the doggy in the window
July 3, 2008 9:59 PM Subscribe
Dude :-(
But thanks for, hopefully, bringing this to wider attention. Puppy mills are just another in the endless list of vileness and depravity our species has demonstrated to be its one true forte.
Also, fuck the Amish.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:11 PM on July 3, 2008
But thanks for, hopefully, bringing this to wider attention. Puppy mills are just another in the endless list of vileness and depravity our species has demonstrated to be its one true forte.
Also, fuck the Amish.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:11 PM on July 3, 2008
but the Amish I know and not sentimental about animals.
There's the rub then: most people are sentimental about the Amish.
posted by Brian B. at 10:13 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]
There's the rub then: most people are sentimental about the Amish.
posted by Brian B. at 10:13 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]
Bad dog? Extraordinary rendition to Amish-land.
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:21 PM on July 3, 2008
posted by BrotherCaine at 10:21 PM on July 3, 2008
ShelterSource serves rescue groups, shelters, and others interested in helping people help animals.
posted by netbros at 10:54 PM on July 3, 2008
posted by netbros at 10:54 PM on July 3, 2008
People don't care where their little yorkies come from, just like they don't care about where their steak comes from.
But they should. They aren't sharing their lives with a steak for a decade or more, and a dog's origins (bloodlines, early handling, etc.) have a massive effect on its temperament, health and everything else about it.
posted by biscotti at 10:55 PM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]
But they should. They aren't sharing their lives with a steak for a decade or more, and a dog's origins (bloodlines, early handling, etc.) have a massive effect on its temperament, health and everything else about it.
posted by biscotti at 10:55 PM on July 3, 2008 [3 favorites]
Also, fuck the Amish.
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:11 PM on July 3 [+] [!]
That's it! You're doing it right!
posted by basicchannel at 11:01 PM on July 3, 2008
posted by turgid dahlia at 10:11 PM on July 3 [+] [!]
That's it! You're doing it right!
posted by basicchannel at 11:01 PM on July 3, 2008
Nope. Couldn't do it. I opened the "outrage" link, saw those dogs in cages and felt the catch in my throat, and clicked the "back" button lickety split.
I volunteer as a humane educator with the SPCA. Earlier this week I spent a whole day evaluating dogs for placement in homes. Does that get me off the hook for this?
posted by hifiparasol at 11:01 PM on July 3, 2008
I volunteer as a humane educator with the SPCA. Earlier this week I spent a whole day evaluating dogs for placement in homes. Does that get me off the hook for this?
posted by hifiparasol at 11:01 PM on July 3, 2008
Hunter-gatherers love and worship and slaughter and eat all at once; why shouldn't farmers?
That's the real fall we sinned all.
posted by jamjam at 11:06 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]
That's the real fall we sinned all.
posted by jamjam at 11:06 PM on July 3, 2008 [2 favorites]
Question: why "mills"? It makes no sense. I mean, obviously it gives the sense of a factory-like process that treats living things as inanimate, but where did this use of "mill" come from? Even PETA doesn't refer to mink farming as "mink mills", or battery chicken operations as "egg mills", does it?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 11:25 PM on July 3, 2008
posted by AmbroseChapel at 11:25 PM on July 3, 2008
Turgid Dahlia: "Also, fuck the Amish."
Yeah! All 200,000 of them!
And the Mennonites, too!
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:12 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yeah! All 200,000 of them!
And the Mennonites, too!
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:12 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
After looking at all the links, the Amish <> puppy mill link seems a bit tenuous. The only actual evidence to support the alleged link is a single newspaper article under the puppy link - the rest is just a collection of allegations, anecdotes, and inference e.g. a bunch of people who once saw an Amish beating a horse, or a newspaper story where a girl in a bonnet offered them puppies (notice they don't claim those particular puppies were poorly treated?), or that an area renowned for Amish also has a lot of 'puppy mills'.
Now, it may be true, and there may be a post in it - but, without a lot less dark inference and a lot more actual evidence, this post ain't it. Frankly, it comes across as emotional manipulation.
posted by Pinback at 12:45 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Now, it may be true, and there may be a post in it - but, without a lot less dark inference and a lot more actual evidence, this post ain't it. Frankly, it comes across as emotional manipulation.
posted by Pinback at 12:45 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Modern urban and suburban sentimentality about (some) animals is actually a very recent and very unusual phenomenon.
It's one I share in myself, but I'm aware that it's not generally found among populations that live a more rural, agrarian lifestyle and are closer both to the cycle of life and death in general, and in particular among animals they're going to eat. I know it's still true of poor southern country folk. I have it on good authority that it was true of Italian peasant immigrants to the US a century ago - and the first generation of their kids. It makes sense that it would be true of the amish who have carefully maintained those old-school values.
It's not necessarily cruelty - though there used to be plenty of that to go around too. I think a lack of sentimentality is the best phrasing I can come up with.
posted by Naberius at 1:07 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
It's one I share in myself, but I'm aware that it's not generally found among populations that live a more rural, agrarian lifestyle and are closer both to the cycle of life and death in general, and in particular among animals they're going to eat. I know it's still true of poor southern country folk. I have it on good authority that it was true of Italian peasant immigrants to the US a century ago - and the first generation of their kids. It makes sense that it would be true of the amish who have carefully maintained those old-school values.
It's not necessarily cruelty - though there used to be plenty of that to go around too. I think a lack of sentimentality is the best phrasing I can come up with.
posted by Naberius at 1:07 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Damn fine bowlers, though.
posted by Roman Graves at 2:56 AM on July 4, 2008
posted by Roman Graves at 2:56 AM on July 4, 2008
Wait. So I'm supposed to be shocked, surprised, and stunned that a group of loonies who reject the majority of modern social and technological advances, who believe that education past 8th grade is a bad thing, who, in other words have a generally medieval mindset.
I'm supposed to be stunned that these medieval mindset people treat animals in a medieval way?
Ummmm.... Nope, I figure that after they finished beating their wives, sexually abusing their children, and in general acting exactly the same as all the other Compound Christians it makes perfect sense that they'd abuse animals.
The only reason anyone is startled is because there's this meme that says "oooh, Amish, cool, good, simple". Rejecting technology is, for some odd reason, seen as laudable in the minds of many Americans, who are quick to condemn other Compound Christians.
The FLDS? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "uck, these people are nasty". The Branch Davidians? They lived in compouns, abused people, and Joe America said "uck, these people are nasty". The People's Temple? They lived in compounds, abused people, and Joe American was so aggrieved by this that the US government interfered with another sovereign power to provoke the People's Temple to mass suicide.
The Amish? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "oooh, they're so cute and quaint, no need to worry about them!" Feh.
posted by sotonohito at 4:18 AM on July 4, 2008 [14 favorites]
I'm supposed to be stunned that these medieval mindset people treat animals in a medieval way?
Ummmm.... Nope, I figure that after they finished beating their wives, sexually abusing their children, and in general acting exactly the same as all the other Compound Christians it makes perfect sense that they'd abuse animals.
The only reason anyone is startled is because there's this meme that says "oooh, Amish, cool, good, simple". Rejecting technology is, for some odd reason, seen as laudable in the minds of many Americans, who are quick to condemn other Compound Christians.
The FLDS? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "uck, these people are nasty". The Branch Davidians? They lived in compouns, abused people, and Joe America said "uck, these people are nasty". The People's Temple? They lived in compounds, abused people, and Joe American was so aggrieved by this that the US government interfered with another sovereign power to provoke the People's Temple to mass suicide.
The Amish? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "oooh, they're so cute and quaint, no need to worry about them!" Feh.
posted by sotonohito at 4:18 AM on July 4, 2008 [14 favorites]
I'm not going to click on the link because I will just sink into depression again--with hope that I will work my way back to just feeling numb.
The older I get, the more ashamed I feel to be a part of humanity. What a worthless lot we are: selfish, mean-spirited, greedy, and cruel.
Mankind: made in God's image. Ha! Pardon me while I puke.
posted by belvidere at 4:31 AM on July 4, 2008
The older I get, the more ashamed I feel to be a part of humanity. What a worthless lot we are: selfish, mean-spirited, greedy, and cruel.
Mankind: made in God's image. Ha! Pardon me while I puke.
posted by belvidere at 4:31 AM on July 4, 2008
I'm disgusted by puppy mills, but I'm a lot more disgusted at the demand end than the supply end. If you are planning on taking a living creature into your family for the next ten or fifteen years, you need to do at least enough research to realize that getting a puppy from a pet store is a terrible idea. That goes right along with doing enough research to realize that puppies will destroy your shoes, or that puppies will not be nearly so cute if you don't put any effort into training them, or that you might have to spend a couple thousand dollars on vet bills when your dog finds something weird to eat. I learned about puppy mills when I was eight years old. There's no excuse for not educating yourself at least that much.
posted by Jeanne at 4:47 AM on July 4, 2008 [8 favorites]
posted by Jeanne at 4:47 AM on July 4, 2008 [8 favorites]
Well, on the topic of purebred pets of any sort, I think you could make a very good case that the very existence of such animals is evidence of genetic abuse.
Want a dog? Get a mutt, it'll be healthier, likely smarter, and won't have any of those unpleasant and likely expensive built in problems (dachshund backs, for example). But people don't want dogs, they want little status symbols, and a purebred is so much more high status than an authentic non-fucked-over-genetically dog.
posted by sotonohito at 5:01 AM on July 4, 2008 [8 favorites]
Want a dog? Get a mutt, it'll be healthier, likely smarter, and won't have any of those unpleasant and likely expensive built in problems (dachshund backs, for example). But people don't want dogs, they want little status symbols, and a purebred is so much more high status than an authentic non-fucked-over-genetically dog.
posted by sotonohito at 5:01 AM on July 4, 2008 [8 favorites]
Turgid Dahlia: "Also, fuck the Amish."
Seconded.
Yeah! All 200,000 of them!
No, fuck the Amish in other countries, too. Fuck all of the Amish.
And the Mennonites, too!
Wrong. The Mennonites are awesome.
But the Amish? Fuck them HARD.
posted by billysumday at 6:03 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
Seconded.
Yeah! All 200,000 of them!
No, fuck the Amish in other countries, too. Fuck all of the Amish.
And the Mennonites, too!
Wrong. The Mennonites are awesome.
But the Amish? Fuck them HARD.
posted by billysumday at 6:03 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
but the Amish I know [are] not sentimental about animals
The Amish are generally farmers, and farm people aren't sentimental about animals.
Also, fuck the Amish.
No thanks. They don't use the personal care products that have become de rigueur among mainstream contemporary society. A Mennonite friend of mine told me about how, when she stood among a crowd of Amish at an auction sale, she was glad she had the excuse of a cold windy day so she could cover her nose with her scarf.
posted by orange swan at 6:03 AM on July 4, 2008
The Amish are generally farmers, and farm people aren't sentimental about animals.
Also, fuck the Amish.
No thanks. They don't use the personal care products that have become de rigueur among mainstream contemporary society. A Mennonite friend of mine told me about how, when she stood among a crowd of Amish at an auction sale, she was glad she had the excuse of a cold windy day so she could cover her nose with her scarf.
posted by orange swan at 6:03 AM on July 4, 2008
They treat the breeding stock and puppies as "livestock".
No, actually they don't. Or rather, they give the dogs the same care they'd give pigs, while the dogs ought to get the level of care they'd give horses. I'm rather aghast at this. The Amish are used to taking care of animals. Why would they take such poor care of these dogs?
posted by orange swan at 6:11 AM on July 4, 2008
No, actually they don't. Or rather, they give the dogs the same care they'd give pigs, while the dogs ought to get the level of care they'd give horses. I'm rather aghast at this. The Amish are used to taking care of animals. Why would they take such poor care of these dogs?
posted by orange swan at 6:11 AM on July 4, 2008
I'm disgusted by puppy mills, but I'm a lot more disgusted at the demand end than the supply end.
That sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly. There are routinely big investigative pieces on the evils of puppy farming; this is not a new direction in journalism. A search for "puppy mills" on the NYTimes website turned up articles from 1972; another from 1993 discussing the Amish's role; and one of many recent investigative pieces on the topic -- there were hundreds, if not thousands, more results from the search.
In other words, puppy mills don't stay profitable because no one knows anything about them. But I know plenty of people who happily buy their dogs from dubious sources, rather than seeking out reputable breeders or adopting from a shelter. Can I blame some local landowner for running a small puppy mill out of the back barn when people will happily pay $800 or more for those "purebred" puppies? The economic incentives are so strong, and regulatory oversight so lacking, that there is every reason to do it.
And the entire purebred industry -- the dog shows, the breeders, etc -- is really complicit. There is a fair bit of talk about "reputable breeders" and all that, but in practice there is a lot more fetishization of breed specialization -- the same specialization that fuels the "I must have a Yorkie/Labradoodle/whatever" demand that ends up with people buying from puppy mills.
Honestly, I put this in the same mental pigeon hole as the "war on drugs" -- a demand rather than a supply issue that won't change unless or until you change the underlying issues that drive that demand. Certainly I support increased oversight and enforcement of existing laws, and education on the subject can't hurt. But I'm not particularly hopeful about changing the situation in a meaningful way anytime soon.
posted by Forktine at 6:11 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
That sums up my feelings on the matter perfectly. There are routinely big investigative pieces on the evils of puppy farming; this is not a new direction in journalism. A search for "puppy mills" on the NYTimes website turned up articles from 1972; another from 1993 discussing the Amish's role; and one of many recent investigative pieces on the topic -- there were hundreds, if not thousands, more results from the search.
In other words, puppy mills don't stay profitable because no one knows anything about them. But I know plenty of people who happily buy their dogs from dubious sources, rather than seeking out reputable breeders or adopting from a shelter. Can I blame some local landowner for running a small puppy mill out of the back barn when people will happily pay $800 or more for those "purebred" puppies? The economic incentives are so strong, and regulatory oversight so lacking, that there is every reason to do it.
And the entire purebred industry -- the dog shows, the breeders, etc -- is really complicit. There is a fair bit of talk about "reputable breeders" and all that, but in practice there is a lot more fetishization of breed specialization -- the same specialization that fuels the "I must have a Yorkie/Labradoodle/whatever" demand that ends up with people buying from puppy mills.
Honestly, I put this in the same mental pigeon hole as the "war on drugs" -- a demand rather than a supply issue that won't change unless or until you change the underlying issues that drive that demand. Certainly I support increased oversight and enforcement of existing laws, and education on the subject can't hurt. But I'm not particularly hopeful about changing the situation in a meaningful way anytime soon.
posted by Forktine at 6:11 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
sotonohito- I'm with you on the mutts. Why would anybody want a inbred dog with all the genetic problems that come from inbreeding? About the Amish though, after that school tragedy, I have felt nothing but admiration for the forgiving way they adopted toward the family of the killer.
I wish their charity extended to animals.
posted by francesca too at 6:16 AM on July 4, 2008
I wish their charity extended to animals.
posted by francesca too at 6:16 AM on July 4, 2008
Ummmm.... Nope, I figure that after they finished beating their wives, sexually abusing their children, and in general acting exactly the same as all the other Compound Christians it makes perfect sense that they'd abuse animals.
The only reason anyone is startled is because there's this meme that says "oooh, Amish, cool, good, simple". Rejecting technology is, for some odd reason, seen as laudable in the minds of many Americans, who are quick to condemn other Compound Christians.
The FLDS? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "uck, these people are nasty". The Branch Davidians? They lived in compouns, abused people, and Joe America said "uck, these people are nasty". The People's Temple? They lived in compounds, abused people, and Joe American was so aggrieved by this that the US government interfered with another sovereign power to provoke the People's Temple to mass suicide.
The Amish? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "oooh, they're so cute and quaint, no need to worry about them!" Feh.
posted by sotonohito at 4:18 AM on July 4 [1 favorite +] [!]
You're a stunningly, horrendously fucking stupid mouth-breather. Keep up the brilliant commentary.
posted by docpops at 6:21 AM on July 4, 2008 [6 favorites]
The only reason anyone is startled is because there's this meme that says "oooh, Amish, cool, good, simple". Rejecting technology is, for some odd reason, seen as laudable in the minds of many Americans, who are quick to condemn other Compound Christians.
The FLDS? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "uck, these people are nasty". The Branch Davidians? They lived in compouns, abused people, and Joe America said "uck, these people are nasty". The People's Temple? They lived in compounds, abused people, and Joe American was so aggrieved by this that the US government interfered with another sovereign power to provoke the People's Temple to mass suicide.
The Amish? They live in compounds, abuse people, and Joe America says "oooh, they're so cute and quaint, no need to worry about them!" Feh.
posted by sotonohito at 4:18 AM on July 4 [1 favorite +] [!]
You're a stunningly, horrendously fucking stupid mouth-breather. Keep up the brilliant commentary.
posted by docpops at 6:21 AM on July 4, 2008 [6 favorites]
Maybe someone can help me understand the link a little better? Is this about puppy mills (bad!), the Amish (curiously obtuse, possibly enlightened, maybe just a little fucking crazy, need to be taken down a peg) or the ne plus ultra - an AMISH PUPPY MILL - Holy fucking shit. These people are truly everything we suspected - just as depraved as every other cloistered society determined to shun the civilizing trappings of modernity.
If you ever actually spend any time living near Amish populations, or much less speaking with them, you tend to find out they are mostly just as variegated as any other group of people, with belief systems and dictums that don't necessarily supercede atrocious behavior from time to time.
posted by docpops at 6:27 AM on July 4, 2008 [4 favorites]
If you ever actually spend any time living near Amish populations, or much less speaking with them, you tend to find out they are mostly just as variegated as any other group of people, with belief systems and dictums that don't necessarily supercede atrocious behavior from time to time.
posted by docpops at 6:27 AM on July 4, 2008 [4 favorites]
If you ever actually spend any time living near Amish populations, or much less speaking with them, you tend to find out they are mostly just as variegated as any other group of people, with belief systems and dictums that don't necessarily supercede atrocious behavior from time to time.
Well, not THAT variegated. I mean, say you were an Amish kid and during your rumspringa you discovered that you really liked chemistry. And say you wanted to go to college and learn a little more about chemistry. Well, that's all well and good except that you would be required to leave the Amish faith, and your family and friends would never speak to you again. For the rest of your life.
It really is just a dumb, stupid religion/culture. Their way of life may look pretty when the sun is setting in August, but other than that I can't think of many virtures of the Amish. The Mennonites, on the other hand, have sort of kept all the good parts of being Amish but at some point wised up enough to realize that the whole "Amish or Die!" thing was really stupid.
posted by billysumday at 6:35 AM on July 4, 2008
Well, not THAT variegated. I mean, say you were an Amish kid and during your rumspringa you discovered that you really liked chemistry. And say you wanted to go to college and learn a little more about chemistry. Well, that's all well and good except that you would be required to leave the Amish faith, and your family and friends would never speak to you again. For the rest of your life.
It really is just a dumb, stupid religion/culture. Their way of life may look pretty when the sun is setting in August, but other than that I can't think of many virtures of the Amish. The Mennonites, on the other hand, have sort of kept all the good parts of being Amish but at some point wised up enough to realize that the whole "Amish or Die!" thing was really stupid.
posted by billysumday at 6:35 AM on July 4, 2008
Also, Amish people, backwards as they are, don't live in "compounds." They live in houses, out in the country, next to other people. A little different than the FLDS.
posted by billysumday at 6:40 AM on July 4, 2008
posted by billysumday at 6:40 AM on July 4, 2008
The Amish puppy mill grinds slow but exceedingly fine.
posted by Floydd at 7:24 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
posted by Floydd at 7:24 AM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
So, billysumday, they are sort of free-range Branch Davidians?
posted by gorgor_balabala at 7:44 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by gorgor_balabala at 7:44 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
The Amish are bad enough at breeding themselves that I don't think I'd trust the genetic health of a dog from them.
posted by melissam at 8:05 AM on July 4, 2008
posted by melissam at 8:05 AM on July 4, 2008
Wait. So I'm supposed to be shocked, surprised, and stunned that a group of loonies who reject the majority of modern social and technological advances, who believe that education past 8th grade is a bad thing, who, in other words have a generally medieval mindset.
aren't you soooo proud. as if you chose your way of life following some exhaustive intellectual exploration rather than the truth: that you were born into it and then subjected to years of familial, cultural and institutional reinforcement as to its correctness. just like, oh, say... the amish.
posted by quonsar at 8:13 AM on July 4, 2008 [7 favorites]
aren't you soooo proud. as if you chose your way of life following some exhaustive intellectual exploration rather than the truth: that you were born into it and then subjected to years of familial, cultural and institutional reinforcement as to its correctness. just like, oh, say... the amish.
posted by quonsar at 8:13 AM on July 4, 2008 [7 favorites]
Want a dog? Get a mutt, it'll be healthier, likely smarter, and won't have any of those unpleasant and likely expensive built in problems (dachshund backs, for example).
No. A mutt will have a larger stochastic component to all its genetic qualities; that is all. Plenty of mutts die from genetically-linked disorders and defects.
But people don't want dogs, they want little status symbols, and a purebred is so much more high status than an authentic non-fucked-over-genetically dog.
This doesn't make any sense. The "authentic dog" you describe is nothing more than an inbred, genetically-fucked-over wolf. The dog that you are holding up as virtuous is itself a "purebred."
Can I blame some local landowner for running a small puppy mill out of the back barn when people will happily pay $800 or more for those "purebred" puppies?
Yes. Though "small breeder" is not the same as "puppy mill."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:49 AM on July 4, 2008
No. A mutt will have a larger stochastic component to all its genetic qualities; that is all. Plenty of mutts die from genetically-linked disorders and defects.
But people don't want dogs, they want little status symbols, and a purebred is so much more high status than an authentic non-fucked-over-genetically dog.
This doesn't make any sense. The "authentic dog" you describe is nothing more than an inbred, genetically-fucked-over wolf. The dog that you are holding up as virtuous is itself a "purebred."
Can I blame some local landowner for running a small puppy mill out of the back barn when people will happily pay $800 or more for those "purebred" puppies?
Yes. Though "small breeder" is not the same as "puppy mill."
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:49 AM on July 4, 2008
Metafilter: You're a stunningly, horrendously fucking stupid mouth-breather.
posted by c13 at 9:39 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by c13 at 9:39 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
This doesn't make any sense. The "authentic dog" you describe is nothing more than an inbred, genetically-fucked-over wolf. The dog that you are holding up as virtuous is itself a "purebred."
There is actually a huge difference in health between purebred dogs (and their mixed offspring) and dog populations that have been feral for a long time, like Carolina dogs, which look almost like dingos. Feral or "wild" dogs are usually startlingly different from their purposefully bred counterparts and do very well without humans. If you leave a group of domestic dogs in the forest, the ones that survive won't revert to looking like wolves. They are more likely to end up looking like dingos.
But really, it has nothing to do with mixed or purebred. A Carolina dog, while technically a "purebred" with a breed registry is likely to be much healthier than either a lab or a lab mix. People think mixes are immune from genetic health problems (and they are wrong), which is why the "mixed" puppy industry is thriving. Labradoodle puppy mills have now popped up.
posted by melissam at 9:46 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Maybe someone can help me understand the link a little better? Is this about puppy mills (bad!), the Amish (curiously obtuse, possibly enlightened, maybe just a little fucking crazy, need to be taken down a peg) or the ne plus ultra - an AMISH PUPPY MILL - Holy fucking shit. These people are truly everything we suspected - just as depraved as every other cloistered society determined to shun the civilizing trappings of modernity.
If you ever actually spend any time living near Amish populations, or much less speaking with them, you tend to find out they are mostly just as variegated as any other group of people, with belief systems and dictums that don't necessarily supercede atrocious behavior from time to time.
I love the smell of cog dis in the morning!
posted by Brian B. at 9:47 AM on July 4, 2008
If you ever actually spend any time living near Amish populations, or much less speaking with them, you tend to find out they are mostly just as variegated as any other group of people, with belief systems and dictums that don't necessarily supercede atrocious behavior from time to time.
I love the smell of cog dis in the morning!
posted by Brian B. at 9:47 AM on July 4, 2008
I'm with pinback- I need more evidence before I'll be able to work up a good head of righteous indignation.
posted by small_ruminant at 9:54 AM on July 4, 2008
posted by small_ruminant at 9:54 AM on July 4, 2008
What I find extra troubling in all of this is that former Senator Rick Santorum was the front man for reducing the problem, the poster boy for stupid bombastic conservatism.
posted by Brian B. at 9:55 AM on July 4, 2008
posted by Brian B. at 9:55 AM on July 4, 2008
It's not necessarily cruelty
Keeping animals isolated in cages with little human interaction, little to no exercise, breeding them on every single heat until they die, and in inappropriate living conditions is cruelty, especially when those animals have been selectively bred for generations to want to be with people. I'm no fan of factory farming either, but at least livestock animals haven't been specifically bred for a desire for human companionship and then denied it, unlike dogs in puppy mills. It's also cruelty to the people who buy from puppy mills, who have to deal with the fallout of unethical breeding practices.
If people would just spend an hour educating themselves about dogs and ethical dog breeding practices, and only buy a breed (or mix of breeds) appropriate for their lifestyle from reputable rescue groups, shelters, or truly ethical breeders, and stop rewarding unethical breeding practices (whether high-volume puppy mills or low volume backyard breeders), puppy millers and their ilk would be out of business. It is often more expensive (in the short and long term) to get a puppy from a puppy mill (either directly or via a pet store), than from an ethical breeder. And the fact that people will pay an arm and a leg for a purpose-bred mutt like a "labradoodle" without asking the same questions of the breeder as they'd ask of any other breeder (proper health testing, contracts, health guarantees, etc.) is just crazy, and why we these dogs have hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, eye problems, heart problems, allergies, and just about every other problem purebreds have.
We have tens of thousands of unwanted dogs in North America, if you're going to bring more into the world, you'd better do your damndest to ensure that the puppies you produce are healthy, happy, good representatives of their breed, placed in appropriate homes, and will stay out of the shelter/rescue system by coming back to you if they cannot stay in their adoptive homes. Puppy millers do none of these things.
posted by biscotti at 10:29 AM on July 4, 2008 [4 favorites]
Keeping animals isolated in cages with little human interaction, little to no exercise, breeding them on every single heat until they die, and in inappropriate living conditions is cruelty, especially when those animals have been selectively bred for generations to want to be with people. I'm no fan of factory farming either, but at least livestock animals haven't been specifically bred for a desire for human companionship and then denied it, unlike dogs in puppy mills. It's also cruelty to the people who buy from puppy mills, who have to deal with the fallout of unethical breeding practices.
If people would just spend an hour educating themselves about dogs and ethical dog breeding practices, and only buy a breed (or mix of breeds) appropriate for their lifestyle from reputable rescue groups, shelters, or truly ethical breeders, and stop rewarding unethical breeding practices (whether high-volume puppy mills or low volume backyard breeders), puppy millers and their ilk would be out of business. It is often more expensive (in the short and long term) to get a puppy from a puppy mill (either directly or via a pet store), than from an ethical breeder. And the fact that people will pay an arm and a leg for a purpose-bred mutt like a "labradoodle" without asking the same questions of the breeder as they'd ask of any other breeder (proper health testing, contracts, health guarantees, etc.) is just crazy, and why we these dogs have hip dysplasia, elbow dysplasia, eye problems, heart problems, allergies, and just about every other problem purebreds have.
We have tens of thousands of unwanted dogs in North America, if you're going to bring more into the world, you'd better do your damndest to ensure that the puppies you produce are healthy, happy, good representatives of their breed, placed in appropriate homes, and will stay out of the shelter/rescue system by coming back to you if they cannot stay in their adoptive homes. Puppy millers do none of these things.
posted by biscotti at 10:29 AM on July 4, 2008 [4 favorites]
quonsar Actually, as I'm a rather rabid ideologue I'm fairly certain that if I'd had the grave misfortune of being born into an Amish family I'd likely be one of the more rabid "keep the English out" types. Their culture is the problem, not the individual Amish per se. The culture is a viciously anti-intellectual, insanely anti-technological, and quite medieval culture, which is my point: why would you expect people subjected to that kind of BS from birth on to have anything other than a medieval "hey, let's go bear baiting" mindset?
I worry about the Amish not because I feel smugly superior that as an individual *I'd* somehow be the rare one who escapes [1], but because I'm quite certain that I wouldn't be.
[1] There are a few, but not too many. As billysumday observes anyone who wants to flee their clutches must abandon not only their faith (which is hard enough), but also their family, friends, etc. Good way to keep people chained to a lousy system.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
I worry about the Amish not because I feel smugly superior that as an individual *I'd* somehow be the rare one who escapes [1], but because I'm quite certain that I wouldn't be.
[1] There are a few, but not too many. As billysumday observes anyone who wants to flee their clutches must abandon not only their faith (which is hard enough), but also their family, friends, etc. Good way to keep people chained to a lousy system.
posted by sotonohito at 10:33 AM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
They're not going to see your outrage unless someone prints this thread out and mails it to them.
posted by oaf at 11:04 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
posted by oaf at 11:04 AM on July 4, 2008 [2 favorites]
I need more evidence before I'll be able to work up a good head of righteous indignation.
I am guessing that if you bought a puppy in a store yesterday, given a choice, you would have picked the one from the Amish farm. But their brand is now fucked. I don't see what people expected from them. They breed their kids like inbred dogs, undereducate them and expect even the geniuses to work the fields, and then unapologetically shun those who report child abuse. The glove fits here. Nevermind that they work their horses to the bone everyday despite the low tech tractor for less money, and people just overdose on the romaticism.
posted by Brian B. at 11:05 AM on July 4, 2008
I am guessing that if you bought a puppy in a store yesterday, given a choice, you would have picked the one from the Amish farm. But their brand is now fucked. I don't see what people expected from them. They breed their kids like inbred dogs, undereducate them and expect even the geniuses to work the fields, and then unapologetically shun those who report child abuse. The glove fits here. Nevermind that they work their horses to the bone everyday despite the low tech tractor for less money, and people just overdose on the romaticism.
posted by Brian B. at 11:05 AM on July 4, 2008
So, was this just an ax-grind against the Amish?
Amish puppy torturers. Yes.
posted by Brian B. at 1:16 PM on July 4, 2008
Amish puppy torturers. Yes.
posted by Brian B. at 1:16 PM on July 4, 2008
The Amish are bad enough at breeding themselves that I don't think I'd trust the genetic health of a dog from them.
There are some weird paradoxes in this.
An inbred population will certainly express more recessive traits, but that very expression will tend to reduce the frequency of the most deleterious recessives in that population's genome below that of the surrounding less inbred population, if not their respective phenomes, because individuals who show the worst traits will be less successful reproducers. If you want to avoid bad recessive genes in your offspring, you can't go wrong choosing an apparently healthy product of inbreeding as your mate, if you are a member of that surrounding less-inbred population-- and the more inbred, the better.
But in that inbred and inbreeding population, individual parents will see significantly more severely disabled offspring. The shorter the lives of these disabled children, and the fewer resources devoted to them, the better for the reproductive success of those parents and that population as a whole. Such exigencies could very easily foster a culture of a lack of empathy, because such a culture would make fatal neglect or more active measures to end the life of a disabled infant much easier. If there are genes which contribute to a lack of empathy, you might expect to see them favored, too.
Is something like this happening in the case of the Amish?
Well, the appeal of puppies is quite a lot like the appeal of human babies, and these puppy mills could be seen in this light as a bad sign. Francesca too's take on Amish reaction to the attack on those Amish schoolgirls: " About the Amish though, after that school tragedy, I have felt nothing but admiration for the forgiving way they adopted toward the family of the killer" has a lot to be said for it, but I do recall thinking at the time that it was far too cold-blooded for my taste.
posted by jamjam at 1:44 PM on July 4, 2008
There are some weird paradoxes in this.
An inbred population will certainly express more recessive traits, but that very expression will tend to reduce the frequency of the most deleterious recessives in that population's genome below that of the surrounding less inbred population, if not their respective phenomes, because individuals who show the worst traits will be less successful reproducers. If you want to avoid bad recessive genes in your offspring, you can't go wrong choosing an apparently healthy product of inbreeding as your mate, if you are a member of that surrounding less-inbred population-- and the more inbred, the better.
But in that inbred and inbreeding population, individual parents will see significantly more severely disabled offspring. The shorter the lives of these disabled children, and the fewer resources devoted to them, the better for the reproductive success of those parents and that population as a whole. Such exigencies could very easily foster a culture of a lack of empathy, because such a culture would make fatal neglect or more active measures to end the life of a disabled infant much easier. If there are genes which contribute to a lack of empathy, you might expect to see them favored, too.
Is something like this happening in the case of the Amish?
Well, the appeal of puppies is quite a lot like the appeal of human babies, and these puppy mills could be seen in this light as a bad sign. Francesca too's take on Amish reaction to the attack on those Amish schoolgirls: " About the Amish though, after that school tragedy, I have felt nothing but admiration for the forgiving way they adopted toward the family of the killer" has a lot to be said for it, but I do recall thinking at the time that it was far too cold-blooded for my taste.
posted by jamjam at 1:44 PM on July 4, 2008
Mankind: made in God's image.
This God fella must be one really mean sonofabitch.
posted by JaredSeth at 3:42 PM on July 4, 2008
This God fella must be one really mean sonofabitch.
posted by JaredSeth at 3:42 PM on July 4, 2008
anti-intellectual, insanely anti-technological, and quite medieval culture
Medieval culture was not anti-intellectual or anti-technological (I mean, as a society they supported thousands of people just to sit around reading and studying and praying for the rest; also, they liked technological innovation, esp when it made them money),
but they didn't really care about cruelty to animals (bear-baiting, and all that).
posted by jb at 3:58 PM on July 4, 2008
Medieval culture was not anti-intellectual or anti-technological (I mean, as a society they supported thousands of people just to sit around reading and studying and praying for the rest; also, they liked technological innovation, esp when it made them money),
but they didn't really care about cruelty to animals (bear-baiting, and all that).
posted by jb at 3:58 PM on July 4, 2008
They are treating these dogs like breeder livestock, I guess. What we think of as livestock - pigs, cows - is worth money per-pound on the hoof so you want them to thrive up until the auto-bolt. With puppy mill dogs, you went them alive enough to reproduce until they die. If they can't see, have raging, painful ear infections, are being eaten alive by ticks and fleas and did you know there is actually a word for it when dogs have such awfully matting that is no longer possible for them to poop?
Obviously, the puppies who come from such an environment are frequently not so healthy, but they're already paid for so who cares?
Not surprised that a lot of Amish would do this. I was stunned the first time I saw an Amish horse with cracked hooves. After a while, it seems that it was more normal than not. Which is crazy.
What is surprising is how often dogs who have spent the first 3 or 4 years of their miserable lives in an airline crate or on a 3-foot chain manage to be decent, friendly creatures when they get a chance for a normal life.
I suppose even know, local rescue groups are doing triage on the siezed dogs. What fun for them. And then the get to groom the ones who can be saved.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:21 PM on July 4, 2008
Obviously, the puppies who come from such an environment are frequently not so healthy, but they're already paid for so who cares?
Not surprised that a lot of Amish would do this. I was stunned the first time I saw an Amish horse with cracked hooves. After a while, it seems that it was more normal than not. Which is crazy.
What is surprising is how often dogs who have spent the first 3 or 4 years of their miserable lives in an airline crate or on a 3-foot chain manage to be decent, friendly creatures when they get a chance for a normal life.
I suppose even know, local rescue groups are doing triage on the siezed dogs. What fun for them. And then the get to groom the ones who can be saved.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 4:21 PM on July 4, 2008
At the risk of getting beaten up here, I would like to note that I detect a certain arrogance with some breeders I know. They don't hesitate to tell others to go to the pound to get a dog but reserve the right for themselves to breed the dogs "to better the breed."
Or should they allow you to buy an incredibly overpriced dog from them--one neutered to make sure the dog doesn't procreate--they sometimes reserve the right to take the dog back if they decide you aren't the right person or if you want to give it to someone else.
So you know, I tried getting a dog from the municipal shelter and wound up returning him after a week after he tried to kill my cat. I mean, really tried to kill it even though the shelter people had said he'd be fine with a cat. I wound up buying a Lab pup from a store.
I do think people ought to be able to get a dog and breed it if they're responsible about it. The assumption by breeders that they're the only ones who know how or should be allowed to is rather offensive.
posted by etaoin at 6:41 PM on July 4, 2008
Or should they allow you to buy an incredibly overpriced dog from them--one neutered to make sure the dog doesn't procreate--they sometimes reserve the right to take the dog back if they decide you aren't the right person or if you want to give it to someone else.
So you know, I tried getting a dog from the municipal shelter and wound up returning him after a week after he tried to kill my cat. I mean, really tried to kill it even though the shelter people had said he'd be fine with a cat. I wound up buying a Lab pup from a store.
I do think people ought to be able to get a dog and breed it if they're responsible about it. The assumption by breeders that they're the only ones who know how or should be allowed to is rather offensive.
posted by etaoin at 6:41 PM on July 4, 2008
I'll beat you up a bit.
They don't hesitate to tell others to go to the pound to get a dog but reserve the right for themselves to breed the dogs "to better the breed."
And some of those people are, in fact, reprehensible morons. But leaving that aside for a minute, why is this problematic or hard to understand? Good breeders have a clear picture of what they're trying to achieve over the long term. If you're not trying to achieve any particular thing, what the hell are you doing breeding dogs when there is already a heartbreakingly huge surplus of dogs bred with no particular purpose in mind?
Or should they allow you to buy an incredibly overpriced dog from them
What makes it overpriced, much less incredibly overpriced?
Quick, how much does it cost to get a dam and sire CERFed? How much to get them OFAd or PennHIPped? How much to screen for cardiac defects or other problems, if indicated by breed prevalence or the sire's and dam's family history? How much to campaign the sire and dam through UKC/CanKC/AKC championship? How much to put a performance title of some sort on them? How much does a stud fee cost, if needed? How much does artificial insemination or transporting the sire cost, if needed? How much does natal care during the pregnancy cost?
What, you don't know any of this? Quell surprise.
Good dog breeders aren't making any appreciable money off their breedings. Litters are expensive... if you do your homework, as you should.
--one neutered to make sure the dog doesn't procreate--
*shrug* I challenge you to find any breed with more than five breeders in the US where it would be difficult to buy a puppy that wasn't neutered. In other words, I think that you're either making this up or don't know what you're talking about.
They might not have sold you an intact puppy, because maybe you seemed like the kind of moron who finds someone else with the same breed but opposite sex and breeds them without doing health clearances on either of them and without running either of the dogs past ostensibly neutral parties to gauge whether they're worth breeding in a world with millions of badly-bred dogs to choose from already, and keeps repeating the same breeding again and again, in order to "recoup your investment" in the dog or some other twaddle.
they sometimes reserve the right to take the dog back if they decide you aren't the right person
Well, yes. This is what people call "being ethical." It is ethical because the breeder assumes a lifelong responsibility for the welfare of the puppy. No matter what else is going on, the breeder is there as a last-ditch backstop to try to guard the dog's welfare, even against the current owner.
or if you want to give it to someone else.
This is part and parcel of guarding the dog's welfare. If you don't want the dog any more, give it to the breeder and they'll rehome it. Why should they trust you to rehome it? After all, you've decided you just don't want it anymore, so you hardly seem like you're going to guard the dog's welfare after you pass it along.
I do think people ought to be able to get a dog and breed it if they're responsible about it.
I think you'll find that neither Nassau nor Suffolk Counties, nor the state of New York, nor the US make it illegal to purchase an intact dog. I likewise think you'll find that none of these places make it in any way illegal to breed dogs. So, in fact, people can get and breed dogs. And, unfortunately, they can do it no matter how miserably irresponsible they are.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:14 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
They don't hesitate to tell others to go to the pound to get a dog but reserve the right for themselves to breed the dogs "to better the breed."
And some of those people are, in fact, reprehensible morons. But leaving that aside for a minute, why is this problematic or hard to understand? Good breeders have a clear picture of what they're trying to achieve over the long term. If you're not trying to achieve any particular thing, what the hell are you doing breeding dogs when there is already a heartbreakingly huge surplus of dogs bred with no particular purpose in mind?
Or should they allow you to buy an incredibly overpriced dog from them
What makes it overpriced, much less incredibly overpriced?
Quick, how much does it cost to get a dam and sire CERFed? How much to get them OFAd or PennHIPped? How much to screen for cardiac defects or other problems, if indicated by breed prevalence or the sire's and dam's family history? How much to campaign the sire and dam through UKC/CanKC/AKC championship? How much to put a performance title of some sort on them? How much does a stud fee cost, if needed? How much does artificial insemination or transporting the sire cost, if needed? How much does natal care during the pregnancy cost?
What, you don't know any of this? Quell surprise.
Good dog breeders aren't making any appreciable money off their breedings. Litters are expensive... if you do your homework, as you should.
--one neutered to make sure the dog doesn't procreate--
*shrug* I challenge you to find any breed with more than five breeders in the US where it would be difficult to buy a puppy that wasn't neutered. In other words, I think that you're either making this up or don't know what you're talking about.
They might not have sold you an intact puppy, because maybe you seemed like the kind of moron who finds someone else with the same breed but opposite sex and breeds them without doing health clearances on either of them and without running either of the dogs past ostensibly neutral parties to gauge whether they're worth breeding in a world with millions of badly-bred dogs to choose from already, and keeps repeating the same breeding again and again, in order to "recoup your investment" in the dog or some other twaddle.
they sometimes reserve the right to take the dog back if they decide you aren't the right person
Well, yes. This is what people call "being ethical." It is ethical because the breeder assumes a lifelong responsibility for the welfare of the puppy. No matter what else is going on, the breeder is there as a last-ditch backstop to try to guard the dog's welfare, even against the current owner.
or if you want to give it to someone else.
This is part and parcel of guarding the dog's welfare. If you don't want the dog any more, give it to the breeder and they'll rehome it. Why should they trust you to rehome it? After all, you've decided you just don't want it anymore, so you hardly seem like you're going to guard the dog's welfare after you pass it along.
I do think people ought to be able to get a dog and breed it if they're responsible about it.
I think you'll find that neither Nassau nor Suffolk Counties, nor the state of New York, nor the US make it illegal to purchase an intact dog. I likewise think you'll find that none of these places make it in any way illegal to breed dogs. So, in fact, people can get and breed dogs. And, unfortunately, they can do it no matter how miserably irresponsible they are.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:14 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
One of the things that I like about metafilter is the level of knowledge many people bring to the site. What I don't like is the assumption that others don't know anything.
I did not say it was impossible to buy an intact dog; I said there are breeders who won't sell them intact; there are others who campaign vigorously to prevent non-specialists from breeding them, even one litter.
As far as this:
What, you don't know any of this? Quell surprise.
You could have asked and you would have found that I know at least a bit about these costs. I have had my Lab certified, checked and verified three ways to Sunday, in part because when I inquired about breeding her, the vet arranged for these tests, saying most reputable breeders wouldn't work with me if I didn't. Or I could go to Pennsylvania and take my chances, which I didn't care to do. The proper approach IS expensive.
I don't think you need to suggest I'm a moron for pointing out that many breeders--I didn't say all--will not sell an intact dog. I have been reading many stories lately quoting them; I work with someone who breeds dogs professionally who tells me that is becoming the standard approach for many breeders.
The tone I hear from some breeders I've run into is that purebreds are for a certain group; mutts from the pound are for everyone else. Perhaps I'm hearing it wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.
Really, can we not have a conversation here without insults?
posted by etaoin at 9:03 PM on July 4, 2008
I did not say it was impossible to buy an intact dog; I said there are breeders who won't sell them intact; there are others who campaign vigorously to prevent non-specialists from breeding them, even one litter.
As far as this:
What, you don't know any of this? Quell surprise.
You could have asked and you would have found that I know at least a bit about these costs. I have had my Lab certified, checked and verified three ways to Sunday, in part because when I inquired about breeding her, the vet arranged for these tests, saying most reputable breeders wouldn't work with me if I didn't. Or I could go to Pennsylvania and take my chances, which I didn't care to do. The proper approach IS expensive.
I don't think you need to suggest I'm a moron for pointing out that many breeders--I didn't say all--will not sell an intact dog. I have been reading many stories lately quoting them; I work with someone who breeds dogs professionally who tells me that is becoming the standard approach for many breeders.
The tone I hear from some breeders I've run into is that purebreds are for a certain group; mutts from the pound are for everyone else. Perhaps I'm hearing it wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.
Really, can we not have a conversation here without insults?
posted by etaoin at 9:03 PM on July 4, 2008
The tone I hear from some breeders I've run into is that purebreds are for a certain group; mutts from the pound are for everyone else. Perhaps I'm hearing it wrong but that's what it sounds like to me.
Ethical breeders support rescue, and it is certainly true that for some homes for certain reasons, the best option is to go to a shelter rather than a breeder. Ethical breeders do their best to educate people about their breed (including, perhaps especially, the negative aspects) - is it possible that some of the people you've spoken to are merely trying to tell you that their particular breed or bloodlines aren't suitable for you? The VAST majority of purebred dogs end up in pet homes (which means with owners who do not show, compete or breed), if breeders ruled out pet homes, they'd be overrun with puppies! Most breeders want their puppies to have a good home first and foremost, if that home wants to show the dog, that's gravy.
Ethical breeders don't want just anyone breeding a dog obtained from them, not out of snobbery, but out of a desire to see it done properly, carefully, and ethically (which yes, includes NOT allowing puppies to be resold/rehomed), this is why puppies are often sold on a non-breeding contract or limited registration, and why older puppies and dogs are often spayed or neutered before being placed.
Someone who shows a sincere desire to learn about ethical breeding, who wishes to be mentored, and who has a dog which has proven itself worthy of breeding (through health testing, conformation titles, and ideally performance titles - none of which are, individually, reason to breed a dog, but which a dog cannot be bred ethically without), will often find a breeder more than happy to work with them. But more often you come across people who think that because their vet said their dog is healthy enough to breed that they should breed their dog (vets are not experts in ethical dog breeding, they're experts in health, many dogs are healthy enough to breed, and some even have the health certifications to prove it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD be bred), and their dog is so nice, and their friends all say they want a puppy (until the puppy arrives), etc., and then they're upset because truly ethical breeders don't want anything to do with them. People breeding their nice pets, even when they have the best intentions, end up contributing to the pet overpopulation problem more often than not. Ethical breeding involves a lot more than just dogs with intact gonads, and even a lot more than just doing your health testing and proving your breeding stock in conformation and performance, it involves extensive pedigree research and planning, and sometimes even if you have a healthy, proven dog, the ethical decision is NOT to breed it. And in addition to all that, ethical breeding involves being able to provide a home for life for each and every dog you produce.
So yes, plenty of breeders won't sell intact dogs to some homes, with good reason.
And ethical breeders are never "professional", professional implies that they earn a living from dog breeding, and that is the remit of puppy millers like the Amish in this post, whose breeding decisions are based on the bottom line, not ethics. (/crazy dog lady soapbox)
posted by biscotti at 10:28 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
Ethical breeders support rescue, and it is certainly true that for some homes for certain reasons, the best option is to go to a shelter rather than a breeder. Ethical breeders do their best to educate people about their breed (including, perhaps especially, the negative aspects) - is it possible that some of the people you've spoken to are merely trying to tell you that their particular breed or bloodlines aren't suitable for you? The VAST majority of purebred dogs end up in pet homes (which means with owners who do not show, compete or breed), if breeders ruled out pet homes, they'd be overrun with puppies! Most breeders want their puppies to have a good home first and foremost, if that home wants to show the dog, that's gravy.
Ethical breeders don't want just anyone breeding a dog obtained from them, not out of snobbery, but out of a desire to see it done properly, carefully, and ethically (which yes, includes NOT allowing puppies to be resold/rehomed), this is why puppies are often sold on a non-breeding contract or limited registration, and why older puppies and dogs are often spayed or neutered before being placed.
Someone who shows a sincere desire to learn about ethical breeding, who wishes to be mentored, and who has a dog which has proven itself worthy of breeding (through health testing, conformation titles, and ideally performance titles - none of which are, individually, reason to breed a dog, but which a dog cannot be bred ethically without), will often find a breeder more than happy to work with them. But more often you come across people who think that because their vet said their dog is healthy enough to breed that they should breed their dog (vets are not experts in ethical dog breeding, they're experts in health, many dogs are healthy enough to breed, and some even have the health certifications to prove it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they SHOULD be bred), and their dog is so nice, and their friends all say they want a puppy (until the puppy arrives), etc., and then they're upset because truly ethical breeders don't want anything to do with them. People breeding their nice pets, even when they have the best intentions, end up contributing to the pet overpopulation problem more often than not. Ethical breeding involves a lot more than just dogs with intact gonads, and even a lot more than just doing your health testing and proving your breeding stock in conformation and performance, it involves extensive pedigree research and planning, and sometimes even if you have a healthy, proven dog, the ethical decision is NOT to breed it. And in addition to all that, ethical breeding involves being able to provide a home for life for each and every dog you produce.
So yes, plenty of breeders won't sell intact dogs to some homes, with good reason.
And ethical breeders are never "professional", professional implies that they earn a living from dog breeding, and that is the remit of puppy millers like the Amish in this post, whose breeding decisions are based on the bottom line, not ethics. (/crazy dog lady soapbox)
posted by biscotti at 10:28 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
In some countries, dogs are food.
Just sayin'.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:52 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Just sayin'.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:52 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
In most countries, five fresh fish are food.
Just sayin'.
posted by biscotti at 10:58 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
Just sayin'.
posted by biscotti at 10:58 PM on July 4, 2008 [3 favorites]
You could have asked and you would have found that I know at least a bit about these costs.
Your having a clue about the costs involved in breeding a litter is inconsistent with your stating that purebreds (from ethical breeders anyway) are overpriced. So I take it you're retracting your assertion that they're overpriced, since now you're claiming that you're aware of the quite substantial costs involved?
I don't think you need to suggest I'm a moron for pointing out that many breeders--I didn't say all--will not sell an intact dog.
Look again. I didn't say that. What I said is that you might have appeared to a breeder to the sort of moron who ends up indiscriminately breeding. Moron = person who indiscriminately breeds, esp for profit (by not doing tests, etc). Or you might not have appeared so to them. As you note, I don't know you from Adam's off ox, so I have no way of knowing how you came off to anyone.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:58 PM on July 4, 2008
Your having a clue about the costs involved in breeding a litter is inconsistent with your stating that purebreds (from ethical breeders anyway) are overpriced. So I take it you're retracting your assertion that they're overpriced, since now you're claiming that you're aware of the quite substantial costs involved?
I don't think you need to suggest I'm a moron for pointing out that many breeders--I didn't say all--will not sell an intact dog.
Look again. I didn't say that. What I said is that you might have appeared to a breeder to the sort of moron who ends up indiscriminately breeding. Moron = person who indiscriminately breeds, esp for profit (by not doing tests, etc). Or you might not have appeared so to them. As you note, I don't know you from Adam's off ox, so I have no way of knowing how you came off to anyone.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:58 PM on July 4, 2008
In most countries, five fresh fish are food.
To which the fun response is "eat me."
My point, if I had one, would be that treating the dogs as if they were food animals isn't any worse than treating cows and pigs as food animals. Which, of course, isn't to say that we treat our food animals particularly well these days, vis a vis HallMark/Westland's treatment of cows†.
Little known fact: the Amish will only eat even numbers of fish. This apparently stems from a mis-reading of Matthew 14:15-21. Unfortunately for both the Amish and dogs, Jesus never did address the issues of pet ownership and pet consumption.
†Note to self: do not google "biggest meat packer" ever again.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:30 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
To which the fun response is "eat me."
My point, if I had one, would be that treating the dogs as if they were food animals isn't any worse than treating cows and pigs as food animals. Which, of course, isn't to say that we treat our food animals particularly well these days, vis a vis HallMark/Westland's treatment of cows†.
Little known fact: the Amish will only eat even numbers of fish. This apparently stems from a mis-reading of Matthew 14:15-21. Unfortunately for both the Amish and dogs, Jesus never did address the issues of pet ownership and pet consumption.
†Note to self: do not google "biggest meat packer" ever again.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:30 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
I was a little disappointed that this was not about puppy mills that mill and squeeze the puppies into delicious puppy juice that is then sold for consumption on Pennsylvaina farmer markets.
posted by sour cream at 11:47 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by sour cream at 11:47 PM on July 4, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, they do share much with other American religious extremists.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:10 AM on July 5, 2008
posted by jeffburdges at 7:10 AM on July 5, 2008
My point, if I had one, would be that treating the dogs as if they were food animals isn't any worse than treating cows and pigs as food animals.
I know what your point was, and I disagree: cows and pigs are not bred specifically to desire human companionship, most domestic dogs are, therefore it's worse to treat dogs as food animals than it is to treat cows and pigs as food animals. Especially since at least some other food animals are kept for at least some of their lives in somewhat appropriate habitats (beef cattle are normally grazed in fields before being placed in a feedlot, for example), whereas these dogs (and dogs kept as food animals) are not kept in anything even remotely comparable to an appropriate habitat to the one they've been selectively bred to require. Which does not mean I support modern factory farming, either.
posted by biscotti at 8:27 AM on July 5, 2008
I know what your point was, and I disagree: cows and pigs are not bred specifically to desire human companionship, most domestic dogs are, therefore it's worse to treat dogs as food animals than it is to treat cows and pigs as food animals. Especially since at least some other food animals are kept for at least some of their lives in somewhat appropriate habitats (beef cattle are normally grazed in fields before being placed in a feedlot, for example), whereas these dogs (and dogs kept as food animals) are not kept in anything even remotely comparable to an appropriate habitat to the one they've been selectively bred to require. Which does not mean I support modern factory farming, either.
posted by biscotti at 8:27 AM on July 5, 2008
I assume that the aristocratic folks who bred horses and dogs for show were thinking that inbreeding was a good thing, and that something wasn't pure or thoroughbred until it had been made so by the same standards that applied since the Pharaohs mated with their sisters. This was always their blue blooded claim to power after all.
posted by Brian B. at 9:42 AM on July 5, 2008
posted by Brian B. at 9:42 AM on July 5, 2008
You know who else fucked the Amish?
That's right. Harrison Ford.
posted by turgid dahlia at 7:25 PM on July 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
That's right. Harrison Ford.
posted by turgid dahlia at 7:25 PM on July 6, 2008 [2 favorites]
Worth noting that the whole "but the Amish are so friendly and nice to animals!" thing works out particularly badly when it comes to horses. People who decide they just can't keep their faithful steed anymore think that, oh, if they give him to the Amish, he'll pull a plow for a few years and then have a nice, happy retirement in a pasture! Won't that be nice.
In actual fact, the Amish have zero problems working their horses near to death with minimal medical care, then dumping them at the auction grounds when they can't use them anymore. Worn down horses at the auction go to the kill buyer, who ships them out of the country to the slaughter house. Now, I'm personally slaughter-neutral, but if you ship a horse hundreds of miles and to a different country to kill it for meat, you're definitely going to stress it out, and it's going to be very difficult to guarantee a humane death and quality controls.
In any case, it's sure as heck not what the sentimental owner had planned for their dear little pony, and the blame is squarely upon their heads. While I'm not thrilled with the way the Amish treat their animals, it's how they're raised.
posted by bettafish at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2008
In actual fact, the Amish have zero problems working their horses near to death with minimal medical care, then dumping them at the auction grounds when they can't use them anymore. Worn down horses at the auction go to the kill buyer, who ships them out of the country to the slaughter house. Now, I'm personally slaughter-neutral, but if you ship a horse hundreds of miles and to a different country to kill it for meat, you're definitely going to stress it out, and it's going to be very difficult to guarantee a humane death and quality controls.
In any case, it's sure as heck not what the sentimental owner had planned for their dear little pony, and the blame is squarely upon their heads. While I'm not thrilled with the way the Amish treat their animals, it's how they're raised.
posted by bettafish at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2008
« Older There She Is, Step 3: Doki and Nabi | Those barricades can only hold for so long Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
People don't care where their little yorkies come from, just like they don't care about where their steak comes from.
posted by melissam at 10:08 PM on July 3, 2008 [1 favorite]