My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 8/28/11 | Main | 9 day old North Carolina infant dead from dog attack »

August 30, 2011



'Malls and pet supply stores can generate foot traffic by allowing rescue groups to put adoptable cats and kittens in their stores.'

what do you have against shelter animals? why is it ok for rescues to force these innocent animals to languish in one of those horrible pet stores, while the commercially bred pets get a pass?


Here's the problem I have with puppies in pet stores, and commercial breeding in general-the math doesn't make sense. I do have a basic understanding of the economics of a supply chain. Generally, the producer of a product (breeder) needs to hold a 50% gross profit margin, the wholesaler (broker) needs to hold a 30% gross margin, and the retailer (pet store) needs to hold a 50% gross margin. When you look at the retail price for puppies and do the math backwards it just doesn't add up. I can't see how there is enough money left at the production level for proper vaccinations, veterinary care, weaning time, and quality food. Kmk-feel free to show me how this works-I'm genuinely open to hear it. I understand the concept of supply and demand. The generally accepted statistics used to promote shelter adoptions are that there are 17m people in the US annually that are looking for a pet and that are also open to adopting from a shelter, and that there are 4m pets put down in US shelters annually. That leaves a demand (market deficit) of 13m pets annually. (I would like to see a breakdown of those numbers by dog/cat/other) I have no problem with breeders doing it right-I have a problem with breeders doing it wrong. Those pictures of dogs living in horrible conditions weren't all photoshopped. And, kmk, if you want to have credibility and have your position heard by the rational people in the middle then you must first admit that there are both breeders doing it right AND doing it wrong-commercial or otherwise. Anyone who blindly defends their "side" comes across as a whackjob-regardless of the side or the issue. I'm not an AR wingnut-I don't consider myself and animal rights activist at all. I do make a distinction between pets and livestock because they aren't the same-they are very different products, and wildlife is something else entirely. Breeders have been hiding behind agriculture's skirt for far too long. Cows, pigs, and chickens are raised and produced for their physical qualities for short term use as food. Pets are raised for their psychological qualities-to be members of a family-long term. Pets offered for sale with poor health prospects or poor mental well being is exactly the same as farmers shipping tainted meat-neither is suitable for it's intended use. The treatment of pets along the whole supply chain must be structured to deliver a quality product for it's intended usage, and there is a lot of room for improvement in the industry.


The reason I have a problem with government telling pet stores they can't sell puppies and kittens is because the government should not be interfering with legitimate commerce that's not a criminal enterprise. What I find ridiculous is cities that have banned pet stores from selling puppies and kittens but allow the sale of marijuana! Good grief, can we return to the days where the city takes care of streets, parks, police/fire protection, and utilities (where applicable) and leave law abiding businesses and citizens the Hell alone?

I know a lot of very good commercial breeders whose dogs are sold to pet stores. If those little foo-foo dogs were my breed of choice I would have no problem whatsoever getting a dog from one of them. In fact it would be my preference because I wouldn't have to wait five years for a puppy and sign a contract the size of the phone book.

What, pray tell, is a "good breeder?"

Shelter euthanasia has been on the decline since the 1970s. the euthanasia rate at the shelter Albequerque might have declined anyway, even without the pet store sale ban. Besides, Albequerque passed one of the most heinous pet ordinances I've ever seen in my life a few years ago that also affected "good breeders". So much for that argument. I think they looked at Louisville, Kentucky's ordinance and said, "Hey, we can pass something even MORE STUPID than that". I participate in dog agility and there's a woman with Shelties who is a "good breeder" and moved to the Kansas City area from Albequerque to get away from their ordinance. I saw her at a trial today, in fact. I question the Albequerque numbers because coercive legislation almost always leads to more shelter deaths, not fewer.

As for the Richmond, BC information - 57% of the dogs that came into the shelter were purebred and half of them came in with a receipt showing they were purchased from a pet store? I'll have to go to the link, but that would be unheard of in the lower 48. First, the Canucks must be quite anal about saving receipts (why would you take the receipt to the shelter?). Purebreds generally make up 5 to 7% of the shelter population in the US and dogs from pet stores are almost never seen. much of our commercial industry microchips for inventory control so it would be easy to identify those dogs that came from commercial breeders or pet stores.


"...The correct term is "commercial breeder"."

To correctly breed and raise a puppy, no money is made, thus excluding it from being a vible commerical venture. The hours that must go into handling, socializing, desensitizing, and training a puppy from birth to 10 weeks are enormous. Multiply that by the number of puppies in a litter, and you are working for less than minimum wage. Properly done, breeding is done for the love of healthy dogs and the breed.

Breeding should only be done when the bitch and dog are old enough to have proven they have no genetics diseases (at least 6), and puppies must be kept with their dam and littermates until 10 weeks (see above). That is a lot of time and money put into handling and training the dogs, to ensure that they are in good health and good mind, and that their genes are worth creating more dogs from. (Remember to consider the multitudes of companion animals euthanized daily for lack of homes, poor breeding, and poor socialization.)

Sounds like kmk has her own little puppy mill thing going on.


I would consider a "good breeder" to be a breeder that tries their best to produce healthy, sound puppies. You don't have to do much googling to learn about the genetic diseases different breeds are prone to. My mom's little dog, we believe he was a schnauzer/lhasa apso mix (a rescue, not bought), had to be put down at 6 years of age due to a neuro-degenerative disease. I think it was Canine Neuronal Ceroid-Lipofuscinosis, which has been reported in miniature schnauzers and other small breeds. I can't help but wonder, if more care was taken in all breedings to produce healthy dogs, not just "moar cute puppees, yay!", that maybe dogs like my mom's wouldn't have to suffer and die in their prime.


I wanted to add also, maybe young dobermans wouldn't suddenly drop dead from heart issues, maybe young danes wouldn't get wobblers, maybe double merle breedings wouldn't take place producing deaf and/or blind aussie puppies, maybe there would be less incidence of luxating patellas, liver issues, heart problems, glaucoma, collapsing tracheas, and skin issues in small dogs, maybe there wouldn't be so dang many cocker spaniels with absolutely disgusting ear issues, maybe there so damn many dogs with hip displaysia,etc.! I could go on!

Raegan O.

I have found several articles citing this research as well as other articles, but I cannot find any information suggesting insight on how to address the behavioral issues. I have worked with a certified behavioral trainer & two other trainers. I'm searching for information. Anything that could be forwarded is greatly appreciated!

Thank you.

The comments to this entry are closed.