I completely agree

Lets face it there are good and bad breeders but there are also good and bad rescues.
Providing as a breeder you stand by the dogs you produce for its life time, then hopefully none of your dogs would ever get into the rescue.
But i must admit the rescues that won't allow a dog to become part of a family where it will have every need taken care of for the rest of it life, get my back up.
If a family are willing and able to give a dog another chance, but a rescue won't allow it to happen then in my eyes they are failing the dog and keeping it in rescue.

Sorry Bajaluna, I think I should have made the situation clearer, the original owner is not the person who still has the dog. The original owner handed in the dog, the now owner is the rescue worker who took in the dog. My fault for not being clearer. The previous owner lived in our area but bought the pup down south, she was prepared to drive down to buy the pup but not to take it back. I was not prepared to travel down to Middlesex from Yorkshire by train as I had elderly dogs at home that needed me and a daughter who had just had eye surgery ( which I had forgotten, not the surgery but the date, but was reminded by my friend). The previous owner is not still paying for the dogs treatment, she never paid for anything - not even a full course of vaccinations. I see that dog on a daily basis, she has the best home she could ever have and is dearly loved. Rescue circumstances are not always black and white, each situation has to be taken on it's own merits and acted upon accordingly.

I don't feel that I have to explain myself to you but am trying to clear up the facts. We never heard another thing from the breeder, not even one phone call to ask how the dog was getting on or had we found a home for her. One thing she did say in the course of the conversation we did have was that the mother of the pup had severe allergies - still bred from her though. I think enough has been said on this subject as it has digressed quite far enough form the original post - naming and shaming.

I am not trying to say that all breeders are unethical, just that some are, and naming and shaming would not help the situation. Ethical breeders could have their good names tarnished and the unethical ones wouldn't care anyway. Who exactly would keep this list updated, it would be too much work for one person and who would do the checking up, details would need to be ratified otherwise the system could be open to abuse, after all as one poster said, as well as bad breeders there are also bad rescues.

When you are fully commited to doing rescue, no matter what breed or species, your time is better spent dealing with the animals that need you and any free time left over is for your own pets and family.

Dawn - you took me to task a few pages back as to why i made a fuss.
Now can you see why?
Because here you go, again, making statements such as "people such as yourself and krusewalker....etc etc".

Let me shout it clear, you are commenting on one individual who works in rescue and expresses HER opinions, she doesnt necessarily represent the rescue movement, and certainly doesnt automatically represent my opinions.

You need to read my posts more clearly...i have done nothing but criticise people like AnneUK for tarring all breeders with the same brush.
And you write this stuff within the very same post that complains about "sweeping generalisations". Dont you get the irony????

Morganstar has taken offence at AnneUK using the phrase "so called ethical breeders". And I really cant blame her.
Yet you have used the phrase before "so called rescues".

During your arguments between you and AnneUK, can not you guys really not see how exactly the same you are?

I think this thread is going exactly no where at all to be honest. I dont think stopping breeding will help rescues in any way at all, as the pf and byb would still breed and there'd be a greater market for there pups.
I still think some of the welfare organisations should be spending money better by educating new puppy buyers on what to look for, but even then some people will only see the pound signs and not the pup.
It was said earlier the puppy could be traced by micro chip.. hands up all those amongst us who seriously believe that a pf is going to micro chip his dog.
Not sure what the answer is but naming and shaming just wouldnt work. I spoke to a friend earlier who said he couldnt afford the court costs if he named and shamed the breeders of the dogs he has in. He also said in 99% of the cases the owners cant remember where they came from, or are only interested in getting rid of the dog asap and not bothered about the papers etc.

:smt071 me I screwed up! However in the same breath Anne is using swweeping statments about breeders, but she doesnt, nor you, care for the same being said of rescues. is that fair to say?

A simple question, breeder or rescue why can't you put the differences a side and do the best for the dog involved.
I have never bred or been invloved in rescue, but if i was a breeder and took a call from rescue, stating my dog had been handed in, i would be thankful and act.
How many dogs have been let down by all concerned on both sides of the fence.
Even if you don't agree with others surely whats best for the dog should always come 1st.

Where not disputing that Leo, The thread title was should breeders be named and shamed. And those of us on here who breed disagreee with this as we feel its not enforceable or fair.

But those breeders that don't stand by the dogs they produce given the chance to act or step in are not ethical.
If the evidence is there then why shouldn't they be named, at the end of the day it would warn people, they don't stand by what is easily said.
It couldn't be took to court as a slander case if the fact and evidence is there to support the list.

But there are "so called" rescues and "so called" ethical breeders, those who say they do this and that but in reality do neither. Why does that cause offence it's the truth and imo should not be brushed under the carpet.