Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 28, 2014, 01:18:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Puppy Mills  (Read 2503 times)
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10199


I stop for turtles


View Profile
« on: September 10, 2013, 05:37:25 PM »

September 10, 2013


I have a huge victory to share with you! After years of pressure from The HSUS, and hundreds of thousands of emails and support from advocates like you, online puppy mills will finally be subject to federal inspections and oversight. The U.S. Department of Agriculture announced plans today to ensure that large-scale breeding facilities that sell puppies over the Internet, by phone, or by mail are licensed and inspected regularly for basic humane care standards. This rule will also apply to large commercial breeders of other warm-blooded pets, such as kittens and small mammals. Read more on my blog»

We are so grateful for the actions of our advocates. When we stand together, we can make a tremendous difference for animals on a national level.

Thank you for all you do for animals,
Wayne Pacelle
Wayne Pacelle, President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Report to moderator   Logged

:
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2013, 05:46:26 PM »

I HATE the HSUS!!!  They take in so much money and very little of it goes to actually helping actual animals!  Support your LOCAL shelters or the ASPCA!!  The HSUS is fraudulent and takes credit when it is not due them!

Them and PETA are for THEIR bottomline, and not for the animals!!!

Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10199


I stop for turtles


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2013, 07:55:44 PM »

I HATE the HSUS!!!  They take in so much money and very little of it goes to actually helping actual animals!  Support your LOCAL shelters or the ASPCA!!  The HSUS is fraudulent and takes credit when it is not due them!

Them and PETA are for THEIR bottomline, and not for the animals!!!



I know I know
 Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged

:
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2013, 12:55:33 PM »

Respectable breeders across the land do not like this bill.  It targets them as well.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2013, 12:20:32 PM »

What is "large"?   And by online do they mean the ones that are "anyone who has the money they will sell to" places?   Most respectable breeders I know don't list their pups on the online websites for pets for sale. I personally would not think much of a breeder that did that. If they are respectable and reputable they wouldn't have to do that, most have homes lined up for their litters even before the bitch is pregnant or the litter is born.   On their website is fine where they also talk about their practices, rearing, testing, etc., but not on someplace like Kiji, etc.  

I have to disagree with you knny on this, if by "online" they are meaning for sale pet advertising sites.  Respectable breeders would NOT be targeted.
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2013, 07:49:34 PM »

Yes, not often the reputable breeder will list online. It happens though. I know one breeder, a friend, that had to list her puppies on line for sale after having a big litter of 13 puppies. She had 6 or 7 that were already presold. One or two backed out after the puppies were 8 weeks old. This breeder was able to find homes locally for all except for 3. One she considered keeping but realized at her age it may not have been a good idea. I considered co-owning but was a thought that left my mind after a short time. With the help of the Internet she was able to reach out further and was a me to sell one in N Cal and the other in Arizona. The other was placed locally. I will also add she did not try to sell them online until she exhausted all means and the puppies were already 16 weeks old.

Another problem with breeding is limited gene pool. The Internet as helped breeders breed outside the local dogs that are local to them. Imports are vital to strengthening breeding programs. A lot of people I know buy puppies from Croatia, Germany, Bosnia, for example. Very few American puppies although are not being sold overseas. Depending on breeds, the dock and cropping bans limit what can be sold and imported overseas.

So, in my opinion, the Internet is selling puppies on line can be very necessary. Although, I would never buy a puppy unless I could see them in person and would be able to have my hands on them. 
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2013, 08:40:29 AM »

I still have to disagree. In reference to the gene pool are these breeders really going to look at online pet-for-sale sites to look for additions to their programs?  No.  Any reputable breeder has a website & extended contacts through breed groups, lists, etc to get their kennel known. 

That is why I asked the question "what do they mean by online"?  Does it refer to the pet sales sites only, or would it pertain to any breeder who has a website with available pups?   If the first it should not affect these reputable breeders, if the latter I could see it affecting them and would not support this bill.

That also begs the question of the definition of "large".  In the scenario you mention knny, it was only a few puppies the breeder may have went  the "online" route.  Again depending on the definition of "online" they might not be affected by a few puppies placed that way. 
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2013, 08:51:11 AM »

Oh- I do agree imports are very important to gene pools and keeping to breed standards.  My Chi's have import lines in them and as a result have longer, curlier, piggy type tales.   Smiley     (I have only Chi's now, have to post in the RIP thread but that's going to be hard.)   Sad    European lines in Danes help with getting the bone structure (stockier, bonier, thicker) back to the original standard (which I prefer) for instance. Inline breeding can be way overdone IMO.  
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2013, 10:00:58 AM »

I can agree that I am uncertain to what extent that 'online' business means. 

As to buying on-line, AKC even supports an on-line breeder classifieds.  Not saying it's 'right', but Breeders do get into a dilemma where they need to place a few puppies.

Granted, puppy mills do a good job on-line as coming across as a reputable breeder.  This is where the AKC comes in & gives breeders an Award of Merit after following certain criterias including physical inspections of the kennels.

Most 'reputable' breeders I know don't look on-line for the next great sire for their breeding program.  The tend to look in the back yard of someone within driving distance.

I personally feel on-line sources are the best for any breed.  It allows you to search beyond your dogs pedigree.  Of course most breeders prefer line breeding because they are more likely to duplicate traits they desire than from ones of an out cross.  Of course most breeders seem to breed for type than health clearances.   Undecided
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2013, 10:30:20 AM »

On-line needs to be clarified.  I think breeder websites are great for initially getting a kennel name out there because they can showcase their lines and breeding programs. 

I have heard grumblings that the AKC breeder award is a money garnishing thing (for the AKC) and has serious flaws because of that. Trying not to generalize, but it seems like any time you get into the business of certifying something the original good intent gets lost in the profits.  If the laws already in place to monitor commercial breeders aren't working, what the heck are additional supposed laws and monitoring going to do??  As in most things it comes down to:  Enforce the laws already in effect before adding new ones!!

Most puppy mills are probably going to post ads on "generic" pet sale sites and not have a website, and they won't be show casing their lines as to conformation, future prospects, or general comments on their kennel,or talking about how they raise the dogs, etc.  Puppy mills are NOT anything close to a breeder who breeds for the betterment of the breed and is NOT pumping pups out to make money.  A good breeder loses or breaks even, IMO. 
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2013, 09:07:12 PM »

Not sure if the AKC Breeder of Merit is a money garnishing thing. Although, recently the akc has done more things to in registrations to increase revenues. They now allow mutts to be registered and they can compete in obedience and agility. No longer is the AKC just for pure breds. They have figured out like everyone that owns pure breds that there's no money in it.
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2013, 09:44:58 AM »

From AKC Website

Breeders Stay Informed - USDA/APHIS Regulations FAQ
(Friday, September 13, 2013)
On September 10, 2013, U.S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) finalized new federal regulations that narrow the “retail pet store” exemption which has historically exempted many small/hobby breeders from regulation under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Their purpose is to bring internet-based pet breeders and sellers under the regulation of the AWA. The rule expands USDA oversight of pet breeders to include people who maintain at least five “breeding females” of any species AND sell one pet “sight unseen.”

“The rule is overly broad and will do more damage than good. The federal government has missed an opportunity to introduce a smarter, more effective rule to deter unscrupulous breeders and sellers by imposing a regulation based on the number of dogs sold, not the number of dogs a person owns,” said AKC spokesperson Lisa Peterson.

The new rule is scheduled to take effect 60 days after it is published. It is a 91-page document and includes multiple areas of regulatory details that may impact people that sell animals as pets but remain unclear, confusing or unfair based on the available information. We encourage you to review available materials and contact Dr. Gerald Rushin with APHIS at (301) 851-3751 to obtain answers to your questions.

In the meantime, the AKC will continue to work with USDA/APHIS and other officials to clarify these and other issues. We will also continue to provide the most up-to-date information on this rule.

This is a regulatory, not legislative, change. There was no vote in Congress and AKC has to work within the confines of an administrative — rather than legislative — process. Since the rule was first proposed in May 2012, the AKC has worked to educate USDA/APHIS about responsible breeders and dog owners and the potential impact of this rule change, unfortunately many of our most important concerns were not addressed.

We strongly encourage you to review the resources below, including the frequently asked questions, to further understand the new rule, and to keep checking back, as we will continue to update this page as information becomes available.

Frequently Asked Questions

Background
Why is APHIS making changes to the Animal Welfare Act?
Regulators at the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have received numerous complaints about substandard/unscrupulous Internet sales of pets and have been tasked with addressing that issue. The AKC shares their concerns about substandard operations.

What is a rule change and how does it work?
A rule or regulation is different from legislation. The law is already on the books so we have to work within the confines of an administrative — rather than legislative — process.

The administrative process involves a public comment period in which stakeholders and concerned individuals have the opportunity to comment on a proposed rule, before the rule is finalized. AKC has been very involved in this process since the announcement of the proposed rule in May 2012.

When did AKC first learn about this? Has the AKC done any outreach?
Since the rule was first proposed in May 2012, the AKC has made significant efforts to educate APHIS on the concerns. This includes a petition with over 70,000 signatures, providing alerts to breeders and dog owners encouraging them to participate in the public comment period, and submitting extensive comments to APHIS. This is in addition to reaching out to key members of Congress, the US Department of Agriculture, and the White House.

The AKC continues to work with APHIS to communicate questions and obtain clarifications. We appreciate that APHIS has continued to communicate with us and help us answer questions on this regulation. Keep checking this page for the latest information and updates.

What is the background of this rule and is the AKC opposed?
The United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS)’s finalized version of new federal regulations that narrow the definition of a "retail pet store" is designed to license and regulate internet-based pet breeders and sellers as "dealers" under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The rule expands USDA oversight of pet breeders to include people who maintain more than four "breeding females" of any species and sell even one pet "sight unseen" by any means. The rule was initially proposed in May 2012 and has since that time been the subject of extensive objections by the AKC and other groups and individuals concerned about the future of responsibly bred dogs and small/hobby breeders. The final version of this rule remains largely unchanged in content, although certain key clarifications have been made with respect to the concerns of breeders.

The AKC’s concerns stand regarding the lack of definition of a breeding female, the overly broad nature of this regulation, and the imposition of commercial standards on small hobby/breeders, and a variety of other issues. Read AKC’s latest Legislative Alert for more information on our specific objections to the rule.

What changes did this rule make to the Animal Welfare Act?
It redefines the term "retail pet store" and removes certain exemptions allowing breeders who sell pets at retail (as opposed to wholesale) to avoid USDA commercial breeder/dealer regulation.

It increases the hobby breeder exemption from 3 to 4 the number of "breeding females" that a person may maintain on their premises and from which they may sell offspring as pets, either at retail or wholesale, without being subject to USDA regulation. View the "Details on New Rule" for more information on what this means and how it applies to those who sell puppies sight unseen.

Details on New Rule
Is this rule retroactive? When does the new rule go into effect?
The rule is not retroactive and will go into effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. APHIS has committed to working with breeders to help them understand the new rule and whether they need to come into compliance. There is no need to make immediate and drastic changes. Please review these FAQs and other resources on our resource page to understand if the rule will apply to you. For specific questions, we encourage you to contact Dr. Gerald Rushin with APHIS at (301) 851-3751.

How do I know if this rule applies to me?
This rule applies to those who maintain more than four "breeding females" AND sell a puppy as a pet "sight unseen" or sell to a third party (wholesale). This means that the buyer must actually see the puppy in person prior to the purchase. If you are concerned about buyers coming to your home, you may arrange a location to meet the buyer and allow them to see the puppy.

If you have fewer than five breeding females, and/or allow buyers to see the puppy in person prior to purchase, then this rule does not apply to you.

If you wish to own more than 4 "breeding females" and sell the offspring as pets and do not wish to be regulated, you may avoid regulation by selling all your dogs in a face-to-face transaction. A face-to-face transaction includes one where the seller and buyer are physically present and the buyer has the opportunity to observe the animal before taking custody of it.

Are there any exemptions to this rule?
The new definition of dealer subject to USDA licensing and regulation includes "any dog... for research, testing, experimentation, exhibition*, or for use as a pet, or any dog sold at the wholesale level for hunting, security or breeding purposes". (*exhibition as defined in the AWA excludes purebred cat and dog shows).

The rule seems to indicate that if you are selling a dog as a breeding prospect, to maintain bloodlines, or for hunting, working, or security, you would be exempt. If you are selling the dog as a pet, you would not be exempt. It is important that the seller be able to clearly demonstrate their purpose in selling the dog at the time of sale. However, additional clarification from USDA is needed on this point.

You are also exempt if you sell the dog in a face-to-face transaction.

Will this rule limit the number of dogs I can own?
No. The rule does not limit the number of dogs a person may keep, breed or sell. It is designed to regulate under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) those who sell dogs as pets over the internet or "sight-unseen".

Enforcement
What if USDA identifies a breeder as being subject to licensure and out of compliance?
After the rule goes into effect, USDA has told the AKC that they understand there will be a significant amount of time needed for them to prepare to enforce the rule and is not providing a time certain by which breeders must come into compliance.

The USDA has indicated that when they locate a person they believe to be out of compliance their first step will be to send a letter asking for information and to help determine whether they need to be licensed. They will then work with that person to come into compliance. You will not be immediately fined or punished. For more information on pre-licensing visit the USDA/APHIS Animal Care website.

How will APHIS find out if I fall under this new rule? Will AKC be providing registrant contact information?
All of AKC's records are confidential and AKC will not share your information. The AKC urges all responsible dog owners to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

My state regulates breeders. Will this supersede state law?
This will depend on your individual state laws. Contact the appropriate state agency for specific questions. AKC encourages breeders and dog owners to be in compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and laws.

What should I be doing right now if I think this rule will apply to me?
USDA/APHIS is asking individuals who believe they may fall under the new rules to self-identify and have indicated a commitment to work directly with individuals to determine whether their particular case would make them subject to new regulation. You will not be punished or targeted if you contact them. They are committed to answering questions and helping breeders understand the rule, not targeting specific dog owners who are genuinely trying to understand and be in compliance.

For specific questions, contact Dr. Gerald Rushin with APHIS at (301) 851-3751.

Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2013, 09:49:11 AM »

USDA Rule to be Published, AKC Schedules Conference Call for Thursday (9/19)

September 17, 2013...

Tomorrow (Wednesday, September 18), USDA/APHIS is scheduled to officially publish the new regulations that narrow the definition of a “retail pet store”. The regulations will go into effect 60 days thereafter.

In an effort to help you better understand the new rule, the AKC Government Relations Department (AKC GR)has arranged to host a conference call for its constituents with USDA/APHIS to address questions and obtain clarifications.

The details are as follows:

Date: Thursday, September 19, 2013
Time: 2 pm-3 pm Eastern
RSVP: To reserve a spot to participate in this conference call, e-mail rsvp@akc.org before 2 pm ET on Wednesday, September 18. You must include your name, phone number and e-mail address when making your reservation.

This is the only way to reserve a spot to participate on the call. Calling AKC GR or e-mailing another address will not reserve a spot.

Please note that space on this call is limited and significant interest is expected, so it is recommended that clubs and organizations interested designate one person to participate. Reservations are on a first come, first serve basis. If you secure a reservation, you will receive a confirmation e-mail with directions regarding how to access the call.

If you are unable to participate in the call, the call will be recorded and a transcript will be made available.

In an effort to make the call as efficient and helpful as possible, AKC GR recommends that you submit questions to rsvp@akc.org when registering for the call. The moderator will review these questions and ask APHIS about issues of greatest concern. There will be a very brief opportunity for participants to ask additional questions at the end of the call; however, we highly recommend that you submit questions in advance.

AKC GR will continue to provide updated information on this new regulation as it becomes available. Keep checking our Regulatory Resource Page for the latest details and information
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 18, 2013, 06:03:24 PM »

There is so much un-clarified talk in this... 

 Breeding females- is that actual females you intend to breed, are breeding, or are intact?  I could have 6 bitches intact and not plan on breeding any of them because I feel that it is better to not alter them ( or alter them later).  Are the rights of altering or not going to be taken away? 

  Seems to me that a breeder could have many grounds to argue AGAINST them being in the scope of this bill on that point alone.  I could have 5 intact dogs but say only are CURRENTLY being used in breeding.  You could effectively swap out breeding dogs to stay within the limit of 4. 

  Another bill impossible to enforce.  The USDA has laws already supposed to be being enforced for COMMERCIAL breeders, why don't they do that?@?
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 18, 2013, 09:10:24 PM »

Yes, that's why a lot of breeders I know oppose this bill. Most might have 2 or 3 intact females for breeding. If they decide to keep 2 females from a breeding to wait and see if they have the potential of breeding as they get older, they would be in violation.  As most know, you can't tell as a puppy the potentional they may have. Usually you keep them for a year to see if they have the genetics and standard potentials. Of course, then you have to wait until year 2 for health testing.

So yes, a recent study has confirmed in Rottweilers that bitches after 6 years old that remain intact have a 13% longer life than bitches spayed at 6 months old. Having 4 bitches in your property that are intact (I am told regardless of age), makes you in direct violation even of you have no intentions of breeding as i do.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 18, 2013, 09:39:06 PM »

So many flaws or arguable court cases.  But on what merits are they going to enforce tis?  Would it even get through the system before it mattered?!? IE: in the case of Great Danes which don't mature to 2-3 years are they going to argue any unaltered were "breeding"Huh You shouldn't even be breeding them!!!  So many arguable variables coming into place then!

   It's a shame that so many back yard breeders have tarnished it this way.  All my Chi's have come from one breeder.  She places all her retired dogs and also takes back ANY dogs from any previous litters no matter how old or any circumstances!!  She feels responsible from the day they are whelped to the day they pass!  As it should be! And will even place others if she can.  That is why I will foster others so they are not so uprooted while they wait for a forever home. 

RESPONSIBLE breeders are not the problem; it is every "Two dogs the same, let's breed them and make money""  that is the problem!!!
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 19, 2013, 06:44:46 AM »

Why have a bill & not enforce it?  I hear what you're saying but this is why I said earlier in the thread a lot of breeders I know across the country are trying to fight this.  There's issues in this bill that also targets the responsible breeder.  Puppy Mills I believe should be shut down but not at the expense of responsible breeders.  Any breeder that has to sell (1) puppy on the internet or sight unseen would be in violation.  I would say of every puppy that is imported from overseas, more than 95% of them are purchased sight unseen other than a photograph or video.  The expense of traveling to Germany for example to just look at a puppy would be a hefty expense.  Now a days people with potential clients will send video's of puppies as they get older so you can see how they are progressing.  Even buying a puppy in person is a 'crap shoot' in terms of what you will have in the future.  There is no guarantee's when it comes to puppies although they are sold with them all the time.  I myself am a little more different than most people I know in my breed.  I need to have hands on experience.  I am the sort that looks for correct structure according to the standard but also require a certain temperament.  I don't want a Rottweiler puppy unless it has confidence with a little bit of it's own personality and attitude.  I had the luxury over the last 2 years to be invited to about a 10 puppy parties.  Of maybe the 70+ puppies I've seen, there's alot of differences in one puppy to the next.
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 19, 2013, 11:24:04 AM »

Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2013, 03:34:11 PM »

There are already laws in affect for "commercial" aka puppy mills, that are not enforced, so why enact more?!?  Who is going to police this?  going to have peeps on the web tracking down for sale ads to find out if any were sold sight unseen?  Internets po-po?   Ya right!!     I'm kinda confused by that flow chart tho .......    Huh
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2013, 08:48:24 PM »

Most everyone buying an import is basically buying them sight unseen. Not sure how that applies either.
Report to moderator   Logged
Gregzs
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4953


Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2014, 07:01:11 PM »

http://www.today.com/pets/breeding-blunder-labradoodle-creator-laments-designer-dog-craze-2D12072744?__source=xfinity|mod&par=xfinity

Breeding blunder: Labradoodle creator laments designer dog craze

He’s deemed the man who unleashed the designer dog craze, this wave of Maltipoos, puggles and shorkies.


A Doberhuahua? Not quite.

But from that new Super Bowl ad to Hollywood boulevards and nearly to the White House, these pooches with cute names are pretty popular.


Hardly what Wally Conron expected — or ever wanted — back in the late 1980s when he first bred a pair of prize canines and called the result a Labradoodle.

“I’ve done a lot of damage,” Conron told The Associated Press this week by phone from his home in Australia. “I’ve created a lot of problems.”

“Marvelous thing? My foot,” he said. “There are a lot of unhealthy and abandoned dogs out there.”

No Labradoodles are entered in Saturday’s agility competition at the Westminster Kennel Club show, but for the first time in the event’s 138-year history, mixed breeds are welcome. Called “all-American” dogs by some and mutts by many, they’ll weave, jump and run through an obstacle course.

Only purebreds are allowed in the main event, though, and more than 2,800 of them are entered in the nation’s most prominent dog event. The rings open Monday and the best in show ribbon will be awarded Tuesday night at Madison Square Garden.

Conron isn’t from the show world. He was working as the puppy-breeding manager at the Royal Guide Dog Association of Australia when he tried to fulfill a request from a couple in Hawaii. She had vision problems, her husband was allergic, and they wanted a dog that would satisfy their needs.

After a lot of trial-and-error, Conron came up with a solution when he bred a standard poodle with a Labrador retriever. The mix was a personal triumph, yet not a success outside his lab.

“I was very, very careful of what I used, but nobody wanted Labrador crosses. I had a three-to-six-month waiting list, but everyone wanted purebreds,” the 85-year-old Conron recalled. “So I had to come up with a gimmick.”

“We came up with the name ‘Labradoodle,’” he said. “We told people we had a new dog and all of sudden, people wanted this wonder dog.”

Over the years, demand grew for Conron and other breeders. Labradoodles became a hot dog — Jennifer Aniston, Tiger Woods and Christie Brinkley are among their owners — and President Barack Obama’s family considered a Labradoodle before picking a Portuguese water dog as the First Pet.

“When I heard he was thinking about a Labradoodle, I wrote to him and said to make sure he checked its pedigree,” Conron said.

There’s the problem that troubles him.

Conron said there are far too many unscrupulous people eager to make a buck at a dog’s expense. Rather than check the history and science, he said “horrific” puppy mills are springing up and producing unstable dogs that go unwanted and eventually are euthanized.

“Instead of breeding out the problems, they’re breeding them in,” he said. “For every perfect one, you’re going to find a lot of crazy ones.”

That’s a concern Conron has echoed in the past, blaming himself for opening a “Pandora’s box” and creating a “Frankenstein.”

PETA appreciated that Conron is “speaking out to stop the loss of lives that his ‘invention’ has created.”

“Breeding ‘purebred’ or ‘designer’ dogs for exaggerated physical characteristics such as flat faces or sloping hips can cause them severe health problems. The kindest thing that anyone can do for dogs is to adopt them from a shelter — and make sure that they are spayed or neutered,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, senior vice president for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Conron said he’s never owned a Labradoodle as a pet, and stopped breeding them when he retired 20 years ago.

Since then, he’s often witnessed the effects of his work.

“You can’t walk down the street without seeing a poodle cross of some sort. I just heard about someone who wanted to cross a poodle with a rottweiler. How could anyone do that?” he said.

“Not in my wildest dream did I imagine all of this would happen,” he said. “That’s a trend I started.”
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!