Mixed breed breeders

[JayT]

Keep in mind that there are some great breeders out there who aren't purebred breeders. I have a heinz 57 type dog, but the breeder was top notch.

[Toby2]

Heinz 57 from a breeder? I think You have lost me! I've heard of the intentional mixed breeds: Labra-doodles and the like, but ....

[Miakoda]

Why is there any need to purposefully breed & produce mixed breed dogs when hundreds of thousands are dying every month? NO breeder of mixed breed dogs is a "good" breeder nor a breeder breeding for the love of dogs....more like the love of $$$. In fact, they fall into the puppy peddling back yard breeding category that is single handedly ruining set breeds.

[pitbullsrock]

Im sorry but if you think you need to be breeding mixed breed dogs you have either lost your mind or didnt have one to begin with buddy. watch this video and see what you have just added to by breeding your mixed breed bitch.:mad: :( :confused:
http://www.itsmeowornever.org/homeless.html
eddited to add this link CHECK IT OUT TOO
http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Fair/1901/chart.html

[jmg]

get em mia..let the world know....inform!

[33MTA3]

What Mia said.
There's no room for more mixed breeds and there's defunately no room for someone who breeds a mixed breed on purpose. Sounds like someone is in it for the money.

[StarWhisper]

Keep in mind that there are some great breeders out there who aren't purebred breeders. I have a heinz 57 type dog, but the breeder was top notch.

There is no such thing as a reputable breeder of mix breeds.

Reputable breeders are members of their breed club and sign a code of ethics that prevent them from breeding mixes.

[crowcrow]

when u breed mixed dogs or mix the dogs then you really are adding to the overpopulation of dumb dogs and humans. go down to any ghetto they have some really pretty dogs that people have bred and left to die because of so many issues, i can not even begain. these stupid puggles and even a bulldogg is a breed that humans have messed up! the bulldogg used to be a funtioning dog now look what we have done to him, he can not even have babbies the right way he can not walk and breath air right. the bulldog of today was never used for anything but his looks and guts! please try not to add to the dog problems

[pitbullsrock]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/FORPITSSAKE/SPAY.jpg

[apbtluver]

That photo is just soooooooooooo sad!

[Brittany]

Miakoda, I totally agree with you. Theirs no need for people to be breeding Mixes! What is their to improve? producing just pet quality dogs? Theirs plenty of those in shelters right now whos on a waiting list of being killed.

[RobDar]

(November 28th) NY Times had the following story in its Metropolitan
Diary section:

Dear Diary:

I'm at the Carl Schurz dog run with my pug. A young, very well-to-do
looking woman walks by me with her dog, a breed that is unfamiliar to
me.

As she pulls out treats and special water, I ask her what type of dog
it is.

She gives me what seems like a patronizing look and says, "A puggle."

"A what?"

"A puggle. It's a cross between a pug and a beagle."

She then looks at my dog with what seems like disdain and says: "I
used to have a pug, but they're just awful dogs to maintain. That's
why I switched."

Feeling a bit like we're discussing trade-ins on automobiles, I
resume watching the dogs frolic.

Just then, an elderly woman walks by the dog run and stops. She looks
at the puggle, pauses, and asks the first woman what kind of dog it
is.

The woman sighs, exasperated by this point, and says sharply: "A
puggle. A cross between a pug and a beagle."

The elderly woman thinks for a bit, then says, "Or, as we called them
in my day, mutts."

She leaves, and only one of us isn't smiling.

Story contributed by David Toussaint



I personally do not care if a dog is a mix, but intentionally breeding mixes is questionable. The recent acceptance of dogs like the Puggle and others and the BIG DOLLARS pet stores are getting for these mixes is perhaps the most frightening thing to happen in Animal Welfare in years. The Pet Stores inability to compete with Professional Breeders and Pure Bred Rescue groups on quality and in many cases price, has LED THE PET STORES to develope and push these mixed breeds, (which no quality professional breeder will supply). The general publics acceptance and willingness to pay up to $1000 dollars for whatever mix is this weeks fad...like the puggle...will only encourage puppy mills, low quality, backyard, and large scale commercial breeding facilties to continue...and will encourage more to spring up in response to the "new" burgeoning mix breed market. My opinion....if you have recently bought one of these breeds from a pet store....Pat yourself on the back, you just set Animal Welfare back 20 years! Thanx for that!

[ZenTrainer]

I'm amazed at these posts about mixed breeds. Since I don't know you all maybe you are being sarcastic. *All* dogs were mixed at one time. Check any breeds history. Like a Border Collie or a Lab or any breed.
To say that no one should breed mixed breeds misses the point.

**No one should be breeding at all!!**

We have a huge overpopulation problem and we need a moratorium on breeding until it's under control. (We also need all vets doing free spay and neuters and many other measures as well.)
Good breeders are so few and far between it's hard to believe they exist.
"Responsible breeder" is an oxymoron to me. No responsible person would be adding to this problem.

At one of our shelters here in Nashville we killed 400 dogs this week. We killed the same number last week and it will be the same next week.
And we are about average - no higher or lower than most any other city in the US.
Of that 400 dogs at least 100 were *purebreds*. I saw lots of labs, Lapso Apso's, Bishons, you name it, the purebreds were there.
The number one dog in the US is a "mutt". Certain groups would like you to believe that a purebred is the number one. Like, say, a poodle or a lab but nope. More American's own a mixed breed dog than any other type.
A good book about this is Brian Kilcommons "Mutts, America's Favorite Dog's".

Tracy B Ann
www.zenpaws.com
"The Politics of Dogs"
www.radiofreenashville.org

"You can't really learn about your dog by reading a book. Unless of course, your dog has written a book." Zen Paws

[StarWhisper]

I'm amazed at these posts about mixed breeds. Since I don't know you all maybe you are being sarcastic. *All* dogs were mixed at one time. Check any breeds history. Like a Border Collie or a Lab or any breed.
To say that no one should breed mixed breeds misses the point.

Yes all dogs were mixed at one time, however when todays purebreds were originally developed their breed founders had an actual purpose and reason in mind for these dogs...

Todays designer mutts have no real purpose and their reason for development is based on flawed logic...First their calling their mixed breeds "hybrids"...(a mixed breed is not a hybrid)...They think if they cross a poodle with anything it won't shed (poodles do shed and even if they did not genetics don't work that way). They give these designer mutts silly little names. These dogs were not developed for any purpose save to serve the latest doggie fads...They will never be taken seriously amongst true canine fanciers and their breeders will NEVER be respected.


**No one should be breeding at all!!**

We have a huge overpopulation problem and we need a moratorium on breeding until it's under control. (We also need all vets doing free spay and neuters and many other measures as well.)
Good breeders are so few and far between it's hard to believe they exist.
"Responsible breeder" is an oxymoron to me. No responsible person would be adding to this problem.

While I agree that there is an overpopulation problem I don't agree that responsible breeders add to the problem...and your comments about "noone should be breeding at all are a tad too PETA for my liking"

As someone involved in rescue work with my breed I have the upmost respect for responsible breeders and it is not their dogs/pups that are the ones that need to be rescued.

It is not the responsible breeders that fail to remain commited to their animals well being for the rest of their lives...Responsible breeders don't stop caring for the animals they bring into the world after they go to their new homes, they know they are always responsible for those animals.

[ZenTrainer]

There actually have been communities that have had temporary bans (moratoriums) on breeding and it worked.
I don't think PETA was involved in any of them.
Breeders worked with rescue groups and shelters and all kinds of other folks.
The shelters were able to catch a breath and do some education rather than just keeping up with the steady flow of dogs and get this...
The reason the breeders participated was because it was good for business.
(Well, there were all kinds of reasons they participated, <G> but it was good for business.)
Years ago Dalmatians cost at least 5 times what they do now, because the market is flooded with them. Less dogs on the market enables breeders to raise their prices. Which means the "good" breeders just might break even.
I bet your regional office of the HSUS could help you out if you wanted to try to initiate something like this in your community.
It's not as radical as it sounds.

[StarWhisper]

There actually have been communities that have had temporary bans (moratoriums) on breeding and it worked.

Breeding bans are not now nor will they ever be the answer...all they do is continue one step closer to the goal of eliminating pet ownership.

Public education is what is needed...teaching the public the differences between responsible and irresponsible breeding is what is needed.


I don't think PETA was involved in any of them.

The idea of eliminating breeding is very PETA. They may not have been directly involved in this instant but you can bet it's right up their alley. In PETA's (and other Animal Rights groups) mindset ALL breeding is wrong.

Breeders worked with rescue groups and shelters and all kinds of other folks.

This is nothing new. Reputable breeders and rescuers work hand in hand. I do rescue work I am frequently in contact with some very well respected people in my breed. Ethical breeders believe in being responsible for not just their individual animals but their chosen breed as a whole...this means being involved in rescue.

The shelters were able to catch a breath and do some education rather than just keeping up with the steady flow of dogs and get this...

Noone ever said rescue work was easy..<G>

The reason the breeders participated was because it was good for business.
(Well, there were all kinds of reasons they participated, <G> but it was good for business.)

Well I don't know what breeders participated but I know reputable breeders don't care about business.

Years ago Dalmatians cost at least 5 times what they do now, because the market is flooded with them. Less dogs on the market enables breeders to raise their prices. Which means the "good" breeders just might break even.

Surges in breed popularity have always been damaging this is not new but it's not about making money or even breaking even...let's be real, responsible persons who choose to get involved in breeding do so with the understanding they are not going to make money, they in fact accept the reality they will more than likely lose money. Once making money becomes part of ones mindset or reason for breeding they are breeding for the wrong reason.


I bet your regional office of the HSUS could help you out if you wanted to try to initiate something like this in your community.
It's not as radical as it sounds.

I would want nothing to do with the HSUS just as I would want nothing to do with PETA, the elimination of breeding is certainly radical. There is a huge difference between educating about irresponsible breeders and informing the public about these individuals and completely elimanating breeding all together.

[ZenTrainer]

I am not sure if you are purposely misunderstanding me or what.
A moratorium is a "temporary" ban on breeding. It is not breed specific. It is a ban for a specific amount of time on breeding any and all dogs. The ones I have read were for two years. I don't know if anyone has done a longer one.

It has nothing to do with whatever your misguided notion of what any animal rights groups goals might be. And I would suggest you learn about animal rights groups from a reliable source as you sound quite misinformed. I know of no animal rights group that wants to end pet ownership. I have seen some fabulous animal rights workers words distorted on the internet though, which is why I suggest you go to the source.

The purpose of a moratorium on breeding is to help with the overpopulation problem. I agree with you that education is the answer to the problem. I used to work for a non profit group that did just that. We went into schools, churches, city councils, shelters and many other places to teach responsible pet ownership. What we didn't do was rescue. None at all. Historically, rescue groups have no time to educate because all their resources - financial, physical, and emotional go to rescuing dogs. Which is a never ending task. Even if you rescued them all what would you do with them? There aren't enough homes.

So the moratoriums did work in that they gave people a chance to catch up. The shelter population decreased dramatically. Back yard puppy mills decreased. I think another thing that made the breeders willing to cooperate was that it was a two year moratorium. If they are "good" breeders they aren't breeding more than once every two years anyway.

If you are involved in rescue work and are not working with your regional office of the HSUS you are missing out on many valuable resources. These guys have been there and done that in every state and many countries all over the world. They are able to see the big picture also and work slowly in increments toward the day when there will be a shortage of dogs because they will be valued so highly by American Society. They see the possibility of "throw away" dogs being a thing of the past.

I remember meeting with a shelter director once while working for the non profit group. He asked me what my long term goal was. I told him I'd like to put his shelter out of business. He laughed and stood up and shook my hand telling me he hoped I could accomplish it in his lifetime.

Imagine, no need for shelters because dogs are bred by professionals and treasured by owners. That's the goal of a moratorium on breeding.

[StarWhisper]

I am not sure if you are purposely misunderstanding me or what.
A moratorium is a "temporary" ban on breeding. It is not breed specific. It is a ban for a specific amount of time on breeding any and all dogs. The ones I have read were for two years. I don't know if anyone has done a longer one.

I understand perfectly what you are speaking of...I don't agree with it and think breed bans, even temporary ones are based on flawed logic. If someone wants a specific dog they will find a way to get one ban or no ban.

It has nothing to do with whatever your misguided notion of what any animal rights groups goals might be. And I would suggest you learn about animal rights groups from a reliable source as you sound quite misinformed.

Really I am misinformed? I suggest you do some research and lean the difference between animal welfare and animal rights.

I know of no animal rights group that wants to end pet ownership. I have seen some fabulous animal rights workers words distorted on the internet though, which is why I suggest you go to the source.

Really you know of NO animal rights group that want to end pet ownership. Does the name PETA ring a bell?

The purpose of a moratorium on breeding is to help with the overpopulation problem. I agree with you that education is the answer to the problem. I used to work for a non profit group that did just that. We went into schools, churches, city councils, shelters and many other places to teach responsible pet ownership. What we didn't do was rescue. None at all. Historically, rescue groups have no time to educate because all their resources - financial, physical, and emotional go to rescuing dogs. Which is a never ending task. Even if you rescued them all what would you do with them? There aren't enough homes.

Rescue workers certainly can educate, I speak of and educate about my breed constantly. On a daily basis I am communications with new, potential, current, past, ect...GSD owners.

Are there enough homes? No there are not and there never will be until the public learns and more importantly has the desire to learn about why irresponsible breeding needs to cease.


So the moratoriums did work in that they gave people a chance to catch up. The shelter population decreased dramatically. Back yard puppy mills decreased. I think another thing that made the breeders willing to cooperate was that it was a two year moratorium. If they are "good" breeders they aren't breeding more than once every two years anyway.

So where exactly was this held? I would be quite interested to see how this moratorium decreased the shelter population so dramatically.

If you are involved in rescue work and are not working with your regional office of the HSUS you are missing out on many valuable resources. ]

I think the HSUS does a lot more harm than good. They are an animals rights group. I do NOT associate or affiliate with animal rights groups. I support Animal WELFARE. Huge difference.

These guys have been there and done that in every state and many countries all over the world. They are able to see the big picture also and work slowly in increments toward the day when there will be a shortage of dogs because they will be valued so highly by American Society. They see the possibility of "throw away" dogs being a thing of the past.

Shortage of dogs? Sounds like one step closer to the abolishment of pet ownership to me.

I remember meeting with a shelter director once while working for the non profit group. He asked me what my long term goal was. I told him I'd like to put his shelter out of business. He laughed and stood up and shook my hand telling me he hoped I could accomplish it in his lifetime.


Imagine, no need for shelters because dogs are bred by professionals and treasured by owners. That's the goal of a moratorium on breeding.

Like you I would also like to see an end to shelters but its not a moratorium on breeding that will grant this...What a moratorium does is a quick fix...sure it may stop the breeding problem for a short time but being only a temporary solution that is all it is a temporary solution that animal rights groups will not hesitate to attempt to turn into a "permanent solution"...in this "permament solution" an end to pet ownership will eventually happen.

[ZenTrainer]

Your misquote of me regarding a shortage of dogs is exactly what I am talking about regarding misinformation about animal rights groups.
I am talking about a day when I don't see packs of stray dogs roam the street - every street. When shelters aren't full. When you have to really go out of your way to get a dog, not just go to the grocery where someone is out front giving away puppies from a box.

And no, a temporary moratorium by itself is not going to fix it, neither is differential liscensing or rescue work. It's going to take all that and more.
Every bit helps. When you talk to an individual owner here and there in your daily routine that helps.

HSUS has the power to reach thousands at once which is what is needed. Oh, and by the way they are the one's to contact about the communities that have had effective temporary moratoriums. They also give money to just about every legitimate rescue group that asks.

I have found that it's hard to open someone's awareness when they have a certain mindset. I love PETA meetings and HSUS conventions when there are frank and open discussions where people have ideas and all the ramifications are talked through and we laugh about what a silly idea that was or a light bulb goes off and a great plan is born.

I am a member of PETA and HSUS and ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) and The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and an Antivivesection Group, and probably more. None of these groups wants to do away with pet ownership. I've seen the websites where they take a random quote from 1986 out of context and build it into something it's not. Ingrid Newkirk (the head of PETA) has a book called 100 Things To Do With Your Cat. None of which are abandon it or set it loose to live on it's own. LOL!

Mark Beckoff does great work as does Temple Grandin. There is so much interesting work going on to help animals. I hate to see anyone cut themselves off from the myriad of possibilities available because of ill concieved notions or stereotyping.

If I judged Rescue groups by the majority of the ones that I see, I would be raging against the machine trying to get them outlawed. I see way too much warehousing going on. When I became disillusioned with it I reached out to get facts on rescues in other areas of the country and found out that yes, indeed there are some great rescue groups and they are as horrified with the type I have seen as I am.

I find that sweeping statements rarely further the cause of improving the quality of life for all dogs.

Which leads me back to the original post. Purposely breeding mixed breeds. Let's remove the ethical issue of breeding for a moment. I will note again that all dogs originally were mixed breeds.

I would certainly disagree with some of their reasons for mixing certain breeds.
Did they really need to cross a Lab with a Border Collie to get a better field dog? There aren't that many fields left and these dogs have a way of ending up in the home of 80 somethings who remember (albeit a distorted memory) fondly their 15 year old lab who died 10 years ago.

Did they really need a better fighting dog so made a Presa canario from some now extinct wildebeast crossed with a mastiff?
Breed after breed were mixed to make some pretty wierd, dangerous or unhealthy dogs so who I am to complain about the labradoodles that are in vogue now?

I always joke that the TN state dog is a Chow mix. They make great mixes too. Take a Golden and a Chow and it calms down the Golden part and lessons the aloofness of the Chow part. They make really great pets. Would I breed one? Nope. But then I wouldn't breed anything!! ;-)

[StarWhisper]

Your misquote of me regarding a shortage of dogs is exactly what I am talking about regarding misinformation about animal rights groups.

I did not misquote you, it was right there in your post.

I am talking about a day when I don't see packs of stray dogs roam the street - every street. When shelters aren't full. When you have to really go out of your way to get a dog, not just go to the grocery where someone is out front giving away puppies from a box.

And that day

And no, a temporary moratorium by itself is not going to fix it, neither is differential liscensing or rescue work. It's going to take all that and more.
Every bit helps. When you talk to an individual owner here and there in your daily routine that helps.

Shelters will always be full and there will always be a need for rescue work until people want to learn and make a difference...as long as there remains ignorant individuals out there that believe its alright to dump their pets we will always have homeless animals.

As long as ignorance remains in regards to unethical vs ethical breeding there will always be a pet overpopulation problem.


HSUS has the power to reach thousands at once which is what is needed. Oh, and by the way they are the one's to contact about the communities that have had effective temporary moratoriums. They also give money to just about every legitimate rescue group that asks.

And with all their considerable resources HSUS could do so much more if they cared really cared.

I have found that it's hard to open someone's awareness when they have a certain mindset. I love PETA meetings and HSUS conventions when there are frank and open discussions where people have ideas and all the ramifications are talked through and we laugh about what a silly idea that was or a light bulb goes off and a great plan is born.

You attend those meetings I will continue to work alongside animal welfare related groups that strive to ensure that there is a brighter future and better tommorow for me to share with my pets.

I am a member of PETA and HSUS and ALDF (Animal Legal Defense Fund) and The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, and an Antivivesection Group, and probably more. None of these groups wants to do away with pet ownership. I've seen the websites where they take a random quote from 1986 out of context and build it into something it's not. Ingrid Newkirk (the head of PETA) has a book called 100 Things To Do With Your Cat. None of which are abandon it or set it loose to live on it's own. LOL!

I suggest you learn about the persons you align yourself with if you think none of these groups want to do away with pet ownership and don't even get me started on that fruit loop Ingrid Newkirk, she has made quite a few comments regarding "returning animals back to their "natural state" away from human contact...or hey we can talk about her feelings on the APBT and how they mass euthanized.

Mark Beckoff does great work as does Temple Grandin. There is so much interesting work going on to help animals. I hate to see anyone cut themselves off from the myriad of possibilities available because of ill concieved notions or stereotyping.

Saying AR groups do more harm than good is not stereotyping it is fact..

If I judged Rescue groups by the majority of the ones that I see, I would be raging against the machine trying to get them outlawed. I see way too much warehousing going on. When I became disillusioned with it I reached out to get facts on rescues in other areas of the country and found out that yes, indeed there are some great rescue groups and they are as horrified with the type I have seen as I am.

And there may be some very caring persons involved in AR who truly want to make a difference that does not change the fact that they are alligning themselves with individuals who truly don't care about helping animals...seriously all these shock campaigns and publicity stunts PETA loves to pull how does that help? When Newkirk talks about the mass euthanasia of a wonderful yet highly misunderstood breed how does that help?


I find that sweeping statements rarely further the cause of improving the quality of life for all dogs.

Hmm need I mention the APBT again and the ignorance Ingrid Newkirk expressed regarding this breed...How exactly did she intend to improve their quality of life? That's right she thinks we should mass euthanize them.

Which leads me back to the original post. Purposely breeding mixed breeds. Let's remove the ethical issue of breeding for a moment. I will note again that all dogs originally were mixed breeds.

You can't remove the ethics when it comes to breeding. The ethics have to be there, your pointing out that all dogs were originally mixed breeds is the same excuse that puppy millers and byb's will throw out in their defense that a new breed is being developed.

I would certainly disagree with some of their reasons for mixing certain breeds.
Did they really need to cross a Lab with a Border Collie to get a better field dog? There aren't that many fields left and these dogs have a way of ending up in the home of 80 somethings who remember (albeit a distorted memory) fondly their 15 year old lab who died 10 years ago.

Nope they did not and that is why ethics can never be forgotten in breeding. That is why there is no need for the development of new breeds...that is why breed clubs state in thier code of ethics that no mixed breeding is allowed, because today there is no logical reason to develop new breeds.

Did they really need a better fighting dog so made a Presa canario from some now extinct wildebeast crossed with a mastiff?

The Presa Canario is another highly misunderstood breed its important to point out that early in their history these dogs (aside from being used for dog fighting )also guarded and protected farms, in the wrong hands or with an inexperienced owner they CAN be a very dangerous dog..it is not a dog for the first time owner, and an unstable temperament in the breed is a serious fault. This just goes to show why ethics in breeding can never be brushed aside for any reason.

Breed after breed were mixed to make some pretty wierd, dangerous or unhealthy dogs so who I am to complain about the labradoodles that are in vogue now?

Because it was done for a purpose...there were ethics in breeding. It was not about breeding dogs to be in vogue it was about seriously dedicating oneself to the development of a breed. The Lab x Poodle mix is a joke, this trendy mix started in Australia if memory serves me correctly..the idea was to develop a service dog that could be used by persons with allergies it failed miserably and byb's and puppymillers are still trying to capitilize on the "hypo-allergenic hype".

I always joke that the TN state dog is a Chow mix. They make great mixes too. Take a Golden and a Chow and it calms down the Golden part and lessons the aloofness of the Chow part. They make really great pets. Would I breed one? Nope. But then I wouldn't breed anything!! ;-)

Fawed logic breeding a Golden and a Chow will not necessarily give you those temperament traits your commenting on yes over time with selective and careful breeding one would get the desired traits but in a carelessly bred litter temperament would be a crap shoot at best.

Am I saying this mix or any other can not make great pets? No I am not I have a mixed breed myself and he is a wonderful dog, he is intelligent and athletic, not to mention loyal and affectionate...would I want him to pass on his genetics...no because despite all his wonderful traits he is a mutt, there is no reason to breed him, hence why he is neutered.

Wonderful mixes can be found at shelters there is no reason to breed them. My own mixed breed was found as a stray pup. Today he is a Canine Good Citizen, titled in obedience and agility and a certified Therapy Dog. Am I proud of him? You bet I am but as proud as I am of him I would not want to see people trying to breed for a dog like him because it is unethical to mix breeds and as I said before in breeding the ethics never can be brushed aside

[DiggityDogs]

Go Star! Wow... I have to say that I agree, I don't think that a ban is the answer. NOONE should be breeding 'cross breeds,' and damn the CKC for allowing people to register them 'for the purposes of encouraging the development of new breeds' No one who breeds golden-doodles is contributing the development of anything except thier bank account. We have a local golden doodle 'farm' here, that's pumping them out like crazy. I also would hate to think of a world where my kids would never be able to see the wonderful breeds I had the oportunity to grow up with- If you ban breeding the purebreed becomes extinct......

[ZenTrainer]

Sigh.
It is always disheartening for me to see all of the ...misunderstandings...misinterpretations... that come with reading email.
Once more just for clarity.
I was talking of communities that have had a two year moratorium on breeding - ANY AND ALL dogs. They did this as a way of attempting to get a handle on the overpopulation problem.
Did it work in the long term? Who knows. Could it have hurt to try? I don't see how it possibly could have.
One of the shelters here in Nashville kills 400 dogs each and every week. Week after week after week. As I have said, our numbers are about average, the same thing is happening all over the country.
And 25% of these animals in shelters are purebreds.
This is a city run shelter and while they are a "kill" shelter they are also an "open door" shelter. They take each and every animal that is brought to them. I give then points for that.
I don't know what inspired the few communities that have tried these temporary moratoriums to do so.
I know what makes me say that I long for a day when there is a shortage of pets. A day when people have to wait on lists to adopt a pet.
It's the days that I come home after volunteering at the shelter. The days that I have held and petted and whispered softly into the ears of 40 dogs, one after another, while they were euthanized.
That's when I wish that society valued dogs and cats so highly that they didn't treat them like disposable items.
It has nothing to do with not wanting people to have pets, it has everything to do with wanting people to treasure pets.

[StarWhisper]

It's not about you being misunderstood or misinterpreted...You are simply not agreed with.

That does not give you the right to insult others intelligence and imply that they are incapable of understanding what you mean.

Because someone does not share your view points does not mean they need clarity, sometimes it just means they don't share your view points.

All the arguing in the world will not make me thing that banning breeding is a good thing..I smell AR behind it and as someone who loves their pets and animals I will fight AR every step of the way, because I will be damned if I will just sit by and watch silently as they try to take away our animals because of their own twisted views.

Your speech about wanting to see people treasure pets was touching, and I can feel the pain in your plight when you mention holding, petting, and whisper in their ears as only someone who has been down that road before can, but I can also see the problem in it.

The overpopulation problem will always exist until the public wants to learn and make a difference.

You think a moratorium on breeding in a community is going to stop the problem? It won't. People spend thousand and thousands of dollars on the purchase of designer mutts...you think these same people won't drop a few hundred dollars more to have one shipped in from a community that does not have a moratorium on breeding?

You think if a mortorium on breeding is granted that will be good enough for AR groups? It won't be and your lying to yourself if you think it is.

[DiggityDogs]

Well, then, how about citing some sources here? What communities were these? Where did you hear about it? Hmm. I don't think that a moratorium's the answer at all, I think there need to be rules requiring breeders to belong to a kennel club of some sort, whether it be a working group or a show group, and breeders should be required to perform the necessary health (AND temperament) testing specific to that breed, so that not only would the dogs being produced be healthier, but less people would be willing to go through the hassle of preparing their dog for breeding. Also, maybe we should require licenses of some sort to breed- so that in order to purchase a dog for breeding purposes you must present it? Germany already has these breeding practices in place. A link regarding breeding german shepherd dogs:
http://home.flash.net/~astroman/requirements.html
Most other breeds are similar. German clubs actually require hips certified, prefers elbows certified, conformation evaluation by a judge with a G or 'good' rating or higher (I'm assuming this is in the Alle Rasse Gruppe) and a schutzhund title at VPG1 or better, AND requires the dog to perform a 12 mile run along side a bike to test endurance. If the dog passes all of these tests, it is then given a rating based on his performance. If a dog does not obtain a KKL1 or KKL2 rating, pups from that dog cannot be registered.
Of course I'm sure that these things cannot be enforced by law, but nobody in German who breeds wants anything to do with a dog that is not breed surveyed, and since you can't sell pups there as 'registered' without the KKL rating, I'd imagine there are less people buying from backyard breeders. I think a program like that with a few adjustments to account for Americans apathy as to where their dog comes from would make a huge difference in our problem. And I think 'clubs' like the 'All Breed Kennel Club, or ABKC', should be put out of business for allowing the registration of cross bred dogs. Read this link- I love how they try to pass them selves off as a ;Christian-founded' club to gain support.
http://www.allbreedkennelclub.com/

[StarWhisper]

Don't even get me started on pseudo-puppymiller and byb registries like APRI, ConKC,and ABKC...Ugh I went to the site you provided...Don't ask what possessed me to do such a thing as I have been there before and here is a quote from their site showing their ignorance...

"Research has proven that these cross breeds result in a healthier, stronger pup."

I am quite curious to see what research they are referring to and whom conducted these studies.

Now on the other hand we have a Prof. Dr George E. Padgett, a leading authority on canine genetics who feels the opposite and has cited that mixed breeds are predisposed to more genetic problems...(ie are less healthier).

[Dogwise]

Ban breeding? LOL Are we kidding here? Well then why not ban having children? There are plenty of bad kids out there that turn into thieves, robbers, junkies, murders, end up in prison, are sometimes put to death. Why is it that the answer is never about responsibility? People wouldn't be breeding dogs if there weren't a demand for them. How about holding people responsible that treat dogs like disposable trash. If I'm doing things I shouldn't be doing, things that harm others or even this world that I live on then I deserve what ever I get. Otherwise I don't need government or some busy body sticking their nose in my business.

LOL please pardon my spelling.

[redwhitenblue]

what said is the comment about breeding mixed dogs or dumb dogs. You know I have had many breeds and while on our farm we had mixed breeds for our dogs that worked and the reason was because the learn quicker and they are better at their job. I have had cattle dogs. shepards and none learn faster or even knew half the things my fathers mutt had.

and i would have tos ay breeding mixed breeds on purpose is wrong however... if you have aperson that has puppies and gives them to good homes it makes them much more of a reputible breeder then some purebred breeder who breeds three or four litters a year for no dang reason...

have any of you guys thought about this... purebreds end up in the shelter also... so how you can you say that mixed are homeless... last time i checked freaking purebred were also homeless... or was a imistaken that i seen an akc doberman up for adoption at a rescue and was i mistaken that i rescued a PUREBRED doberman from an animal shelter... and the shelters in my area... pudget sound... that i have went to have more purebreds than mixed breds... so... how is that purebreds are better...

I have met some of the dumbest purebreds inthe world and some of the smartest mixed breeds... why is that...

as i said breeding two breeds together to get something new is wrong but... that is very ignorant statement to say mixed breeds are dumb... ignorant and uneducated :D... hugs liz

[DiggityDogs]

I agree- There are a ton of purebreds in shelters, and that's exactly why I think there should be some sort of regulation to breeding. I think maybe the bill that would put breeders under the watchful eye of the USDA is a good idea. It may make things a little rough for the hobbyist, but if you're a reputable breeder, and keep accurate records, and realise that this is for the good of canine kind, then it shouldn't bother you. It's not just cross breed breeders that bother me- it's irresponsible breeders!:(

[StarWhisper]

what said is the comment about breeding mixed dogs or dumb dogs. You know I have had many breeds and while on our farm we had mixed breeds for our dogs that worked and the reason was because the learn quicker and they are better at their job. I have had cattle dogs. shepards and none learn faster or even knew half the things my fathers mutt had.



I don't see anywhere where anyone said mixed breeds were dumb, I mentioned on this very thread how my own mixed breed has acheived many accomplishments including being a certified Therapy Dog.


and i would have tos ay breeding mixed breeds on purpose is wrong however... if you have aperson that has puppies and gives them to good homes it makes them much more of a reputible breeder then some purebred breeder who breeds three or four litters a year for no dang reason...

Breeding is about a lot more than given pups a good home, that's only part of it, reputable breeders never breed mutts, and just because someone breeds purebreds does not mean they are a responsible breeder.

have any of you guys thought about this... purebreds end up in the shelter also... so how you can you say that mixed are homeless... last time i checked freaking purebred were also homeless... or was a imistaken that i seen an akc doberman up for adoption at a rescue and was i mistaken that i rescued a PUREBRED doberman from an animal shelter... and the shelters in my area... pudget sound... that i have went to have more purebreds than mixed breds... so... how is that purebreds are better...

I don't see where anyone did not say purebred dogs don't end up in rescue or shelters. I believe I mentioned on this forum that I do GSD rescue. It's not about purebreds being better.

Dogs end up in shelters or rescues because of irresponsible Breeders AND Pet owners.

I also don't see where anyone said purebreds were better than mixed breeds, saying that it is always unethical and irresponsible to breed mutts is not saying there is anything wrong with mixed breeds it's pointing out simple ethics in the canine fancy where breeding is involved.


I have met some of the dumbest purebreds inthe world and some of the smartest mixed breeds... why is that...

I blame it on the trainer. I have never met a dog that could not be trained but I have met plenty of owners who have no clue how to train.

as i said breeding two breeds together to get something new is wrong but... that is very ignorant statement to say mixed breeds are dumb... ignorant and uneducated :D... hugs liz

Again nobody said mixed breeds were "dumb", the breeding of them however is always irresponsible and always unethical.

[Dogwise]

StarWhisper

Well said.

[MereFM99]

[QUOTE=StarWhisper]


Really you know of NO animal rights group that want to end pet ownership. Does the name PETA ring a bell?



I would just like to say that you shouldn't make statements about organizations that you obviously don't know much about. PETA does not want to "end pet ownership," in fact they are very much pro-responsible pet ownership. This winter they are running a media and action campaign that encourages owners of backyard dogs to bring the dogs inside, and stresses the value and happiness that a pet can bring to a family. PETA quote: "Every animal deserves a chance to thrive in a responsible and permanent home." I agree that banning breeding is a little extreme, but I am in favor of restrictions.

Also, I did read one of the posts mentioned something about dumb mixed breeds. I have a german shep/rott/lab mix, and we went through puppy, intermediate, and advanced obedience training. She had purebred dogs in each level including a lab, golden, weimeraner (spelling, sorry!), sheperds, terriers, etc., and was still the "valedictorian" at every level. She is the smartest dog that I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with.

[DiggityDogs]

I believe it was post #8 that said mixed breed dogs are dumb, but honestly, after reading that post, can you really take the poster seriously? The majority of us here don't think mixed breed dogs are dumb. I have a dog that's supposedly purebred, according to the papers that were given to me when his previous family gave him away. I did a little research, and found he was purchased from a puppy mill! (i'm pretty sure he's not pure chihuahua since he weighs almost 15 pounds!) -sorry off the subject. He appears to be a mutt and is very smart.

[StarWhisper]

I would just like to say that you shouldn't make statements about organizations that you obviously don't know much about.

And I think you should do research before defending a group and making a post that will result in you putting your foot in your mouth.

PETA does not want to "end pet ownership," in fact they are very much pro-responsible pet ownership.

I suggest you study the group you are defending. PETA most certainly does want to end pet ownership as well as every other Animal Rights Group out there. It is Animal Welfare groups that are pro responsible pet ownership.

Take the time to study and learn the difference in the two.

This winter they are running a media and action campaign that encourages owners of backyard dogs to bring the dogs inside, and stresses the value and happiness that a pet can bring to a family.

Oh great another PETA media and action campaign...

I am curious to see what shock value they put in this campaign that will make this nothing more than a publicity stunt that further causes this group to lose more credibility...

I personally wouldn't be surprised to see or hear about them dressed up like dogs in the middle of a blizzard chained to makeshift dog houses....

PETA quote: "Every animal deserves a chance to thrive in a responsible and permanent home."

Okay so were bringing up PETA quotes?...I can present present PETA quotes...Want some more PETA quotes?

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” Ingrid Newkirk

"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship * enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk

“Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete junglesfrom our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it.”
John Bryant

“The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist.”John Bryant

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk,

"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet,

*The above quote should be of particular interest to you, notice how it mention being responsible for pets in one sentence and in the next it talks about ending the "manufacturing" of pets?

And of course here are some quotes from other animal rights activists that further provide evidence that the goal of AR groups is to end pet ownership.

“One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding.”
Wayne Pacelle, HSUS

“Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'"
New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz

If you would like me to present more I would be happy and delighted to do so.

I agree that banning breeding is a little extreme, but I am in favor of restrictions.

And I think breeding restrictions will solve nothing. Ethical breeders will remain ethical regardless of any laws governed...Ethical breeders are already responsible because they choose to be NOT because they are told they have to be...Irresponsible breeders will find ways to dodge breeding restrictions and to continue pumping out poorly bred animals..


Also, I did read one of the posts mentioned something about dumb mixed breeds.

Your correct and that was my mistake, I read back and found the post however I don't think the poster meant mixed breeds were dumb per say but rather the people who bred them were dumb...I just don't think the poster was able to properly express his/her feelings with clarity.

And if the poster did mean that mixed breeds were dumb, s/he made three posts to this forum..a fly by night troll whose opinion should not even matter...


I have a german shep/rott/lab mix, and we went through puppy, intermediate, and advanced obedience training. She had purebred dogs in each level including a lab, golden, weimeraner (spelling, sorry!), sheperds, terriers, etc., and was still the "valedictorian" at every level. She is the smartest dog that I have ever had the pleasure of interacting with.

That's good to hear...I have a mix breed myself...and I am extremely proud of him and what he has done. He's a great dog and a pleasure to own. As I stated before mixes are wonderful dogs...the breeding of them is just irresponsible and always unethical.

[catcher T]

now that everyone is off topic with the PETA group,,I might as well add my two cents,,peta is classified as one of the top 10 terrorists groups in America,,they cause havoc and destruction where ever they go,,some ppl in the group may be well meaning,,but for the most part they are scarry and dangerous ppl,,people who breed mutts on purpose need their heads examined,,I only know a handfull of dogs worth enough of reproducing.

[MereFM99]

[QUOTE=StarWhisper]And I think you should do research before defending a group and making a post that will result in you putting your foot in your mouth.

I think that you must be talking about yourself, I did no such thing. I am a member of PETA myself and am certainly not a terrorist as someone else claims. There are a select few radical members, but the majority of members are peaceful, compassionate people who do not believe in using violence to accomplish their goals.


Oh great another PETA media and action campaign...

I am curious to see what shock value they put in this campaign that will make this nothing more than a publicity stunt that further causes this group to lose more credibility...

I personally wouldn't be surprised to see or hear about them dressed up like dogs in the middle of a blizzard chained to makeshift dog houses....


Actually what they've done in addition to the media campaign is build several hundred dog houses stuffed with hay that were delivered to backyard dogs who's owners refused to bring them inside or give them up so that they would at least have a warm place to sleep. Sure sounds like terrorism to me, what do you think?




"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet,

*The above quote should be of particular interest to you, notice how it mention being responsible for pets in one sentence and in the next it talks about ending the "manufacturing" of pets?

If you would like me to present more I would be happy and delighted to do so.


No need, quotes don't mean much because any quote can be taken out of context. The manufacturing of pets is referring to breeding, puppy mills, etc., it does not mean ending any relationship between humans and companion animals. The above quote was taken from a PETA fact sheet that later (in the same document, I'm quotting the same source as you) also makes these suggestions:

• Spay or neuter your dogs and cats.
• Adopt from shelters—and don’t forget adult animals, who are often overlooked by people who want a puppy or a kitten.
• If possible, adopt two animals. Animals need *both human and animal companionship.* Having an animal friend can help alleviate the boredom and loneliness of long hours spent waiting for you to come home.
• Cats and dogs are safest and happiest living inside with their human families. For safety’s sake, they should only be allowed out into securely fenced areas or under close supervision.
• Walk and play with your companion animals every day.

So although you can present as many quotes as you want, I can do the same and it will be a waste of our time! I can't speak for other animal rights groups that I am not a member of, but my point is that PETA does not want to end the relationship that people have with their dogs and cats. How many members do you think have dogs or cats of their own? I doubt there have been any studies but I'm willing to bet that there are an awful lot. Again, maybe there are a few radicals in the organization who believe that animals shouldn't be kept as pets, but they are not representive of the goals of the membership as a whole.




And I think breeding restrictions will solve nothing. Ethical breeders will remain ethical regardless of any laws governed...Ethical breeders are already responsible because they choose to be NOT because they are told they have to be...Irresponsible breeders will find ways to dodge breeding restrictions and to continue pumping out poorly bred animals..

Although I stand by my statements about PETA, I will admit that I don't know much about existing regulations that apply to breeders because I have never and never would get a dog from a breeder, pure-bred or mixed-breed. I just think that it's important to make it as hard as possible for those who are irresponsible to operate.

I will agree to disagree and let you have the last word if you have anything else to say, because I'm done saying my piece, best wishes.

[DiggityDogs]

'I think that you must be talking about yourself, I did no such thing. I am a member of PETA myself and am certainly not a terrorist as someone else claims. There are a select few radical members, but the majority of members are peaceful, compassionate people who do not believe in using violence to accomplish their goals.'

Have you seen the news? Being a 'member' of PETA means nothing more than you financially and otherwise supporting thier terrorism. I suspect the people you have met who are PETA members and are 'wonderful' are in the same boat. You may not be a terrorist, PETA is a terrorist group.

'Sure sounds like terrorism to me, what do you think?'

Well, putting out doghouses for neglected dogs is not terrorism, but how about this?

'Starting next month, Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals plans to hand out "Buckets of Blood" to children outside KFC restaurants and at schools near the restaurants.
The 5-inch-tall, red-and-white striped containers mimic KFC's buckets. But instead of fried chicken, each is filled with items including a bag of fake blood and bones, a bloodied plastic chicken and a cardboard caricature of a blood-spattered Colonel Sanders holding a butcher knife toward a terrified-looking chicken.
This latest scheme follows the ugly anti-fur campaign targeting children last Christmas. At holiday performances of The Nutcracker, PETA passed out fliers to little children which included:
. . . a color drawing of a woman plunging a large bloody knife into the belly of a terrified rabbit. The fliers urge kids to "ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes.
"And the sooner she stops wearing fur, the sooner the animals will be safe. Until then, keep your doggie or kitty friends away from mommy - she's an animal killer."

'Two “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA) employees were arrested for animal cruelty in N. Carolina.
Police found 18 dead animals in the trash bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA. The animals were from animal shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties, police said.
Investigators staked out the bin after discovering that dead animals had been dumped there every Wednesday for the past four weeks, Ahoskie police said in a prepared statement.'

'Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group, called the dumping of animals “hideous.”
But she told a news conference there was no indication of “pain or suffering” among the 31 animals that police in northeastern North Carolina found. Police in Ahoskie, in Hertford County, about 60 miles southwest of Norfolk, found 18 dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA.
The animals had received lethal injections, Newkirk said.
“PETA has never made a secret of the fact that most of the animals picked up in North Carolina are euthanized,” Newkirk said.'

..... PETA has swindled millions of 'members' just like you out of money to fund their terrorist actions and euthanization of 'companion animals' through using a media event here and there to put on a friendly face for the public. You MUST look into who you are giving money to- The quotes star and I have posted are readily available all over the internet, some of them right on PETA very own website. Do not mistake animal rights for animal welfare. I would suggest you put your money and time into a more worthwhile group.

[catcher T]

PETA as a group does wierd crap,,I have seen them in action,,they have hurt ppl to save animals,,I didn't list them as a top terriost group,,the FBI did.

[DiggityDogs]

''So although you can present as many quotes as you want, I can do the same and it will be a waste of our time! I can't speak for other animal rights groups that I am not a member of, but my point is that PETA does not want to end the relationship that people have with their dogs and cats. How many members do you think have dogs or cats of their own? I doubt there have been any studies but I'm willing to bet that there are an awful lot. Again, maybe there are a few radicals in the organization who believe that animals shouldn't be kept as pets, but they are not representive of the goals of the membership as a whole.''

Are you serious? Either you don't want to see or are unable to see that the truth about peta.

''"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship * enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk

I hardly think this quote was taken out of context.

[catcher T]

1) PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk has described her group’s overall goal as “total animal liberation.” This means no meat, no milk, no zoos, no circuses, no wool, no leather, no hunting, no fishing, and no pets (not even seeing-eye dogs). PETA is also against all medical research that requires the use of animals.
2) Despite its constant moralizing about the “unethical” treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, PETA has killed over 10,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. During 2003, PETA put to death over 85 percent of the animals it collected from members of the public.

3) PETA has given tens of thousands of dollars to convicted arsonists and other violent criminals. This includes a 2001 donation of $1,500 to the North American Earth Liberation Front (ELF), an FBI-certified “domestic terrorist” group responsible for dozens of firebombs and death threats. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. In his sentencing recommendation, a federal prosecutor implicated PETA president Ingrid Newkirk in that crime. And PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich told an animal rights convention in 2001 that “blowing stuff up and smashing windows” is “a great way to bring about animal liberation.”

4) PETA activists regularly target children as young as six years old with anti-meat and anti-milk propaganda, often waiting outside their schools to intercept them as they walk to and from class-without notifying parents. One piece of kid-targeted PETA literature tells small children: “Your Mommy Kills Animals!” PETA brags that its messages reach over 2 million children every year, including thousands reached by e-mail without the permission of their parents. One PETA vice president told the Fox News Channel’s audience: “Our campaigns are always geared towards children, and they always will be.”

5) PETA has used a related organization, the PETA Foundation, to fund the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a deceptive animal rights group that promotes itself as an unbiased source of medical and nutritional information. PCRM's president also serves as president of the PETA Foundation.

6) PETA runs campaigns seemingly calculated to offend religious believers. One entire PETA website is devoted to the claim-despite ample evidence to the contrary-that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs “died for their sins.” PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't be allowed. And its infamous “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign crassly compares the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide with farm animals.

7) PETA has repeatedly attacked research foundations like the March of Dimes, the Pediatric AIDS Foundation, and the American Cancer Society, because they support animal-based research that might uncover cures for birth defects and life-threatening diseases. PETA president Ingrid Newkirk has said that “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we would be against it.”

[StarWhisper]

I think that you must be talking about yourself, I did no such thing.

Actually you did...

I am a member of PETA myself and am certainly not a terrorist as someone else claims.

I am sorry your a PETA member however Nobody claimed you were a terrorist, they pointed out the fact that PETA that the FBI considers PETA a terroritsts group.

There are a select few radical members, but the majority of members are peaceful, compassionate people who do not believe in using violence to accomplish their goals.

A "select few radical members" ALL the promiment members of the groups are radicals but to be fair you are correct, not every member of the group uses violences others are fine with using shock campaigns filled with BS and some members may be peaceful compassionate people that really do care about animals and want to help them, the truth is however they are working with a terrorist group and they are being brainwashed.

Actually what they've done in addition to the media campaign is build several hundred dog houses stuffed with hay that were delivered to backyard dogs who's owners refused to bring them inside or give them up so that they would at least have a warm place to sleep. Sure sounds like terrorism to me, what do you think?

One decent thing amongst the numerous terrorist acts they have peformed does not make them a decent group and you are fooling yourself into thinking it does. Need I bring up the numerous times they have used violence or shock methods to get their point across.

No need, quotes don't mean much because any quote can be taken out of context.

Ah but they can't be taken out of context if one is capable of listing the source of the quote and that can be varified.

The manufacturing of pets is referring to breeding, puppy mills, etc., it does not mean ending any relationship between humans and companion animals.

Actually it does, if there is an end to breeding there will be an end to pets...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

The above quote was taken from a PETA fact sheet that later (in the same document, I'm quotting the same source as you) also makes these suggestions:

• Spay or neuter your dogs and cats.
• Adopt from shelters—and don’t forget adult animals, who are often overlooked by people who want a puppy or a kitten.
• If possible, adopt two animals. Animals need *both human and animal companionship.* Having an animal friend can help alleviate the boredom and loneliness of long hours spent waiting for you to come home.
• Cats and dogs are safest and happiest living inside with their human families. For safety’s sake, they should only be allowed out into securely fenced areas or under close supervision.
• Walk and play with your companion animals every day.

What's your point the quote I provided in my previous post said that one should be responsible for pets in one sentence and in the next it talks about ending the "manufacturing" of pets?

So although you can present as many quotes as you want, I can do the same and it will be a waste of our time!

No your quotes will waste my time, you have yet to disprove any evidence I have presented about PETA's ultimate goal being the abolishment of pet ownership.

I can't speak for other animal rights groups that I am not a member of, but my point is that PETA does not want to end the relationship that people have with their dogs and cats.

They sure do and the evidence is right in front of you...if you really think PETA is for helping animals there really is no help for you.

How many members do you think have dogs or cats of their own? I doubt there have been any studies but I'm willing to bet that there are an awful lot.

Remember what I said earlier regarding that little quote and how PETA says to be responsible for ones pets now but wants to end the "manufacturing" of pets? Same applies here. Incidentally I am not going to applaud PETA members for having dogs or cats...I'd be too concerned about them compromising the health of these animals by feeding them vegetarian diets to match their own twisted views.

Again, maybe there are a few radicals in the organization who believe that animals shouldn't be kept as pets, but they are not representive of the goals of the membership as a whole.

When the promiment and well known figures in your group are radicals and have alligned themselves with other terrorists groups and performed terrorist acts themselves that should send up a huge warning flag.


Although I stand by my statements about PETA, I will admit that I don't know much about existing regulations that apply to breeders because I have never and never would get a dog from a breeder, pure-bred or mixed-breed. I just think that it's important to make it as hard as possible for those who are irresponsible to operate.

What's important is teaching JQ public the differences between an ethical breeder and an unethical breeder...until JQ public wants to know the difference and understands why irresponsible breeders should be discouraged there will always be a market for the commercial breeders, millers, and backyard breeders...

The only type of breeder someone should aquire an animal from is a responsible breeder.

I will agree to disagree and let you have the last word if you have anything else to say, because I'm done saying my piece, best wishes.

Best wishes to you too, I hope that one day you learn about the group you allign yourself with...there is nothing ethical about PETA and you are fooling yourself if you think they are doing any good.

Seriously learning about the differences between animal welfare and animal rights may be a serious benefit to you.

[MereFM99]

Sorry I cannot resist. I am a fully educated person, I volunteer several days a week at an animal shelter and I know the difference. However, I choose to align myself with groups, including PETA and several others, that actually make huge strides toward exposing and ending animal cruelty. I know of several shelter/rescue directors including the one where I work who have actually voluntarily consulted with PETA on ways to improve their facilities. Better to do too much than to fall far short, in my opinion.

I don't have the time to sit here and type about the positive side of PETA, and it's a waste of time trying to convince someone who doesn't care to be convinced. For anyone else who might care, check out:
http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

[DiggityDogs]

So you are saying you support PETA in their efforts to traumatize and terrorize young children in public places and at school, where the should be able to feel most comfortable? You agree with the 'buckets of blood' campaign? I'm sorry, but that is a sick practice. Children may not be as innocent as they used to be, but it's BECAUSE of groups like PETA handing them buckets of blood and bones outside of school. This 'campaign' is not run by a 'few radical members'. It's publicized, even on their very own website, that they are really pushing the 'kentucky fried cruelty' with a cute little cartoon of the colonel butchering a chicken. I think shock value goes a long way, but it's entirely inappropriate to put that in a childs face.

[catcher T]

Sorry I cannot resist. I am a fully educated person, I volunteer several days a week at an animal shelter and I know the difference. However, I choose to align myself with groups, including PETA and several others, that actually make huge strides toward exposing and ending animal cruelty. I know of several shelter/rescue directors including the one where I work who have actually voluntarily consulted with PETA on ways to improve their facilities. Better to do too much than to fall far short, in my opinion.

I don't have the time to sit here and type about the positive side of PETA, and it's a waste of time trying to convince someone who doesn't care to be convinced. For anyone else who might care, check out:
http://www.peta.org/about/victories.asp

why would you be part of a group that is doing terrible things?the leaders of this group are not about stopping cruelty they are about control and scare tactics,,that is the definition of a terriost,,to terrorize,,control the ppl with terror.

[Marty]

MereFM99 (http://member.php?u=143) Please read these...

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

http://media.putfile.com/petaBS/original

http://www.workingpitbull.com/truthaboutpeta.htm

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/154 (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail.cfm/article/154)

PETA: People Executing Tame Animals
Wednesday, June 22, 2005


Editor's Note: Saddle Horse Report Online is posting this article, with permission, as it appeared on www.townhall.com (http://www.townhall.com/).


Shocking news from rural North Carolina late last week -- the story of two People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) employees caught killing and dumping 31 dogs and cats -- has left animal-rights activists from coast to coast scratching their heads.


While PETA lectures Americans about the “evils” of eating meat, wearing wool, taking children to the circus, and using lab rats to help cure cancer, the group puts to death most of the actual flesh-and-blood animals entrusted to it by the public. And judging from the 62 felony charges handed down last week, the manner in which some of these animals were executed and disposed of appears to be anything but “ethical.”


As we’re finding out from the North Carolina case, PETA picks up dogs, cats, puppies and kittens from shelters and veterinarians, often with assurances that new homes will be found for them. But in 2003, PETA killed over 85 percent of the animals it took in.


In North Carolina, the animals -- including at least seven puppies and two kittens -- were dead less than an hour after two PETA employees picked them up. All 31 were killed in a windowless cage-lined van, apparently with drugs the PETA pair were not legally authorized to dispense. And authorities say the self-proclaimed more-ethical-than-thou PETA discarded their bodies ingloriously (and illegally) in a strip-mall dumpster.


If anyone else were responsible for these animals’ deaths, PETA would hold a press conference to condemn them. Instead, it’s desperately scrambling to preserve what’s left of its public image.


PETA has acknowledged killing over 10,000 animals between 1998 and 2003; recent reporting suggests PETA added 2,200 more to its body count in 2004. All while presiding over a fundraising operation that brought in nearly $29 million last year.


With that kind of money, PETA could afford to care for every single one of the animals it picks up -- if it weren’t spending millions turning children into vegetarians, demonizing people who don’t have an all-polyester wardrobe, and misleading Americans about the medical breakthroughs that have only come about through the use of research animals. PETA even pays for the bail and legal expenses of animals activists who -- like this week’s unintentional celebrities -- run afoul of the law.


It’s time for Americans who want to help animals to stop sending money to PETA, and start supporting their local animal shelters instead. You can help. Visit www.PetaKillsAnimals.com (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/) to learn the whole story. If you know any PETA members, tell them about their group’s disgraceful behavior.


Consider making a small donation to help the Center for Consumer Freedom tell Congress, the media, and ordinary Americans that PETA’s warm-and-fuzzy image is a deadly sham.

Go through all this and I'll have more for ya by then ;)

[tyara83]

I'll be honset. There is a big problem with people that breed their dogs. There are also a lot af animals that are in shelters. It is easy to tell people that they should not be breeding dogs.

It isn't fair to attack people that want a specific type of dog or getting a mixed breed. Some people, like myself, have allergies to certain types of dogs and need a certain type of breed, including mixed breeds, allowing the option of larger dogs. There are responsable breeders of all types of dogs that aren't looking to populate the world, they are just trying to get people what they want. People are entitled to having a certain type of breed and should not be accosted for their decisions. Mixed breeds are also more helthy than the purebreed dogs since they are not closely related. All a person that breeds mixed dogs means is that the two parents are healthy and so the puppies are likely to be healthy too.

The people that these attacks should be on are people that don't spay or neuter their pets when they know they don't want the puppies. Also the people that breed irresponably. They are the one's that are responsible for the shelter animals. Irresponsable pet owners are the cause of the problems. The animals in the shelters are usually found in horrible conditions either from having no home or having an abusive home. On the rare occasion there are animals that are given up because the owners feel it is better for the animal. I am not saying these animals are bad pets, all I am saying is that these pets are not always right for every person.

Everyone shouldn't be so quick to attack people that are just trying to add to their family. I have a mixed dog that I got from someone whose dog was not spayed. She is super sweat and I wouldn't trade her for the world.

[Jynx]

this is an old thread, but I would like to respond to the lastest post.

tyara said:

Mixed breeds are also more helthy than the purebreed dogs since they are not closely related. All a person that breeds mixed dogs means is that the two parents are healthy and so the puppies are likely to be healthy too.


I say:

Where did you get that idea? and I mean all of it?
1. mixed are not any healthier than purebred dogs, most mix breeds have no pedigree, no background, ancestory to work from , most are "mysteries".

2. You think purebred dogs are closely related? Not all, sure some breeders linebreed their dogs, (mostly for show/to improve on good qualities), but not all purebred dogs are "related:"

3. A person who intentionally breeds mixed breeds dogs is taking TWO dogs, from "unknown" origin in 95% of the cases, and throwing them together to make "mixed breed puppies". UNLESS the parents have been health tested and certified, they are as irresponsible as a byb and are not concerned with health matters.

What do you Consider good health? A dog who looks ok? Acts ok? What about whether this mixed breed carries, say, eye problems? blood disorders?
hip/elbow problems? Other genetic disorders?

And your right, when the demand is there, someone is going to fill it whether it's a purebred or a mixed breed. It's about money

Most animals are given up because Joe Public, think dogs train themselves and when they aren't those cute little puppies anymore, they dump them in shelters or on the streets.

I have no problem with mixed breed dogs, I've owned several over my lifetime. There will ALWAYS be mixed breed dogs in need of homes, it will never ever stop. I do, however, think the "intentional" breeding of mixed breeds is NOT OK. (Don't get me wrong there are plenty of purebred dog breeders that shouldn't be breeding either)

In the end, if you think a mixed breed dog is going to be healthier than a purebred, sure it happens all the time, BUT, they are in fact, not any healthier than a purebred dog who's coming from a "responsible" breeder with health being the number 1 thing in their program. And that includes health testing etc.

Just an opinion
Jynx

[StarWhisper]

It isn't fair to attack people that want a specific type of dog or getting a mixed breed. Some people, like myself, have allergies to certain types of dogs and need a certain type of breed, including mixed breeds, allowing the option of larger dogs.

And thats where the problem comes in there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog. There are breeds that are suspected to be easier for allergy sufferers to coexist with but check around and see how many Poodles, Bichons, ect...are given up because they irritated allergies even though it was claimed these breeds were alright for allergy sufferers.

Crossing something with a Poodle, Bichon, ect..does not make the resulting mix hypoallergenic. Genetics do NOT work that way.


There are responsable breeders of all types of dogs that aren't looking to populate the world, they are just trying to get people what they want.

There is NO such thing as a responsible breeder of mixes and responsible breeders do NOT breed to fill a supply and demand for the public.

People are entitled to having a certain type of breed and should not be accosted for their decisions.

Yup and any mix one wants can be found at the shelter and one can get one there rather than lining the pockets of irresponsible breeders.

Mixed breeds are also more helthy than the purebreed dogs since they are not closely related. All a person that breeds mixed dogs means is that the two parents are healthy and so the puppies are likely to be healthy too.

Actually no...Do a search on Dr. George A. Padgett and his thoughts on the subject. Dr. Padgett is world renowed as the leading authority on canine genetics. His studies yielded quite different results and suggest that mixed breeds are more prone to genetic diseases.

Incidentally how many mixed breeders test for genetic diesease? A vet check is not genetic health clearances.

The people that these attacks should be on are people that don't spay or neuter their pets when they know they don't want the puppies. Also the people that breed irresponably.

So someone should only s/n if they don't plan on breeding? In addition to not breeding my animals I s/n because of the health benefits as well.

Mixed breeders breed irresponsibly. Any irresponsible breeder deserves to be attacked.

They are the one's that are responsible for the shelter animals. Irresponsable pet owners are the cause of the problems.

Exactly why something has to be done about irresponsible breeders and pet owners.

The animals in the shelters are usually found in horrible conditions either from having no home or having an abusive home. On the rare occasion there are animals that are given up because the owners feel it is better for the animal.

Yes sometimes animals in shelters come from abuse situations or are found roaming the streets, but more often the animals in shelters were surrendered not because the owner felt it was in the animals best interest but because they no longer wanted to keep a pet.

The most common reasons pets are surrendered are "shedding, activity level, moving, new baby."

I am not saying these animals are bad pets, all I am saying is that these pets are not always right for every person.

I wouldn't say these animals are bad pets either. I would say they have stupid owners that are more suitable to having a pet rock.

Everyone shouldn't be so quick to attack people that are just trying to add to their family.

Its not wanting to add to their family that is the problem its how they want to add to their family. All these mixed breeds that people are flocking like crazy to purchase can be found at the shelter and rather than lining the pockets of irresponsible breeders one can save a life.

I have a mixed dog that I got from someone whose dog was not spayed. She is super sweat and I wouldn't trade her for the world.

There is nothing wrong with mixes. I have one myself and love him to death. I don't support irresponsible breeders. I wouldn't buy a purebred from an irresponsible breeder. The difference just lays in the fact there is no such thing as a responsible breeder of mixes.

Shelters are full of mixes if someone wants one and rescued animals make awesome pets.

[Kimmie]

This is my first posting; but, thanks to Marty for including the links & Info...

You beat me to it!



;)

[tftmom]

It is not just people breeding mixed breeds that add to overpopulation. I bought a purebred puppy only to learn later that the breeder had 42 breeding adults on the premises, several in crates in her basement. This is someone who shows dogs and has finished Champions. She has been investigated twice by the registry as a puppy mill but they have backed off both times because she has finished numerous Champions. She supports herself by selling puppies.

[moe]

I am entering this discussion a little late, and must admit I have not read all the post, as I found all the PETA arguments a little tiring to read, I am speaking on behalf of myself here, I am a breeder, I say this as I have bred a litter, and intend to breed another litter in 2007 so therefore a breeder, I feelings on this subject is breeding crossbreeds is an irrisponsible act, I have no problems with cross breeds my first dogs were cross breeds and I loved them dearly and they were good dogs. but the dogs that we had from these litters had good lives, yet I knew for a fact that littermates of our dogs were not so lucky. that was many years ago and I now have pedigree dogs, when I decided to breed, I knew that I was doing the right thing, I had an excellent quality bitch that did extremely well in the showring, and also in the working field, she had passed all the healthchecks required for my breed, I spent a good few years researching the backgrounds of potential sires for the mating, and eventually narrowed it down to a particular dog that had all the traits I wanted, I had a long waiting list for my puppies, some of the families had been on my list for nearly 2 years, all my puppies were homed with a 10 page contract, which the new owners read and signed, pet quality pups were also under neuter/spey contracts, and I agreed to pay towards to cost of this once they had shown me proof of the spey/neuter being done, all the pet quality pups from the litter were speyed/neutered, All the pups had endorsements placed on their registrations which I would not lift unless the dogs proved themselves in the workplace, in the showring, and until they pass all the relevant healthchecks, ALL the dogs are contracted to come back to me if the new owners could not keep them, they are not to be passed onto any 3rd party, this applies to the WHOLE LIFE of these pups, I am in constant contact with all the owners, they KNOW I beleive I am RESPONSIBLE for the rest of their lives as I brought them into this world, I take unbrage when someone says all breeders should stop breeding, as not all owners are irresponsible, but I also accept there are breeders that should not breed, as they do not take health and welfare of the dogs seriously, and just use them as breeding machines, I always have time for a breeder that loves a breed, rather than a breeder that loves to breed

Mo

[dogma]

BEFORE you start you need to do some market research.

1- assess the quality of your pet. everybody thinks their dog is the greatest, best, smartest - you need professional opinions. What do the judges say? Does your dog display all of the desired characteristics of the breed and none of the undesirable ones? How about her siblings and other relatives? What does your vet say about your dogs fitness for a breeding program? Being a brood bitch is hard on the body, is your dog healthy enough for the job? Is she free of genetic defects? How many generation of their lineage are free of breed specific problems? What characteristics does your dog have that make it essential to risk her health and longevity by breeding her? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? You will need a specialist to certify the eyes and hips, they are expensive but essential for the health of the potential litter. You dont want to produce puppies that have health issues

2 - assess the market by calling the local animal shelter and asking them if they have any of whatever breed your dog is, if they do - DO NOT BREED - no-one in your area wants that kind of pet - they are not likely to find homes. You Cannot always find homes for them - apparantly thats what the other breeders thought and that is why their pups are in a shelter instead of a home.

3 - assess you motives - why do you want to do this?
you WILL lose money on the deal. It's a given. If you do it right you wont even come close to breaking even. The ONLY reason to breed dogs is for the BETTERMENT of the breed. Its certainly not in your dogs best interest, so it should be in the breeds. Chances are that your dog would be happier and would live a longer and healthier life if she was spayed. Unless she has a significant contribution to make to the breed, why do that to her?

4 -have homes waiting before you breed and dont breed until you have more prospective homes than you will have puppies. Have a waiting list of potential homes. If the puppies are worth waiting for, people will be willing to wait for them. You will need to do a lot of work to research the potential owners and their homes for suitability. Its your responability as the breeder to ensure that the puppies are placed appropriately.

at the risk of sounding trite

DON'T BREED OR BUY WHILE HOMELESS PETS DIE

- approximately 25% of all animals in shelters are purebreds - ALL of them are there because a person thought a breeding was a good idea and they were wrong. A dog is euthanized every 7 minutes in the US - a dog that was put there by someone who did not spay or neuter their pets and who thought that they could always find homes for the puppies they produced, many dogs are dead because those people were dead wrong. Are you willing to run the risk of being one of them? It is an awesome responsibility and not one to be entered into lightly. The cost in suffering is too great.

[Taz]

Working in rescue, I see so may mixbreeds, they are the result of irresponsible people, allowing their dogs to breed.....For everyone homed, 3 will end up in rescue..Please do not breed mix breeds....

[BelovedJuggernaut]

Working in rescue, I see so may mixbreeds, they are the result of irresponsible people, allowing their dogs to breed.....For everyone homed, 3 will end up in rescue..Please do not breed mix breeds....


Simple and to the point....

I think it needs to be added that those who do not have their pet spayed/neutered and their dog ends up with pups on "accident" are some of the most irresponsable people I have seen.

I used to volunteer at a shelter and I got so sick of seeing BYB bringing in what is left of their "accidental" litter that they just couldn't sell off. It is sickening.

To think that there are people mixing breeds just for profit make me sick.

On the other hand, developement of new breeds came from mixing old ones as well, but I seriously and highly doubt that the people in question are attempting to do that.