Jump to content
BC Boards

How widespread is rescuers hate for breeders?


Recommended Posts

For the small time breeder I would say this is true. But does the umpteenth Sporting Fields or Bayshore champion really even register a blip on the affective scale anymore? And did we really need those kennels to pick up and 'improve'* the Border Collie in addition to their other breeds? I can't speak of sport breeders because I don't know any, but honestly, I would think the satisfaction for the aforementioned would be watered down by now. I mean no disrespect.

 

* That [improve] was even painful to type

 

What sort of scale are we talking about? I've never heard of either.

 

Currently here in the UK in Agility there are Nedlos and Darleyfalls doing extremely well but those dogs come from very few litters and definitely small time breeders. The Nedlos are actually sport x real working bred - we aren't as hung up on BC apartheid here because there are so many dogs to choose from we don't have to be.

 

I think it likely that the BC/WSD is the most common breed in the UK but because so many are never registered anywhere it would be impossible to prove. Conformation and sport are minor influences on the breed as a whole because such a small proportion of the population is interested in either. You could say that only a tiny proportion care about the working dog too but the vast majority of dogs come from good, bad or indifferent working backgrounds. It's so much easier and cheaper to get a dog from a farm or rescue than to go on the waiting list for a pup bred for conformation or sport. Living in a small country has its advantages.

 

I do know of one larger scale breeder who has BCs and a couple of other secondary breeds and at the last count she about 18 dogs of her own and another 10 out on breeding terms. She breeds for sport and conformation but sportwise, although there are some goodish dogs of hers, they haven't set the world on fire. I only know her through people who have had dogs from her but the impression I get is that she does still take great pride in the progeny of her dogs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What sort of scale are we talking about? I've never heard of either

 

Bayshore has had well over 30 champions, most of which carry the kennel name, and that's just the Border Collies. They've had way more than that in Aussies and other breeds. The kennel was historically known for Australian Shepherds. Their dog Flapjack was the top winning Aussie for a few years when I was still hanging with the dark side.

 

Sporting Fields had the #1 conformation Border Collie bitch last year and the top winning bitch to date. Their dogs have been winning in the breed ring since well before the Border Collie's recognition by AKC. The founder's daughters were showing in Jr's in the 70's at the same time I was. The kennel had already made a name for itself with Whippets.

 

Both of these kennels are regulars at Westminster, particularly Sporting Fields.

 

So, I am talking about the sheer volume of WINS in conformation, where you and your dog mostly loiter around--striking the occasional seductive pose or strutting a bit (the dog, of course)--and look appealing to the judge. But I guess it's still possible after all those gigs to feel touched for the very first time.

 

I mean no disrespect toward the kennel owners. I just think, in comparison, well.... there is no comparison. But I do realize that my impressions are coming from my experience with the breed ring up close and personal, and sheepdogging from videos. So, it very well could be that I have romantic notions that are waiting to be dashed.

 

ETA: Just to reiterate, I'm speaking of conformation, not agility/sport breeding. Even if sport breeders do the dual title thing, I am only familiar with those whose main focus is conformation, ostensibly to evaluate breeding stock.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sale? I'm only aware of 2 working dog sales in the US. Red Bluff and Denver Stock Show. It couldn't have been either of those, because a resuce would have to pay good money to get those dogs.

 

What sale? Where? What kind of sale?

 

Denver Stock Show

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fault a person for offering their older dogs to people that need them.

 

Denver Stock Show has dogs sell for upwards of $5000 a dog, our older dogs sire was one of those that fetched that price a few years back at that sale, he was a useful ranch dog but not a dog that the breeder was going to keep in the breeding program. Some could say that he was retired, he had competed at National Finals and many other trials, but in our world the dog is not anywhere near retirement age. Gosh, if the breeder was still alive I could see him laughing at the thought of the dog being considered retired and that he should keep the dog for life. To hold up a breeding program or incure the expense of feeding and maintaining a dog that is not what you need but is what someone else needs is quite silly. I beleive a friend in southern IA paid $3500 for a 8 year old bitch, he was just starting out using dogs, the trainer/trialer didn't need the dog anymore, he had younger better dogs that he was trialing with so she was sold to someone that could use her.

 

Anyway, with reference to the Denver Stock Show, the dogs are often prescreened as solid working cattledogs before they go to the Denver Stock Show to be sold. If these dogs were actually accepted they were not being dumped but rather offered to go to be working dogs for others that need them. I question the story though if the dogs were given/sold to the rescue instead of going through the Denver sale ring. I don't see where dogs that were prescreened and suitable for Denver would be deferred to a rescue, this past year ten dogs sold for an average of $3150.00 High selling dog went for $4,200.00 and was a 4 year old bitch.

 

Here is the working requirements "Level of training. An arena with dog broke cattle will be provided to show your dog. Your dog will be expected to gather cattle unassisted from the far end of the arena as well as showing the dogs ability at driving and penning. We are looking for well started or finished cattle dogs that can take control of livestock. There will be limited entries in an effort to sell quality."

 

 

There are also a few more sales that are held, some annually and some intermittently, Cattlemen's Classic- Nebraska, has a sale each February and this past year a sale was held in Duncan, OK at the OK Horse Fair. There was also a online sale last year, Sturtz Production sale, both puppy prospects and older dogs were sold over a 2 day period that was open for bids. I beleive that all are focused on working cow dogs.

 

The working cattledog market is hot, people need good dogs and there are not enough good dogs available to fill the demand, plenty of utility dogs that are far from exceptional. The auctions are a great way to offer dogs to buyers that are looking, needing and wanting dogs. Just in the last year we have had numerous offers in excess of $5000.00 for our dogs, some we took some we didn't, if someone uses dogs daily and finds themselves short handed it's amazing the amount of money they will shell out to get another partner, and they need it now, they don't have time to wait for a pup to mature. Some would need to hire a employee or two to replace the dog, that gets real expensive so a $10,000 budget is not out of line. Just this weekend I heard a rancher say that he would go $10,000 for the right dog, right now.

 

Currently the owner of a pup that we sold last fall is being bombarded with offers. So far she is holding strong and saying no sale, more so because she is bonded to the dog. But, in reality she needs the dog, they have a feedlot and she may never have a dog as nice as that one ever again and if she found one I bet it would cost her more money then she has been offered, which is in the neighborhood of 5G for a 15 month old pup. And trust me, the people doing the offering are serious, they will put out the money if she said yes, it's not a tease.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Klamath Bull and Horse Sale has had dog sales in the past. These types of sales are not a dumping ground for puppy mills or rescues. These are valuable dogs being sold to ranchers who need and value them. They are sifted for quality and demonstrate their work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is Red Bluff for $23,000.00, but maybe one went for higher since then.

 

RED BLUFF - For many people watching last Friday's cow dog sale at the Red Bluff Bull and Gelding Sale, the border collie that sold for $23,000 named Patch came as quite a shock.

For Bret Venable, the beginner consignor and horse trainer from Wilton who has raised the pup, "It was a dream come true," he said this week.

The dog belongs to the McCallum breed - a breed Venable saw for the first time at the 2000 Red Bluff Bull Sale, and it's the only breed one he's worked with ever since. That year, Paul Miller sold the top-selling dog, a half-breed McCallum, Venable said.

Venable's narrative of the breed's history in America is short and interesting. The McCallum family introduced the dog to America only 15 years ago, Venable said, although they've been breeding them for about 100 years.

Once Venable saw his first McCallum, he got in contact with Tony McCallum, the man who brought the breed from Australia to the United States, and then he flew to Australia to look at and work with the dogs.

As a result of Venable's work, he started a relationship with Patch, the 3-year-old dog that sold so high at Red Bluff this year. Patch is the first dog Venable has ever sold.

McCallum dogs "have their own stamp," Venable said. There's no one major trait that makes them special over other dogs, he said, but "It's the little things that make the big difference." He said he liked their temperament, build and "the way they can control stock."

The dogs "have some bite," but it's with a purpose, he said. "They can get the job done."

Venable loves the dogs so much that they're the only breed he wants to raise now. "They're amazing," he said. "I really believe in them."

Patch's buyer, Theresa Cliff, of LaPine, Ore., agreed. When she saw the collie at work last week, she said, "It minded very well. It had control of the livestock. When it needed to move them, it could. He's very well-mannered and he's a thinking dog. The fellow who was working him didn't do his thinking for him."

Venable, previously a horse breeder and trainer, has only been breeding dogs for the past five years. "My dogs are my life," he said. "I've invested everything into this."

Unfortunately, though, Venable said, the big sale "has caused a lot of drama," given that some people were so surprised that a dog could sell for so much.

But, he said, "In a few more years, that's not going to be a lot to pay for a dog."

McCallum dogs are building quite a reputation across the country, he said, and they're raising the price of dogs. Tony McCallum, the man who introduced them to the United States "was a genius," Venable said. He sees his role today as "maintaining the quality that he started with."

So will Venable bring more McCallum dogs to next year's Red Bluff sale? "We'll have to wait and see," he said.

---------

Staff writer Abby Fox can be reached at 527-2153, extension 114, or clerk@redbluffdailynews.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Patch dog was Taw's uncle full brother to her sire, Hoss. I can say I love that line of dogs. Lori's Nell is Taw's daughter that Kathy Knox just saw and liked.

 

 

 

They are thinking dogs. I work cattle with her everyday. She will not get you into trouble....in the netting or at the unit.

 

Sorry kinda off the topic...I guess you can see I think alot of Taw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Nicole,

Way back at the beginning of this thread you were describing the reaction you got from your posts. Don't feel to bad, Jemima Harrison had a similar experience on one of these facebook pages. She wrote about it here:

 

Pedigree Dogs Exposed - The Blog: "I Hate Dog Breeders"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I'm walking into this conversation awfully late, but has anybody noticed that the numbers of "overpopulation" simply don't add up? There are about 78 million owned dogs in the United States. The 4 million that are euthanized in shelters accounts for dogs AND cats. 1.5 million of these dogs are actually adoptable.

 

"Tufts study showed 1.8-2.1 million dogs euthanized in shelters, a far cry from the six or eight or more million claimed by animal rights activists." -http://www.naiaonline.org/naia-library/articles/are-there-too-many-dogs-and-cats/

 

These numbers are from an old study and the numbers have actually gone DOWN, not up.

 

There is no overpopulation. It is an illusion.

 

There is, however, severely flawed shelter programs and an abundance of irresponsible dog owners.

 

We are overlooking the shelters who refuse to work with rescues and have such limited adoption hours that the general public almost never has a chance to meet the dogs that are available for ten days.

 

In my area, the local city's animal control has only had to euthanize for space once or twice in the past several years. The laws running that animal control program are outdated and do not make sense- even when the shelter is empty or has space for additional animals, they must euthanize a dog after ten days.

 

Dogs are imported into the northeast from southern shelters by the truckload. Connecticut recently took on a new law that stipulated what kind of veterinary treatment the animals from the southern shelters had to receive before being brought into the state because of the number of untreated untested animals that wound up here.

 

I don't believe there is an overpopulation of pets. I do believe there is an overpopulation of irresponsible owners.

 

And FWIW, if a breeder refuses to take back anything they have produced, they are by definition not a responsible breeder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Tufts study showed 1.8-2.1 million dogs euthanized in shelters, a far cry from the six or eight or more million claimed by animal rights activists." -http://www.naiaonline.org/naia-library/articles/are-there-too-many-dogs-and-cats/

 

I tend to treat anything on that anti neutering web site with caution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogs are imported into the northeast from southern shelters by the truckload. Connecticut recently took on a new law that stipulated what kind of veterinary treatment the animals from the southern shelters had to receive before being brought into the state because of the number of untreated untested animals that wound up here.

 

I don't believe there is an overpopulation of pets. I do believe there is an overpopulation of irresponsible owners.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think your perspective is a little off since you live in CT. I've lived in a lot of states, CT included. Spending a couple of years in rural Midwestern/Southern towns really changed the way I see the problem. I think it's one of those things that you have to see to believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no overpopulation. It is an illusion.

There is an overpopulation, or animals would not be dying by the millions still, at least partly because there are not people seeking out those animals to bring into their families. When the population exceeds the homes available, and the desire to take those animals into people's homes, there is a problem.

 

There is, however, severely flawed shelter programs and an abundance of irresponsible dog owners.

There are, and there is, no argument there. Many programs are existing in the Dark Ages of pet shelter, rehoming, rescue, and lack any form of real evaluation.

 

I do believe there is an overpopulation of irresponsible owners.

I could not agree with you more, and part of that overpopulation of irresponsible owners is irresponsible and/or ignorant breeders, whether they are backyard breeders, "accidental" breeders, puppy mill breeders that sell through brokers or companies like Hunte, high-volume breeders that direct-sell, breeders who produce without people lined up for their dogs, or just plain breeders of poorly-bred animals.

 

And FWIW, if a breeder refuses to take back anything they have produced, they are by definition not a responsible breeder.

That is a matter of debate. A breeder who will not at least attempt to work with a puppy buyer to avoid or alleviate issues that might arise is avoiding responsibility. I don't see where a breeder is any more responsible for an animal that the buyer has essentially "ruined" for its purpose (whether that's as a working or pet dog) than the breeder chooses to be and feels capable of handling. But virtually everyone I know who breeds would do their best to work out some solution for that dog, including taking it back and endeavoring to rehome it (or euthanize it if the problems were insurmountable).

 

Responsibility is an issue for both breeder and animal owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no overpopulation. It is an illusion.

 

If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for shelters or rescues.

 

There is, however, severely flawed shelter programs and an abundance of irresponsible dog owners.

 

We are overlooking the shelters who refuse to work with rescues and have such limited adoption hours that the general public almost never has a chance to meet the dogs that are available for ten days.

 

There are flawed shelters and no shortage of irresponsible dog owners. No argument. But, remember that shelters have operating budgets. If the local community doesn't value animal welfare, or doesn't have the tax base to support stellar animal welfare programs, then it's not going to have them. There are communities that I know of that have only an animal control officer - no shelter facility, no adoption hours, no adoptions, period. You can't exactly blame the shelter (or, in this case, the AC officer) for having a flawed program. It's the community that chooses not to place value (and $$) on animal welfare programs.

 

I live in the south and I work with a lot of shelters down here, and the overwhelming majority of them are very rescue friendly. So, again, I think that is placing false blame.

 

In my area, the local city's animal control has only had to euthanize for space once or twice in the past several years.

 

You are lucky. Other areas of the country are not so lucky.

 

Dogs are imported into the northeast from southern shelters by the truckload. Connecticut recently took on a new law that stipulated what kind of veterinary treatment the animals from the southern shelters had to receive before being brought into the state because of the number of untreated untested animals that wound up here.

 

I am aware that dogs are exported from southern states to the northeast. That's a good thing. But, that's because there is an overpopulation of unwanted dogs in the south. That's just a fact. There are a lot of factors that play into why that is the case.

 

When I take dogs (as a rescue) from shelters around here, very few of them come with much vetting. I would say about half of the shelters will provide at least some vetting. But, when sending a dog to a rescue, they usually assume the rescue will do the vetting. They also don't charge the rescue any sort of fees for pulling the dog. Again, it all goes back to the shelter and it's abilities.

 

I don't believe there is an overpopulation of pets. I do believe there is an overpopulation of irresponsible owners.

 

I agree that there are many irresponsible pet owners. But, I disagree that there isn't an overpopulation of pets, though it would sure be nice if it were true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pet overpopulation is like other large geographic trends (global warming, the economy, housing prices, human overpopulation, etc), there is the overall trend (geographically speaking) and there are regional trends that may or may not track with the overall trend.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to treat anything on that anti neutering web site with caution.

 

There is an overpopulation, or animals would not be dying by the millions still, at least partly because there are not people seeking out those animals to bring into their families. When the population exceeds the homes available, and the desire to take those animals into people's homes, there is a problem.

 

There are varying estimates for the number of owned dogs in the United States but the vast majority of them estimate that about 3% or less of healthy adoptable dogs are euthanized in the shelter system.

 

But even this number is illusion. The real issue is supply and demand.

 

If there is an overabundance of animals in the United States, why are rescues importing dogs from other countries by the thousands? I know the NAIA has already been knocked once in this discussion for questioning spay and neuter (which is astonishing since you're willing to believe statistics put out by two of the largest and most questionable animal rights lobbying groups, PETA and the HSUS) but these stats are hard to argue with: http://www.naiaonline.org/naia-library/articles/humane-or-insane/

 

If you don't like NAIA, how about these sites:

 

http://spanieljournal.com/33lbaughan.html

 

http://www.astraean.com/borderwars/2012/06/now-only-2-of-dogs-die-in-shelters.html

 

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I think your perspective is a little off since you live in CT. I've lived in a lot of states, CT included. Spending a couple of years in rural Midwestern/Southern towns really changed the way I see the problem. I think it's one of those things that you have to see to believe.

 

FWIW, I am from southern Florida and have pulled dogs from rural shelters all along the east coast. I have no experience with midwestern towns but I do have plenty of experience with southern shelters.

 

If that were true, there wouldn't be a need for shelters or rescues.

 

There will always be a need for shelters and rescues. There will always be animals surrendered to shelters unless there are no more animals. Think about this. There will always be people in unfortunate circumstances who need to relinquish a dog. There will always be people who are just plain irresponsible and let their dog have a litter without considering the consequences. There will always be a need for shelters and rescues.

 

But, remember that shelters have operating budgets. If the local community doesn't value animal welfare, or doesn't have the tax base to support stellar animal welfare programs, then it's not going to have them. There are communities that I know of that have only an animal control officer - no shelter facility, no adoption hours, no adoptions, period. You can't exactly blame the shelter (or, in this case, the AC officer) for having a flawed program.

 

Yes you can!! If the animal control officer is not making dogs available for adoption that officer is NOT doing his or her job. The reason my area (which has a shelter that is usually saturated with pit bulls) has such a low euthanasia rate is because the ACO works constantly to move those dogs. She networks with rescues, other shelters, lists the dogs on Petfinder and Facebook, and does absolutely everything she can to place them. I have pulled several dogs from the shelter as a rescue and have not seen the other animal control officers even lift a finger to help me get the dogs out of there. That is on them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you can!! If the animal control officer is not making dogs available for adoption that officer is NOT doing his or her job.

 

What makes you so sure that the ACO that I referred to was not doing his/her job (or, beyond and above his/her job)? In fact, the reason I found out about this particular community with no shelter was because I was contacted by the ACO and asked if I had room in my rescue for the dog. But, this particular community HAS NO FACILITY FOR HOLDING DOGS. So, you're going to blame that ACO if many of the dogs that get picked up and not reclaimed are euthanized? You can only avoid euthanizing your surplus animals, if they have a place to live and someone to care for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you so sure that the ACO that I referred to was not doing his/her job (or, beyond and above his/her job)? In fact, the reason I found out about this particular community with no shelter was because I was contacted by the ACO and asked if I had room in my rescue for the dog. But, this particular community HAS NO FACILITY FOR HOLDING DOGS. So, you're going to blame that ACO if many of the dogs that get picked up and not reclaimed are euthanized? You can only avoid euthanizing your surplus animals, if they have a place to live and someone to care for them.

 

No, I overlooked that. That is the fault of the town not taking the time to put up a budget for animal welfare.

 

However, I have also encountered many shelters were there is a holding place for animals but no adoption hours, no advertising of available dogs, and no working with rescues. When all the rescue boards are filled with questions like "Is this shelter rescue friendly?" it is pretty obvious that there is more to the story than a simple surplus of animals.

 

And once again- if there is such a surplus, why are so many animals being imported from other countries?

Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I have also encountered many shelters were there is a holding place for animals but no adoption hours, no advertising of available dogs, and no working with rescues.

 

Yes, some shelter are better than others. No argument. But, shelters are not the sole reason for high euthanasia rates. As Mark pointed out, there are regional trends, and in some areas, there are simply more unwanted animals than homes can be found for, despite the efforts of shelter personnel, volunteers, and rescues. I get several emails a week from shelters in AL and some areas of FL asking me if I have room for some of their dogs. Most of the time, I have to tell them that I don't have room. And it is the same with many other rescues. We are full all. the. time.

 

When all the rescue boards are filled with questions like "Is this shelter rescue friendly?" it is pretty obvious that there is more to the story than a simple surplus of animals.

 

No, it's not. It's a pretty standard, first step question to ask. Most shelters are rescue-friendly. A few are not. The ones that are not are usually not because they'd been burned by rescues (usually out-of-state ones) in the past, or they don't need rescue's help because they have good success placing the animals on their own.

 

And once again- if there is such a surplus, why are so many animals being imported from other countries?

 

Who, exactly, are these rescues that are importing dogs from other countries "by the thousands"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who, exactly, are these rescues that are importing dogs from other countries "by the thousands"?

 

http://www.saveasato.org

 

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990924&slug=2984988

 

http://www.buddydoghs.com

 

"Buddy Dog takes in about 1,500 animals per year and tries to find homes for each and every one. The animals come from all over the U.S., including Puerto Rico."

 

http://www.boston.com/community/pets/articles/2011/05/21/disease_statistics_raise_dog_adoption_concerns

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the dogs come from all over the US including Puerto Rico, then they are from the US. The only time I hear about dogs being imported to the US for rescue is when there is a huge disaster somewhere. They do it because some people who otherwise would not adopt, will adopt a dog that came from some disaster area, so they can tell their friend what wonderful people they are. Meanwhile the homegrown dog that they didn't adopt gets PTS. I'm glad you don't have the hundreds of unwanted dogs in your area that we have in ours, but if there were truly no extra dogs, then people wouldn't surrender their dogs to animal control. They would go to their want ads and sell their dog. The shelter would have a waiting list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points...

 

Mark, you hit the nail right on the head re: regional issues, and with that comes funding and resources necessary to overcome those issues.

 

Taxpayers fund animal control, ostensibly, to control nuisance animals, not to find homes for them.

 

Regarding neutering, the data shows that it has made and does make a considerable impact, but that it reaches a plateau. It is a grave mistake to discount that initial impact.

 

Other than that, I just don't have the energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's certainly a school of thought that holds pet overpopulation to be an illusion, and serious arguments have been made in support of that contention. See Winograd, Nathan, Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation & the No-Kill Revolution in America. It was actually mentioned in post #60 on this very thread (by me :) ). So while you might disagree with the conclusion, and might be able to present reasoned arguments against it, it's not dumbfounding that someone would make that statement.

Link to post
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.

×
×
  • Create New...