Natural History

Posted in dog breeding | Tagged American Kennel Club, puppy mills | 43 Comments

43 Responses

1. on October 27, 2009 at 3:48 pm Independent George

   In fact, I don’t know why ethical dog people don’t just set up their own registries– just with stricter standards for health, temperament, and genetic diversity.

   Probably because it’s just too hard to go up against a giant. I think you’ve mentioned the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club USA was denied recognition by the AKC specifically because their strict code of ethics was designed to combat puppy mills. Any breed club that tries to improve its own standards would only draw attention to the failures of the others, and the AKC can’t allow that.

   
   
   • on October 27, 2009 at 4:36 pm retrieverman

     The Border Collie have fought them hard: http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Wars-Border-Battled-American/dp/0979469007

     They still have their own registry, although it may not have as much genetic diversity as I would like.

     The AKC does a divide and conquer strategy.

     I’m right now very upset that all of those coonhounds are now AKC dogs. I bet in twenty years, everyone who hunts coons will be using cur dogs and feists, because the coonhounds will be too fancy to be of any use.

     
     
     • on October 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm Patrice

       Also the Wirehaired Pointing Griffon Club of America. They have their own closed registery. Based on what I read on their website (http://www.wpgca.org/), it’s tightly controlled and not part of the AKC. (I have no opinion on the dog — I don’t know very much about it.)

       
       
       • on October 27, 2009 at 10:26 pm retrieverman

         Is this the breed that is sometimes called a Korthals griffon?

         The Drahthaar has its own registry in the US (and in Germany): http://www.vdd-gna.org/history.php

         It has very strict performance testing.

         It is not the same thing as the show wire-haired pointer. I don’t have a better name for it, so I call it a Drahthaar. These dogs shouldn’t be called pointers anyway, because they are HPR’s (even the show version).

         
         
2. on October 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm YesBiscuit

   I ended up setting up my own registry with a membership of one. I set my own standards for health and temperament. I decide how much to charge and who to sell to and whether to sell intact or require neuter. If I don’t like my terms, I can have an in-person meeting with the CEO at my convenience. So far, so good – no one’s been blackballed because they weren’t in the clique and no puppy mill scumbags have tried to apply.
   On a more serious note, while I do not defend puppy mills, I think the fact that there is no legal definition of a puppy mill is a stumbling block. Many people – make that MANY PEOPLE – interchange the terms “backyard breeder”, “breeder”, and “puppy mill” as if they are equal.

   
   
   • on October 27, 2009 at 4:39 pm retrieverman

     Backyard breeders can be ethical. I’ve never liked the way they get pilloried and get mixed in with the real puppy mills.

     If anyone produces more than 5 litters per year and owns more than three breeds (especially if they are very different dogs or all very small toys), one should be suspicious.

     
     
     • on October 27, 2009 at 6:09 pm YesBiscuit!

       It’s not a numbers game IMO. If someone can produce more than 5 litters and do a good job of it, that’s ok by me. Likewise if someone can own more than 3 small breeds and take good care of them all, I don’t have a problem.
       The people that just moved into the trailer across the street from me had one dog. Which they tied to a little tree w/a short rope. They have already added a puppy. Another tree, another short rope. They are both sitting out in the pouring rain right now w/no shelter, crying pathetically. That’s what they do most of the time, no matter the weather. Just having a guess, I’d wager neither dog is neutered and will likely be contributing to the neighborhood stray dog population when those dogs make the rounds. Puppy mill? Hardly. Cruel? Yes.

       
       
       • on October 27, 2009 at 6:16 pm retrieverman

         I think the only way to actually control it is to put some numbers on it. The Germans have very strict numbers for the number of litters and the number puppies per litter that can be registered, and they don’t have this problem.

         For the case of the tethered dogs, I have no good answers.

         
         
         • on October 27, 2009 at 7:15 pm Jess

           In regards to numbers: I was called a puppy mill because I bred ‘too many’ litters this year. (The cross-breeding doesn’t help. To the ‘fancy’ cross-breeding makes you automatically unethical.) An acquaintance of mine got called a puppy mill for producing ‘too many’ litters. How many? TWO. The Tazi breeder in my Husbandry and Hypocrisy post got called a puppy mill for producing ONE litter.

           The term has no meaning. Frankly, numbers have no meaning, either. I know many breeders who breed specifically for the pet market. They produce between two and six litter a year, mostly small dogs that have fairly small litters. They have contracts requiring spay neuter and they take back their dogs when the own can’t keep them. Most of them keep their dogs in the house. Some have kennels. Are they puppy mills?

           A friend of mine with Azawakh has bred five or six litters in a year. These are dogs from Africa that desperately need to spread their genes around the western population of dogs. Is that breeder a puppy mill?

           I have NO PROBLEM with people making cash breeding dogs. Breeding and raising pups is a skill and they should be compensated for it. There is very little incentive for people to breed if they are not part of the show fancy ‘bettering the breed’ cliques, if they do not at least break even. So called ‘hobby breeding’ is a crock. Many people have hobbies that pay for themselves. There is no reason it cannot be this way with dogs.

           Under the original version of the breeder law proposed in Texas this year, I would have been a commercial breeder. Never mind that I produced two litters this year, and my last one before those was three years ago. That is where numbers get you. The second version of the bill set a limit at twenty litters a year to be considered a commercial breeder. For someone with Chis, that might be 10-13 pups. For someone with retrievers, that could be as many as two hundred pups. Are numbers really that helpful?

           
           
           • on October 27, 2009 at 7:22 pm retrieverman

             I’m not talking about laws. I’m talking about how registries should operate, and I think within a registry there could be exceptions for people who are actually doing a good thing.

             When I’m talking about puppy mills, I’m talking about someone who breeds dogs just to produce tons of dogs.

             You can’t mass produce quality dogs, and if a registry allows mass-production, then one can call into question the quality of the registry.

             I want papers to actually mean something– or at the very least, be indicative of quality.

             Like the JRTCA’s registration criteria: http://www.therealjackrussell.com/jrtca/registry.php

             Or the ABCA: http://www.americanbordercollie.org/RegistReqs.htm

             However, I think the ABCA is shooting itself in the foot by not allowing conformation registry dogs in its registry. From what I’ve read you can’t find a BC that doesn’t have Wiston Cap in its pedigree: http://www.americanbordercollie.org/RegistReqs.htm

             The JRTCA has the best registry system in this country.

             
             
             • on October 27, 2009 at 8:34 pm Jess

               There is a DNA test for CEA in Border Collies. Easy peasy. The ABCA does not require the test as a condition for registry, to avoid breeding carriers to carriers. What exactly makes this a superior registry? The fact that they register working dogs?

               
               
               • on October 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm retrieverman

                 The registry is open.

                 That’s it.

                 The JRTCA is a lot better.

                 
                 
                 • on October 27, 2009 at 9:53 pm Jess

                   Continental Kennel Club is an open registry. Some of the Seppala people are using them. Are they better than a closed registry?

                   As for JRTC, basically they register any dog that is the right size and has no gross health issues (gross meaning obvious, not, well, ‘gross.’) I read their registration pack. The dog is checked at one year of age, well before many health issues will show up. If my Freya, who has food allergies and stromal dystrophy (which as eye diseases go, isn’t a bad one) were a Jack Russell, she would have got in, no problem, since she didn’t have those issues at one year old.

                   
                   
                   • on October 27, 2009 at 10:05 pm retrieverman

                     The CKC is one of those paper mill organizations that doesn’t pretend to be anything else. I wouldn’t register with them. Plus, to me CKC is supposed to mean something else.

                     Jack Russells are among the least inbred and most healthy purebred dogs, so even this requirement has some effect.

                     If I were going to do this for retrievers, I would make it 2.5 or 3 years old before they could be registered. And I’d have all the retrievers recognized as varieties, not breeds. All dogs would have to have the health and genetic screenings associated with their breed or variety, including the non-traditional retrievers and mixed breeds that I would also allow to be registered. My whole system of testing them would be based upon the British retriever trial system, dock dogs, SAR, and upland retriever work. I have no interest in doing AKC trials which lead to breeding barmy Labradors that are too wild to be easily handled. I would have limits on the number of litters a breeder could register (with exceptions that can be granted) and the number of times that a sire could be used.

                     In my registry no dog could be registered of any breed or variety that does not have natural retrieving instinct.

                     That’s my dream registry.

                     
                     
               • on October 27, 2009 at 9:40 pm retrieverman

                 The best registry, though, is the one used by those sled dog enthusiasts who raise Alaskan huskies. It is entirely open and performance based.

                 
                 
           • on October 27, 2009 at 7:23 pm retrieverman

             I’m very opposed to doing this through the legal system, because that would simply be a mess.

             
             
           • on October 28, 2009 at 1:52 pm H. Houlahan

             Just because people overuse a term doesn’t mean “it has no meaning.”

             Guy calls his ex-girlfriend a whore because she’s seeing a new fella — doesn’t mean that there aren’t women (and men) selling it on the street corner below.

             
             
             • on October 28, 2009 at 1:56 pm retrieverman

               The term is conflated with other terms, misused, and over-used, but it does have a meaning.

               How about calling these things canine mass-production facilities?

               
               
   • on October 27, 2009 at 5:20 pm FrogDogz

     On a more serious note, while I do not defend puppy mills, I think the fact that there is no legal definition of a puppy mill is a stumbling block.

     Another stumbling block is the willingness of show people to call anyone they dislike a ‘puppy mill’, even if the dogs all live in the house and sleep on the beds. A friend of mine that I co own with has been fighting this for about six years now – a former handler and she got into a fight, and the handler started the “Don’t deal with her, she’s a puppy mill!” rumor mill flowing.

     I’m at this woman’s house three times a week – her dogs live in the kitchen, sleep on the beds, compete in shows and in general are all around family members. In spite of this, she’s spent six years fighting the ‘puppy mill’ label.

     It’s a term I’m always very, very careful about using – and still unsure about how we should apply it.

     Are they a ‘puppy mill’ if their dogs live in kennels, but their facility is spotless and well maintained, and their dogs are healthy and clean? If we say ‘yes’, where does that leave all the breeders of field trial dogs, most of whom DO maintain kennels?

     I guess for me, it’s like art – I know it when I see it. Filth, dogs on wire – those things, for me, define puppy mills. But does that mean we should support commercial breeders with six hundred dogs, if those dogs are clean? Is there a magic number we apply – more than X, and you’re a puppy mill? If so, who defines “x”?

     A thorny dilemma. For most show people, a puppy mill is “Anyone who breeds more litters than ME in a given year”.

     
     
     • on October 28, 2009 at 7:18 pm retrieverman

       FrogDogz,

       I’m sorry for the inconvenience, but my spam filter marked your comment as spam for some unknown reason. Luckily, I found it before it got sent to spam hell, which is where my spam filter sends things after a few days in spam purgatory.

       
       
3. on October 28, 2009 at 4:54 am Kitty A. Smith

   The problem with the term Puppy mill is that this is a term PeTA and the HSUS came up with to divide people’s opinions. And that it does well. To come up with a definition validates the the goals of these Animal Rightists or ARs.

   We do have a right to breed animals. But we also have a responsibility to do it well and humanely. Hobby breeders do it because they love their breed and would do all they can for it regardless of whether or not they make any money at the end of the day. Commercial breeders that use humane measures for the animals they keep do exist. But Dogs are companion animals and should be bred and raised in or around families for that reason. It comes down to what qualities do you really want in a dog.

   As for the original topic, the AKC does have a code of ethics. They can exercise that code and require better practices to qualify for registry in their ranks which in turn would become a rating of excellence. Numbers alone cannot determine the ability to breed well or humanely. When you begin to use numbers, then you approach inbreeding, a catch 22 that ARs have already thought of, I can assure you.

   Please visit naiaonline.org This is an animal welfare organization that does not ordain rights upon animals, rather they promote the welfare of animals that are possessed by humans for reasons beyond companionship. Animals used in entertainment and for food or service are also their concern. Good reasons are given within this website for why puppy mills should not be defined.

   Pet buyers need to be regarded as responsible for the choices they make when buying a puppy. Far too many are bargain hunters which plays right into the hands of commercial breeders that don’t have ethics. But when the puppy becomes sick, or dies, somehow that distinction is not made. I rescue for my breed. Many people wish too late they had saved a little longer for a puppy bred with care and concern. They have been educated.

   Great post with many thoughtful comments. These are just mine.

   
   
   • on October 28, 2009 at 5:04 am retrieverman

     Why do the Germans not have a problem with puppy mills?

     
     
   • on October 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm H. Houlahan

     The term “puppy mill” long predates the founding of PeTA or the ascendancy of HSUS. It was in common use at least as early as the early 1970’s. It was not “invented” by any political group. It is part of the language. Deal with it.

     The mills that supplied the new post-war demand for “pedigree” pets easily acquired from a local storefront go back to the late 40’s, early 50’s. Not sure when the term was coined, but the reality is 60 years old.

     
     
4. on October 28, 2009 at 9:04 pm flattie-n-Labbie

   There are ethical and unethical ways of doing almost anything associated with breeding animals, no matter what parameters and numbers you place on the process.

   A breeder “farms out” dozens of bitches to homes for whelping… ethical or unethical? Before you say unethical, the most respected working Labrador breeder in the world does just this, in an ethical and artful manner, in some volume, to great acclaim and effect (and not just in terms of ribbons–she produces good-looking, even-tempered dogs with long lives and good health). Another Labrador breeder breeds perhaps a hundred dogs a year in her kennels… unethical? Wait–that’s a sparkling-clean million-dollar facility and grounds, including whelping rooms with all the bells and whistles and a full-time round the clock staff and a vet nearby on call and retainer…

   On the flip side, a breeder has two litters or three litters a year in their home. Ethical? But wait–The sire and dam’s backgrounds are misrepresented, answers to health questions are sketchy, the reasons for breeding pairs are nonsensical, the breeder doesn’t know the first thing about socializing a pup for the purposes its marketed for…

   It all comes down to buyer beware.

   My problem is NOT that the AKC is “just a registry”–I think a long-standing registry is an important tool. My problem with the AKC is that in desperation to make money on a service that is contracting in demand, they are trying to be and claiming to be far more than just a registry–they’re trying to be all things dog–and it’s an absolutely impossible task doomed to failure.

   (Their customer service also sucks. Perhaps that’s part of their money problem, too.)

   
   
   • on October 29, 2009 at 12:35 am retrieverman

     That’s why need a registry that is more consumer friendly (in that it gives power to consumers to choose among the breeders and lines that are of quality).

     
     
     • on October 29, 2009 at 12:58 am flattie-n-Labbie

       Hah! I expect to be held accountable for my dog choices.

       I’d just be happy if their published phone numbers were correct, they connected you to the appropriate person when you finally found the right number, and the person you finally reached that could help you didn’t yell at you for asking them to do their job! Grrrrrrrrrr….

       
       
       • on October 29, 2009 at 1:07 am retrieverman

         That’s one reason why this registry is on its knees, and we need to start thinking about alternatives.

         
         
         • on October 29, 2009 at 1:21 am Jess

           I had this discussion recently with with some sighthound landrace people who want to eschew registries altogether. You run into the exact same problem by saying “leave the AKC, let’s start a new registry.” The problem is one of international registration. If I want my Salukis to be able to contribute to the international gene pool, I have to register them with AKC. They have the reciprocity deal with FCI. Wandering off and starting my own registry means my dogs will be a genetic dead end. Unless the breeders using the new registry continue to also register with AKC, their dogs will also be a genetic dead end, except for the very few people who also use the other registry. The big problem with that is that it discourages breeding. Because the dogs are not registered with AKC and cannot be registered by most overseas kennel clubs, there is less demand for them, and less incentive to breed. There are plenty of breeds on the down hill slide right now because not enough litters are being bred; a bunch of different registries springing up, however well-intentioned, would make that worse, because it will take decades for AKC to recognize those registries and accept their dogs. The SPDBS deal with AKC for desert bred Salukis took a lot of hard work to get going, and even now it is not an ideal solution, being rife with politics and control issues.

           
           
           • on October 29, 2009 at 1:25 am retrieverman

             I wonder what it will take to get the FCI to say to hell with the AKC. I have also thought about this.

             The FCI uses AKC standards for breeds originating in the US.

             If this really got going, I don’t think the FCI would recognize any registry– especially if the FCI constituent clubs begin a series of reforms (which is already happening). The AKC is not equivalent to any club in the FCI, and the differences between the two are going to become even more obvious.

             It’s kind of like how our Federal Reserve is nothing like any European central bank, including the one the EU uses.

             
             
           • on October 29, 2009 at 1:27 am retrieverman

             I wonder if the FCI knows the AKC is a big time puppy mill enabler and is now in bed with them.

             Because if that became news in France and Germany, there would be a lot of problems.

             
             
             • on October 29, 2009 at 10:55 pm Jess

               Of course they know. How could they not? They don’t care. They don’t care if the host country or coo has a standard that is just plain stupid or unhealthy for the dog. The FCI standard for the Azawakh is the French standard, as France is the host country. It only accepts dogs that are sand to red, and the dog must have white on all four feet. Look at these pictures of Azawakh in Africa and tell me how many fit that precise description:

               http://www.joergdahl.azawakh-abis.de/bilder.html

               There have been many requests for the French to change the standard to allow for dogs of other colors. FCI doesn’t care.

               To see the kind of registry you want you are going to have wait for a huge number of people to figure out that closed registries and restrictive standards are bad for dogs. Ain’t gonna happen any time soon. There are far more people who think like the woman we had that little discussion with on Querencia, than think like Jeffrey Bragg. And frankly, unless you can find loads of special people who will ignore politics and petty bull, leaving it in the hands of the breed clubs is mostly not going to work either.

               
               
               • on October 29, 2009 at 11:01 pm retrieverman

                 Why would the French get to control that breed’s standard?

                 Mali and Niger are no longer French colonies. I saw The Battle of Algiers, and they don’t own Algeria anymore.

                 Maybe if the breed came from Devil’s Island…

                 And that would be a papillon.

                 Bad joke– I know!

                 
                 
                 • on October 30, 2009 at 2:48 am Jess

                   IIRC if there is no kennel club in the country of origin the first country to recognize the breed is considered the patron country and their standard is used. For the Afghan they use the UK KC standard.

                   
                   
                   • on October 30, 2009 at 3:08 am retrieverman

                     And the Brits would be such experts on what an Afghan should be if it is needed to catch prey in Baluchistan.

                     That’s really twisted.

                     
                     
               • on October 29, 2009 at 11:05 pm retrieverman

                 Sometimes I feel like we’re dealing with a cult.

                 Or maybe we’re like Lollards, the Hussites, or the Waldensians, waiting for a Martin Luther to nail some up some theses.

                 
                 
           • on November 2, 2009 at 1:04 am Chelsey

             I’m a little late on the topic but I am surprised that there hasn’t been an all breed inclusive group with which breeders could join to say they follow a common code of ethics – sort of like what USDA Organic means for produce – regardless of whether you are buying tomatoes or bananas you know it was grown without pesticide.
             In this case a breeder could be registered with whatever registries they see fit to join while ALSO being a member of this group – meaning any consumer wanting to buy a puppy from them knows they would follow the standard code of ethics- have all their breeding dogs CGC awarded / OFA hip certified / genetic disease free etc. – at least. This protects the breeder’s freedom to breed within large registries and the consumer from being falsely lead to believe that because a breeder has AKC dogs he is breeding ethically.

             
             
             • on November 2, 2009 at 1:10 am retrieverman

               That is an excellent idea, but getting dog breeders together for something that challenges the main institution that controls the dog fancy is really quite difficult.

               
               
5. on October 29, 2009 at 2:01 am Peggy Richter

   The Germans DO have “puppy mills” — or rather, high volume dog production kennels. A lot of GSDs end up sold to the United States from such. They also have a subsidized system for training (their Schutzhund and their herding programs (HGH) are sponsored by the Government). Conversely, in the US, there’s virtually no rules. AKC sells numbers. If you disregard what they are breeding for the show ring, there’s no reason one can’t use their registry for producing what one wants. The trick is to have enough like minded people who are ALSO breeding for more or less the same goals. The problem comes in when you want to use an animal that isn’t registered or is registered as a different breed (for example if one wanted to cross a working Golden with a working Flat coat, or a Shetland Sheepdog with a Collie). There is currently some push for “open registries”. AKC did allow for crossing Dalmatians/ pointers and for import of Basenjis from Africa. It wasn’t AKC that nixed this, it was “breed purists”. There’s no reason why one couldn’t go with a “dual registry” system – allowing only dogs with the required proof of working capability, health checks, etc to get your numbers while still utilizing AKC’s pedigree and registration numbers to allow access to the rest of the world.

   As for puppy mills, I agree with the previous poster that PETA and others have made this term virtually impossible. A “junk dog breeder” doesn’t bother to take proper care of their animals, doesn’t verify the breeding animals for health and function (be that show, working or whatever they are specifying) and doesn’t have any realistic guarantees for the buyer. Call them junk dog breeders. I believe once a registry starts requiring some documentation regarding things like eye exams, hip exams, working certificates or other, it is likely to appeal to those looking for “that kind of dog”. All too often a working dog is described as some hyper, ricochet-around-the-walls creature that is unsuitable as a pet. Some of them are. A lot aren’t. But the “show” people have promoted their type as the “perfect pet” and implied that those working dogs are only good for the “specialized” owner.

   VR, Peggy Richter

   
   
   • on October 29, 2009 at 2:07 am retrieverman

     They have very, very strict rules that make it almost impossible to register dogs at that volume. Six pups per litter, that’s all you get.

     And they have breed wardens.

     That whole concept is foreign to us.

     
     
   • on October 29, 2009 at 2:12 am retrieverman

     It’s up to 8 puppies per litter.

     Dogs are so strictly regulated in Germany that I don’t think a puppy mill model could ever last.

     I’ve not seen any reports of these facilities in Germany or any other European country, except the UK and Ireland.

     
     
6. on December 10, 2009 at 2:29 am Erin

   I find puppy mills appalling, like any respectful human being should. It is a sad fact that most people don’t know that the cute little dog you see in the pet store window came form one of these horrible, cramped, cages. And odds are, the puppy bought from theses dare I call, “breeders” has some sort of disease. It is heart breaking to think that there are people out there who use dogs as a way to make money, shelling out as many puppies as they can. And to think of all the sweet kind dogs that are in shelters…WHY is it accepted and ignored by the government to let these places operate? Creating millions of puppies just for shear profit, while millions are put to sleep because of lack of homes? It makes no sense at all.

   
   
7. on June 28, 2010 at 7:53 pm saidkhorram

   Now we can help the dogs in puppy mills to have a much better life. Please spread the word!!!!

   http://saidkhorramshahgol.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/do-your-part-to-stop-puppy-mill-abuse/

   
   
8. on June 28, 2010 at 8:36 pm Kitty A. Smith

   I thought there was a petition to sign to get the AKC to stop registering puppy mill dogs. I don’t want to sign for any kind of new legislation. That it problematic when politicians and such try to figure out what good breeding practices are. Assumptions on their part will kill gene pools when they try to put a number on what constitutes a commercial breeder.

   
   

Comments are closed.