|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
11-10-2009, 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by lozzibear 
i dont agree with that at all. give me all the oxford dictionary definitions you want, i just dont agree with that. if someone 'breeds' it is intentional, an accidental litter isnt intentional. its like when people say getting a dog from a rescue is supporting the breeder, how do they work that one out... that really bugs me.
Well you are entitled to your opinion, even if it is in denial of the English dictionary
Your logic is like some one giving you evidence that the world is round, but you insist its flat, because you think it is
A breeder is someone who has a litter from a bitch,,, be it intentional or accidental
The intent is irrelevant, its the outcome that makes you a breeder
Yeah, i agree. its for people like that that i think licenses should come out to stop... people like that shouldnt have animals, they just see them as money machines.
i think planning does make a breeder. if jake was to accidentally father a litter (cant happen coz he is neutered but just for talking sake...) i would never consider myself a breeder. if he got loose and found an in season bitch, there would be no intention on my part... so why should i get called a breeder??
You would be the "stud dog owner" the "bitches" owner would be the breeder.
And you would be equally responsible for this fictitious breeding, as you allowed your intact dog to find a bitch.
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,724
|
11-10-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by rune
If the rescue had not told the adopters that the dog had growled at a two year old they would have been irresponsible.Once told the adopters can make up their own minds and sign a waiver (SP?)>
I may have been unlucky but of all the rescue dogs I have had none of them have been what I would describe as easy and most have been broken in some way, some have been very broken!
However I have acted as a halfway house for several rehome/rescue dogs and they have been very nice.
It really is horses for courses.
rune
Maybe as you say you have just been unlucky, of course some have issues or habits that may need training out etc but I must say with most of mine and those Ive fostered its more a case of a few bad habits or issues than ‘broken’ or unfixable, certainly they were able to come round after a time.
Originally Posted by johnderondon
Yeah, well, you know...there's rescues and there's <cough> 'rescues'.
More common in breed rescue but also found in general rescue are the unscrupulous who turn adoption enquiries into puppy sales.
Don't know what happened in the quoted case. As Rune says they are obliged to be transparent but to advise that only a puppy would offer security is balderdash.
Originally Posted by Ramble
In all honesty I do understand the idea that we should give homes to all the dogs that are already needing them...but surely that just helps out poor breeders...they always have an out? Surely we need to reward good breeding...surely to not ever have a pup from a decent and reputable breeder is just as bad...to not encourage those who set a good example?
Surely we should focus on educating people about good breeding paractices and explain how to source a good pup....as well as educating people that not all dogsa in rescue are damaged savage beasts that you can never trust.
Balance is the key here I think?
! If to encourage good breeders we should never go to a rescue – what happens to the dogs? What about the ones who are perfectly good dogs but due to one reason or another have ended up in rescue?If I do not take my dogs from the rescue – how is that going to stop bad breeders? The byb will still breed cuz our little uns need to see the wonders of birth and if they cant home them they will be kicked out or as you say put into rescue. So what does the rescue do then, turn them away?
In my ‘breed’ we all know what happens to many of the dogs regardless of there being breed specific rescues set up – what would happen to even more of them if people stopped getting them from rescue? Puppy farmers would do the same thing as we know. Stopping the outlet would not stop the breeding it would just end in a bucket for the breeding stock.
Of course education is the way but to stop taking in a rescue because it gives bad breeders an ‘outlet’ is not IMO going to help promote good breeding or stop the bad breeders.
Just as people should have the right to go to a reputable breeder I do not agree that people should also have to have a dog from a good breeder just to encourage them to breed, if they are that good they will breed for the good of the breed anyway and not for sales, surely?
Sides where would your OH go for your next dog
???
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
11-10-2009, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by Jackbox
You would be the "stud dog owner" the "bitches" owner would be the breeder.
And you would be equally responsible for this fictitious breeding, as you allowed your intact dog to find a bitch.
but sometimes things happen you cant help, we have heard of a few dogs recently who have gone missing or got lost... accidents happen...
|
|
|
|
Location: Motherwell, UK
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 17,088
|
11-10-2009, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by spot
I think we’ve had this one before you and me
! If to encourage good breeders we should never go to a rescue – what happens to the dogs? What about the ones who are perfectly good dogs but due to one reason or another have ended up in rescue?If I do not take my dogs from the rescue – how is that going to stop bad breeders? The byb will still breed cuz our little uns need to see the wonders of birth and if they cant home them they will be kicked out or as you say put into rescue. So what does the rescue do then, turn them away?
In my ‘breed’ we all know what happens to many of the dogs regardless of there being breed specific rescues set up – what would happen to even more of them if people stopped getting them from rescue? Puppy farmers would do the same thing as we know. Stopping the outlet would not stop the breeding it would just end in a bucket for the breeding stock.
Of course education is the way but to stop taking in a rescue because it gives bad breeders an ‘outlet’ is not IMO going to help promote good breeding or stop the bad breeders.
Just as people should have the right to go to a reputable breeder I do not agree that people should also have to have a dog from a good breeder just to encourage them to breed, if they are that good they will breed for the good of the breed anyway and not for sales, surely?
Sides where would your OH go for your next dog
???
|
|
|
Location: london.uk
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 8,012
|
11-10-2009, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by lozzibear
the dictionary definition is 'a person or animal that breeds.' so for me, someone that breeds is intentionally doing it therefore someone who has an accidental litter doesnt come under the term 'breeder'.
but sometimes things happen you cant help, we have heard of a few dogs recently who have gone missing or got lost... accidents happen...
|
|
|
Location: Virtual Showground
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,518
|
12-10-2009, 02:59 AM
Originally Posted by lozzibear
i dont agree with that at all. give me all the oxford dictionary definitions you want, i just dont agree with that. if someone 'breeds' it is intentional, an accidental litter isnt intentional.
i think planning does make a breeder. if jake was to accidentally father a litter (cant happen coz he is neutered but just for talking sake...) i would never consider myself a breeder. if he got loose and found an in season bitch, there would be no intention on my part... so why should i get called a breeder??
Anyone with an entire male or female which causes or has a litter is owned by someone who is from that moment a breeder.
In your hypothetical yes indeed you would be a breeder [ stud owner ] because you would have allowed your dog to impregnate a bitch, whether intentional or not allowing it to happen including through negligence makes the owner a breeder.
|
|
|
Location: Scottish Borders
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,902
|
12-10-2009, 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by lozzibear
i dont agree with that at all. give me all the oxford dictionary definitions you want, i just dont agree with that. if someone 'breeds' it is intentional, an accidental litter isnt intentional. its like when people say getting a dog from a rescue is supporting the breeder, how do they work that one out... that really bugs me.
yeah, i agree. its for people like that that i think licenses should come out to stop... people like that shouldnt have animals, they just see them as money machines.
i think planning does make a breeder. if jake was to accidentally father a litter (cant happen coz he is neutered but just for talking sake...) i would never consider myself a breeder. if he got loose and found an in season bitch, there would be no intention on my part... so why should i get called a breeder??
Originally Posted by Patch
Anyone with an entire male or female which causes or has a litter is owned by someone who is from that moment a breeder.
In your hypothetical yes indeed you would be a breeder [ stud owner ] because you would have allowed your dog to impregnate a bitch, whether intentional or not allowing it to happen including through negligence makes the owner a breeder.
But even if we were to follow your (Lozzibear's) argument about not making the choice - these days you always have the choice....even if there was an accidental mating, you now have the option of having the jag to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore if you do not take that option you are still chosing to let your bitch have the litter, so I don't think the bitch's owner can then turn round and say that they are not a breeder because they didn't 'intend' to breed.
|
|
|
Location: Hampshire, UK
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,481
|
12-10-2009, 07:10 AM
I have had lots of enquiries but have always said I don't breed and put them on to someone else, should I say that I am a breeder then to anyone who is looking for a puppy?
Someone who bred in the past but doesn't anymore wouldn't be a breeder, they used to be a breeder.
I wouldn't class someone who had an accidental litter as a breeder either, they are someone who had an accidental litter.
|
|
|
|
Location: UK
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 13,122
|
12-10-2009, 07:11 AM
You only become a breeder IF you have Planned to have a litter.
So I guess you can equate it to , if you have an unplanned pregnancy (human) you are not really a parent.
|
|