Monday 19 November 2012

"I hate dog breeders"

Nope, not my view -  the view being propagated by a Facebook site of that name that makes Pedigree Dogs Exposed look like a pussycat.

I've had a couple of emails/comments about the site - mostly from those pointing out how much those on it love me and cite Pedigree Dogs Exposed as justification for their hatred of breeders. (Ergo, of course, I am in some way responsible for the rabid views being expressed there.)

So I went and had a look there this morning and after trawling through post after post of truly poisonous stuff condemning all dog breeders, felt moved to leave what I thought was a fair and considered post.

I pointed out that although there were loads of bad dog breeders, and dogs suffering as a result of them, surely the site should be called "I hate bad dog breeders". After all, if they succeeded in stopping all dog breeding where on earth would the dogs they claim to love actually come from? I also pointed out that there was much to celebrate about good dog-breeding - e.g. the incredibly utility of collies, livestock guardians, police dogs et al - and that there are people out there doing a good job who should be encouraged.

The site had also posted a picture of a rescue dog that was now New York's top police dog, trying to argue that this trounced the argument that selective breeding was needed to produce the best working dogs. The dog? A German Shepherd...


Someone had also proudly posted a picture of their rescue dog and how amazing he was. The dog? A Rottweiller...

Double doh...

Finally, I ended the post pointing out that, surely, there was enough hate in this world and that the stuff they were posting was unfair and unproductive.

And guess what?

They removed my post!

Now I really do defend anyone's right to say what they think on the internet - after all, it's what I ask for myself. But groups/pages that feel so threatened by alternative views, however reasonably-expressed, that they censor them are not campaigns, they are propaganda.  That's why I allow most posts slagging me off to be posted here.  I really do want people to make up their own mind.

Anyway, a little miffed, I messaged the page with the following:

"You deleted my post? Then please also delete any references to my film on your site. There is something profoundly wrong with groups that do not allow any alternative view to be expressed - especially when it was done gently. Jemima Harrison, Producer/Director Pedigree Dogs Exposed."

And they sent me this back:

So now I am in the unexpected position of being loathed by both (some) dog breeders - and those that hate dog breeders.

I suggest you copy and paste the link to this post there in the hope that in the few seconds it will be allowed to stand that at least one or two people might get a chance to read how they are being sucked into group-think on a page that is blatantly censoring posts in order to peddle its views.

Before my post was deleted, it got two "likes". Of course that couldn't possibly be allowed to stand, could it?

Idiots. And dangerous idiots at that.

24/11/12:  Well despite being invited to re-post on the site I have been blocked from doing so...  And am amused to see a couple of posts hauling me out for my referring to Pedigree Dogs Exposed as my film.  

"I wonder what the film-maker would think about THAT?" asked one poster.

But then putting two and two together and getting four is clearly not their forté.


  1. Been there, but with a different dog issue.

    Here's what you do: Play Stearler's Wheel so loud the windows shake. Therapy for the masses from the late great Gerry Rafferty.

  2. I tried - they removed it within seconds!

  3. Well this kind of idiocy is what awaits the dog fancy, especially in the USA, unless they take their collective heads out of their arses and try to undertake some reforms.

    1. It isn't the 'dog fancy' doing this, Olivia! It's the ANTI- dog fancy!

  4. "So now I am in the unexpected position of being loathed by both (some) dog breeders - and those that hate dog breeders."

    Join the club.

    At least you don't get thousands of hits and shares of your articles from people who would normally believe that you're a 'byb' and what you do is inherently unethical. I was recently told that someone was "frankly embarrassed that blood from my dogs is purported to be in your dogs", and one of my detractors had decided it's very funny to make cracks about my 'designer dogs' every time I attempt to participate on the big breed mailing list. I have a strong feeling that quotes from two of my recent articles on disease in closed populations and Saluki colors will be appearing somewhere as evidence that the "AR thinking is permeating the dog community! Anti-purebred people are every where!" This is from someone who believes that dog breeds are different species.

    And yes, it galls me to no end that some of my articles are actually helpful to these people.

    1. Oh yes, I am in that club too... I had one woman actually go onto my profile which I proudly had my dog breeding page listed on, and continued to nit pick at me with that which was very personal. I have since removed it, which I hated doing because I am so proud of it, but these people act like stalkers and it is scary. I don't want them involved in my family and passion, or harassing my clients, it is sad. On top of that I get sick and tired of explaining to every person that comes along calling me irresponsible and that the shelters are overflowing with my dogs how I am not and how they are not. These people are in desperate need of a life, perhaps someone should start a life charity?

      Also don't be fooled by the "I love responsible dog breeders" page which was created to combat the "I hate dog breeders" page. They believe only purebred breeders are responsible. Sad isn't it?

    2. Question what is wrong with only purebred dogs? or thinking only purebred dogs need to be bred? Why in the heck do you want to promote the indiscriminate breeding of two dissimilar dogs? (LAY Terms MUTTS???) That is what the pounds and shelters are full of and are being imported from other countries to fill empty kennels all over this country (Satos from PR for one) There are plenty of mutts to go around whereas some breeds of dogs barley have 1000 in the breed. THAT is the type of breeding that gives the responsible breeders a bad name. AND NO I am not a dog breeder (i bred mini horses and rabbits)

    3. @Anne Marie: What is wrong with cross-bred dogs if they are bred with the same care, consideration and selection, as the best purebred dogs?

      You're confusing indiscriminate breeding with cross-breeding; the two do not go hand-in-hand. There are indiscriminate breeders of purebred dogs, who will throw together two dogs of the same breed, without any thought as to health-testing and whether the offspring will have health or physical problems. Similarly, there are indiscriminate breeders of cross-breeds, who will breed from two different breeds without health-testing the stock first, nor considering whether the offspring will have health or physical problems as to the result of that cross.

      However, like there are conscientious breeders of purebred dogs, who care very much about how the puppies turn out and who they go to, there are also conscientious breeders of cross-breeds. These too are breeding for a purpose - whether you agree with their reasons for doing the cross is beside the point. If there is a demand for these puppies and the cross is healthy, what is the problem?

      Your point about cross-breeds filling the kennels, is valid, but these puppies won't have come from the reputable breeders - they will have vetted the homes and offered to take back the puppy at any time should the home not work out. Same as reputable purebred dog breeders. Breed rescues are also full of their breed - this can do something to keep that breed out of general rescue kennels. The only disadvantage for cross-breeds in rescues is knowing the parentage and therefore what to expect, temperament and exercise-wise. Hopefully DNA tests will come down in price to allow this testing to become commonplace.

      If bred properly, many cross-breed puppies have the potential to be far healthier than their respective purebred, but therefore far more inbred, parents.

    4. Anne Marie, why do YOU imply that breeding other than purebred dogs is necessarily indiscriminate? It is those, like you, that point fingers at breeders without recognition that goals can be different from ones you appreciate that are helping to feed the AR hype. There are discriminating breeders of landrace dogs (mutts - ever here of an Alaskan Husky?) and of mixed breed dogs as well as of purebred dogs.


    5. Anne Marie27 November 2012 19:29 spewed:

      "Question what is wrong with only purebred dogs? or thinking only purebred dogs need to be bred?"

      It's moronic. It also doesn't make sense, because genetically, the modern definition of 'purebred dog' is a dead end. Dog breeds are not equivalent to species. There is no REAL defensible reason for ONLY purebreds to be bred.

      "Why in the heck do you want to promote the indiscriminate breeding of two dissimilar dogs?"

      NO ONE IS ADVOCATING THE *INDISCRIMINATE* BREEDING OF ANY KIND OF DOG. Please check your reading comprehension. What we are advocating is the same kind of breeding that ohsoreputable breeders of purebreds do: applicable health tests for the parents, breeding *for* wanted traits, careful rearing and placing of pups. Those things apply no matter what KIND of dogs you are breeding: purebred, crossbred, or multi-generational crosses.

      "(LAY Terms MUTTS???)"

      Moron. A mutt is by definition a dog of UNKNOWN BACKGROUND, meaning the parents, grandparents, etc. are UNKNOWN. A crossbreed dog is from KNOWN PARENTS, WITH A KNOWN BACKGROUND. I breed Saluki/Afghan crosses. I can trace the ancestry of my dogs back to the founders of their respective populations in the West.

      I also breed purebred Salukis. By your 'logic' some of my litters would 'resonsponsible' and some would not be, no matter that they are from the SAME BREEDER.

      "That is what the pounds and shelters are full of and are being imported from other countries to fill empty kennels all over this country (Satos from PR for one) There are plenty of mutts to go around whereas some breeds of dogs barley have 1000 in the breed."

      Moron. The shelters are filled with dogs that come from breedings where the relavent health tests have been done on the parents, the pups have been reared in the home, and the buyers have been screened and signed a contract? Amazing! There goes that 'logic' again.

      You do understand that if a 'mutt' would do for every person wanting a dog, then there would be NO NEED TO KEEP ANY BREED GOING, especially rare breeds where there is very little demand. By your reasoning :::snerk::: we don't NEED breeds at all, because ALL DOGS ARE INTERCHANGEABLE AND YOU CANNOT SELECT FOR DESIRED TRAITS.

      "THAT is the type of breeding that gives the responsible breeders a bad name."

      No, moronic, stoopid, and insupportable assertions are what gives 'responsible' breeders a bad name. Assertions like 'only purebred breeders are reputable.' Like the KIND OF DOGS a breeder is producing are more important the ETHICS of the breeder.

      "AND NO I am not a dog breeder (i bred mini horses and rabbits)"

      But you are a moron. Your argument is invalid. Take a course in critical thinking, check your tribalism at the door, and come back.

    6. For heavens sake jemima why do you let people speak to others like this????? It is so unecessary :(

    7. Annie Marie, if we only had purebreds in this world I think it would be a miserable one, but that is just me, I've never owned a small purebred dog that I have enjoyed, ever, they are yappy, have bad personalities, few carry the merle gene and even then it is met with spitfire or controversy, and can be unhealthy (ingrown baby teeth, my aunt recently purchased a Pomeranian with alopecia, stenotic nares, exaggerated features, etc). I do however enjoy the cross I breed, much more than the two purebreeds that created it. Rarely barks like the Shih Tzu, isn't unhealthy, standoff-ish personality but friendly when they feel comfortable (they also get more comfortable with age), no exaggerated features (thanks to the cross), has merle and I don't have to deal with the bull that comes with it (due to being a cross/mix, though I may get crap from people who think they know better, you know who I'm talking about), and has a long coat which doesn't require intensive grooming. I could probably find a medium or large dog that would fit what I wanted but I don't want a medium or large dog, so they don't. I enjoy small dogs, but not small purebreds.

      And don't give me that "you can go to any shelter and pick up a mutt" because you can do the same and pick up a purebred. Purebreds aren't magical in that they can never be dumped into a shelter, and it doesn't matter how godly the breeder seems, if they are in the Top 10 best breeders of the United States, United Kingdom, whatever, I'm sure that one owner somewhere at some time dumped one of their puppies in a shelter. It is unavoidable in my opinion, but yes, you can still try to ensure that never happens, but the truth is, it still will most likely happen at some time to someone. Purebred dogs do not have "DO NOT DUMP ME" stamped across their forehead, it is not illegal to dump a purebred, should I go on? Because I can if you want.

  5. >>I've had a couple of emails/comments about the site - mostly from those pointing out how much those on it love me and cite Pedigree Dogs Exposed as justification for their hatred of breeders. (Ergo, of course, I am in some way responsible for the rabid views being expressed there.<<

    You are responsible; you've reaped exactly what you sewed. Just wonder why you're not enjoying it. This is what you wanted, you got it. Attempting to defend yourself and playing the victim, acting wounded, abused and misunderstood is so entertaining, if nothing else (and there is nothing else) you should at least be thanked for that.

    1. Wow, what a bunch of ho-haw. Pointing out the problems in purebred dogs doesn't equal hating dog breeders.

    2. i am not against dog breeding per se, as i do know some very good and responsible breeders, who check the health and document the ancestry of their dogs (one i know breeds crossbred hollander and mechelaar shepherds who are both placed in homes and trained as police dogs, depending on temperament, another one breeds gordon setters who are not everyone's dog and they are very selective in who they place and don't do many litters). my dogs are all rescues, only one of them has a pedigree, she was taken to the shelter by her breeder as she had signs of HD. she's nearly 4 now and doing fine (she is a mastin español). i think regardless of pedigree it is not just about breeding responsibly but also placing the dogs responsibly and this means thorough screening of prospective owners. dog breeders breeding fashionable breeds and selling without doing decent homecheck and without providing follow up are the reasons even pedigree dogs end up in the pound, because the people who got them didn't give enough consideration and bought the dog on a whim or as a status symbol, failed to raise the dog properly and then blame the dog and discard of it. banning all breeding is ridiculous. making sure people know what they are getting themselves into, assisting them with raising the dog responsibly and making sure the dog matches the environment in temperament are key factors too in my opinion. Another issue is the 'accidental' litter, i think spaying and neutering should be compulsory and people should only breed if they can guarantee that A. they won't breed dogs that suffer from severe health problems (like many pedigree dogs do, like cavalier king charles spaniels) and B. they can guarantee that every pup will have a home and will be spayed and neutered unless the prospective owner can too meet criteria A and B. The thing that triggers me (and i presume triggers most people when they hear the word 'dog breeder') is the malpractice of overbreeding resulting in a host of heridatary diseases, backyard breeding and puppy farms. But let's not forget there ARE indeed also responsible breeders, tarring them with the same brush is not going to solve anything. And there are always irresposible owners let's focus on those too!

  6. Such brave words, Anonymous...

    1. Let's see if I care if you think I'm brave or you know who I am..wait..I don't. If I said my name was "Laura" what would that tell anyone? Oh, did I short out any of your brain circuits with that one? ;)

    2. Laura, I am not anonymous, my name is Lenna S. Hanna-O'Neill, I am a (gasp!) breeder with over 30 years producing (arguably) quality dogs. Though I did not make the comments above, I kind of have to agree with them, Laura No-Last-Name. This argument that 'breeders chase ribbons' has become cult fodder, and whether or not the *intention* was for it to become so, it isn't rocket science to have imagined it would go there. Do I agree with all the decisions that breeders make? Of course not, in exactly the same way that I do not often agree with decisions that other PARENTS make with their offspring, from their choice of mates to their rearing strategies and everything in between. Yet I do not set myself up as some kind of authority, nor make blanket statements about 'bad parents' that generalize *specific* issues. Particularly, I would not *at this juncture,* choose to visit that particular issue if I had any regard for the benefit of the future of purebred dogs *at all,* considering the way that breeders are being hit from all sides by people long on theory and opinion, yet short on actual husbandry experience or knowledge. But whatever makes you feel superior. As for me, I can certainly understand why many breeders would choose to be anonymous, not to protect their feelings but to protect their PETS since those of us brave enough to speak out against anti-breeder propaganda are often selected as examples. When you have had over 20 dogs and puppies killed by 'animal rights' nuts, come back and talk to me about how committed you are to your cause, Ms. No-Last-Name. Until then, I suspect you fall into the category of all-hat-no-cattle.

    3. What were the circumstances in which you lost 20 dogs and puppies???

    4. yes you are correct.

  7. Warning... I'm officially on my high horse and about to be pompous.

    The dog scene have brought this on themselves with the attitude shown above. For years, actually decades, legitimate criticism was ignored or waved away with a "breeders know best" attitude. The level of toadyism and deference in "dogdom" had to be seen to be believed.

    It is that closed ranks and closed minds attitude that's lead us to this position.

    1. "The dog scene have brought this on themselves. . . ".

      Spot on. This has been accepted wisdom amongst my peers for 30 years. I was surprised to find debate about it when the 'internet' allowed me to read more opinions from further abroad (I live in Western Canada).


    2. Well, at least you had the 'pompous' part right...

  8. The woman is deranged if she thinks that her views are unbiased and helpful to any prospective dog owner. I hope it is the biter bit.

  9. Wow, got no back bone there huh? We don't need more dogs while millions are dying. There is nothing reputable or responsible about adding to the overpopulation. You just made yourself look really deperate. But thanks for exposing all these greedy breeder anyways. ;)

    1. I have been active in rescue and shelter volunteering for 20 years, and have had dozens of foster animals stay with me (1-2 at a time) over the past 5 years. I've also adopted dogs from shelters, and my current cat was rescued from the streets of Istanbul.

      However, when I need a dog for sports competition, I still go to a breeder. A bad dog breeder is indeed a vile person, but a good dog breeder is an angel who knowingly loses money in the effort to develop healthier, better-structured, and longer-living dogs. My latest dog's breeder studied the breed and competed with the breed at top levels of obedience for 20 years before breeding her first litter. Her foundation dog is still alive at nearly 17--this is my dog's grandmother.

      I've had talented, competitive shelter dogs who had to retire at 12 months of age due to crappy hips. I've had other shelter dogs with good hips, but such low drive they can't compete successfully.

      If I'm going to invest thousands of hours into training and competing in dog sports with an individual dog, I'll buy from a breeder who does genetic testing and has a track record of producing long-lived dogs that earn lots of titles in sports.

      Telling me that I can't buy a purpose-bred dog until every dog in the world is adopted is somewhat analogous to saying:

      - No race car driver has the right to buy a Formula One car as long as there are unwanted Chevy Novas sitting in junkyards.

      - Justin Beiber has no right to date a young, good-looking woman, as long as there are still skanky drug-addicts that need a husband.

      Not to directly compare a sweet shelter dog with a meth-head... but I want to make the point that we don't expect people to "settle" in other circumstances... only in pet adoption.

      I've lived all over the world, including several countries with out-of-control street dog populations. Istanbul, where I recently spent 5 years, has 100,000 street dogs and 500,000 street cats, and the population basically dies (of disease/poisoning/shooting/starvation) every 1-2 years and is replaced by new births. There are millions of homeless animals in Turkey alone, and it's smaller than Texas.

      Countries like Brazil, India, Jamaica, Indonesia, etc. have similar situations. Even if all breeding is stopped in the USA, and every American family is forced to adopt from shelters, this is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions of homeless dogs & cats around the world.

    2. "but a good dog breeder is an angel who knowingly loses money in the effort to develop healthier, better-structured, and longer-living dogs."

      Why is there this "thing" that a good dog breeder loses money? What is wrong with a good dog breeder making money? If you're losing money after all of the work, effort and energy you put into a litter, you're not doing something right. I'd personally want my breeder rewarded for a job well done. Being a good business person on top of being a good breeder does not make you a puppymill.

    3. Absolutely right, Knotty Dogs. It has always struck me as nonsensical that you have to lose money to qualify as a good dog breeder. There's nothing wrong in turning a profit per se; indeed I might worry that those that consistently lose money might not be able to afford the highest standard of husbandry, health tests etc.

      I feel the same about rescues. Have heard of too many that are run on such a pittance that the dogs suffer.

    4. I too don't understand why a good breeder has to lose money, unless they're taking into account the money spent on food, holiday kennels and veterinary fees over the course of the dog's lifespan, then presumably the breeder would not make money.

    5. Not every good dog breeder has to lose money to be a good breeder of course; it depends a little on the breed as well and its actual health issues within the population I think. For instance, I just happen to work together with a French Bulldog breeder; this lady really concerns about health, which means only very few dogs enter her breeding program ; just in brief, she checks the dogs at the age of about two, she does a CT scan to check brachy and spine; the result is, out of 10 dogs, about three pass her test. Additionally finding proper males with at least an X ray of the spine provided to her, checking them en nature if they can move like normal dogs, breath like normal dogs also when running - without nearly collapsing when its just a little warmer - has also proven to be quite a challenge. Honestly, it would highly surprise me if she really would not lose money on that journey. Nevertheless, in general I am all with you, a good breeder can earn money and should earn money.

    6. At Knotty Dogs, it's the whole "adopt don't shop" motto that big corporate rescues use like PeTA. And a lot of people buy the propaganda. I do support rescues, but only local independently ran rescues. I also own a pedigree Rat Terrier and hope to have pedigree dogs all throughout my lifetime. To lose such amazing dogs (any dog breed) it would be devastating.

    7. Why should a good breeder have to lose money? I'm willing to pay what I consider a reasonable price for a properly bred puppy in my breed and if the breeder makes money on that litter why would I care? They are meeting my standards, which isn't easy.


    8. I can see the point that ethical breeders do deserve to at least not LOSE money for their time and knowledge investment. However, I think making any profit from breeding can soon turn into a slippery slope. I prefer dealing with breeders who are financially solvent from totally unrelated careers and breed as an avocation.

    9. Breeders only lose money if they expect to offset their OWN dog hobbies with their puppies, which is not reasonable. i.e. if you expect a litter to pay for the cost of the bitch plus her lifetime supply of food plus all the shows you go to plus the stud fee, then that is not a reasonable expectation to have and you "lose money."

      If you expect the cost of the litter to more than offset the breeding fee + vet visit + extra food for pregnant/nursing bitch + vaccines/worming/food for the pups, then you might do all right.

      I've not bred, but when I look at the numbers (here in the U.S., $1200 is not unreasonable to pay for a single well-bred puppy from a relatively easy to find breed on the East Coast) that's what I come up with.

    10. but if we are talking economics and business calculations, a breeder would have to offset the upkeep of the dogs they breed from, and this would be taken into account before they were considered to be making a proffit. Even if the upkeep of the breeding stock was only allowed for their breeding life (pet status after 8 years of age). Car manufacturers offset all the shows they take part in, and the sponsorship into racing etc. Mainataining the dogs accomodations, wear and tear on the home, vehicle etc are all things that would be offset in a business sense. It is estimated that it costs some £10000 - £15000 to keep a dog through it's life, so many breeders are making a huge loss when they keep all their breeding animals for life (you can't maintain a breedign line without ending up withless than 4- 6 dogs). Any fortunate profit after litter expenses on the sale of even the maximum allowed four litters will not pay for the bitches upkeep in msot breeds. Those breeders who take the expensive route of importing, or travelling for new bloodlines will invariably make a loss on thsoe litters.

  10. Yep, am very well known for being totally spineless when it comes to my views on dog breeders...

    Please note that your comment was published, Anon. We are happy to debate the issues here as long as it's done with reasonable civility and intelligence - or at least a modicum of wit.

    NB: that last proviso is quite an important one.


  11. This latest post of yours I think is a case of Pot callin the Kettle..............!

  12. The human mind is an amazing thing. It can produce good thoughts and it can produce bad. What defines good and bad lies within said mind and thus we come to the problem.

  13. There will always be some who grab the words you written when they think they fit their personal agenda and ignore the rest. It is inevitable. That doesn't mean others haven't understood what you've said, they're just busy trying to address the problem and work out some viable solutions instead of setting up rabid internet pages.


  14. Jemima, I posted in your defense, and my post was left up. However, I can't say much about the replies...

  15. No jemima you only like it when it's your chums belittling someone else. 4 comments of mine you have no published as it does not agree with you and one you've published and then removed with no explanation, I have screen shotted all of the past comments for future reference. So you have no truth in your claim of I print a'll comments.

    1. And what are you going to do with those screenshots, Anon? Make up a dossier and complain to the Blogger police?

      I think you'll find that I said that I post "most" comments slagging me off, Anon, not all. I do allow most of yours through, too, of course (yep, not that hard to spot...) but do sometimes draw the line at those that divert from the core discussion or boringly just repeat claims that have been discussed a thousand times before. Given how often you comment here, not letting through 4 or 5 of yours ain't that many proportionally, is it?

      This morning, for interest, I have not let through two posts from people hauling out one of the above commenters for their bad spelling as I think that's a bit petty/unkind.

    2. Well as I've only commented 10 times maybe 12 thats half of my posts amend I would hardly say agreeing with someone else's post is repetition but hey ho whatever suits you eh. You will never learn that you get more done being kind and not trying to take the pee and be a smart arse cos eventually you will land on it.

    3. hahaha.....blogger police! Love it.....made my day.

    4. And that is exactly the point. My post got deleted agreeing with the Halloween post, yet there is always room for your peons posts looking like you have the monopoly on fanboys. Shame it's only ever the same 5 fanboys.

  16. You're doing a great job Jemima, this is what really makes people think. And some may not be accustomed to it, but at least they learn ;)

  17. They've also missed the point that responsible dog breeders do not contribute to the shelter problem in two ways: they are very careful about whom they place their puppies with and, they will take the puppy back at any time with no questions asked.

    This means the dogs are more likely to be placed in good homes, but should there ever be a change of circumstances or the home doesn't work out, the puppy will still stay out of the shelter system.

    I understand breeders develop a 'nose' for poor owners, in the same way that rescue workers do.

    There are excellent breeders out there, many of whom will have homes lined-up for their puppies before the litter is even born. It's just unfortunate that because they don't need to advertise, it's very hard to find them initially.

  18. So, this FB page wants to end dog breeding until all shelter dogs have a home? I presume that includes the huge numbers of bull breeds clogging up shelters? - meaning the majority of owners will end-up with a breed totally unsuited to their lifestyle, resulting in misery for both dog and owner! Hmmm, they've really thought that one through...

    They're missing the point as to why these dogs end-up in shelters in the first place. A lot of this is down to a mismatch between the owner's desired breed and the breed they're actually capable of caring for. For example, they may opt for a high-energy gundog or herding breed, because they love the temperament and biddability, when really they should be getting a Chihuahua or a very old retired-Greyhound that's happy with a quick on-lead walk around the block.

    Additionally, most people are still clueless about training and look to TV 'dog trainers' on how to train their dog, with disastrous consequences.

    Too many people take on a 'cute' puppy and then either quickly lose interest, or wonder what's hit them when said bundle becomes an obnoxious teenager. They're now putting-up with a dog that has discovered how exciting the world is, at the same time as developing selective deafness. Adolescent dogs are most likely to end-up in a shelter, so perhaps more should be done to educate new owners about the trials and tribulations of owning an adolescent dog? If more people realised that, like people, dogs grow-out of this phase, maybe fewer would end-up in rescue. This particularly applies to lurchers, judging by the numbers in rescue - they're very easy dogs as adults, but make for the most godawful teenagers. :)

    1. Fran, those are such good points. I totally agree.

      I've read that approx. 25-70% of dogs in U.S. shelters (depending on location) are adult pit bulls or other bully breeds. These are NOT suitable dogs for 99% of families.

      Many of the remaining dogs are elderly or have health or temperament issues. Many shelters approve food-aggressive or dog-aggressive dogs for adoption, but these are still dangerous pets that pose a liability to the public. Other shelter dogs are too small to live safely with kids (e.g. Chihuahuas). It's increasingly difficult in American urban areas for people to find appropriate shelter dogs for families with kids.

      I've owned, trained and competed with a dozen dogs of ten breeds over the years. Some were a good match, but most had a "fatal flaw" that would have had other owners marching them off to the shelter. One pulled so hard on leash, he broke a friend's wrist. One was aggressive to strange dogs and strange people, though never bit anybody hard enough to break the skin. One barked 24/7 at anything that made a sound within a mile of the house. One was a 14 lb. winning obedience dog who killed 200 animals in his life, including 6 cats (all were animals that jumped over our 5' electrified fence).

      My current dog is an 8 lb. Papillon. If I was empress of the world, I would decree that anybody who wanted a dog (and had no criminal conviction for dog/human abuse) could have a Papillon. They are the most sweet-natured, easy-to-care-for, non-barky, non-aggressive dogs on earth. Suitable for virtually any family (though not suitable for young kids that could fall on it). Anybody wanting a non-Papillon breed would need a special license and classes to qualify. They would also have to have a Papillon as their first dog. Because I think after people would try a Pap, they would give up their notion of getting a more difficult breed. :-)

    2. About Papillons . . . "They are the most sweet-natured, easy-to-care-for, non-barky, non-aggressive dogs on earth. Suitable for virtually any family."

      I have a great enjoyment for the Papillon breed but I would never own one as they are not suited for MY ownership style, and I own small dogs. I don't find Papillons terribly easy to care for or non-barky in comparison to the mutts I own, as an example, as Papillons tend to be more active and have more drive.

      Just wanted to put that out there for those who would go running for a Papillon without doing their homework first. I have had to help rehome a couple of Papillons because their activity level was higher than expected.


    3. I'll give you that--Paps are very active. Mine requires that balls be thrown with one hand all day while I'm typing with the other hand.

      I mainly wanted to make the point that a 4-8 lb. dog is not going to make a lot of trouble for the typical family or for society. A dog like this would be highly unlikely to damage/kill a person or another dog; it's impossible for them to take things off kitchen counters; they can't chew through walls, doors and floors (like large breeds I know with separation anxiety); they can't leap over chain link fences; they are inexpensive to feed; they have small amounts of wasted to dispose of outdoors; any indoor barking is likely to be quiet enough that neighbors won't notice; they can't pull on leash very much, so can be walked by a child or elderly adult, etc.

    4. S.K.Y. Glad you've found a breed that suits, but I'll stick with my lazy sighthounds. They may be a bit of a pain to train, but they're really easy dogs in the house. :) They're happy to go for really long walks, but they don't need them like the high-energy breeds do; so long as they get to run, they're happy.

    5. I actually know a papillon that has chewed through a wall. Mine hasn't chewed through a wall but she's pulled up quite a lot of carpeting once when she got bored. And ate my glasses. And I could go on...

      If we were to tally up the damage from my last papillon versus the other 13 dogs I've lived with... the papillon would win.

      I agree they're an easy breed but no breed is perfect for everyone.

    6. And yes unfortunately I have known quite a few paps that have been rehomed because of the activity level. And equally unfortunate for the breed I also see a lot of all breed websites gloss over or significantly underestimate the amount of work and exercise a typical papillon will need.

      On the flip side, I'd never have another small breed. I'm on my 7th papillon. They're such joys.

      Just throwing that out there in case people think they're the perfect breed.

  19. So Jemima, this lot are hi-jacking your campaign to support their extremism. Isn't that a bit like the Nazi's (as featured in PDE1), claiming their genocide was supported by Eugenics (and Christianity)? I gather you wisely deleted the Nazi footage (Krystallnacht was it?) from the overseas version. PDE is discredited by IHDB as much as the KC was by the Nazi holocaust, i.e. not at all.
    Actually, if you look at their message the right way, there is something you could learn JH. I think it says this is a trolls' group; by trying to inject some common sense you are merely feeding the trolls. Better leave them alone with their fantasies.
    To try and understand IHDB's point of view, stop breeding dogs? May as well say people should stop having babies until all orphanages are empty. Perhaps the idea that PDE supports IHDB stems from its attacks on show breeders. OK they have rules, regulations and standards that are mostly observed, so PDE has more chance of making progress there than in other sections of the dog world less open to scrutiny. But if show breeders are the bad guys, who are the good guys, puppy mills? byb's? There are none, say IHDB. That's where logic takes you, if you start from the wrong place.

  20. I would hope that everyone would at least check out I Love Responsible Breeders on Facebook and see what we have to say.

    (Not my page but I'm helping to admin)

    I only discovered ILRB because I wrote a calm, sensible and logical post on the IHDB page about why the rantings of IHDB were very much one-sided and didn't tell the whole story, not by far. Within 1 MINUTE my post was removed and I was banned from posting further. Sad, very sad.

    And they created that 'Don't Feed the Trolls' badge as a way to fight back at us, since we were calling them out on censoring folks who wanted to express a different viewpoint. They can scream and beat their fists all they like - we have logical and truthful evidence to the contrary and furthermore we try to be kind and we DO NOT CENSOR people.

    Crazy crazy! But thanks for writing up your experience.

    Joanna Reichert

  21. What an attitude Anonymous!

    "Wow, got no back bone there huh? We don't need more dogs while millions are dying. There is nothing reputable or responsible about adding to the overpopulation. You just made yourself look really deperate. But thanks for exposing all these greedy breeder anyways. ;)"

    What in the WORLD are you going on about??

    What are you talking about, no backbone? Who are you addressing and how did someone not show backbone? The only person I see hiding behind anonymity is YOU because you don't want to take any real responsibility for your words and actions. That is true of any troublemaker online - they can scream and get hackles up and they're safe behind their lil' computer screen.

    In fact it IS responsible to continue breeding HEALTHY dogs so that when a need for a healthy, stable dog arises, good golly there are actually a few to choose from. Why is eliminating inherited disease and poor temperaments from the population a BAD thing?

    You want to meet a greedy breeder, start visiting puppy mills and responding to Craigslist ads. You'll meet some real unethical people that way.

    Let's insert some logic here. You've said that we don't need any more dogs while millions are dying. That is the go-to argument by any animal rights group. How is that viewpoint logical? Seriously, put rhetoric and emotions aside for a minute. How is this logical? What exactly are you recommending? Are you recommending that ALL breeding be stopped? For how long? 2 years? 10 years? Forever? At what point do you think it appropriate to start breeding again? And if we stopped breeding for a period of time and our BEST dogs got older and beyond the ethical and sensible age of breeding . . . . whoops, we're done out of dogs!

    Sorry Mr. Military Man. I know you needed a dog of good health and sharp wits to help you find bombs and enemies. But here's a dsyplastic dog with cataracts who has no drive. Surely you can make him work for you - after all, you 'adopted' him and so he'll love you forever!

    Sorry Mr. Farmer Man. I know you needed a dog of good health and sharp wits to help you keep your livestock in line, to keep predators away and to be able to think independently for the livelihood of your herds. But here's a hyperactive dog who is fear-aggressive with high prey drive. Surely you can make him work for you - after all, you 'adopted' him and so he'll love you forever!

    . . . . . are you getting my point yet?

    YES - we need to stop this mass euthanization happening across the country. But the way to accomplish that is through EDUCATION. Educating people on WHY it's bad to breed their Muffypookins because "she's pretty" or "the kids need to witness birth" or "I'm broke" or "she'd be such a good mommy." Educating people on WHY it's important to choose a dog for LIFE instead of throwing it away when its needs clash with your desire to be selfish. Educating people on WHY it's awful to support puppy mills and you should never buy a dog through a pet store.

    EDUCATION is the key. Behaving like a tyrannical control freak is not.

    1. Excellent post, Joanna.

    2. Joanna you make a clear and cogent case for working dogs, and same applies to pets. Before people can adopt a child from a care home they must pass all kinds of checks, to ensure they are up to the challenge of repairing the emotional damage of the circumstances that put the child into care. While anyone can keep their own child; it is assumed we will bring them up with TLC because that's what we're programmed to do.

      To take in a rescue dog, like a care home kid, not everyone has the desire or ability - 100% respect to those that do. Buying a pup from a good breeder, you spend time with its mum and if it has a decent pedigree you know it will grow up pretty much like her. You make an informed decision to buy, and then get after-sales support if needed: much more like bringing up your own child. That is, of course, if you're an educated buyer. As you say Joanna, EDUCATION.

      Actually thinking back, my own children never ate my shoes. But then the dogs have never wrecked our car, I guess that makes them even.

    3. @Bob: "While anyone can keep their own child; it is assumed we will bring them up with TLC because that's what we're programmed to do."

      Not if the statistics are anything to go by: according to a 2005 study, 79.4% of abused children are abused by their own parents.

      People are hoodwinked by the cute baby smiles and celebrity bumps; when the reality is relentless rounds of vomit, nappies and early morning feeds, not to mention the torture of sleep deprivation.

      The trouble with people is that they're not very good at determining what will make them happy; they think the cute puppy will do the job, but the reality often doesn't live up to their expectations.

    4. Fran: baby vomit, nappies, tell me about it, I've raised 4 of them! (With a little help from my wife). Isn't the important statistic the % of ALL children abused by parents?

      Anyway my point is that some buy a pup as Xmas prezzy for junior, then when summer hols come along find puppy arrangements too much hassle and it gets dumped. Stop THEM buying by all means, but don't tar with the same brush those who want a puppy to grow up with them, know what they want(and what they're letting themselves in for), and do what they can to see they get it. Such owners may not take dogs out of rescue, but nor do they put them in there without good reason.

    5. @Bob: If certain people can't take care of their own children, despite thousands of years of evolutionary programming on their side, then it's hardly surprising that so many dogs end-up in rescue.

      However, I agree, all because some people can't look after their children/pets, it doesn't mean others should be penalised.

  22. Jemina or what ever your name is YOU MADAM are a LIAR!!! I am one of the admin of that page and NO ONE EVER SAW ANY post of yours! Also, you took the troll picture off our page! If your going to launch an argument at least tell the truth!! You NEVER POSTED ON OUR PAGE!!! NEVER EVER!! LIAR! The only reason I came to find this page is because someone just inboxed us with a link!!! LIAR!! God forgive you for lying!

    1. Why would she lie? I imagine she has far more productive things to do with her time, like rescuing dogs...

      Conversely, your vitriol just makes it sound like her post might have a grain of truth in it.

      BTW, how many rescue dogs have you helped to rescue over the past few years? I take it that is what you do with your time?

    2. Nobody saw it because naysayers are censored within seconds of posting.

      I welcome anyone who wants to learn about the good side of dog breeding to visit our page:

    3. Anonymous at 17:11, is it possible that a glich is deleting comments to your site at random?

      Reposting Jemima's comment with a note that you believe it was removed by a facebok glich and a header on your site saying you believe there appears to be a problem with comments being deleted at random and encouraging users to repost if their comments are not visible after 24 hours and contacting a mod or facebook tech support may help. You could also contact facebook technical support yourself and ask they examine your site for problems.


    4. Don't be fooled by "I love responsible dog breeders", they only love purebred dog breeders, not truly responsible ones.

    5. Which means purebred or mixed in my opinion, sorry.

    6. We support mix breeds bred for a reason. Working breeds are often mixed.

    7. Christina23 November 2012 03:00 spewed without thinking:

      "We support mix breeds bred for a reason. Working breeds are often mixed."

      SELECTIVE BREEDING IS SELECTIVE BREEDING. ETHICAL BREEDING IS ETHICAL BREEDING. No matter whether the breeder is producing crosses or purebreds. Or for what purpose.

      My last litter was a purebred Saluki litter, co-bred with a person who is very into conformation shows. The bitch that went to my co-breeder finished her championship with very limited showing. I got what I wanted out of that litter, what I *planned for.*

      My litter before that was mixed breed, 3/4 Afghan, 1/4 Saluki. The same thinking process and health/temperament/function criteria, adjusted for breed, went into that litter as into the purebred litter. I didn't put my ethics aside when I bred that litter or placed the pups I didn't keep.

      My dogs are not 'working dogs,' by which I mean that if I did not have a job for them to do, I would not own them. They get to chase bunnies when the weather is good, but they are, first and foremost, pets. Breeding 'working' or 'competition' dogs is not a more noble purpose than simply breeding dogs that will be pets.

      I don't have the gumption today to have the same stupid argument with some unthinking moron with double standards that make no logical sense, so I'll just direct you to my standard answer to that kind of nonsensical garbage.

    8. "They get to chase bunnies when the weather is good, but they are, first and foremost, pets. Breeding 'working' or 'competition' dogs is not a more noble purpose than simply breeding dogs that will be pets."

      I strongly disagree. Each to his own.

      You seem rather defensive about this.

    9. I am strongly defensive about this as well Christina. The very defined 'work' of companionship is a trait that has been bred for within certain breed groups (the companion breeds)for thousands of years. Why are you dismissing these very important traits as if selection for specific companionship traits is LESS important than the selection for working or sport competition traits? I am a longtime lover of 'companion' only breeds and mixes.

      There is no logic to this . . . just prejudice and bias toward traits you favor as most important.


    10. Our breeds, bred through history for refined and specialized companionship traits are the Japanese Chin, the Pekingese, the Tibetan Spaniel, the English Toy Spaniel, the Papillon, the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel . . .(I'm sure there are many I've missed).

      There are currently NOT companion bred pure breeds that can be sourced that have a relatively good chance at lifelong good health and that suit the phenotypic and behavioural demands I have for a pet - so I currently have mixed breeds supplied by a PET breeder who health tests, cares for her dogs well and backs her pups for life. I value her greatly. When health is better sorted in a certain breed I might have it back again.

      It is a shame IMHO that a ILRDB group would be so prejudice they would deliberately exclude her. That is not a group I could support as I LOVE ALL RESPONSIBLE DOG BREEDERS, without a bias.

    11. Christina24 November 2012 11:53 splurted:

      "I strongly disagree. Each to his own."

      Are you in the US? Please read on and you will see exactly how your nonsensical belief system plays out.

      "You seem rather defensive about this."

      And this is why. I strongly suggest you read the whole thing. Because the kind of tribal gobbledygook 'beliefs' that the I Love Responsible Dog Breeders and their ilk spout, which are nothing more than attempts to distinguish themselves from 'those other breeders', will come right back and bite them (and me) in the ass.

      "The breeders who breed dogs for conformation shows are held up as the end all, be all, the True Responsible Breeders, regardless of the fact that they represent only a tiny portion of dog breeders. Look at any ‘how to spot a responsible breeder’ list or breed book, and you will be advised to seek out a breeder who shows. This has a terrible effect on proposed and passed legislation here in the United States. The defining characteristics of the ‘responsible breeder’ are directly responsible for much of the language in restrictive breeding legislation. The anti-breeding contingent is very clever about using the ‘ingroups‘ very in-ness against them, because they are guaranteed to sound reasonable to people who look up to, but aren’t part of, that ingroup."

      Seriously, read the whole thing. You might learn something. Something else you might think about: my purebred litter, by your definition, has a right to exist, because it was bred with the oh so noble goal of producing a 'show dog.' The cross litter does not. Bred by the same breeder, born and raised under the same conditions, placed with the same care and under the same contract.

      Doublethink much?

    12. Pulled directly from the rather…contradictory 'everything you wanted to know about breeders document on the I Love 'Responsible' Dog Breeders FB page:

      "• Breeds with a purpose.
      Responsible Breeders are breeding for the whole package - good looks, a good brain, and good health.  Responsible Breeders breed to produce terrific working dogs and terrific companion dogs."

      Thought you said 'pets' wasn't a purpose? Isn't a 'companion dog' a pet? Why don't you say what you really mean, then, as evidenced by your comments here on the PDE blog: we support breeders who breed competition or working animals only. If you want a pet, you will have to find a pup from one of these very few breeders, that doesn't meet their criteria for competition or work, because breeding to supply the pet market, the huge, gigantic pet market, the market that comprises what most dogs in the Western world are bred for, is inherently UNETHICAL. Of course, we can't articulate exactly WHY it's unethical, you will just have to trust us on that."

      On working dogs, from the same document:

      "Now all of this being said, there is a class of mixed breed dog that has a solid place.  We're talking about working dogs, bred specifically for a serious need.  These dogs are represented by lurchers (sighthound/herding dog cross) for hunting, Belgian shepherd/German shepherd dog/Belgian Malinois crosses for precise police and military work, American bulldog x Catahoula Leapord dog/Plott hound mixes for hunting traditionally in the southern states of the US.  There are other mixes but these are the most common.  These types of dogs are bred from healthy, tested stock by working people and are sold to working people.  With the exception of Unethical Breeder getting on the bandwagon and irresponsible people throwing the dogs away, these sort of dogs have a great life, doing what they were bred to do."

      As a breeder of longdogs (sighthound crosses), I have spent a goodly amount of time interacting with other breeders of longdogs and lurchers. I know a number of people who also breed hog dogs and cur dogs. *Based on my own experience* there are very, very few longdog or lurcher breeders who health test, and very few who meet the 'responsible' breeder criteria of contracts, careful placement, and taking dogs that don't work out back. I am one of only two longdog breeders that is involved in the 'big' Saluki mailing list, and I am one of the few who participates on FB groups, or even in the 'fancy' at all. There are many longdog/lurcher breeders of my acquaintance that, while I certainly respect their knowledge and experience, I would never sell a dog to. Frankly, I'd rather sell to a pet home that I know will honor my contract.

      I guess that's okay, though, according to the ILRDB page, because they produce dogs for work, not 'just' for pets.

      Also from the ILRDB page, the 'about' section:

      "Responsible breeders are careful about the placement of their dogs in pet or show/working homes."

      Unless, of course, you are breeding for the pet market. Then you suck, no matter how you health test or how careful you about placing your pups.

      Maybe you can explain to me how such restrictive criteria for being 'responsible' is any better than just assuming that ALL dog breeders are greedy bastards.

    13. Jess, I agree with you about pet owners wanting dogs that have been bred specifically as suitable companions. I also like cross-breeds, so long as they're from health-tested stock and placed in caring homes.

      This isn't a criticism of pet breeders, it's something I've puzzled over for some time: I don't know anything about breeding, so I would genuinely like to understand how breeders who breed dogs as pets, manage to maintain the dogs physical attributes. For example, a working dog is only as good as its feet. As a pet breeder, how do you know your stock have good feet, if the soundness of the foot hasn't been proven working in the field? How do you then prevent the quality of your breeding stock's feet from degenerating over time, if the soundness of each generation is not continually put to the test? We know from conformation showing that when dogs are bred for looks rather than ability, their abilities can quickly be lost; this makes me wonder if the same could happen to dogs bred as companions?

      Sound conformation is important to me, even as a pet owner of sighthound breeds. I want my dog to be able to run around through woods and uneven fields, without keep sustaining injuries due to poorly-knuckled feet and/or weak tendons. For example, my retired Greyhound has paws that are designed for sprinting over the soft sand of the racetrack; she therefore sustains injuries far more easily than my half-show, half-working bred Whippet. [As an aside, I know lurcher breeders frequently add working-bred Bearded Collie to the mix because they have such fantastic, all-terrain feet.]

    14. Fran27 November 2012 10:04 wrote:

      "This isn't a criticism of pet breeders, it's something I've puzzled over for some time: I don't know anything about breeding, so I would genuinely like to understand how breeders who breed dogs as pets, manage to maintain the dogs physical attributes."

      Let me turn that question around for you: how do working breeders maintain the proper physical attributes they want? How do show breeders maintain the traits they want?


      Selective breeding is selective breeding. Period. If you are not selecting for a trait, you may lose it, or you may actively be selecting against it. ANY TRAIT.

      ANY dog breeder, no matter what the dogs are bred for, should be breeding for dogs with a temperament typical for the breed, durable sound construction, and a strong, healthy constitution. Just because a breeder is producing pets does not mean they are not actively SELECTING traits to carry on, to improve, to remove or mitigate. Degeneration due to poor selection or not selecting for or against specific traits or placing emphasis on the wrong traits can happen with ANY kind of breeding (I own Afghan hounds, I *know* this.) It is up to the puppy buyer to ask to the right questions, depending on what they *want* out of a puppy. And that goes for any puppy buyer, regardless of what they want the dog for.

      Even rigorous selection will not always work; I owned a Greyhound that never raced because he had no chase instinct, he was 'retired' before two years of age. One of the blogs I read features a herding breed bred for dog sports that is constantly injured and has awful feet. SELECTION is paramount. ANY time a breeder chooses two dogs to breed together, they are selecting, whether they understand that or not. It is up to the puppy buyer to make sure the breeder they choose to buy from is selecting for things the buyer wants out of their dog.

  23. "Jemina or what ever your name is YOU MADAM are a LIAR!!! I am one of the admin of that page and NO ONE EVER SAW ANY post of yours! Also, you took the troll picture off our page! If your going to launch an argument at least tell the truth!! You NEVER POSTED ON OUR PAGE!!! NEVER EVER!! LIAR! The only reason I came to find this page is because someone just inboxed us with a link!!! LIAR!! God forgive you for lying!"

    One of the strengths of the I Hate Dog Breeders community is that they are able to fight their battles with facts, logic, and poise.

    Oh wait.

    1. example of a digital hissy fit.

      "One of the strengths of the I Hate Dog Breeders community is that they are able to fight their battles with facts, logic, and poise."

      ..poise??? A relative term, certainly.

    2. Christina, JH is a big girl, knows her way around the schoolyard, and needs no defence from us. That said, I believe her to misinterpret facts, distort them, select to suit her argument, but NEVER to outright make them up. Even if he's not removed posts, how's he so sure his colleagues haven't? In fact his tone raises the suspicion that his deliberate aim was to provoke JH into censorship.

      If so, the ploy has backfired. That "comment" is now out there, and saying far more about its author than it says about JH.

    3. I was being sarcastic folks. I am a page admin and page creator for "I Love Responsible Dog Breeders".

  24. On the plus side they have at least said that you can repost your original post now if you wish.

    "I welcome them to repost without caps or foul language and lets discuss their concerns as long as it stays professional & doesn't get out of hand."

    1. What they actually mean is:

      "I welcome them to repost without caps or foul language (which we will use because we are hypocritical) and let's discuss their concerns as long as they fall within our own realm of thinking and don't go against our views."

      I have posted more polite messages on several different accounts and all of them were deleted within seconds because they didn't jive with the "hate group" message. This page is a travesty.

    2. Well I do have to doubt there sincerity on this point myself considering the excessive amount of caps an admin of the page has decided to abuse a few comments about mine.

  25. Thank goodness I'm a cat lover.

    1. That's not typical of dog lovers either - they're too full of hate.

    2. Wait till there's a programme made about the deformities of pedigree cat breeds, Anon!

  26. They deleted mine too when I made the same points...

  27. It scares me a lot that 7,828 like that page..

  28. I'm so tired of the anti pedigree dog/cat movement. All these celebrities walking around with rescues , trying to make some statement. I do support and love independent rescues, but I am tired of the whole thing where rehoming and rescuing animals are being treated like it's some fashion statement. It reminds me of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with adopting an African American child. It's like they're saying "Hey, look at us and our black baby, were not racists." It's more about the statement than it really is for the love of whatever anything may be. It's so devastating to me that people out in this world, for god whatever reason are high jacking your film. Which was only looking out for the welfare of pedigree dogs.

    1. Actually, I think they adopted an African child, not African-American...

    2. Oops. thank you for correcting me.

  29. These people are the same sorts as PETA and Al Qaeda -- terrorists and hatemongers who don't genuinely love animals (or Islam) but are mere misanthropists who abhor that other people are entitled to freedoms they have chosen to eschew in favour of brainwashing from a cult.

    Dogs from shelters are a great choice if you want a mongrel or a very common breed. But let's not forget breeds are part of our history and culture, and without breeders, we wouldn't have them. I'm saddened by how many people seem to agree that endangered wild species should be preserved, yet pour vitriol on dog breeders struggling to keep alive rare breeds, or farmers farming rare breed farm animals.

    1. Even breeders of rare heavy working breeds know that in order to survive, the breed has to find some kind of suitable work. The small numbers of breed lovers aren't enough to prevent a breed from sliding into extinction - the horse needs a job to do in order to keep numbers up.

      The problem with some breeds of dogs is that their 'job' is no longer required, e.g. the Otterhound. I have no problem with people preserving breeds, so long as it's not done to the detriment of the dog's gene pool. If an outcross to a different breed is necessary due to a small gene pool, I would like to think they wouldn't hesitate in doing such a cross.

      Some breeds may be unpopular due to a lack of media interest, however, I'm sure there are others that are unpopular due to size or characteristics of that breed of dog. If this is coupled with a conformation that is detrimental to the health of the dog, then TBH I would have no problem with that breed changing significantly or dying out altogether. I, for one, would have no problem in watching the Pug or Peke, as they are now, become extinct.

    2. Oops, I was talking about horses in my first paragraph!

  30. Fran. I am glad you are only "one' but sadly I ma sure you are not alone. I want to see no dog breeds become extinct. There are many Pugs and Pekes who live perfectly wonderful lives with owners and breeders who care very much for their breed.
    You might fit in well with the IHDB page.. They too would love to see "breeds" extinct.. but I am not sure what they want in place of "breeds" or who they want to breed whatever it is they are pushing..
    Is anyone surprised that IHDB touts PDE as great? I am not. When a "documentary" pushes a microphone in the face of a person who worked for the Kennel Club and asks.. "Would you have a baby with your own daughter" and compares that to dog breeding is it any wonder that extremists would support that point of view? Is it any wonder that a program that has a head of the RSPCA say that dogs shows are a "parade of mutants" that an extremist groups would not jump on that? Any wonder that a quote like "the dog are falling apart' would not be used by extremists like IHDB to show that dog breeders are evil? This same group supports and encourages membership in ALF one of the most radical animal rights groups in the world.
    Lie down with dogs.. get up with fleas..

    1. From what you're saying, I can only presume that you're perfectly happy then for these dogs to spend their lives having to put up with the pain and discomfort from luxating patellas, brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, collapsing tracheas, skinfold dermatitis, cherry eye and hemivertebrae?

      There possibly are a few Pugs and Pekes who manage to live fairly normal lives, free of too many side-effects of their breeding, but what of the many more who live miserable lives, encumbered by the faults of their breeding? Compared to the total they breed, how many do even the 'reputable' breeders manage to breed free of these defects? If the vast majority of their dogs live healthy lives, free of physical defects and that can breathe freely even during walks on a hot day, then great, but unless their Pugs and Pekes are vastly different to the ones I've seen, I somehow doubt it.

      Let's not forget that brachycephalic dogs also can't signal properly to other dogs, therefore are frequently attacked because, to another dog, they just don't look normal!

    2. There are quite a few breeds where I don't think it is ethical to breed them anymore. The chance of the offspring leading miserable lives due to their inherent defects is just too great. The health and wellbeing of the individual dogs is far more important to me than a dog looking a certain way.

  31. I completely agree with you. Not too long before you posted and had your post removed I had posted telling people why they were not for the good breeders (saying they were PeTA activists, PeTA doesn't want pets to exist at all, and that is a fact) and how I agreed with them that the page was extremeist and ridiculous. I told other people my experiences as a dog breeder, taking puppies back, microchipping, even picked up a stud at the shelter who had escaped his previous home, as well as what I felt after volunteering at a dog shelter (which was not "I hate the breeder" or "I feel bad for breeding dogs" it was "What the hell was this woman doing getting a dog in the first place?"). I didn't even try to argue with them, was merely stating my views and opinions. They told me to "Stop spreading my crap" and I responded with "You keep spreading your crap I keep spreading mine, the world keeps spinning" my response was "Nope, your crap stops now. Bye bye."

    Yeah. These people do not allow other views and are purely propaganda. Now they are defending themselves and trying to look like the victim. Pitiful at best.

  32. wow... two types of crazeeeeee comments on one post...
    Please be assured that us sane dog fanciers still support you and your good workJemima!

  33. "There possibly are a few Pugs and Pekes who manage to live fairly normal lives, free of too many side-effects of their breeding, but what of the many more who live miserable lives, encumbered by the faults of their breeding? Compared to the total they breed, how many do even the 'reputable' breeders manage to breed free of these defects?"

    Spot on.

    If you have a breed standard that tinkers on the fine line of possibly creating problems the chances are you will create problems.

  34. "can only presume that you're perfectly happy then for these dogs to spend their lives having to put up with the pain and discomfort from luxating patellas, brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome, collapsing tracheas, skinfold dermatitis, cherry eye and hemivertebrae? " and
    "Let's not forget that brachycephalic dogs also can't signal properly to other dogs, therefore are frequently attacked because, to another dog, they just don't look normal!

    you mean like these ?
    or these:

    oh look dogs attacking pekes and pugs because they don't look "normal..not.. what a ridiculous statement.. how do you know what dogs think "looks normal".
    These dogs are running and playing just like "normal dogs"because.. they ARE normal dogs. They just do not all look alike.. you see the glass half empty.. these dogs see the glass half full.. and so so I.
    PETA, HSUS and IHDB and now ALF love PDE because of the statements made in the "film".. there was no balance .. and so why wouldn't these radical and uber radical nut jobs use the statements "The dogs are falling apart".. and " Parade of mutants.. and "have a baby with your own daughter" plus the Nazi footage to their own advantage. I am sure none of this really surprised the blogger.. after all:
    "There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about."
    Oscar Wilde

    and she understands that in spades.

    1. Seeing as you clearly don't believe me about other dogs finding brachycephalic breeds odd-looking, why don't you check with a COAPE-accredited dog behaviourist? Indeed any APDT dog trainer would likely tell you the same thing - seeing as this is how I found out about it; from dog trainers - I suppose they could all be conspiring against these breeds... or it could just be what they've experienced during their tenure as dog trainers.

      Brachycephalic breeds are more likely to be attacked by other dogs - there must be a very good reason for it. Of course, dogs that are socialised with brachycephalic breeds as young puppies, will probably be fine with them - my own dog is, but we had to make a special effort to do so. Although having said that, even well-socialised collies often still react to them.

      BTW, that Peke in the second video, did not make me think, Oh what a healthy looking dog, it made me think, looks like a typical lethargic Peke.

    2. The idea that brachycephalic breeds are more likely to be attacked by other dogs is ridiculous. How do these dogs not look or act like a dog? Yes, their faces are odd when compared to most other dogs, but dogs don't rely so much on facial expressions as they do eye contact and body language which these breeds are fully capable of expressing. I suppose you're of the same school that believe that docked dogs are also incapable of speaking dog because they have a stub for a tail?

  35. Mine dont like them and never have...maybe all the snorting I dont know

  36. Here's the thing:

    I don't know how me buying a Corgi puppy has anything to do with the fact that a bunch of macho backyard breeders produce way more pit bulls than the market requires.

    I'm not sure how my buying a puppy does anything to change the fact that someone who got a mutt from a friend whose dog had an unwanted litter never spayed her dog and that dog had another litter of mutts that ended up in a shelter.

    I can't understand how my buying a well-bred puppy has anything to do with the fact that when someone's Gran went into the nursing home, no one in the family would take in her pet-store Pug and it ended up in rescue.

    Nor do I know how my buying a Corgi changes the fact that someone bought a Boxer from a BYB (out of a long line of BYB boxers) out of the classified ads in the paper, and when the untrained Boxer hit 7 months old, its exuberance was predictably too much for their two children under the age of 5 and they left it tied to the mailbox at the county shelter.

    The fact that MY dogs were carefully bred and came from a breeder who has a lifetime take-back policy, and came with a mandatory spay/neuter registration, does not have anything to do with the fact that there are irresponsible owners, or owners whose life circumstances change unpredictably, or puppy mills.

    If I never bought a puppy, all those things above would still happen. And guess what? My lifestyle is not appropriate for a poorly bred pitty, or an exuberant teenaged boxer, and I don't want a senior-citizen pug to go hiking with and do agility with. I don't want a beagle who got lost hunting and ended up 3 counties from home. I don't want a lab-mix who will knock everything off the table with her tail and knock me over when I can't control her because of my arthritis. I don't want a mixed terrier who may try to kill my cat.

    I bought purebred dogs because I wanted a specific size and a specific energy level and a specific tolerance to strange dogs and strange people and pet cats.

    In my OWN part of the country, rescues pull in dogs from all over the rest of the country because our own local supply of unwanted dogs is far short of the demand for rescue dogs. We have multiple private shelters that ship in dogs from the south on a regular basis. It is not MY fault that in certain parts of my country, lots of people don't spay or neuter, and in other parts there are dog-fighting and drug rings that have lots of excess pit bulls.

    And it's not my dogs' breeder's fault either.

    1. But Miss Harrison will twist it to make it the fault of the KC and Show dogs and breeders who register their dogs, but that hows she makes her living BYJ

    2. Well stated, Beth.

      The rescue FANATICS(not regular rescuers, of which I am one) believe that any puppy bred by a breeder is taking up a spot that would otherwise go to an existing homeless dog.

      As you stated, however, many/most shelter dogs are simply not appropriate for families with kids, cats, agility-based lifestyles, etc. It's not a choice between a breeder-bred puppy and a shelter dog, but between a particular purebred and NO DOG AT ALL.

      I got my latest dog from a breeder after spending months trying to adopt a dog from rescue. I couldn't find a single Pap rescue that would allow me to have a dog's patellas checked before adoption... or who would adopt to somebody out of state (even though my house is immaculate and I've been doing dog sports for 35 years)... or who would allow me to wait until 18 months of age to neuter. (Despite my having been involved in dog sports for 35 years, even owning the USA #1 dog of its breed, and not once breeding a litter).

      Many would not allow me to even to express a preference for which of their rescues I was interested in. Saying I wanted a "young dog" so I could train for agility was a way to get automatically blacklisted. The rescues acted like if I had a preference or wouldn't take the neediest dog (including 12 yr. old dogs with multiple health problems), that I was not a "worthy" owner.

      My sister went through exactly the same thing when trying to adopt a Border Collie from rescue. She "failed" at two rescues because she was "insensitive enough" to express an interest in particular dogs. Finally, she was allowed to adopt at a third rescue and got a terrific 6 yr. old dog.

      A friend who competes in high levels of agility tried to adopt a Pap about a year after me, and ran into the same problems. She ended up getting soured on Paps because of this and bought a PyrShep from a breeder instead.

    3. I'm afraid that whilst I used to be pro-rescue, it's unlikely that I will adopt another from a rescue, unless I find one that has policies in-line with my own and I can be confident that the rescue will allow me to decide what is best for my dog.

      I don't want to neuter my entire male, even though I have no intention of ever breeding from him. I read scientific papers on Google Scholar and, from what I can tell, castration increases the risks of too many cancers for my liking. Also, a BVA longevity study on Wikipedia suggests that castrated males have the shortest lifespans of all dogs. Not something I want for my beloved pet. I can fully appreciate that neutering has done wonders for dog population control, but that can be achieved by vasectomies; it doesn't have to be castration.

      Also, most rescues ask you to sign a contract to say that you will booster every year, this is in spite of very good evidence that booster vaccinations are unnecessary: I want to vaccinate my dog based on the best science I can find, not mandated by a rescue with outdated information.

      I feed my dogs a raw diet; I don't want any rescue turning round to me and saying that I can't feed my dogs this kind of diet, especially when I'm the one paying the vet fees (including regular dentals if I have to feed commercial food).

      I don't want a rescue dictating to me what I can and can't do with my own dog.

    4. Beth, great great post. I want to save it and steal it.

  37. hi jemima,
    i posted some things on that page against any dog breeding. i believe there should be a moratorium with a lottery to breed a certain number of each breed. i believe there should be fines and jail time for breaking these rules. i think we should let the non violent pot smokin, pill poppin, drug snortin and shootin criminals out of prison and replace them with owners of large scale puppy mills, back yard puppy mills and the stupid "i can get 200.00 for each my puppies" puppy mill idiots.
    i agree the problem is everywhere, not just low income areas.
    even though i don't agree with you, i do agree that you have your right to freedom of speech and they should have left your post up there and that poster they sent you is so immature it is ridiculous.
    i do my own private rescue along with one other person who helps me find homes for the dogs. i rescue the pound dogs and dogs on their way to the pound. i do not pay for the dogs the dogs that are not in the pound. my funds are depleted every month, and i will be taking little a break when i find homes for the ones i have now. the dogs i foster now are purebred but it just turned out that way. the last dogs i had came to me from a byb at 12 days old because the mother died. of the two i kept one died at 2 and the other at 3. bad breeding.
    okay that's enough. keep blogging. Tippee

    1. Do you also think people should not be allowed to have children because there are children in foster looking for families? Just wondering, because honestly the logic is about the same.

    2. I should add that I don't mean this as a sarcastic question. The point is, we used to have a lot more orphans and wards of the state in the human population. While there are still too many sad cases of children with no homes, the fact is we as a society have done an awful lot of things to lessen that circumstance. And none of them involved telling people they should not have children.

      You can be very active in working to reduce the unwanted pet population, in both big and small ways, and still not be anti-breeder. The one has very little to do with the other, since very few of the pets in the rescue population came from dedicated breeders.

    3. I have been a fellow fosterer - of dogs. I have friends who are foster caregivers for children.

      1/2 of the 400,000+ foster children in the USA annually do not find families. Some are a lifetime in institutionalized care as those who want children have decided to have babies instead of 'fostering' first (and I've known them personally). Do we call a moratorium on human pregnancies until ALL the foster children find homes - even those that have severe difficulties to deal with?

      BTW, those non violent pot smokin, pill poppin, drug snortin and shootin criminals may not be 'violent' in their own actions, but their purchasing habits contribute to violence and death in the drug trade. They are in jail for a reason and should stay there.


  38. Since you own the material, you could report it to FB. They are using your intellectual property without your permission.

  39. On an upbeat note, here are a few articles about carefully-bred dogs helping people with dementia: :)

  40. One concern I have is that my posts can be used by Animal Rights zealots to further their agenda against all breeders and even ownership of dogs and all dog activities.

    But I refuse to play "we vs. they" side by side with unethical and antiquated breeders just because we have a common enemy.

  41. Chrissy Dotson27 June 2013 at 03:57

    While I may not agree with you on the pedigreed dog issue, I posted this link on their fb page and it has so far been up for five minutes. LOL! :)

  42. "Someone had also proudly posted a picture of their rescue dog and how amazing he was. The dog? A Rottweiller..."

    While a purebred dogs are needed for some kind of work, as this German Shepherd is used in police work, there is no need for companion dog to be purebred, cause nobody cultivates a companion qualities in dogs, more of that, it is not needed, cause companion qualities are already out there in all dogs (or, at least, in the vast majority of them). Do you think the person who is proud of his rescue dog rescued him just because it is a Rottweiler?

  43. "You deleted my post? Then please also delete any references to my film on your site. There is something profoundly wrong with groups that do not allow any alternative view to be expressed - especially when it was done gently. Jemima Harrison, Producer/Director Pedigree Dogs Exposed."

    You kicked on the

  44. Everyone has his own point of view about dog breeders but I think this statement "I hate dog breeders" is completely a wrong statement. On the other hand breeders should think about this responsible breeding.