Jump to content
BC Boards

An innovative approach to puppy mills


Recommended Posts

I think the statement from the ABCA clarifies things. However people read what they want to read. It would be nice if there was some way to check that the dogs being bred were actual working dogs (define 'working dogs) and of quality, but that is near impossible-as much from people not wanting it as from logistics. I also wish there was some way to denote the non working dogs in the registry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

But doesn't the ethics statement beg the question of why ABCA takes money from registrations of dogs/breeders who don't meet that ethics of breeding standard? Is it a policing issue? Or simply an issue of needing the registration money for the registry to be able to continue to function? To me, it's something like saying, "I don't want you to do this, but if you do, we'll take your money to register your dogs anyway."

 

It's seems a very fuzzy, grey way of operating to me.

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The third person on the list has been banned, correct? I'm a little surprised his name isn't * with a comment below stating that or having a link to the list of banned breeders on the page with the list. Might make it a bit more obvious for people to really look into someone, especially someone off the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But doesn't the ethics statement beg the question of why ABCA takes money from registrations of dogs/breeders who don't meet that ethics of breeding standard? Is it a policing issue? Or simply an issue of needing the registration money for the registry to be able to continue to function? To me, it's something like saying, "I don't want you to do this, but if you do, we'll take your money to register your dogs anyway."

 

It's seems a very fuzzy, grey way of operating to me.

 

J.

 

The fundamental purpose of having a registry is to have as comprehensive a pedigree record as possible, not to serve as a list of approved breeders. The more dogs that are registered, the better that fundamental purpose is served. We think there are other valuable services a registry can perform -- in the realm of education, health, etc., but they are supplemental. We make recommendations to try to influence behavior. Some may think our recommendations are wrong, and not be influenced by them. But suppose we were wrong in a particular instance. If we excluded dogs from the registry, the consequences of our being wrong would be much worse than if we had merely made an incorrect recommendation. We have seen the results of unwise exclusions in other registries, on the basis of health for example, and we want to avoid them in ours. Very seldom and after much thought do we adopt a policy that excludes a class of dogs from registration. In the case of AKC conformation champions, I think it was clearly necessary. In the case of dogs excluded after investigation of particular breeders, I think it has been clearly necessary. But to exclude dogs from registration because a breeder has violated the Ethics and Best Practices standards in some respect is not feasible or desirable, IMO. We have no way of investigating all violations or alleged violations effectively, and many of these standards are subjective rather than objective.

 

To use the high volume list as an example, there would be problems in trying to set a cut-off point beyond which we would not register dogs. As many have pointed out, there might be instances where producing 30 puppies in a particular year is not excessive. OTOH, if we set a high cut-off point, it would give the impression the ABCA is officially okay with anyone breeding up to that point. Better to state the general principle that high volume breeding is undesirable, and provide objective information from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Some readers of the list may not have a problem buying from a breeder who produces 100 pups a year. Others may have no problem buying from a breeder who produces 30 pups a year, but would have a problem buying from someone who produced 100, or 75, or 50. Some might want to question the breeder of 30 before buying. Some may not want to buy from a breeder who produces 30. This is objective, factual information that we have, and so we provide it.

 

In the many years I have been on the ABCA board I have never once heard a director suggest that loss of revenue should play a part in determining whether we take an action or not. In the case of the high volume list, the action was taken with the expectation that we would lose money by it. Of course we need money to function as a registry, but we don't determine policy to maximize our income; if we did, we would be encouraging high volume breeding. If we have less money, we will function in a reduced way.

 

It seems to me that the accusation of "taking money" from breeders who violate our ideals makes no sense here. In an individual or a profit-making corporation, it might be a sign of hypocrisy, but in a non-profit like ours it doesn't denote greed or ulterior motives. None of the money that comes in benefits anyone connected with the ABCA personally -- it is used for registry functions only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The third person on the list has been banned, correct? I'm a little surprised his name isn't * with a comment below stating that or having a link to the list of banned breeders on the page with the list. Might make it a bit more obvious for people to really look into someone, especially someone off the list.

 

The third person on the list has been banned, that's correct. He was banned for intentional and negligent falsification of pedigrees, including buying unregistered litters and representing to buyers and the ABCA that they were the offspring of his registered dogs. IMO your suggestion is a good one that we did not think of, and I will pass it on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if a more comprehensive statement about the reasons ABCA objects to high volume breeders, and perhaps even reprinting the statement of Ethics and Best Practices in full rather than as a link, prefacing the list might be helpful.

 

Obviously what's there doesn't seem to be sufficient for some people to understand what the list is designed to do, otherwise I don't think it would be being touted as a "blacklist."

 

There are just some situations where more is better and I'm thinking maybe this may be one of them. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we wanted to avoid in publishing the list was for readers to interpret it as a list of recommended breeders. People often do look to a registry for a list of approved breeders, so it wouldn't be surprising if an unsophisticated puppy buyer were to think, "Oh, these are their most experienced breeders, I should get my pup from one of them." It's for that reason that we felt we had to print it in conjunction with a statement of our disapproval of high volume breeding. I myself think that the statement could have been worded a little better and I have no doubt the board will be reviewing it in light of members' comments to the ABCA. But I don't have much hope that any changes in wording will make it acceptable to high volume breeders and their friends, who may still be inclined to use disparaging terms for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I don't think it'll make it any more acceptable to those people either -- but was anyone under the impression that the list would be viewed favorably by them? -- but it may be helpful for the people ABCA intends to reach with this information, which is prospective puppy buyers, especially inexperienced ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Julie, I appreciate your response. I just don't understand why one would continually import bred bitches when they keep selling and/or passing them on. Is there that much work on the farm that a dog breaks down after a year and needs to be passed on for retirement life or light duty work? I am very happy to hear that the pups are well cared for...I honestly just don't understand why this needs to be done at such a high volume, and that's probably something I won't understand. I don't think I would buy any dog of any breed from someone producing 100 a year, but it may be where my ethics differ from others. I think you and I have similar ideas on breeding, so I was curious to hear your point of view on this and I do appreciate it

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing we wanted to avoid in publishing the list was for readers to interpret it as a list of recommended breeders.

so then don't publish a list if a list isn't wanted to be deemed as a endorsement. There has to be other ways to educate without targeting people.

 

Already when a person googles Wayne's name the high volume list shows up with this coming up as what the list is with his name, it's clearly not coming up in web searches as just a lack of endorsement for the practice but instead a libel on the breeders on that list.

 

"promote the working Border Collie. Good working Border Collie Breeders are not high volume Breeders.... [breeder name that was searched and city/state]"

Link to post
Share on other sites

so then don't publish a list if a list isn't wanted to be deemed as a endorsement. There has to be other ways to educate without targeting people.

 

Already when a person googles Wayne's name the high volume list shows up with this coming up as what the list is with his name, it's clearly not coming up in web searches as just a lack of endorsement for the practice but instead a libel on the breeders on that list.

 

"promote the working Border Collie. Good working Border Collie Breeders are not high volume Breeders.... [breeder name that was searched and city/state]"

 

Libel? Deb, it isn't libel to publish a list showing that Wayne Bamber was the breeder of 39 puppies that were born in 2014. That's just the objective truth.

 

And when I googled "Wayne Bamber" i found no reference to the high volume breeder list in the first three pages of results. I didn't look further than that, but most people wouldn't either after the references had tailed off to entries like "Niagara Golfers Lose Heartbreaker," "Lower Permian Colonial Rugosa Corals," and "Fence thief caught after hiding under fire escape steps."

Link to post
Share on other sites

It came up first page for me under "NAME + border collies". In fact, I'm sitting at home sicker than a dog so I decided to google everyone on the list. The high volume list came up first page on

every single one of them in that format.

 

I like the list, I like information. But I must say it comes across negatively when it comes up on a simple Google search with a fairly derogatory connotation.

 

I decided to write down my findings after my research. Of the 42 on the list, 19 were a No (with 9 being a HELL NO), 2 that were iffy, 14 Yes, and 7 with no information. I'd tend to guess that those 7 would be a yes, as they clearly are not advertising their dogs. (I should note, I used theoretical ABCA standards, my own Yes list would be much shorter.)

 

I did find the list informative when comparing to a person's web site. Advertising as a small farm with only occasional breedings and then produces 40 or 50 pups? Hmmmmm.

 

post-14480-0-82298200-1453666137_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google uses several factors, such as browser location, geo information, and device type (mobile vs. desktop), to produce your results list. If you've done some searches for, say, ABCA and high volume, Google remembers that and weights it so that your results list for the search term will return pages that have your search term AND high volume AND ABCA. For someone else, they will not see those terms in their result list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It came up first page for me under "NAME + border collies". In fact, I'm sitting at home sicker than a dog so I decided to google everyone on the list. The high volume list came up first page on

every single one of them in that format.

 

I like the list, I like information. But I must say it comes across negatively when it comes up on a simple Google search with a fairly derogatory connotation.

 

I decided to write down my findings after my research. Of the 42 on the list, 19 were a No (with 9 being a HELL NO), 2 that were iffy, 14 Yes, and 7 with no information. I'd tend to guess that those 7 would be a yes, as they clearly are not advertising their dogs. (I should note, I used theoretical ABCA standards, my own Yes list would be much shorter.)

 

I did find the list informative when comparing to a person's web site. Advertising as a small farm with only occasional breedings and then produces 40 or 50 pups? Hmmmmm

 

 

 

I googled just the name, since Deb wrote, "when a person googles Wayne's name, the high volume list shows up . . ."

I don't understand what constituted your "research," or what "No" and "Yes" supposedly mean. I assume it was not research into how many puppies each breeder produced, as I've never seen that shown on a breeder's website or FB page. Was it other things that looked nice or not nice on the breeder's website or FB page? If so, (1) the list was clearly labeled as referring SOLELY to the number of puppies bred, and (2) websites and FB pages are unfortunately not a reliable indicator of a good breeder. If you doubt that, take a look at #3 breeder Bill Barnes's online sites; would they lead you to suspect that he would be buying unregistered litters and representing to puppy buyers and the ABCA that they were offspring of his registered dogs?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Google uses several factors, such as browser location, geo information, and device type (mobile vs. desktop), to produce your results list. If you've done some searches for, say, ABCA and high volume, Google remembers that and weights it so that your results list for the search term will return pages that have your search term AND high volume AND ABCA. For someone else, they will not see those terms in their result list.

Thanks, Kristi, that's very interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emily,

The bitches aren't retired from work; they're working elsewhere. As I said in my previous post, I am not a spokesperson for Karen. I simply live here and reported my observations in answer to your question. For some people the breeding of border collies is a business. In this case, although I may disagree with the business, I can't fault the care or placement of the dogs or puppies. I suppose If you really wish to understand her philosophy, you'd need to ask her directly.

 

Eileen,

At least on Facebook it's not just those on the list who are referring to it as a blacklist, FWIW.

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't explain myself, I was busy watching the Broncos (who are ahead, BTW.) :)

 

I was mostly curious about how many breeders on this "blacklist" were ones who's breeding practices were in line with the views of the ABCA. I just was looking for my own interest, I was surprised to find about a third of the named breeders appeared to be in alignment with the ABCA, but they produced a lot of pups. It's not much useful information, I just wanted to learn a little more about the names on the list.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as some have done your dogs can be registered elsewhere if you don't want to be on the list yet produce high numbers of pups/year. The ABCA will (has?) loose some producers as the money gained from litters means more than the dogs and the future of the breed. Regardless, I see the list as an aid for someone unfamiliar with the breed to help make a decision when purchasing a pup. I think people reading about the list might make an effort to learn more about the pup they are wanting to buy. This has been the case with a couple of local people looking for dogs When told someone is a HVB they start to do more research into where they get their pup. Not all HVB's are producing inferior pups, but it is a cautionary note for the purchaser to use to investigate further.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any *one* criterion used as a red flag is going to be just that - a single criterion. A number of red flags should be taken into consideration with some being more significant than others. For instance, if you are not allowed to see/meet the parents or see them working or visit the breeder's facility or see the conditions that pups are raised in, that would be a total "no go" for me. Likewise, if the parents have temperament issues, can't/don't work, the facility is disgusting, or the pups are raised in filth, that's another "no go" for me.

 

We often talk about "color" breeders, and at least one of the breeders on this list is obviously one of those if you visit their website. The production of a variety of "candy colors" is prominent in their breeding program, and that means they are aiming for the pet/sport (not serious sport) and certainly not the working market. That's another red flag but someone with a breeding dog of color is not necessarily breeding for the wrong reasons - there is a handler who started with a merle bitch that had talent, and has bred from her, kept a merle bitch pup who did well, bred from her and kept another merle bitch pup that did well, and so on. So she has merle Open dogs descended from her original merle bitch. She was written up in the Sheepdog News a few years ago (and you can find it on a Google search but it won't let me copy the link and paste it). Would you call her a "color" breeder? I wouldn't. She simply had a bitch and has kept a bitch that was merle from each litter/generation. She's not been, as far as I understand, breeding *for color* or for the color market but simply keeping a merle pup for herself. So would I discount her as a breeder if all other criteria were suitable? No. Do I agree with limiting oneself to a certain color? No, but that's a choice.

 

Consider a number of criteria with high volume breeding being only one. Since a breeder's website doesn't necessarily come out and let you know that the breeder produces a lot of pups (you can sometimes tell because it's obvious), this list is a piece of information. But it should not be considered to be the only piece of information as it seems it includes some people who make an effort to produce good pups and I am very grateful to be made aware of that.

 

I am also grateful that ABCA, a group of volunteers with one paid employee, is trying to do something to help with the problems that beset the future of the working Border Collie by trying to identify issues, research health problems, promote trials and education, and so on. ABCA should not be judged by one criterion, either - if you don't agree with this particular list or effort by ABCA, it sure doesn't make ABCA "less responsible". At least ABCA is trying. Express your opinions and offer to be a help not just a critic in going forward to identify problems and assist in alleviating them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know where this thread has gone now, but as regards the list, I'm not at all surprised to see Steve Wight (Mill iron s ranch) at the top with 110? I forget the number now. And that's the purebred BCs they sell. Curious how many Borderdoodles they sell a year....

Link to post
Share on other sites

That program (I don't want to name it and have it come up in a search) always really confuses me.

 

It looks like he's always trialing and using his dogs. But then I hear about the oodles, he produced 110 dogs (wtf?!?), and he's had super weird pricing, including some colored dogs. Not to mention his pups are constantly advertised on ranch world ads. Our farrier used to trial quite heavily (still uses his dogs day in and day out, not much trialing) and he has some interesting things to say.

 

But I think I'm getting this off topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, just because someone wins a really big trial (or trials), has a big hat and is well known among the community, or is even considered a "top hand" doesn't necessarily mean that person is a good person or a person I'd want to do business with. I've heard some real horror stories from eyewitnesses about a few individuals, read some chilling (to me) things on some folks' own websites, and come to the conclusion that there are all sorts of people you don't want to be involved with, no matter how they look "on paper". And I am *not* referring to anyone mentioned in this topic or anyone on the list.

 

What you can do is find a mentor, someone you can learn from and trust. Volunteer and meet people. Do your own research. Check out websites. Check out information sources. Ask around. Be patient. Be open-minded and willing to listen. Figure out who you want to deal with, consider all the red flags and decide what is important to you (what are deal-breakers, what are not), and do your own personal best to support good and responsible breeders.

 

The conclusions are going to be as varied as the people doing the research and producing the pups.

 

And then there is always rescue!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I learned that many years ago the hard way. <sigh> I don't go to or follow trials the way I used to and I really, really hope some of the things I heard about or saw then are a thing of the past. I shudder to think that there may be poor dogs still suffering the way I know some then did.

 

And then there is always rescue!

 

Absolutely! And if you're not looking for a dog who needs to work for your livelihood, there's really no reason anyone needs to support the people who are contributing to the alarming number of dogs in general and border collies in particular who need homes.

 

If you can't find what you want from rescue, you're either not looking or not being patient enough to wait, plain and simple IMO.

 

And there are even dogs who can work well enough for the average Jane or Joe to be had from rescue as well.

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...