12' closed-roof and closed-bottom kennel for keeping in-season females in (and/or breeding pairs and puppies).
I have also contributed to "laundry lists" in the past. I have differing opinions now, since I've grown a little and come to realize that nothing in life is either black or white. However, I do think they're still a good tool for someone that knows nothing about purchasing a dog. Can you end up with an unhealthy dog from a breeder that hits all those points? Absolutely. Are there breeders out there that are less-than responsible yet are still highly reputed? Of course, it comes back to that "inner circle" thing. Is it easy to hide behind titles and tests and still produce a "poor" animal? Sure, but I don't think that means such things have no merit.
Now I consider it important to find a breeder that I respect, and takes care in producing healthy dogs. It's important for me that they care about the dogs they produce beyond when they leave their home, and hopefully for its entire lifespan.
Here's my main criterion for a good breeder: failing all else, if the breeder only has ONE goal, it should be to do everything in their power to make sure all puppies they breed have a home for life. That means, they keep in touch with the buyers, and take complete responsibility for any puppy that needs a new home for any reason. Accountability, that is the key. If the buyer has a problem, it's the breeder's problem, too.
I think if you add absolute accountability into the equation, other things naturally fall into place. Sometimes that "inner circle" and group of enthusiasts who all agree and have each others' backs can actually stand in the way of this accountability. If you criticize someone with a lot of clout, you sometimes get a reaction like, "How dare you question so-and-so, don't you know they're prestigious and have x number of awards and are popular?!"
If every breeder is held responsible for every puppy they cause to be born, there's nothing to worry about. Of course they'll care about health if it's their responsibility because they wouldn't just be able to sell dozens of puppies with HD or some other problem and then say, "Sorry guys, that's your problem." Of course they'll care that their puppies are well-adjusted and properly socialized because if that puppy is surrendered for behavioural problems, it's their problem.
To tie this in with the original post, I don't think Jenn deserves anywhere near this level of criticism. I think it's fabulous that all these questions are brought up, and I think it's great that we've had such an enlightening discussion. But, to call Jenn a BYB is just too much. I'm really happy to see everyone express themselves, and I'm glad so many people care so much about the welfare of NK. And, I hope no one minds me stating my opinion, which is that Jenn is a responsible breeder.
"The Shikoku import, Yamato, was born in Nov. 19, 2009. Based on what I read on this forum, he has produced a litter that was homed in Jan. 2011. Given the ~60 day pregnancy of a dog and 8 week puppy rearing, this would mean he was bred before he was a year old. "
@ayk -Like Brad said, Yamato's breeding was due to the fact that Suki (the mother of the litter) was just too smart, and when a girl wants some she'll do what she can to get it. I was on Peggy's waiting list for almost 2yrs, and was exchanging e-mail conversations without even knowing that the litter existed. She told me about the litter as soon as the DNA results had come in as she wanted to be absolutely sure that Yamato was the father and that the litter was healthy. She allowed me to decide on going with a pup from this litter or waiting for a future litter. She didn't force me to take Miyu, I chose to take Miyu, fully educated to what happened.
I would have to agree with Brad about "the list", having gone through a similar (though not as extreme) situation. When we got Tikaani, we followed "the list" and found a breeder that matched it and had felt we would get a healthy pup. But after almost losing him to a major viral infection 2 days after bringing him home, stained puppy and adult teeth, an un-descended testicle, and LP that he may one day need surgery for; & then being told that each of these issues were from something we did.
What I have learned is that a generic list is good to start with, but in the end you have to create your own list. One that will satisfy your own needs but may not have any similarities to "the list". You have to determine what is really important to you, and then prepare for a long journey in finding that "perfect" breeder, knowing that it may be some time before you find one that you are fully satisfied with.
I agree with Dave said about responsible breeders being honest and putting the health of their dogs above anything else.
I am very happy that I do not have any health issues with Mika yet. I say yet because she is still young and something can come up in the future. However, would I choose to same breeder I got her from today that I did before? Probably not. I went down that list to see if the breeder did health tests, had showed or is currently showing their dog(s), following the breed standard, etc. The breeder I got Mika from was very informative, and helpful in the beginning. And when I say beginning I mean before I put down my deposit. After she received the deposit I rarely heard back from her when I e-mailed asking questions and even calling all I got was voicemail. Even after getting Mika, she did not care about updates about Mika whatsoever. It also took me 7 months to get Mika's registration papers from her. I sent proof of spay back in October, I just received her papers in the mail last week. I called and emailed many times to try to get the paperwork, but would never get an answer. I just about gave up until about 2 months ago I emailed saying that I've been pretty patient and would like Mika's papers. Of course I was asked who the sire and dam was because she simply didn't remember me or who/which pups went where. That's kind of upsetting.
What it comes down to is if the breeder is honest with me, care about the health of their dogs above all and most importantly communicating with me, and being my mentor when I have any questions about the breed itself just to better educate myself. Brad said it best, buying from a breeder that I feel the most comfortable with.
Okay, I’m going to back up a bit and say that I’m not even talking about a list – I’m referring more to the logic that drives certain principles about what makes one worthy of awe and respect and the veneration of being labeled a responsible breeder. Again, for me, the bottom line is about doing no harm to dogs – not the ones you breed, and not the ones that come from the result of what you breed. I find that to be a pretty generalized standard, and it’s the one that I will not budge from, for now (and echoes Hondru’s “main criterion”, I see, as I’ve spent so long typing out my verbose response).
A side-by-side case example to demonstrate how I would evaluate a breeder based on this one principle:
Breeder A interviews her puppy buyers thoroughly and sells her dogs on a spay/neuter contract. For the first few weeks, she takes the initiative to call or e-mail to chat with her puppy buyers every week, then every couple of months for the first year, once a year after that until age five, every other year after that (sends annual holiday cards in the meantime). She is of course always available if the puppy buyer has any questions, and she makes it a point to stress that she is open for life-long consultation. She follows up on the cause of death when that happens, so she knows if her dogs are dying from car accidents or cancer. If the former, and if it happens more often than she’d like, she knows she needs to ramp up her schpiel about how her breed needs to be kept away from cars. If the latter, she knows to scrutinize the dogs in her program. But these days, there are no more dogs to remove from her breeding program because she retired from breeding a decade ago when she thought she might outlive her dogs, and therefore not be in a position to take them back at any point in their lives, as she promised her puppy buyers she would do. This breeder can account for every single one of the dogs that she has bred because she did not breed too many litters, stopped breeding after a certain point, and has both the inclination and the personality to follow up and keep her puppy buyers close.
Breeder B has champion dogs, and thus constantly has people coming to her for puppies and has no problem filling up waitlists. Most of her dogs have homes lined up before she even breeds. She does not sell on a spay/neuter contract, and accepts deposits from anyone who wants to put one down. She is extremely busy showing and taking immaculate care of her own dogs and has no time to follow up on the pups of the multiple litters she produces a year, let alone their pups. One of the puppy buyers who purchased a “pet quality” dog from her falls ill and gives the unspayed dog to her daughter, who decides to breed her. This does not happen overnight, and may very well have been prevented if the puppy buyer had been on a spay/neuter or limited registration contract, if they had been in regular contact with their breeder and understood that she cared about what happened to her dog or her lines. Anyway, two of the puppies from this breeding end up in a mill situation because the daughter who took ownership of the dog had no idea how to screen or follow up with puppy buyers, and now the mill is churning out puppies that boast “championship lines.” These dogs are last seen at a heartland auction, where they are transferred to another puppymiller for prices far too high for any rescue to save.
These are two scenarios based on real events. Given that, it seemed to me that there was clearly a more responsible way to do things with long-term vision, and Breeder A outshone Breeder B. That’s the kind of clarity that I see when it comes down to concrete examples. I’m definitely not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach, I’m not saying there is no room for exceptions or accidents, and I’m well aware that reality NEVER fits ideal. But how wonderful it is when breeders raise the bar for themselves and their breed communities when they just get it, whatever that “it” may be, and act accordingly!
@brad, I’m sorry your experience has been that rescuers and breeders despise each other. But at least you can acknowledge that the ideal is that they get along, right? I do think Basenji rescue, on the whole, has a healthy relationship with the great breeders they work with. I see them as a stellar model, but I know that’s not the reality. There are many breeds with far worse problems, and any of the weak links in that equation I mentioned does nothing to help. However, the Basenji example is one that I feel I can cite and praise with some degree of specificity. So knowing there is a positive model, isn’t there any way to work towards such an ideal?
And thank you for clarifying your point about the “business model” of dog breeding. I think I understand more clearly what you’re saying, and I would generally agree with your take (though I also wish there was a better way to label the model!). And for the record, I also don’t think breeding should be relegated to an “inner circle” of elites … but it DOES take a high amount of specialization, experience, resources, and even personal charisma that most people just don’t have in order to truly do an exceptional job. And so again, the exceptional is just that… an outlier to the reality of what we actually deal with on a daily basis.
In regards to rescuers vs breeders, I am not really seeing that level of mutual scorn within Shibas, at least not in my area. I tend to see more positive interactions than negative. One of the measures of "reputable/responsible" Shiba breeders that is becoming a standard nationally, is breeders who do rescue/foster. I know quite a few well regarded Shiba breeders who are quite involved with breed rescue and so on, across the country, and they set a great example. Those breeders get a lot of my respect, even if we don't get along.
This is why I felt that if I was going to continue to be involved with the breed, it was mandatory for me to become more active in breed rescue, which is why I volunteered to become a breed co-rep and foster for breed rescue in my area. The ironic thing, is that both of the dogs I have been involved with so far in rescue, have been MIXED breeds, not purebred. And most recently, an internationally reputable breeder worked with SIRRA to transport another Shiba mix all the way from a shelter in New York to Portland, OR, where he now is her foster.
I think in Shibas, breeders are now more often expected to assist with rescue somehow and that is reinforced at our events, Nationals and Specialties. The Shibaholics alone have raised thousands for breed rescue and they were honored guests at Nationals. Great group! Their donations paid for that New York to Portland flight.
@lindsayt - So, I feel like your story is actually more symptomatic of a problem than it is of a good culture. Let me paraphrase your story as it made sense to me after reading through the words:
"Somebody already in the international inner-circle, used a lot of money that other people donated, to make a very public showing of how committed they are to breed rescue by having a dog shipped from all the way across the country."
Meanwhile, a local rescue group could have pulled that dog and found it a foster, saving the cost of the flight. Further, I would wager there are probably 10s if not 100s of Shibas in shelters closer to Portland than NY---probably some in the Portland area.
So, I'm now left with the following questions:
1) Why does this breeder get any more credit than a breeder that fosters dogs from local shelters?
2) Why do breeders have to be involved in breed-specific rescue? Shouldn't any rescue work be viewed as equally valuable, regardless of the breed?
3) Why is fostering, rather than a financial contribution, or perhaps a "stop puppy mills" campaign more respected?
I guess the realization that I'm making as I write this post is that "involvement in rescue" is just as arbitrary as any other quality you might put on your "laundry list" for reputable breeders.
---
To use some mathematical terms (I know, it's been a LONG time since one of my math lessons):
When talking about the truth of some proposition (in this case "so-and-so breeder is reputable") we often talk about conditions associated with that proposition. Some conditions are "necessary", as in if so-and-so breeder doesn't meet those conditions, they can't be reputable. Some conditions are "sufficient", as in if so-and-so breeder does meet them, they are definitely reputable. Some conditions are both necessary and sufficient. And some conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.
The nice thing about necessary conditions, is that if they aren't met you know a breeder isn't reputable.
The nice thing about sufficient conditions, is that if they are met you know a breeder is reputable.
The problem with any laundry list you come up with is that none of the conditions will be either necessary or sufficient. So, they really can't tell you anything with any degree of certainty.
@dlroberts. Fostering and rescue may be another arbitrary condition on a list for other breeds, but in Shibas, (donation, fostering, coordinating, etc), is something that the respected breeders, more often than not, are expected to do, like showing and health testing, as it demonstrates a persons commitment to the welfare of the breed, not just their own dogs that they breed.
It's a long story about Buzz. It would have been great if the local rescue in New York could have taken him. They tried many times to work with the owner. The owners did not cooperate, and unfortunately, he went on to bite the neighbor. Therefore, now that he had a bite history, the shelters and breed rescues would not take him/hold him for liability reasons, and he was slated for euthanasia, if I have my facts semi strait.
1) Why does this breeder get any more credit than a breeder that fosters dogs from local shelters?
I don't believe she is. It happened to be a very public issue in the Shiba community because the dog had a bite history and the owners were not cooperating with local rescue. She's a well known breeder, and it is her job to set a good example for the up and commings.
2) Why do breeders have to be involved in breed-specific rescue? Shouldn't any rescue work be viewed as equally valuable, regardless of the breed?
I'll speak for myself. Firstly, I value all rescue related work that is in the best interest of the dog whatever mix/purebred it is, and my rescues were "mutts". Secondly, my space is designed for smaller dogs. Thirdly, I'm most familiar with spitzy breeds and CO, and when I was interviewed, I agreed to take any, but preferred Shibas because that is my specialty and what I know best, so I have a better idea about what to expect, how to deal with issues more common in those breeds, and am better able to assist with new owner education, then say if I were to start fostering/pulling border collies. I feel the "difficult/not for everyone" breeds deserve a breed savy foster to find them the best new homes.
3) Why is fostering, rather than a financial contribution, or perhaps a "stop puppy mills" campaign more respected?
It is? Fostering does take more work than writing a check, but people should contribute how ever they are able and those are all ways of helping. If a breeder has a litter of new puppies and doesn't want to expose them to dogs fresh from a crowded shelter, and decides to write a check instead or sign a petition, great! It all helps in the end.
I would ask a question back: why should people not CHOOSE to do the type of work they can do, in rescue. There are way more dogs than we can rescue. No doubt about that. And everyone has limited time/resources. So they should choose to do what they can do, and it makes total sense to me that someone would choose to do rescue in the breed they know best and are most committed to. Why would that be a problem?
I understand that people are making the point that you can still be a responsible breeder and not do some of these things listed, that it is more complex than a list may make apparent. But I also don't understand the hostility to the idea of a list. As long as it is thought of as guidelines, I feel like it can really help people, esp. new puppy buyers. And I don't think anyone who is against the idea of a list has answered the question, then, of how they would help people who really have no experience in this choose a dog.
I suspect we're having two different conversations here in a way. One seems to be arguing that there are plenty of exceptions to a list, and that good breeders can not fit into it, and that bad breeders might. This line of thinking is useful on a theoretical basis, or for people who really, really know what they're doing, and have a lot of experience with dogs. The other line (the one I'm taking) is that people who don't have that experience need SOMETHING to guide them, and in that case a list might be useful, if it is stressed that it is only guidelines. Is that what we're arguing here? Am I right that they are kind of two different things?
eta: and I just read ANOTHER thread on the Shiba side about someone who got a puppy mill puppy, because they had no idea how to evaluate a breeder. Really, go over there and read those posts. How do we help those people learn enough to tell the difference between a puppy mill and a good breeder? Telling them to trust the person isn't going to work. I'd really like to see what kind of suggestions there are for people who need help.
This is my basic Shiba list that I would pass onto prospective pet owners. This is just for Shibas and these are things a prospective pet person should look for in breeders of this breed. Breeder must:
-must breed to standard -must show AKC -must OFA or PENN hip, CERF and thyroid test and remove dogs dogs with suspected inherited defects from breeding -must not inbreed -must have contract with full refund or replacement if pup does not turn out -must guarantee health -dogs housing must be spacious and clean and the dogs must have access to indoor life -puppies and young adults must be raised in the house -must provide obvious mental and physical enrichment for all dogs -must have a good reputation with AKC and NSCA and must be honest -must provide excellent and prompt medical care to dogs -must place retired dogs with a family -must be available for help for the life of the puppy -must require a spay/neuter for pets -must require potential owners to undergo obedience training -must require that owner will sign contract giving first right of refusal to the breeder and contact the breeder first if they are unable to care for the dog -must be active in the breed in a public aspect thru rescue, committees, breed education, mentoring, etc -must be patient and have a good sense of humor!
I probably missed some things that other people would include, and included things others would not. This is what I would want and expect from a Shiba breeder in the present time if I were looking for a pet.
Comments
Notice that I did not include "only breeds purebred" and "must conform to AKC standard" or "must be a dog show champion" anywhere on my brief list. I'm speaking in very general terms. Think of showing, competing or testing in a very broad sense. I consider an LGD working on a ranch a form of basic testing since the owners are performing some type of evaluation about the dogs working ability on a daily basis. I don't want to be nit picky about specific criteria and black vs white since there is so much along the spectrum.
----
I did like the idea at the end of the video, about breeders working with the puppies, handling them a lot, doing all the beginning training with them, and it seems to me that would be a good question to ask: what kind of early socialization/training does the breeder do with the dog?
My bottom line for a “responsible” breeder is that she does no harm to dogs generations down the line from what she produced (arbitrary pronoun). This includes “intentional” harm, like knowingly breeding a dog with a genetic disease or breeding without testing for known diseases. I would also hold the breeder accountable for unintentional consequences if they were in ANY position to prevent it -- like allowing their dogs to end up in a mill situation, in rescue, or in a plastic bag in a dumpster behind an animal control facility.
And while I understand that the reality will always fail to match this ideal – that people lie, that accidents happen, that dogs will be put into compromised situations that were never imaginable by the breeder – I believe that a responsible breeder will still do everything in their power to be just that – to be responsible and accountable for the life they have made possible.
So maybe I misunderstand the thrust of what led up to your statement, @brada1878, but I would completely disagree that “it’s a crap shoot” when it comes to finding or defining good breeders. I think statements like this suggest that the public is in no position to make rigorous demands of breeders, when the reality is that breeding should probably be a demanding practice that is performed well by only a select few. Is there room for exceptions? Sure! Especially when you’re talking about exceptional breeds (granted, we all think “our” breeds are “special,” but just on the level of sheer numbers, I would never argue that the issues relevant to a Shikoku ken are comparable to, I dunno, a Yorkshire Terrier). But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth.
Taking a cue from the Ian Dunbar video, and on the note of breeders who lead by example, I would say that some Basenji breeders have really raised the bar for how I think about responsible breeders. It’s not just about conducting health tests for every known issue before breeding, the method of raising and socializing a litter, and all the things that a breeder has direct control over. It’s also about adequately screening puppy buyers, fully informing them of breed specifics before ever taking their deposit, keeping in touch with puppy buyers for the life of the dog, making themselves open and available as the first available resource if the puppy buyer has any questions from crate training to cremation, following up on causes of death, taking the dogs back if ANYthing should happen…
This is one reason why basenji rescue, for example, contacts every breeder they can track down for the dogs that are surrendered into the system and asks if they will take their dog back (though they don’t return dogs to millers) – the breeder is given a chance to do the responsible thing. If the breeder refuses, this is noted and there is a record of it. While it is not BRAT policy to publicly disclose the names of breeders who refuse to take their dogs back, I have heard that other breed clubs do, and consider this actionable basis to deregister a breeder.
Okay, digression… but ultimately, breeders, breed clubs (formal or otherwise – you need a critical mass of breeders who know what they’re talking about to give some perspective to narcissistic evalutions of one’s own kennel), puppy buyers, and breed rescue work synergistically to create the breed that they deserve. And in my humble opinion, the breed and more importantly, the dogs, are at risk if any part of that equation is lacking.
1) "reputable" is a great term to describe a breeder if we take it at face value. Reputable means "having a good reputation." It doesn't mean: does health exams, follows a standard, etc.
2) There are really only two criteria that truly matter when judging a breeder: Are they honest?; and Do they put their dogs/puppies health and well being above all other goals they may have? If the answer to both of those is yes, then I believe they are a good breeder. What remains is to determine if their goals line up with what your expectations are. If they do, fantastic! If they don't, it doesn't mean the breeder is bad. It just means they are working toward something different than what you expect and I strive never to make value judgements about that. I can't say I always succeed, but I do try.
@curlytails you said: "But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth."
- I feel like you're making a declaration of independence here, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." Unfortunately, they aren't. Everybody has a different perspective on what their role and responsibility is. If a breeder strives to put the health and well being of their dogs first, that's really all you can ask for. That is the only "self-evident" truth I think we can hold breeders to. And it doesn't mean they will always be producing healthy dogs, because genetics don't always cooperate. But it's the move in that direction that we can respect, even if the outcome is sometimes less than desirable.
Bravo!!!! I too have seen lots of laundry lists on here, and for a point in time I got sucked in a bit. But they become too stringent and too narrow minded. I remember reading over one of the lists and thinking that Koda's breeder would've been labeled a BYB because she only has the breeding pair and didn't do the health checks that some might do. But seeing the lineage of her two Kais, I don't think she had to. In the end, I found a breeder with two great dogs, who was 100% honest about their personalities, and her home (how she lived with her dogs) values matched mine. I adore Koda's breeders. I would recommend them to anyone.....and I have a very healthy handsome Kai who has one of the best demeanors I've ever seen in a dog. I feel blessed that they let me have a pup.
I also want to see a response to a gain of knowledge. Do they bury their heads in the sand, or are they going to act upon it.
"I think statements like this suggest that the public is in no position to make rigorous demands of breeders, when the reality is that breeding should probably be a demanding practice that is performed well by only a select few."
The point I was actually trying to make was that the public, the politics, and the system make it so that breeders can escape being held to rigorous demands, or it allows breeders to hide less-responsible choices behind titles and health tests. I think I am actually on your side here, I am just arguing that breeding dogs should be done with the same type of systems as a business, and be held accountable to certain standards like a business would be.
I'm sure the idea of breeding dogs as a business sounds horrible, and I'm not saying it should be done that way. But I think a lot can be taken from the consumer business economy on how to breeders could be held more responsible. And I don't mean BIG business or even for-profit business.
My point is really that, our capitalist market and federal government already has a system in place where companies that produce a product are held to either the market's standards or federal/state standards (or both) and that forces companies to produce the best products they can in order to compete in the market. Today, consumers even hold companies to choices they make for manufacturing and care of their employees (think about the back-lash against Apple for the suicides at the manufacturing plant that built the iPhone in China - consumers slowed their purchasing of Apple products due to that situation and Apple setup a system to better monitor the Chinese facility which has greatly improved the life of the employees). If breeders were held to a system like that then it would be much easier for a puppy buyer to find a reputable breeder and much harder for less-reputable breeders to function in the system.
Instead we have a system where breeders have to walk this narrow line between "mill" and "BYB", where all it takes is one person in an inner-circle, whether they are being truthful or not, to label someone as a BYB and basically ruin the breeder's reputation. Meanwhile these same inner-circle breeders, who are considered "reputable", hide their less-responsible choices behind very select health testing and show titles. Look, for example, at the Neapolitan Mastiff - the inbreeding done in that breed is insane (brother x sister, father x daughter...)! Inbreeding that any of us NK enthusiasts would scream "BYB" or "irresponsible" yet those same Neo breeders go on to place well in the show ring and that only ends up adding merit to their "reputable breeder" titles.
--
"but ultimately, breeders, breed clubs (formal or otherwise – you need a critical mass of breeders who know what they’re talking about to give some perspective to narcissistic evalutions of one’s own kennel), puppy buyers, and breed rescue work synergistically to create the breed that they deserve. And in my humble opinion, the breed and more importantly, the dogs, are at risk if any part of that equation is lacking."
This sounds wonderful, but it's not even close to reality in most breeds. From my experience, the majority of the people working in the rescue and the rescue groups themselves despise breeders and refuse to work with them no matter how "reputable" they are. Actually, I know of many breeders who spend more time working in rescue than breeding, and still most rescue groups refuse to work with them and go as far as to block rescued dogs from going to their facility. Perhaps its different in a few breeds (like maybe the Basenji or Shikoku), but the bulk of my experience has been that of negativity toward breeders from the rescue community.
--
"But exceptions aside, I would insist that there ARE some core rational, logical, and indisputable standards as to what makes a breeder responsible, and this is always worth presenting for thought, not gospel truth."
I agree with what Dave wrote above.
----
I agree, that in an ideal world, Dave's points should be all we should need: is the breeder honest and do they put their dog's health first. The thing is, how is a potential puppy buyer supposed to know that without depending, somewhat, on a "laundry list"? It's not like we're really able to get to know the person in a lot of detail before buying the puppy (if they live far away, etc.) So there has to be something to judge by. I'm not saying that judgement is perfect, but it's better to have some tips to look for, especially for the inexperienced, rather than just say "oh you have to trust them." How does someone know to do that?
I like Ann's point, too, about a person has to have explanations for why they do or don't do things. If it's based in knowledge, it could be just a disagreement. I've had disagreements with breeders I think are quite responsible, and while we may not in the end agree, at least we've discussed it, and I know why they hold such an opinion.
And frankly, if a person doesn't health test their dogs for genetic issues, then yes, I think they don't deserve to be called "responsible" breeders. I do think that is a core issue that must be addressed.
I understand we disagree on this, but also, a number of people here are saying "now that I'm more experienced....etc" which suggests that if we who are insisting on "lists" were more experienced we wouldn't feel this way. I suppose if I were a breeder who had bred many litters I might have a different take on it, but the more experienced I become on the other side of things, the more I AM insisting on a list of things to look for. People may disagree with my "list" but it's not because I'm not experienced, and just don't know better.
And if people really think we need no "lists" whatsoever, then go spend more time on the Shiba side, where the really inexperienced dog buyers are, people who have NO CLUE how to evaluate breeders. Are you really going to tell people with no experience whatsoever that there is no way to evaluate potential breeders other than "trusting" them? The idea that a lot of the things on these lists don't hold up across the board is true, but I think there are some things that we can suggest in general.
In the vein of presenting something for thought, I'll bring up a specific instance that has bothered me a lot . I don't have a "dog in the fight" and aren't on any wait lists, so I have a degree of freedom bringing this up.
The Shikoku import, Yamato, was born in Nov. 19, 2009. Based on what I read on this forum, he has produced a litter that was homed in Jan. 2011. Given the ~60 day pregnancy of a dog and 8 week puppy rearing, this would mean he was bred before he was a year old.
Why was he bred so young?
----
@shibamistress - For me and the experiences I have had, the reason why I downplay the value of a "list" is because I have purchased dogs from breeders who hit all the point on the various "laundry lists" and still ended up with a health issues or temperament problem.
I have had my hand in the purchase of 35 puppies/dogs of various breeds (not all have lived with us, some were purchased for other breeding programs). All of those 35 dogs had some type of title on their sire and/or dam and in some cases on them. Of those 35 dogs 18 of them ended up having health or temperament issues (51% failure rate).
Out of those 18 "culls" 14 of them came from breeders who were referred to me by other "reputable" inner-circle breeders, or from high-profile kennels who are said to be "reputable" breeders. Of those 14 "culls" from "reputable" breeders (as defined by the inner-circle or a list of criteria), only 2 of those breeders made (or offered) any retribution to me. (and one of those breeders is in Japan)
So, in my case, what value did "the list" really provide me?
This is why I don't place much value on a list of criteria as I think the listed criteria just gives mediocre breeders the knowledge they need to market their (unhealthy) dogs as effectively as possible to anyone shopping for a pup with "the list" as a guide.
If had the best results ignoring a list of criteria and buying a dog from a breeder who I was 100% comfortable with and who allowed me to meet their dogs. I've also found that I've had the best results buying from breeders who share the same training philosophy as I do.
----
female somehow escaped a closed-roof kennel
Given that there is some mystery in how this female escaped, what steps were taken so there is not going to be a repeat of the same female or another female having an accidental litter when there is a hot male around?
I still maintain, however, that a list is at least a guide for people. Not a guarantee, but a guide. Otherwise, seriously, how would an inexperienced pet buyer ever make a decision at all? Don't they need some guidelines (not rules, but guidelines) to help them? (That's a general question, not directed just at Brad).
I wonder, btw, if this shouldn't be in a different thead, now, as we've gotten quite far away from the original topic....(at least in terms of specifics)
But, having written that, Yamato is back at Katja's place now and I know Peggy and Bob are working hard to install some new fencing (they recently moved to a new property).
I'm not one to downplay this type of thing, but mistakes do happen. I know I was surprised to find Ayu had jumped our 7 foot fence when she was in season earlier this year. Luckily nothing came of it, but it freaked me out (she had never jumped the fence before) and Jen and I are purchasing a 12'x12' closed-roof and closed-bottom kennel for keeping in-season females in (and/or breeding pairs and puppies).
----
@ayk Accidents happen.
Now I consider it important to find a breeder that I respect, and takes care in producing healthy dogs. It's important for me that they care about the dogs they produce beyond when they leave their home, and hopefully for its entire lifespan.
I think if you add absolute accountability into the equation, other things naturally fall into place. Sometimes that "inner circle" and group of enthusiasts who all agree and have each others' backs can actually stand in the way of this accountability. If you criticize someone with a lot of clout, you sometimes get a reaction like, "How dare you question so-and-so, don't you know they're prestigious and have x number of awards and are popular?!"
If every breeder is held responsible for every puppy they cause to be born, there's nothing to worry about. Of course they'll care about health if it's their responsibility because they wouldn't just be able to sell dozens of puppies with HD or some other problem and then say, "Sorry guys, that's your problem." Of course they'll care that their puppies are well-adjusted and properly socialized because if that puppy is surrendered for behavioural problems, it's their problem.
To tie this in with the original post, I don't think Jenn deserves anywhere near this level of criticism. I think it's fabulous that all these questions are brought up, and I think it's great that we've had such an enlightening discussion. But, to call Jenn a BYB is just too much. I'm really happy to see everyone express themselves, and I'm glad so many people care so much about the welfare of NK. And, I hope no one minds me stating my opinion, which is that Jenn is a responsible breeder.
@ayk -Like Brad said, Yamato's breeding was due to the fact that Suki (the mother of the litter) was just too smart, and when a girl wants some she'll do what she can to get it. I was on Peggy's waiting list for almost 2yrs, and was exchanging e-mail conversations without even knowing that the litter existed. She told me about the litter as soon as the DNA results had come in as she wanted to be absolutely sure that Yamato was the father and that the litter was healthy. She allowed me to decide on going with a pup from this litter or waiting for a future litter. She didn't force me to take Miyu, I chose to take Miyu, fully educated to what happened.
I would have to agree with Brad about "the list", having gone through a similar (though not as extreme) situation. When we got Tikaani, we followed "the list" and found a breeder that matched it and had felt we would get a healthy pup. But after almost losing him to a major viral infection 2 days after bringing him home, stained puppy and adult teeth, an un-descended testicle, and LP that he may one day need surgery for; & then being told that each of these issues were from something we did.
What I have learned is that a generic list is good to start with, but in the end you have to create your own list. One that will satisfy your own needs but may not have any similarities to "the list". You have to determine what is really important to you, and then prepare for a long journey in finding that "perfect" breeder, knowing that it may be some time before you find one that you are fully satisfied with.
I am very happy that I do not have any health issues with Mika yet. I say yet because she is still young and something can come up in the future. However, would I choose to same breeder I got her from today that I did before? Probably not. I went down that list to see if the breeder did health tests, had showed or is currently showing their dog(s), following the breed standard, etc. The breeder I got Mika from was very informative, and helpful in the beginning. And when I say beginning I mean before I put down my deposit. After she received the deposit I rarely heard back from her when I e-mailed asking questions and even calling all I got was voicemail. Even after getting Mika, she did not care about updates about Mika whatsoever. It also took me 7 months to get Mika's registration papers from her. I sent proof of spay back in October, I just received her papers in the mail last week. I called and emailed many times to try to get the paperwork, but would never get an answer. I just about gave up until about 2 months ago I emailed saying that I've been pretty patient and would like Mika's papers. Of course I was asked who the sire and dam was because she simply didn't remember me or who/which pups went where. That's kind of upsetting.
What it comes down to is if the breeder is honest with me, care about the health of their dogs above all and most importantly communicating with me, and being my mentor when I have any questions about the breed itself just to better educate myself. Brad said it best, buying from a breeder that I feel the most comfortable with.
A side-by-side case example to demonstrate how I would evaluate a breeder based on this one principle:
Breeder A interviews her puppy buyers thoroughly and sells her dogs on a spay/neuter contract. For the first few weeks, she takes the initiative to call or e-mail to chat with her puppy buyers every week, then every couple of months for the first year, once a year after that until age five, every other year after that (sends annual holiday cards in the meantime). She is of course always available if the puppy buyer has any questions, and she makes it a point to stress that she is open for life-long consultation. She follows up on the cause of death when that happens, so she knows if her dogs are dying from car accidents or cancer. If the former, and if it happens more often than she’d like, she knows she needs to ramp up her schpiel about how her breed needs to be kept away from cars. If the latter, she knows to scrutinize the dogs in her program. But these days, there are no more dogs to remove from her breeding program because she retired from breeding a decade ago when she thought she might outlive her dogs, and therefore not be in a position to take them back at any point in their lives, as she promised her puppy buyers she would do. This breeder can account for every single one of the dogs that she has bred because she did not breed too many litters, stopped breeding after a certain point, and has both the inclination and the personality to follow up and keep her puppy buyers close.
Breeder B has champion dogs, and thus constantly has people coming to her for puppies and has no problem filling up waitlists. Most of her dogs have homes lined up before she even breeds. She does not sell on a spay/neuter contract, and accepts deposits from anyone who wants to put one down. She is extremely busy showing and taking immaculate care of her own dogs and has no time to follow up on the pups of the multiple litters she produces a year, let alone their pups. One of the puppy buyers who purchased a “pet quality” dog from her falls ill and gives the unspayed dog to her daughter, who decides to breed her. This does not happen overnight, and may very well have been prevented if the puppy buyer had been on a spay/neuter or limited registration contract, if they had been in regular contact with their breeder and understood that she cared about what happened to her dog or her lines. Anyway, two of the puppies from this breeding end up in a mill situation because the daughter who took ownership of the dog had no idea how to screen or follow up with puppy buyers, and now the mill is churning out puppies that boast “championship lines.” These dogs are last seen at a heartland auction, where they are transferred to another puppymiller for prices far too high for any rescue to save.
These are two scenarios based on real events. Given that, it seemed to me that there was clearly a more responsible way to do things with long-term vision, and Breeder A outshone Breeder B. That’s the kind of clarity that I see when it comes down to concrete examples. I’m definitely not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach, I’m not saying there is no room for exceptions or accidents, and I’m well aware that reality NEVER fits ideal. But how wonderful it is when breeders raise the bar for themselves and their breed communities when they just get it, whatever that “it” may be, and act accordingly!
@brad, I’m sorry your experience has been that rescuers and breeders despise each other. But at least you can acknowledge that the ideal is that they get along, right? I do think Basenji rescue, on the whole, has a healthy relationship with the great breeders they work with. I see them as a stellar model, but I know that’s not the reality. There are many breeds with far worse problems, and any of the weak links in that equation I mentioned does nothing to help. However, the Basenji example is one that I feel I can cite and praise with some degree of specificity. So knowing there is a positive model, isn’t there any way to work towards such an ideal?
And thank you for clarifying your point about the “business model” of dog breeding. I think I understand more clearly what you’re saying, and I would generally agree with your take (though I also wish there was a better way to label the model!). And for the record, I also don’t think breeding should be relegated to an “inner circle” of elites … but it DOES take a high amount of specialization, experience, resources, and even personal charisma that most people just don’t have in order to truly do an exceptional job. And so again, the exceptional is just that… an outlier to the reality of what we actually deal with on a daily basis.
In regards to rescuers vs breeders, I am not really seeing that level of mutual scorn within Shibas, at least not in my area. I tend to see more positive interactions than negative. One of the measures of "reputable/responsible" Shiba breeders that is becoming a standard nationally, is breeders who do rescue/foster. I know quite a few well regarded Shiba breeders who are quite involved with breed rescue and so on, across the country, and they set a great example. Those breeders get a lot of my respect, even if we don't get along.
This is why I felt that if I was going to continue to be involved with the breed, it was mandatory for me to become more active in breed rescue, which is why I volunteered to become a breed co-rep and foster for breed rescue in my area. The ironic thing, is that both of the dogs I have been involved with so far in rescue, have been MIXED breeds, not purebred. And most recently, an internationally reputable breeder worked with SIRRA to transport another Shiba mix all the way from a shelter in New York to Portland, OR, where he now is her foster.
I think in Shibas, breeders are now more often expected to assist with rescue somehow and that is reinforced at our events, Nationals and Specialties. The Shibaholics alone have raised thousands for breed rescue and they were honored guests at Nationals. Great group! Their donations paid for that New York to Portland flight.
"Somebody already in the international inner-circle, used a lot of money that other people donated, to make a very public showing of how committed they are to breed rescue by having a dog shipped from all the way across the country."
Meanwhile, a local rescue group could have pulled that dog and found it a foster, saving the cost of the flight. Further, I would wager there are probably 10s if not 100s of Shibas in shelters closer to Portland than NY---probably some in the Portland area.
So, I'm now left with the following questions:
1) Why does this breeder get any more credit than a breeder that fosters dogs from local shelters?
2) Why do breeders have to be involved in breed-specific rescue? Shouldn't any rescue work be viewed as equally valuable, regardless of the breed?
3) Why is fostering, rather than a financial contribution, or perhaps a "stop puppy mills" campaign more respected?
I guess the realization that I'm making as I write this post is that "involvement in rescue" is just as arbitrary as any other quality you might put on your "laundry list" for reputable breeders.
---
To use some mathematical terms (I know, it's been a LONG time since one of my math lessons):
When talking about the truth of some proposition (in this case "so-and-so breeder is reputable") we often talk about conditions associated with that proposition. Some conditions are "necessary", as in if so-and-so breeder doesn't meet those conditions, they can't be reputable. Some conditions are "sufficient", as in if so-and-so breeder does meet them, they are definitely reputable. Some conditions are both necessary and sufficient. And some conditions are neither necessary nor sufficient.
The nice thing about necessary conditions, is that if they aren't met you know a breeder isn't reputable.
The nice thing about sufficient conditions, is that if they are met you know a breeder is reputable.
The problem with any laundry list you come up with is that none of the conditions will be either necessary or sufficient. So, they really can't tell you anything with any degree of certainty.
It's a long story about Buzz. It would have been great if the local rescue in New York could have taken him. They tried many times to work with the owner. The owners did not cooperate, and unfortunately, he went on to bite the neighbor. Therefore, now that he had a bite history, the shelters and breed rescues would not take him/hold him for liability reasons, and he was slated for euthanasia, if I have my facts semi strait.
1) Why does this breeder get any more credit than a breeder that fosters dogs from local shelters?
I don't believe she is. It happened to be a very public issue in the Shiba community because the dog had a bite history and the owners were not cooperating with local rescue. She's a well known breeder, and it is her job to set a good example for the up and commings.
2) Why do breeders have to be involved in breed-specific rescue? Shouldn't any rescue work be viewed as equally valuable, regardless of the breed?
I'll speak for myself. Firstly, I value all rescue related work that is in the best interest of the dog whatever mix/purebred it is, and my rescues were "mutts". Secondly, my space is designed for smaller dogs. Thirdly, I'm most familiar with spitzy breeds and CO, and when I was interviewed, I agreed to take any, but preferred Shibas because that is my specialty and what I know best, so I have a better idea about what to expect, how to deal with issues more common in those breeds, and am better able to assist with new owner education, then say if I were to start fostering/pulling border collies. I feel the "difficult/not for everyone" breeds deserve a breed savy foster to find them the best new homes.
3) Why is fostering, rather than a financial contribution, or perhaps a "stop puppy mills" campaign more respected?
It is? Fostering does take more work than writing a check, but people should contribute how ever they are able and those are all ways of helping. If a breeder has a litter of new puppies and doesn't want to expose them to dogs fresh from a crowded shelter, and decides to write a check instead or sign a petition, great! It all helps in the end.
I understand that people are making the point that you can still be a responsible breeder and not do some of these things listed, that it is more complex than a list may make apparent. But I also don't understand the hostility to the idea of a list. As long as it is thought of as guidelines, I feel like it can really help people, esp. new puppy buyers. And I don't think anyone who is against the idea of a list has answered the question, then, of how they would help people who really have no experience in this choose a dog.
I suspect we're having two different conversations here in a way. One seems to be arguing that there are plenty of exceptions to a list, and that good breeders can not fit into it, and that bad breeders might. This line of thinking is useful on a theoretical basis, or for people who really, really know what they're doing, and have a lot of experience with dogs. The other line (the one I'm taking) is that people who don't have that experience need SOMETHING to guide them, and in that case a list might be useful, if it is stressed that it is only guidelines. Is that what we're arguing here? Am I right that they are kind of two different things?
eta: and I just read ANOTHER thread on the Shiba side about someone who got a puppy mill puppy, because they had no idea how to evaluate a breeder. Really, go over there and read those posts. How do we help those people learn enough to tell the difference between a puppy mill and a good breeder? Telling them to trust the person isn't going to work. I'd really like to see what kind of suggestions there are for people who need help.
-must breed to standard
-must show AKC
-must OFA or PENN hip, CERF and thyroid test and remove dogs dogs with suspected inherited defects from breeding
-must not inbreed
-must have contract with full refund or replacement if pup does not turn out
-must guarantee health
-dogs housing must be spacious and clean and the dogs must have access to indoor life
-puppies and young adults must be raised in the house
-must provide obvious mental and physical enrichment for all dogs
-must have a good reputation with AKC and NSCA and must be honest
-must provide excellent and prompt medical care to dogs
-must place retired dogs with a family
-must be available for help for the life of the puppy
-must require a spay/neuter for pets
-must require potential owners to undergo obedience training
-must require that owner will sign contract giving first right of refusal to the breeder and contact the breeder first if they are unable to care for the dog
-must be active in the breed in a public aspect thru rescue, committees, breed education, mentoring, etc
-must be patient and have a good sense of humor!
I probably missed some things that other people would include, and included things others would not. This is what I would want and expect from a Shiba breeder in the present time if I were looking for a pet.