Jump to content
BC Boards

Another ethics question...


JaderBug
 Share

Recommended Posts

Ever since the thread about the 43-dog puppy mill back in March, this response to my comment has been haunting me and I think about it quite frequently...

 

!@#^&%$%!^%$!#@$%

 

 

Why in God's name does ABCA continue to accept registrations from a breeder like this?! Can't they say no?? Shouldn't 100+ puppies per year kind of be a red flag to them!?!

 

Because ABCA is a registry and if the people keep their records in good order, there is no problem.

 

If ABCA were a registry requiring proof of working ability then it would be a different story. But how to do that? (it has been discussed many times before when in actuality it would have been easier to implement due to fewer dogs)

 

Isn't this the same argument given by the AKC? that they are 'just a registry'? Probably sounds a bit like a broken record, but this really struck a chord with me. I'm not saying I support the AKC in this regard, it just seems the above statement about the ABCA sounds like a familiar argument. (I think the problems and blame lie more with BCSA than AKC, personally.)

 

I have a pretty good understanding of the issues with the vs. AKC debate... so I guess my main question is how neither registry has issue with one kennel/individual registering copious amounts of dogs.

 

Having a hard time communicating what I'm trying to ask here and honest to doG I'm not trying to ruffle feathers... I guess mainly what is the difference between "AKC is just a registry" vs. "ABCA is just a registry"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ABCA is anti puppy mill, has fought them in the past and is trying to figure out a way to address those issues. Pearse might be able to answer your questions more clearly. I think he was the person who recently posted on steps the ABCA has taken against mills and high volume breeders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel,

It's been said before, but ABCA as a registry consists of one person (Patty Rogers) and a few part time clerical staff to help her. The directors are volunteers, but essentially the only person who sees registrations is Patty and the part time staff. As far as I know, they have no good way to track how many litters any one person produces, and I've seen plenty of instances where litters are produced in some other family member's name (or a cooperative breeder) so it might not be obvious that it's really the same operation.

 

Given the number of registrations that pass through and the quick turnaround the registry provides, it would be virtually impossible for Patty to keep track of individual breeders. Maybe someone will develop a computer program that will flag people who breed X litters a year, but I don't think such a thing exists.

 

In contrast, AKC is not just a registry. They are a large, money making organization with their fingers in a whole lot more than just registering dogs. They have lawyers and lobbyists and a cast of thousands running their various programs. They have actively courted puppy mills in order to gain more revenue from registration. Yes, AKC is a registry, but it's also a lot more. ABCA vs. AKC truly is a David vs. Goliath comparison.

 

I'm not trying to be an apologist for ABCA, but I honestly don't see how the registry can police breeders. IMO, the problem is much larger than a registry. I just visited a website that will remain unnamed to find that not only have they imported some nicely bred dogs into their color mill, but they also have imported semen from some very nice dogs. They had four litters on the ground in the space of two months. They multiple register (ABCA/AKC/ISDS) pups. How are they able to produce all these well-bred (on paper) puppies? Because someone (many someones) is selling mills the dogs/semen that they breed from. And at the other end of the operation people continue to buy mill pups. As long as there is a demand and an uncaring (when it comes to mills) public (and a federal government that condones the factory farming of puppies), nothing is going to stop them.

 

It's a double-edged sword. If a registry tried to control high-volume breeders then I imagine the registry could put itself out of business through lack of registrations, or else it would have to make the cost of registration so prohibitive that even ethical breeders would be able to afford it. I'm not saying that this is a good excuse for not trying, but I think it's a very real possible outcome to such action. I don't think there's an easy answer.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel,

It's been said before, but ABCA as a registry consists of one person (Patty Rogers) and a few part time clerical staff to help her. The directors are volunteers, but essentially the only person who sees registrations is Patty and the part time staff. As far as I know, they have no good way to track how many litters any one person produces, and I've seen plenty of instances where litters are produced in some other family member's name (or a cooperative breeder) so it might not be obvious that it's really the same operation.

 

Given the number of registrations that pass through and the quick turnaround the registry provides, it would be virtually impossible for Patty to keep track of individual breeders. Maybe someone will develop a computer program that will flag people who breed X litters a year, but I don't think such a thing exists.

 

Thanks for clarifying this- I didn't realize ABCA was a one-woman show, didn't know how it was run. Puts a little better perspective on the comparison, the 'David and Goliath' description seems fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for clarifying this- I didn't realize ABCA was a one-woman show, didn't know how it was run. Puts a little better perspective on the comparison, the 'David and Goliath' description seems fair.

 

In point of fact, we (ABCA) are working on improving this. As it stands now it is difficult and tedious for Patty to keep track of individuals. The registry database was not set up to allow this. We are trying to get a handle on how to improve the query and reporting capabilities so that at least we can ask the questions as to whether or not there are significant numbers of high volume breeders.

 

It's a valid question that you asked, and one other members and board members have wrestled with in the past. Hopefully we will be able to provide some answers within the next year.

 

Pearse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, someday, the registry will also be able to track "associates" - people with other people whose names are on the papers, or who sell dogs/bitches around, so that there own name does not appear as often as reality would dictate.

 

Of course, all anyone can do is their best because there will always be someone who is determined to beat the system. One of my latest peeves is those that don't list their many pups on their website so as not to put up a red flag - they just say, "contact us", and amazingly just happen to have a pup or litter (or few) available when you do. Of course they do, they have them all the time, but they just don't put that out in public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully, someday, the registry will also be able to track "associates" - people with other people whose names are on the papers, or who sell dogs/bitches around, so that there own name does not appear as often as reality would dictate.

 

Highly unlikely.

 

 

Of course, all anyone can do is their best because there will always be someone who is determined to beat the system. One of my latest peeves is those that don't list their many pups on their website so as not to put up a red flag - they just say, "contact us", and amazingly just happen to have a pup or litter (or few) available when you do. Of course they do, they have them all the time, but they just don't put that out in public.

 

 

Many people don't list their pups on their website. Makes it easier to screen potential buyers.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Highly unlikely.

I understand, but I can still hope.

Many people don't list their pups on their website. Makes it easier to screen potential buyers.

Yes, you are right - but I have also seen where this is being used by high-volume breeders to avoid the red flag of multiple and frequent litters. An acquaintance just ran into this very situation. "Contact me" can work both ways.

 

Thank you for pointing this out, as I did not mean to paint a responsible breeder with a negative brush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...