Championship lines in pet store puppies

[glencorgi]

A while back I was asked how dogs from well known kennels ended up the pedigrees of pet store puppies. One thing to remember in the US is that limited registration is a relatively new thing and only been increasingly used over the last ten years or so. There was more honor, trust and ethics in the past than one might find today. But all it takes is one wrong sale by someone and there you go, a reputable breeder's kennel name is in the pedigree.

This article from the Wisconsin No Puppy Mills website was passed along as a possible explanation. While their are snippets of probable truth in it, basically it is a very anti-breeder and heavily animal rights influenced piece.

Non-italics will be my comments.

Debbie

puppies sold in stores/pedigrees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dam and Sire: their pedigrees


It is a commonly held belief that Puppy Mill puppies do not come from champion stock. However, I have discussed this topic with a USDA Puppy Mill owner. They have never had a problem buying a “retired” champion bitch or sire that has the possibility of producing one or two more litters. All they have to do is offer more money, and the retired champion is theirs.

Just because someone shows their dogs does not mean they are ethical or responsible breeders. However, the circle of dog show folks I travel in, no amount of money would clinch such a sale.

Show Ring owners do not keep “used up” dogs on their premises as a rule.

When careers are finished, among the circle I know the retirees are spayed/neutered and placed in homes of their own - not sold to be bred on and on.

It would be impossible to house and feed that many dogs that are finished with their breeding years. After all, a good Irish Terrier is supposed to live 15 to 17 years.

That is why they are placed spayed and neutered in loving homes where they no longer have to be one of many.

It is generally believed that “champion stock dogs” are healthier than animals that have been out of the breeding ring for a generation or two. This is also not true since Puppy Mills can and do buy “retired” champions.

Back when AKC did its High Volume Breeder study, there were well known judges who supported and tried to push the idea of selling retired dogs to the commercial breeding industry. They were subsequently boycotted by exhibitors and kennel clubs would no longer hire them to judge at their shows.

I talked to a Long Term Dog Show Judge in South Carolina and the inside gossip is astounding. He flipped through the pages of a Dog Judges’ Magazine and showed me the advertisements and the judges and which judges had cut deals and why, in his breed. Judges regularly award championships to dogs in exchange for being allowed to stand next to the dog in the publicity photo and having their name printed as the judge. Judges also have personal preferences and have people that follow them around because they grade their dogs more highly. Judges have awarded championships in exchange for puppies. The Show Ring is a very political place and what goes on behind closed doors is rarely discussed. Deals are made all the time.

And none of this has anything to do with breeding or "puppy mill" dogs. At the specials level with the dogs being campaigned and those dogs which appear in the Dog Fancy rags, yes politics do exist. But, again this has nothing to do with the supposed point of this article. IF this supposed conversation was held at a show, well the general public does NOT have access to the judges, nor do judges have time to chit chat and air dirty little secrets with people passing by.

On the flip side of the coin, I watched a Documentary on TV that discussed puppy mills and their ability to “acquire” lovely pedigrees for their dogs. One woman had her AKC registration revoked and yet was able to acquire new pedigrees and names for her dogs a short time later.

That does exist, but IF suspended by AKC, then the breeders who will stoop to these tactics are usually breeding under someone else's name and/or satellites.

So the lack of, or presence of, “champion stock” on a pedigree is not proof positive that the puppy will be of better health or better quality.

Nor does the presence of Champion in front of a dog's name necessarily mean it should be bred.

Pedigrees are just the names of the parent dogs going back a number of generations. Unless one knows the DNA structure of each dog, and the health of EACH of the puppies produced by each of the dogs on the pedigree, it is really just a list of pretty names.

Well, at the time this was written, the canine genome was still being studied, so this would have been impossible to know. But yes, knowing as much as possible health wise about each of the dogs and their offspring in a pedigree are useful tools.

In addition, it is impossible for every puppy in every litter to be perfect for the show ring.

DUH Really conservative breeders are thrilled to get one puppy that meets the hopes and expectations they had for the breeding from which it came.

If the breeder is responsible and buying the best breeding stock that they can find then the odds of puppies looking good increase.

Well, yea

Show Ring breeders are always selling puppies that are not show ring quality. That means that even they produce a lot of “pet quality” puppies that would never make it in the show ring and yet they are not considered puppy mills.

As I mentioned earlier, a breeding is considered successful by some Breeders, IF they get the one puppy they were looking for out of a breeding. Sometimes things just do not click and there is nothing they wish to take into the showring and continue on with in their breeding program. So again, DUH there are what are deemed "pet quality" puppies left over. Those are the very puppies some of us own. Coming from responsible Breeders, what the difference is, those "pet" puppies are also the product of health tested parents. They have been raised identically to the new show prospect with the same amount of quality food, socialization, care, training, etc. Homes are screened and a great deal of care is taken in matching personalities and temperaments to the homes they go to.

What people fail to realize is that one doesn’t know how many puppies never make it to the show ring. All the Public sees is the perfect looking dog in the Dog Breed Book or Magazine. Of course, the absolute prettiest dog is going to be in those photos and doesn’t show the thousands of puppies that didn’t make it.

No, I think anyone researching a breed and dealing with Breeders might have an idea. Big slam at the Breeders who do show their dogs for placing well bred, healthy sound puppies into homes like those of the list members here.

So, to sum it up, the words “Champion Stock” might or might not mean anything on a pedigree.

What "Champion Stock" means (and it isn't usually the show people who use that term) is that somewhere within the pedigree is at least one champion. A breeder using this in their advertising is usually a breeder to walk away from.

A Responsible Breeder usually keeps their dogs in the house as part of the family, rather than maintaining them in kennels.

Not necessarily.

Again, it is necessary to do the math. If a breeder has a number of breeding animals, and their puppies, then it is rather difficult to keep them all in the house at the same time.

Numbers do not make a breeder responsible or irresponsible. That is determined by their ethics, standards and actions.

A true Puppy Mill would have a difficult time housing hundreds of dogs in the house.

Again, numbers do not <IMO> determine a puppy mill. In fact, I really hate that word as it is something made up by animal rights activists to create a disease so they can create a cure. Anyone who breeds even ONE litter in their mindset is a "puppymill." My definition of a puppymill is a substandard breeding facility that is in violation of local and state animal welfare statutes. That could be only having 2 dogs or 200.

So it is necessary to visit the premises of the breeder to see how the dogs are treated and how the puppies are raised.

With the threat of animal rights activists today, many Breeders are rethinking visitations.

It is important to see the dam and the sire. One can not do this when purchasing a puppy from a Pet Store.

Nor can one always do this when purchasing a puppy from a reputable and responsible Breeder. The dam most likely will be on site. The sire however, well the litter might have been done with fresh frozen semen and the sire across the country or even on another continent or even frozen semen and the sire is dead. It is often more the exception to have the sire on site or for a Breeder to own both the sire and the dam. "Parents on premises" used in advertising is another flag, that warrants more investigation on the part of a potential puppy buyer.

[CorgiMum]

Debbie, thank you for your very enlightening post. It confirms to me that with having to date owned 3 corgis form 2 different breeders, we have made the right choices.

[Fluffypants]

That was very informative. Were there parts edited out? Because I had a hard time figuring out what the author's (of the article, not you Deb ) point was!

[darci]

Great article.

I would like to add, sadly this will show my ignorance, but the older members here know that I got Darci from a pet store. All I knew was that she had papers. I had no idea about AKC, APRI, etc. I thought there was only one organization. Education is the key, forums like this, supporting local humane societys, and rescue groups.

Here is a link for anyone interested from an old thread on this board.

http://www.gocorgi.com/forums/genera...p-puppies.html


I wanted to edit to add, I am not trying to go off topic on Debbies thread, only to add to it. If you have a response to the thread link that I provided please post it there, or start a new thread.

[CorgiMum]

deleted...

[corgimom]

Very well put.

I have learned many things also on here regarding breeders and what we should expect as buyers and what to watch out for.

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Fluffypants

That was very informative. Were there parts edited out? Because I had a hard time figuring out what the author's (of the article, not you Deb ) point was!

No, the article was complete - I only interspersed comments. The so-called "point" of the author's article in a nutshell is/was - breeding is bad and anyone who does it is a "puppymill," whether it is one litter or one hundred, still a "puppy mill." It was also an effort to demonize and vilify those in the dog show world. The article is an animal rights propaganda piece.

Debbie

[Fluffypants]

hmmmmm . . . I wonder . . . how do they propose we continue to have dogs on the planet if no one is breeding them? I'm all for animal rights, and I'm a member of the ASPCA & HSUS, but some of those people are a little over the top.

[Fluffypants]

Originally Posted by Fluffypants

hmmmmm . . . I wonder . . . how do they propose we continue to have dogs on the planet if no one is breeding them? I'm all for animal rights, and I'm a member of the ASPCA & HSUS, but some of those people are a little over the top.

Actually, after your very informative posts recently . . . I should restate . . .
I am all for animal WELFARE . . . and am seriously rethinking the ASPCA & HSUS. I joined them because they seemed the most normal & down to earth of the animal organizations . . . but I guess they are just better at hiding the "crazy".

[glencorgi]

Originally Posted by Fluffypants

hmmmmm . . . I wonder . . . how do they propose we continue to have dogs on the planet if no one is breeding them?

But that's just it ... you aren't supposed to continue to have dogs, no animal use whatsoever, including pets.

In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?

"Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." Eliot Katz, President In Defense of Animals, In Defense of Animals website, 2001

"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ? enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.

"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz, President "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p. 20.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.

"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 creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993
(Pacelle is now CEO of HSUS)

"[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs {artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights", Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"[Animal] Fancies provide an escape from the real world, a sense of purpose in a lot of purposeless lives, a chance to play God by breeding animals, and a chance to play celebrity by showing them." Phil Maggitti, The Animals' Agenda, December 1991.

"Breeders must be eliminated! As long as there is a surplus of companion animals in the concentration camps referred to as "shelters", and they are killing them because they are homeless, one should not be allowed to produce more for their own amusement and profit. If you know of a breeder in the Los Angeles area, whether commercial or private, legal or illegal, let us know and we will post their name, location, phone number so people can write them letters telling them 'Don't Breed or Buy, While Others DIE.'" "Breeders! Let's get rid of them too!" Campaign on Animal Defense League's website, September 2, 2003.

"I'm not only uninterested in having children. I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog; it is nothing but vanity, human vanity." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA's founder and president, New Yorker magazine, April 23, 2003

"Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking." Kim Sturla, former director of the Peninsula Humane Society and Western Director of Fund for Animals, stated during Kill the Crisis, not the Animals campaign and workshops, 1991

“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind," Ingrid Newkirk, founder, president and former national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Animals, May/June 1993

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade, as quoted on AR-Views, an animal rights Internet discussion group in 1996 .

I'm all for animal rights, and I'm a member of the ASPCA & HSUS, but some of those people are a little over the top.

Animals do NOT have rights. You think a lion is capable of feeling remorse over killing a gazelle for dinner? We humans have a responsibility to be good stewards of their care.

ASPCA is slightly less crazy than HSUS or the others. These are the people in the leadership - true believers. They are very politically savvy and using you $1.00 donation for the mailing labels you sent to create legislation to do away with future hope of having another corgi. Anti-docking and cropping legislation is a part of this. Make NO mistake - HSUS is largest and richest Animal Rights organization in the world.

For more on PeTA go to <http://www.petakills.com> and read the statistics on euthanization in their shelter. Read the articles about the two PeTA employees now on trial in NC. Ethical treatment of animals is - an animal is better off dead than possibly being placed in a home where it might be abused or enslaved by being someone's pet. One of our local true believers made this statement in support of the two PeTA employees now awaiting trial in NC after they were caught euthanizing animals van they had just picked up from a vet's office and the area shelter with the promise of taking them back to Norfolk, VA (PeTA's home base) and finding good homes. The animals were euthanized in the back of the PeTA van they were driving and the bodies left in black plastic bags in dumpsters in the area.

Originally Posted by Fluffypants

Actually, after your very informative posts recently . . . I should restate . . .
I am all for animal WELFARE . . .

gleefully clapping hands! Education works!

and am seriously rethinking the ASPCA & HSUS. I joined them because they seemed the most normal & down to earth of the animal organizations . . . but I guess they are just better at hiding the "crazy".

Much better at hiding the crazy

Debbie

[corgimom]

Ingrid sounds a bit

And what those PeTA people did in N.C. to those animals rather than finding them a home is horrible

[Fluffypants]

I have a very good friend who is a member of PETA (although she has "companion animals"!), and we made a bargain years ago when she decided to join . . . She promised not to try & "recruit" me, and I promised not to tell her how crazy I think her PETA buddies are! We each keep our opinions to ourself, and have managed to maintain our friendship (despite me being a confessed carnivore!).

[Cardiguy]

Hey Ingrid Newkirk of PETA,

I love my PET cardigan Ruby and will always treat my PET pooch like she is a member of my family even though she is a PET. She is my PET, my PET, my PET.... Ingid, you are a total nut case!!!!

[Scotchyroo]

I'd just like to throw in that my younger corgi, Lil' Pete, came from a petstore at a mall. He was just six weeks old. I wasn't shopping for a dog, but saw his little self in the cage and had to take him home. His little paws were slipping through the bottom bars of the cage and he was covered in excrement. He'll never recover from being taken from his mother too young. I sent the breeder a note to let her know I thought selling a corgi at six weeks was reprehensible. At least the law requires the names and addresses of people who profit from animal cruelty be made available to their purchasers.
He'll always be nervous and needy because of his past. I believe there should be no pet stores in malls, but can't think taking Pete home was wrong. We tell him he came from a farm with horses and was fostered by a nice fat woman who loved corgis.....
Consequently, he's the most loving, willing companion animal I've ever lived with. I never had to train him, he just does everything he's asked cheerfully. It's as if he spoke english.
so anyway, my two cents.

[corgimom]

It would be hard to see that little Corgi in a cage such as you described.

Sad thing is, with these pet stores, they quickly replace your pet with a new one and so the cycle(puppy mill industry) continues on.