The Backyard Breeder Fallacy

[Novel]

http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/J....Rights_05.asp

The Backyard Breeder Fallacy

by Ms. Jade

I own purebred dogs. Once a year or so I breed a litter from DNA profiled champion stock. For that, I will never apologize as I truly have the best interest of my chosen breed foremost in my mind. Am I an elitist? You betcha! Would I cringe if you went so far as to call me a dog Nazi? No. Serious breeders mate dogs of known background in order to reduce the chances of congenital defects and predict with greater accuracy the positive outcome of a planned litter of puppies. Therefore I probably seem like an unlikely advocate for the guy advertising puppies in the local newspaper.
However, I am also a civil libertarian. And I won't apologize for that
either.

Proposed, pending and contested legislation around the United States and abroad that is aimed at restricting our property rights by targeting animal reproduction has become rampant at every level of government. Forced spay and neuter, cost prohibitive licenses for unaltered dogs and breeding permits, micro chipping of our animals with their information (and ours) in government data bases, warrant-less inspection of our property, arbitrary limits on the number of animals we can responsibly care for and mandatory husbandry practices are some of the ways in which dog owners are being
relieved of their civil rights.

While our agrarian forefathers did not specifically guarantee us the right to own and breed animals, they did guarantee us the right to be treated equally under the law, the right to own property, the right to be free from warrant-less search and seizure of that property, the right to due process and the right to commerce. With no respect for our Constitution, animal rights supporters are working hard to relieve us of these rights by packaging restrictive legislation in a way that is not only palatable to dog owners, even some breeders, but misleadingly leaves them with the impression that they have supported something beneficial. Far too many animal owners
and welfare advocates are buying into it in one area or another.

Divide and conquer. By creating stereotypes and labels, like "puppy mill" and "backyard breeder" and attaching a stigma to those labels, the animal rights movement is trying to disgrace the act of breeding animals. And they're doing a great job. The media has been flooded with images of dogs being raised in cages, in filth, in neglect. Sad faces of shelter animals behind prison bars on "death row". Images intended to produce an emotional response instead of an intellectual one. And don't forget the staggering statistics.

It's not a secret that animal rights mean no more domestic animals. It's in their mission statements. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle brags that "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the creations of human selective breeding". Allow me to translate, no animal breeding means no more animals. Period. And while the general public cannot be sold on such a radical concept, it's been surprisingly easy to sell them on the concept of ever tightening restrictions. Although united in our love of domestic dogs, slick marketing by the enemy has created infighting. Breeders both private
and commercial, rescuers, shelter staff, animal control, dog show exhibitors and pet owners are cleverly being turned against one another to forward the animal rights agenda. Each believing that their point of view is the only valid one and everyone else's civil rights no longer matter.

Yes, I too personally find those images disturbing. They are the product of gross human negligence and irresponsibility. I love animals, I have been a shelter volunteer, and I believe in animal welfare but I am also a realist.
Things are rarely what they appear on the surface. In order to end the
animal surplus and related suffering, I want to get to the actual cause, to prevent the illness instead of treating the symptoms, so to speak.

The demand for a product (puppies, for example) is driven by the consumer. It's a simple case of supply and demand in a free market economy. Don't blame the seller for being an opportunist. It's only human nature flourishing in what is still a mostly democratic society. An uneducated consumer has every right to purchase an inferior product and suffer the consequences. Just as the seller has every right to promote the benefits their product, in order to influence the decisions of the consumer. If breed purists and elitists like me are outraged at breeders who turn a profit by selling what we consider to be an inferior product, then we must only blame ourselves for failing to educate the buyers.

Ignore the propaganda; dog breeding is not the cause of shelter
overpopulation. Animals end up in shelters for a myriad of reasons. Behavior problems that result from a lack of training and proper socialization along with normal breed characteristics that the owner finds unacceptable top the list. Owner death, job transfer/move, landlord/rental restrictions, insurance discrimination, financial trouble and the inability to comply with escalating pet ownership restrictions also contribute to the problem. The system is designed to perpetuate it.

We live in a disposable society. As long as domestic animals are viewed as a short term convenience, instead of a serious long term commitment then change is unlikely. The problem is one of perspective, information and education. Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive.

According to a 2005 article in the HSUS magazine All Animals, 75% of the shelter population is comprised of mongrels. Now I'm no math wizard, but I can extrapolate that only 25% must therefore be purebred animals. If this is true, then random bred dogs are the real cause of shelter overpopulation, not "puppy mills", breed enthusiasts or "backyard breeders" of purebred dogs. Yet this same HSUS article praises the mongrel as superior because of its' larger gene pool. One that may very well be polluted with unknown genetic defects. They even go so far as to market them as a "designer" product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory.

Now, it occurs to me that if you truly want to reduce the animal shelter population in a meaningful and dramatic way, than you should advocate for the elimination of the mongrel, through mandatory spay and neuter of random bred dogs with unknown ancestry. (See, I am a dog Nazi!) Most dog breeders know that you must have a firm grasp of the genetic past, in order to improve the genetic future of your line. Many of the minority purebred animals that end up in the local shelter may not have a known origin either, and are therefore not an ethical choice for perpetuation of their breed. The same "hybrid vigor" so highly touted in the mongrel is just as easily
achieved by crossing healthy purebreds of known ancestry to create new breeds. Man has done so since the beginning of domesticated dog breeding and whatever we fancy, that breed was created by this process.

The beauty of purebred dogs is that there is something to appeal to almost anyone. I don't have to agree with your choice but I must respect your right to make it. I'm not going to advise that consumers rush out and purchase a Puggle, Labradoodle, or Cockapoo, anymore than I would suggest that everyone should select my preferred breed. (Not everyone deserves one!) Whether these designer hybrids stand the test of time or fade out with other trends is not for me to say. Freedom of choice means the freedom to make the wrong choice, and the freedom to make better choices in the future.


Am I a "backyard breeder"? Well, by technical definition I guess I am. I
have also been a front yard breeder, a living room breeder and a cab of my motor home on the way to the dog show breeder. If that makes me a villain, then the animal rights lunatics and the terrorists who support their ideology win. But if you become an independent thinker, then freedom wins. We all win.

Click Here - Find Out
More About The Author

Ms. Jade, TheDogPress Legislative Reporter
Jade@TheDogPress.com
May 2006

[linnie]

Well Novel and interesting read So I gather her reasoning is to advocate that its ok not to be a licenced breeder???

[Novel]

I feel from her article that she is questioning the necessity of a license when the unethical breeders or the plain law breakers are not going to do anything differently.

More importantly I think she is pointing out that here in the US, where our country was founded on the belief of rights, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, that many of our rights are being taken from us. Dogs are property, they are not beings, they do not have rights. That does not make them any less special or wonderful or deserving of a great life. But my rights as a person is to care for them as I see fit. I am all for animal neglect and abuse laws. It is and should be criminal to cause pain and suffering to an animal. But where is it unlawful for me to keep 6 dogs if I want to? Why does the government have the ability to usurp my personal freedoms? If I can care for 10 dogs and keep them all healthy and happy, why am I being limited.
I look at Louisville's latest city ordinances. The dog show in Louisville, one of the largest in the US each year was down in entries considerably from previous years. Why? Because they have enacted a ton of laws that are not only impossible to enforce but have made dogs almost impossible to own if you follow the ordinance to the letter of the law. The mayor himself who signed the bill into law, when confronted on how his own personal dog would be affected, is quoted as saying "That can't be right."
Exactly, it's not right. I don't need the government to hold my hand. I don't need them to be Big Brother or look over my shoulder at everything I do. If I'm not hurting someone else, or impeding someone else's rights, why should the government be able to tell me what to do??
I can't smoke at a restaurant or any other public place (I don't smoke this is just an example). I can't homeschool my children without a huge ball of red tape (again, I don't have children), and now I can't own the number of dogs I want, or keep them the way I want because the government has been influenced by yet another interest group that does not have MY best interests at heart.
My property should be my own, if that be my land, my home, my car, etc. but every day I wake up to one more of my personal freedoms being regulated, meanwhile, a huge corporation can kill an untold number of dogs because the gov't has let them regulate themselves (I'm referring to the dog food recall). What's wrong with that picture?

[PawNclaws]

More importantly I think she is pointing out that here in the US, where our country was founded on the belief of rights, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, that many of our rights are being taken from us. Dogs are property, they are not beings, they do not have rights. That does not make them any less special or wonderful or deserving of a great life. But my rights as a person is to care for them as I see fit. I am all for animal neglect and abuse laws. It is and should be criminal to cause pain and suffering to an animal. But where is it unlawful for me to keep 6 dogs if I want to? Why does the government have the ability to usurp my personal freedoms? If I can care for 10 dogs and keep them all healthy and happy, why am I being limited.
I look at Louisville's latest city ordinances. The dog show in Louisville, one of the largest in the US each year was down in entries considerably from previous years. Why? Because they have enacted a ton of laws that are not only impossible to enforce but have made dogs almost impossible to own if you follow the ordinance to the letter of the law. The mayor himself who signed the bill into law, when confronted on how his own personal dog would be affected, is quoted as saying "That can't be right."
Exactly, it's not right. I don't need the government to hold my hand. I don't need them to be Big Brother or look over my shoulder at everything I do. If I'm not hurting someone else, or impeding someone else's rights, why should the government be able to tell me what to do??
I can't smoke at a restaurant or any other public place (I don't smoke this is just an example). I can't homeschool my children without a huge ball of red tape (again, I don't have children), and now I can't own the number of dogs I want, or keep them the way I want because the government has been influenced by yet another interest group that does not have MY best interests at heart.
My property should be my own, if that be my land, my home, my car, etc. but every day I wake up to one more of my personal freedoms being regulated, meanwhile, a huge corporation can kill an untold number of dogs because the gov't has let them regulate themselves (I'm referring to the dog food recall). What's wrong with that picture?

This has been a very hot topic between me and a co-worker. It's funny how none of this ever hits the news ! I will not back down with out a fight . If the government wants to take my dogs and rights away from me I just have got to say that they'll have a he** of a time trying !

[linnie]

Well we have laws that allow only 2 dogs.. I ignore it, my home my space my dogs
Just yesterday we had the subject of this type of government control over how we think, basically it was saying we arnt allowed to think we just have to do as we are told. I am soooo totally against this type off supression.

I do however think it is good for breeders to be registered, and I know it wont stop bad breeders from getting registered, some laws are good to many laws take away our need to take responsibility to answer for our actions dont you think

[Novel]

I agree with what you both are saying. I want my rights. I agree completely, my home, my space, my life.

I have no problem with registration as a breeder as long as it doesn't violate my rights. If they want to make sure that I am not impeding on my neighbors lives by having loud unruly dogs, no problem. But, if they want me to register as a breeder so that they can do surprise home inspections, regulate my vaccination and breeding practices, so on and so forth, then I want no part of it.

So becomes the very scary line. Violate laws and regulations and be in danger of them "Taking" your animals because of the violation... or go along with the flow, which in turn restricts my rights as an animal owner.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I try to be opptimistic and think that this is all just a wave, and it will pass, but, deep down, I know that is not the case.

[linnie]

Once beurocracy steps in Novel, there seems to be no stopping them.
What scares me the most is the persons who make up these laws are usually idiots that cant get work anywhere else because they lack common sense

[Novel]

It seems government officials are more directly led by special interest groups and their promises of rewards then they are by either their own good sense or their constituents.
What I don't understand is that a majority of these people enacting these laws must own dogs! How do they keep their dogs? Are they chained to the doghouse in the backyard or are they house dogs kept as comanions? If they are companions... do they read the bills they try and push through into law?

[fancychicken]

Originally Posted by Novel

I agree with what you both are saying. I want my rights. I agree completely, my home, my space, my life.

I have no problem with registration as a breeder as long as it doesn't violate my rights. If they want to make sure that I am not impeding on my neighbors lives by having loud unruly dogs, no problem. But, if they want me to register as a breeder so that they can do surprise home inspections, regulate my vaccination and breeding practices, so on and so forth, then I want no part of it.

So becomes the very scary line. Violate laws and regulations and be in danger of them "Taking" your animals because of the violation... or go along with the flow, which in turn restricts my rights as an animal owner.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I try to be opptimistic and think that this is all just a wave, and it will pass, but, deep down, I know that is not the case.

I am not disagreeing with you in way shape or form..However If you are a legitimate breeder, why would it be offensive to you to have home inspections, have vaccinations mandatory ect..Is that not what resonsible breeders do anyway? If you are not in violation then whats the issue?

So much of this stuff is for the protection and safety of the animals. Unfortunately they have no voice so we have to be that vioce for them, and out rights end up being violated in the act.

They're are so many legitimate good breeders out there and there are even more that have accidental litters. It's the breeders that buy that pure bred whatever and decide "hey, I can make x-dollars for these puppies" and breed with out any knowledge or fore thought of consequence to those puppies. Those people are who the regulations are for. To minimize the uneducated breeder, the lazy breeder, the greedy breeder. Not the ones that want to produce beautiful, healthy dogs for the protection of the species.

As for the puppy mill thing..I am not even going to get into that discussion. Totally different scenario and an aweful heartbreakng one at that.

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I'm not up to snuff on the current propposed legislation, but to me it feels like education can't ever be successful because of stupid people. And by stupid, I mean people who reject the education! Seems to me like laws have to be put into place because of stupid people--the ones who won't be educated, and therefore their animals suffer.

I think the current laws that are being proposed and passed aren't addressing the right issues though. Like limiting the number of dogs isn't even relevant. How many backyard breeders have more than the 2 dogs it takes to make money?

I'm not against laws that would actually crack down on irresponsible breeding (even if legit breeders had to suffer a little--though I would want to avoid mandatory vaccinations and even higher fees), because in the end my rights suffer so dogs don't have to.

This of course brings up the issue (as mentioned in the article) of enforcement and how laws don't really affect those who aren't abiding by the law anyway. It's a tough situation with no easy answers, that's for sure.

[Novel]

Originally Posted by fancychicken

However If you are a legitimate breeder, why would it be offensive to you to have home inspections, have vaccinations mandatory ect..Is that not what resonsible breeders do anyway? If you are not in violation then whats the issue?

Because the government is about ten steps behind the dog fancier. How can you expect a government official to know what's best for my animals? Currently yearly vaccinations are required... I would NEVER give my dogs yearly vaccinations, especially not for all the things that they put in an 8 way vaccination.

It's just that I am supposed to be the expert... I am supposed to know what's best for my dogs. The gvernment is just supposed to enforce and protect the constitution and the rights that it establishes. They are not supposed to be regulators and supervisors.

[sammy]

Wow. I agree with a few of her points but I am offended and strongly disagree with some of it too.

How does she think those "mongrels" that she deems not worthy of life were created? By people failing to spay and neuter this dogs and oopsy litters happening or by people wanting their bitch to " have one litter" before being spayed etc The vast majority of the dogs cropping up in recsue around me are Labs and LAB mixes why? because labs are the most popular breeds. Next to that is German Shepherd crosses and purebreds, border collie crosses and husky crosses. Mixed breed or purebred, the problem is people not being responsible for what they do with dogs wether that is pureposely breeding purebreds that should not be bred or allowing your intact dog to run loose or BYB's breeding so the kids can see the miracle of brith (and all the other crappy reasons people list to justify breeding their dog).

There are plenty of people breeding purebred dogs and showing them that are doing a terrible thing to their breed too-- breeding dogs with poor temperaments and known genetic disease because they are winning in the show ring-- one of the biggest and most successful aussie breeders here knowingly breeds dogs who have in their line: unstable temperaments, hip dysplasia, eye disease and seizures. Why? because they also make some very nice dogs, dogs who win and that they sell for good money. I think it stinks that she is playing the "purebred dog" card.

It would be wonderful if there was a way to regulate breeding so that ethical, responsible breeeders would be able to do their thing but that would make it difficult for BYB's and puppymills to do theirs. Unfortunately I can't imagine a gov't agency being able to actually accomplish that.
So like so many things, it's really up to the dog lovers, the consumers buying/adopting pets to be discrimintating and support only ethical breeders.

[Novel]

Originally Posted by sammy

It would be wonderful if there was a way to regulate breeding so that ethical, responsible breeeders would be able to do their thing but that would make it difficult for BYB's and puppymills to do theirs. Unfortunately I can't imagine a gov't agency being able to actually accomplish that.
So like so many things, it's really up to the dog lovers, the consumers buying/adopting pets to be discrimintating and support only ethical breeders.

With that I completely agree! The gov't can't do my job... and it comes down to education and supply and demand and intelligent choices by informed consumers.