One breeder produces between 100-200 puppies a year???? - Page 4

I don’t think that the fact that a breeder breeds 100 or 200 dogs a year is bad in and of itself. I believe that the sole measure of a breeder is in the whelping box. And the more litters that a breeder breeds the more likely he is to know what clicks with his lines, the better he can predict a puppies final outcome and the more breeding stock he will have to breed from. There is no way to deny that a breeder that breeds more will have more experience breeding.

 

I think the real question that responsible GSD fanciers need to be asking is, why do people buy dogs from these breeders? Is there something that “responsible” breeders are doing that is driving people away?

<<  There is no way to deny that a breeder that breeds more will have more experience breeding.   >>

You're kidding, right?
If you mean that the person who breeds more will have more experience knowing how to throw two dogs in a pen, then maybe so.  But you cannot tell me that someone who produces this many pups is in it for the breed.  I've had four litters in 7 years, and they each took a tremendous amount of energy because I made sure they were properly socialized, introduced to odd sounds, sensations and situations, and they were prepared for the life they were bred for.  How can someone possibly create an environment of developing a pup, and making the most of their first few weeks if they've got so many pups at one time?

This person is in it for the money, plain and simple, and when decisions are made with the $$$ in mind, instead of the breed, the breed suffers.

This makes me very sad . . .

RDH, I agree with everything you said.  I, too, really want to see something done about it, but if we can't or won't or don't enforce the laws we have now, there is no way we'll enforce any new laws. 

What I want to see before even discussing new legislation is strict enforcement of existing laws - that combined with education will reduce problems tremendously.AND it will focus on where focus is needed: people breaking the law by neglecting or mistreating their animals, not making new laws to drive hobby breeders out of their hobby.

 Quote:   I don’t think that the fact that a breeder breeds 100 or 200 dogs a year is bad in and of itself. I believe that the sole measure of a breeder is in the whelping box. And the more litters that a breeder breeds the more likely he is to know what clicks with his lines, the better he can predict a puppies final outcome and the more breeding stock he will have to breed from. There is no way to deny that a breeder that breeds more will have more experience breeding.
 
I think the real question that responsible GSD fanciers need to be asking is, why do people buy dogs from these breeders? Is there something that “responsible” breeders are doing that is driving people away?

Please tell me that this was typed tongue in cheek!    Breeders who breed this many pups must have 2, 3 or 4 litters on the ground simultaneously.  There is no way that the puppies can be properly, or even half-adequately socialized with those numbers, unless you also have a family with 8-12 kids to help do it.  And, what about the "reputable breeder" who not only breeds these large numbers of dogs, but palms off the "off color" ones, without mentioning that it is an off color.  Like calling a puppy a "light red sable" when it clearly appears to be a liver puppy, pink nose and all?

Nope, these folks are in it for the money.  This is quite clear when a mass number of bitches are being bred to the same stud, because it it the only male owned.  Don't we ordinarily consider that a BYB?  Just because the fool churns out dozens of puppies a year does not eliminate the spectre of BYB.  It just catapults it into the puppymill realm.   

Nia, I’m not talking about these people in particular. I don’t know what they do. I’m speaking in generalities.

Are under socialized puppies a good result? I said that the results are seen in the whelping box. I would call a breeder, no matter the number of litters, a bad breeder if their puppies are not socialized correctly. By your own admission a large group of people could raise the puppies well. So we agree that it can be done.

It would be interesting to see how much time a couple of people raising 3 or 4 litters as a fulltime job spend with each puppy verses a couple raising 1 litter and going to an offsite job for 8 hours a day. I think things maybe pretty close. But I don’t know.

 

A person being in it for the money is not necessarily a bad thing either. I don’t give damn how much money someone makes so long as they produce good puppies.

Good puppies=good breeder

Bad puppies=bad breeder

Nothing else matters!

Ok, people who have 2 or 3 litters on the ground simultaneously can in no way properly care for or socialize them?!  Are you nuts?

I don't have multiple litters, heck, I don't even breed any more and when I did it was maybe 1 litter a year, but I'm not such a fool or so prejudiced as to dogmatically state that any one and everyone who has 2 or 3 litters at the same time can only do at the most a "half-adequate" job.  You are totally forgetting about people with both money and leisure time, not to mention an incredible dedication and work ethic, money that they have not from dogs, but it gives them the time to do this - these people do exist.  Who are you people to say NO ONE can do it?  You sound just like the AR people: because THEY don't get it means YOU can't do it.  You're doing the same thing.

Now puppy mills are puppy mills, and I'm inclined to think that the majority, I'll even say the vast majority, of high-volume kennels maybe aren't doing what I consider an acceptable job, but I do not support this blanket statement of bashing everyone.  Again, you're just like the ARs: You can't do it therefore no one in the world is able to do it.

That simply isn't true.

Yes, I do agree that when  "a mass number of bitches are being bred to the same stud, because it is the only male owned" that is NOT quality breeding.  A real breeder blends various lines with much knowledge and planning, and doesn't use one stud.

What about when the people like Joseph Thomas or Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge or J P Morgan were breeding?  They commonly had up to 100 dogs in kennels.  They had the money and the help.  Today would you call them puppy millers?

Tess, It's unfortunate that your reading comprehension isn't a little better. I said " 2, 3 or 4" litters, not "just" 2 or 3. :-) Are YOU nuts...or just a fifteen year old cheerleader so you cannot express yourself in a more civil and adult manner when you disagree? Since you think you know so much about everything as to personally attack everyone else on this thread as "nuts," do you KNOW any of these breeders who breed dozens of litters every year, blowing through the alphabet year after year (that's TWENTY SIX litters, by the way) and ALWAYS having multiple litters on the ground through out the year?? I DO!! So, nuts in YOUR opinion or not, I stand by my statements. I know some of the breeders who mass-produce, their actions, their volumes and seen the products. So, I am NOT talking "theory" or "belief." In fact, some of them are constantly topics on this forum. But, I guess everyone is "nuts" but you, huh? Christopher, You have a point and I do admit "someone" "could" socialize multiple litters, with enough personnel to do so. BUT....I think you are well aware of the breeders I am referring to (one in particular in my state) and you know that the breeder does not have the personnel to socialize the dozens of litters produced each and every year. How could it be otherwise, when what help they do hire never lasts more than six months? :-)

I comprehend perfectly, you said 2 OR 3 OR 4, so my statement stands.  Look up your grammar rules, dear, so you can understand what you type.

Christopher, You have a point and I do admit "someone" "could" socialize multiple litters, with enough personnel to do so.

Uh, I said that as well.  So you're agreeing with me then?  Thank you.

BUT....I think you are well aware of the breeders I am referring to (one in particular in my state) and you know that the breeder does not have the personnel to socialize

You're actually agreeing with me again.  Please re-read my post.  I said "the vast majority" of high-volume breeders don't do an adequate job, but that doesn't mean that people of wealth and means and time and help cannot raise multiple litters in a fine manner.

And what's up with this:  Edited by Mystere on Tue Dec 27, 2005 03:07 pm ::

 

 

 

 

Tess, I intended, and hopefully succeeded in demonstrating to you how your tactics take away from reasonable discourse. MY post, from the outset, as Christopher noted, acknowledged that SOME may be able to adequarely socialize multiple litters. You apparently overlooked or failed to comprehend that. So, NO, it is not a .matter of me agreeing with you after the fact--it is a matter of your reading comprehension not picking it up in the first place. "2, 3 or 4" is not synonymous with " 2 or 3" Check YOUR grammar, dear. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you are Canadian and your grammar rules are a bit different so you really didn't understand the concept of "2, 3 or 4 " and the connected "throughout the year" indicates a commercial breeder, and not a rich bitch churning out pups in Bevery Hills? Or, maybe it is just that you are so intent on spouting off that you don't bother to actually read entire posts? I notice that you did not answer my question to you. Is that because you do not know any of these breeders and are merely spouting hypotheticals, or did you miss that in your reading of the post? I think I know the answer, given your response, but please be specific.

Thanks Tess...I guess the big answer to our problems is reinforcement and education. I appreciate the feedback.