Ban breeding for one year?

Question

What would happen if the world of governments decided to ban breeding for one year to aid shelter dogs in finding a home?

Do you think most people would adopt rather than buy, or do you think people would simply wait until breeding was legal again?

What would the consequence for breeding your dog be?

Who would enforce this law?

Would it really help the situation or would people breed anyway, despite a law that says they cannot?

What would YOU do to make this law work? Or do you even agree with the idea?

There is NO wrong answer here. Please, no thumb downs, accusations or name-calling.

Greekman: Just curious, what traits can you not find in a pound?

Dogtrainer: If one must hold a license to breed, remember that the government approves of puppy mills and even sets (awful) standards for them. They WOULD be given a license, so what would stop the government from granting licenses to backyard breeders as well?

Catie G- There is sometimes a very fine line between a backyard breeder and responsible breeder. Some backyard breeders breed for the love of the breed, do all the health checks, yet don't keep in touch with their buyers after the dog has gone home. It is hard to let one person do one thing and tell another they can't do it at all. Hence why there is a huge problem with drugs: rockstars and celebrities actually get away with drug use (IE: Paris and Brittany) so other people think they should be able to do it and not get punished.

Some shelter animals ARE on a clean slate. I think this is a huge ignorance issue. The shelter I work at has a whole room for pregnant and nursing mothers (one for cats AND one for dogs). Puppies are not only with the breeder. There are puppies being euthanized every day (especially in southern shelters). Some shelters will euthanize a pregnant dog simply because they can't handle the demand of having ten puppies to adopt out in addition to the btch

You are all bringing up such great points, thank you!

One thing I would like to add: Responsibly bred dogs DO end up in shelters. At least ten percent of the dogs we get at the shelter I work at are from a reputable breeder (the owner is required to tell us where they got the dog from).

Another interesting point that somebody's answer brought into my mind: Would there be an increase in animal abuse and at-home euthanasias because people wouldn't want to admit their dog that puppies (to avoid punishment)?

sshorekennels- My dog is an extreme herder. And she came from a rescue. People actually give their dogs up BECAUSE they herd.

Answer 1

I knew when I answered your previous questions with this idea that it was a hypothetical situation.

I'm a rescue person at heart. I'm also a LAB person. I see my breed (mostly poorly bred) dying by the hundreds all over my area and I can't do much to help them.

I have nothing against reputable breeders. In fact, I have a dog from a reputable breeder. I also have rescues.

I know I'm not answering your question because in my heart, this question isn't exactly answerable. It's a really interesting thing to consider to answer a bigger problem that faces "true" dog lovers even if they don't contribute to the overpopulation problem or not.

How do we (dog advocates) help reduce the number of dogs dying in shelters? A "hold" on breeding for a year is an interesting thought. I'd just like to see if from a lab prespective. I'd even like to see if from the reputable breeders - if nothing else. I know it's not possible to enforce this. But if the reputable breeders DID this.... the impact would be huge.

We can't control the BYBs and accidental breeders. Heck right now we are having trouble even talking politely to one another in here.

I'd love to see a voluntary hold... or if nothing else, a voluntary skip this litter on breeding.

But we all know, the people who follow the rules aren't the problem. That's the case with any "industry". It's sad isn't it?

Another really good question. These questions that get people to think are fun. Keep them up!

EDIT:
2 of my 3 rescues are purebred - and actually pretty wellbred. I wouldn't trade either of these dogs for anything. I think that most people that have a shelter or rescue dog love their dog as much as anyone who have a dog from a breeder (BYB or reputable)

We have to move past all that stuff and not sound like dog racists. People love their dogs, regardless of where they came from and what they are. Dogs are dogs... and they are all wonderful! =)

Answer 2

I'm not sure that would work...there's more to it....what about the bad owners...they are as much of the problem...dumping thier pets to shelters when they decide they don't want the dog anymore because it has behavior problems or now they have a baby or have moved into a new house. I think making laws stricter on who can breed should also be put on people who choose to buy or adopt. Also, spay and neutering should be required. If the owners do not bring the dog in for a spay or neuter by the time indicated...there should be a fine. Owners should be required to not only spay and neuter, but take thier dogs through obedience classes. They should be classes on how to be a good, responsible dog owner.

Breeders should have to follow certain guidelines such as giving reasons why a breeding should be done, required to provide proof of health clearences on their breeding stock. Frequent (unannouced) visits to the home or kennel of the breeder should be done. Humane treatment and living conditions should be required. There is so many things that can be done to crack down on BYB and puppy mills...as well as getting rid of pet shops.

This is a good question, however...because you are fully aware as well as many dog lovers that there is a huge problem with overpopulated shelters and unnecessary euthanizing. There is a huge probem of poorly bred dogs...greedy breeders intentionally breeding designer breeds...mixed breeds...and selling them at high prices. I personally think that breeding for profit should be outlawed. I know there is a huge problem with treatment, breeding practices, and ownership of animals and I'm not sure what the answer is to make it stop. I'm sure money has a lot to do with it. I think trying to improve this problem would take a lot of money and the government feels they have other more important things to focus on.

Humane Societies and shelters are working hard to improve the problems of dogs in shelters and they rely on donations to get things done. I feel they are the ones who can really make a difference. They are the ones who really care. They are educating, spaying and neutering before puppies are adopted. But I thinlk there should be stricter screenings on potential adoptees as well.

I'm not sure banning breeding for a year is the answer as there are good breeders out there and it would hurt the breeding of quality pure breds. It's the BYB and the puppy mills, the people intetionally breeding mixed breeds, and people breeding without a clue or who are irresponsible in spaying an neutering thier animals. Your idea, although a good point in the right direction, will only help part of the problem. However...your dedication to helping the problem is a good start.

Answer 3

I dont see anything wrong with breeding for the right reasons. The problem is that most people have no idea what they are doing and that is when they are adding to the over population problem. Good breeders consist of those few individuals who breed sticktly to improve the breed standerd of one specific breed and watch verry carfully the health and qualities in the animals they are choosing to breed. These people know that each life they bring into the world is compleatly their responsibility. They also know that it is a tremendious amount of work into raising puppies the right way. The breeders that need to be shut down are puppy mills and backyard breeders who breed becasue puppies are cute, it will be a great learning experience for their children, to make a profit etc. I think that these people are selfish because they dont have the animals best intrest in mind. They also dont understand that it takes a lot of work to raise puppies and keep them healthy and keep track of the blood lines and such. Some people simply breed because they own the animal and they think they have the right. Those people absoulutely dont have the right to take homes away from the shelter animals who need them. I think that some people want shelter animals and some people want to start with a clean slate and get a puppy from a breeder, it really all comes down to the preference of the people so I dont know that a law would do anything to help the cause. It is illegal to sell drugs and stuff but people still do it so I think that just because it would be illegal to breed puppies and sell them doesnt mean that it will do anything because if they are in high enought demand then people will breed and the people who do it will only be breeding for profit and will most likey care nothing about the animals themselfs.

Answer 4

I think that it wouldn't work for several reasons:
-professional breeders out there would not want a ban on their dogs if they are nearing the last age they would want to breed them at for their last champion litter.
-byb would not give two ****'s because they would want money
-pet stores would feel a lull puppy foods and puppy items
-food suppliers would feel a lull on puppy foods
-vets would have a lull on spays/neuters and other puppy expenses
-trainers wouldn't be able to offer puppy classes

Although it would be nice, I don't know if it would ever be supported.

As for people who want a dog, I think that people who don't really care about the breed of their dog would consider going to a shelter, but those who ONLY want a shih tsu or dalmation, or whatever, would wait. This would also lead to a huge increase in the price of puppies for the first few litters, as there would be a huge demand for them.

I don't know who would enforce the law besides maybe a seperate police/humane society force. Maybe go "undercover" and look for a dog, and shut down BYB's who are breeding or whomever it is. Either way, I don't think it would work ,although, in theory, it is interesting. Too many people would say no because of the loss of income and revenue, from pet stores and trainers to vets and breeders.

Answer 5

I think a breeding ban of any kind is a slippery slope that could eventually result in a total breeding ban. The BYB and irresponsible owners who allow there dogs to breed indiscriminately resulting in most of the dogs in shelters would most likely ignore it anyway, and in the end it would only hurt responsible breeders and the breed over all.

People who are looking for good dogs from responsible breeders often wait a year or more for a puppy anyway so it would not change anything there. As I mentioned before the irresponsible breeders would most likely ignore the law and the people who want a dog right now would buy from them so it still wouldn't affect anything.

Answer 6

The bad thing about doing something like this is it is the reputable breeder who gets hit the hardest. Maybe they have a female, who they have been waiting to breed to achieve something and if that one year ban takes affect, then by the time it is lifted and the female finally goes into heat, she is maybe too old to breed by this time. A breeding that could have achieved a goal of improvement within the breed.

I am all for stopping the backyard breeders, but I don't want the reputable breeders to ever stop. They are where good, healthy dogs come from and I always want that option. But if someone just wants a pet, then I always suggest they look into rescue, but I don't push that on them. I understand the desire for a purebred from a good breeder that is predictable and you know what to expect. For some people, this is a better situation.

It isn't that I don't support rescue, just that at this time, a shelter dog is not always going to suit my desires in what I want in a dog. I am into herding and for me, nothing beats a Border Collie. If I rescue one from the pound or rescue group, there is no history usually with that dog and I just don't know if it will have the proper instinct I need to do the herding job I want done. Now I am certain there are some in shelters that will, but you could bring home 10 or 20 before you find that diamond in the rough. That is just not something I can do. I could end up with way too many dogs, just to find that one.

Now if I go to that breeder, who has great stockdogs, then I can be confident that I am going to find a puppy with the right amount of instinct for the job I want it to do.

The sad thing is that in something like a breeding ban, what you will get is reputable breeders abiding to the ban and then the bybs are going to run amuck still. There are plenty of rural areas that you simply can't police everyone.

I want to see the bybs stop. If they stop, that would reduce 60% of what ends up in shelters. bybs are the biggest contributing factor to our over population problem. I do what I can to educate and heavily discourage anyone from buying from these disreputable people. Education is the first step in stopping the breeding madness.

ADDED: I realize that some people give up their dogs because they herd, but that doesn't mean they do it well or have adequate drive to do the job right. Did you know that some of the big dogs who take competition in herding all the way up to the national level will surrender a dog that isn't working out and would never go to that level as a result. The dog can herd, but that doesn't mean it can do it well. The right drive MUST be there for a dog and handler to be successful together.

This is why I am going to instinct test before picking my BC pup from a breeder next spring. I am going to take ducks with me and put all the pups on them to see which one shows the greatest potential for a high drive.

ADDEDx2: If a breeders produced dogs are ending up in shelter, then I do not consider that to be a reputable breeder. Reputable breeder will ALWAYS take back any dog they have produced. It doesn't matter what else they are doing, if they don't take a dog back, then they are not reputable. I realize that some slip thru the cracks due to bad owners not living up to contracts, but this is now why many good breeders are doing microchipping. It ensures that dog will come back to them if their buyer breaks contract and surrenders a dog. You know, there are some breeders that people call "show mills" meaning they do showing, but still run it like a puppy mill. Just because they show, doesn't make them reputable either.

Answer 7

If I thought it would help, I would be all for it. (My last litter was in 2005). HOWEVER, it will always be the good, law abiding people that will comply, and the money seeking greedy people that will continue around the law.
It would do no good except to make well bred puppies harder to come by. Most people that wanted a well bred pup would just wait. Most wait at least a year anyway.

ADDED: If that many shelter dogs were coming form GOOD breeders,the GOOD breeders would have taken the dog back. If they do not, they are not good breeders. If the people do not call the breeder, there must be a reason.

Answer 8

I think the only people this law would actually affect would be responsible breeders who aren't contributing to the pet overpopulation problem anyway. Maybe a few irresponsible breeders would stop for the designated period...but most of them would ignore it. And it wouldn't do anything to prevent irresponsible pet owners from not being vigilant enough with their intact pets. And it obviously wouldn't do anything to prevent unwanted pregnancies among stray dogs...since even if dogs could read the laws I doubt they would pass on the opportunity to breed.

What would the consequences for breeding be? Would it apply to owners of both dogs and bitches? Or just do owners of female dogs who have litters? And would it really be fair for a family who had never had a dog before who didn't understand anything about heat cycles to be punished because they were simply ignorant and the neighbor's dog got to their female before they knew? And what about silent heats?

I do not see any way to make a law like this work. Even if it could be enforced, there really isn't a way to make it fair. Plus, as has already been pointed out, if a law like this were passed it's just a small step away from banning breeding alltogether.

Answer 9

I believe that is a wonderful idea. Actually, ban breeding until all shelter dogs--and I mean ALL--find a home! Wait, no, better yet; for every litter bred, a breeder must adopt two shelter dogs. That will make them think twice about every litter they breed.

Consequences? Well, perhaps a good breeder has a few lovely bitches who are at the perfect age to be bred when the law is passed. The bitches would miss the perfect age to be bred and would have to be bred the year afterward. However, if properly fed and exercised, that really shouldn't be a problem.

Who would enforce this law? Hmm, great question...I'd have to honestly say vets and dog registries. Vets strongly push the idea that the non-ideal dog must be spayed/neutered; dog registries have those who register intact dogs should require a higher fee for registry. The fine for breeding a dog, whether accidentally or purposely, should be, say, fifty thousand dollars. Who would collect the fine, you ask? Police officers. Whoever saw suspicious acts happening (i.e. witnessing a dog breeding, seeing a mother nurse a litter of puppies during the no-breeding year, seeing a bunch of tiny puppies around when they weren't supposed to be bred, etc. etc.) calls the police and the lawbreaker gets a stiff penalty on his hands.

I believe it would help the situation, so long as the law is enforced.

My role during this time would be to spay and neuter all my dogs, get others to do so as well, and report any suspicious occurrences.

I firmly agree with this idea--actually, I advocate the spaying and neutering of ALL dogs UNLESS they are really, truly show quality and free of hereditary diseases.

Answer 10

I think that most people would think the law unnecessary and therefore ignore it and still get a puppy. There would be no way to enforce this law properly so breeders would still be doing it and might even take advantage of the law and raise the prices since it's black-market territory then. I think the government should enforce mandatory neutering and spaying unless breeders have proper permits and have been checked out. They should be working on controlling the pet population and stopping dogs having to go to shelters as oppose to patching up the problem and trying to find dogs new homes (there will always be more unwanted dogs to fill their shoes).