# as of today, it is no longer legal to shoot your own dog in PA



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

The law in PA has changed, you are no longer allowed to shoot your own dogs in PA. Why in the world it was legal in the first place is beyond me. The puppy mill bill is the next law in line. It is aimed towards the puppy mills. I don't know much more. I have to do some research.. maria


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

If you look at it humainly, a 22 to the head is a very quick, painless way to put down a dog, and a lot less expensive then a vet. 

For those who can do it, I have no objections. Here in Alaska, if there is a very weak run of Chums along the Yukon, it hit the newspaper about some sled dog mushers putting down whole kennels because they are not able to get enough fish for dog food through the winter. They use bullets also.  Bud


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I have a buddy who thought that way Bud. He took his old gal out back and put a .22 bullet in her head. He says he still has nightmares about the way she looked up at him, and made eye contact...for a long time.

He also said he'd pay big to have taken her to the vet and he'll never do a "do it yourself" job on any more dogs.

His experience was that it was not quick. I hope to never find out if a .22 in the head is painless or not. I bet it hurts.

Chris


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

It irks me that some do gooders have decided for everyone what is proper, and are able to make it law.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Howard N said:


> It irks me that some do gooders have decided for everyone what is proper, and are able to make it law.


I agree Howard. When the end comes, I haven't been able to make it a cold unknown sterile person who sends them off. I've felt best for me that it should be a friend who says goodbye. IMHO.


----------



## Shameless (Jul 20, 2008)

You people are lost. Using a .22 to kill your best friend? Why not go totally cheap and get you a BB gun? It isn't that expensive to have your dog put down humanely and pain free. Sheesh!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Pennsylvania has been facing a difficult situation with puppy mills. Among the more current issues has been kennels that shoot their dogs whenever they might otherwise need to see a vet to avoid the expense of treatment. In August, one puppy mill owner shot 80 dogs to get around an inspector demand that the dogs be seen by a vet. You can see the story at http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/dog_shooting_a_tragic_end_to_lives_of_neglect_081508.html.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Shameless said:


> You people are lost. Using a .22 to kill your best friend? Why not go totally cheap and get you a BB gun? It isn't that expensive to have your dog put down humanely and pain free. Sheesh!



I expect the reason a .22 is chosen over a BB gun is because it is an effective choice as a tool to kill an animal.

In what way do you believe a .22 isn’t a humane and pain free way to put a dog down?


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

You Know, I have killed a lot of animals with a .22. I have stood by as a whole lot more were killed with a .22. I grew up in a very rural section of Vermont. We raised our own beef and hogs and butchered them ourselves for home consumption. My Day had hounds and ran them on raccoon, rabbit, Bear and Bobcat. I have seen everything from a bunny to a 1,500 lbs steer dropped with one .22 round. In my later years, for fun not pay I would hang out at my good friends slaughterhouse. He always used a .22 in the kill room. Only one time did I see a second shot needed. That was only because of a bad shot placement, not because of the power of the .22. 
As for your own retriever and a .22. This is how my Dad used to do it. It sucks. It also sucks having the vet come over and do it for you. Any way you chose to do it sucks. It's your dog and your needing to put it down. Not a fun day. But a blanket statement and then law telling it cannot be done at home by yourself with a .22.............. well we have lots of unnecessary legislation in this world don't we?
Ken Bora


----------



## SPIB698 (Feb 19, 2008)

While I couldn't do that to a dog of mine, I don't think it's the State governments place to tell me that I can't do it! What we need is less government, not more.


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

SPIB698 said:


> While I couldn't do that to a dog of mine, I don't think it's the State governments place to tell me that I can't do it! What we need is less government, not more.


Nail on the head.....the very essence of the post.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

SPIB698 said:


> While I couldn't do that to a dog of mine, I don't think it's the State governments place to tell me that I can't do it! What we need is less government, not more.



I agree 100%

As for puppy mills, first, define "puppy mill". You can't. Neither can anyone else (except apparently HSUS...now THERE'S an unbiased organization for you...)

Lisa


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

Howard N said:


> It irks me that some do gooders have decided for everyone what is proper, and are able to make it law.


Yeah, the next think ya know they'll make it illegal to beat your wife! The nerve.....


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> I agree 100%
> 
> As for puppy mills, first, define "puppy mill". You can't. Neither can anyone else (except apparently HSUS...now THERE'S an unbiased organization for you...)
> 
> Lisa


Unfortunately, I think you're right and I don't agree with the change in PA law. However, the nightmare conditions that exist for pups within a few hours of my house need to be better controlled in a way that does not stifle the ability of decent breeders to provide alternative sources of puppies. I'm not sure what the answer is, but believe we need to do more than is done now.


----------



## cstallings (Jul 24, 2007)

akblackdawg said:


> If you look at it humainly, a 22 to the head is a very quick, painless way to put down a dog, and a lot less expensive then a vet.
> Bud


I'm not sure how much it cost to put a dog down. I had it done once and I cried so hard they didn't even charge me. I believe I even had a balance from a previous visit that they took care of.

I guess they thought it was strange for a grown man to cry...


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I have a buddy who thought that way Bud. He took his old gal out back and put a .22 bullet in her head. He says he still has nightmares about the way she looked up at him, and made eye contact...for a long time.
> 
> He also said he'd pay big to have taken her to the vet and he'll never do a "do it yourself" job on any more dogs.
> 
> ...


Oh God,thats a horrible visual. Not something I would ever want to or could do.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> Unfortunately, I think you're right and I don't agree with the change in PA law. However, the nightmare conditions that exist for pups within a few hours of my house need to be better controlled in a way that does not stifle the ability of decent breeders to provide alternative sources of puppies. I'm not sure what the answer is, but believe we need to do more than is done now.



The laws already exist. Care and conditions statutes via AWA and also on the books of every state. They just need to enforce what is already there.

Instead, AR groups are using the ubiquitous "puppy mills" argument to write new legislation in virtually every jurisdiction, which will make it illegal to breed any dog, for any reason. If we allow the AR groups to define "puppy mill" we all lose. Rather than fall back on the term "puppy mill" (which by its very nature, is indefinable), we need to insist that all care and condition regulations currently in place be enforced. These apply equally to the one-dog owner as much as to the hundred-dog owner. No definitions needed. If you're not taking proper care of your animals, you should answer for it. Period. 

Lisa


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

I agree that we have useless legislation everywhere. If you think about it, all the laws we have are for stupid people who don't have a moral compass. Now, we have ignorant(not stupid, just ignorant) people(AR organizations) that have been sheltered from these things all of their lives that think their morality is superior to the rest of the American public. I'm no genius but oh, will the stupidity never end?

BHB


----------



## dreamer2385 (Jan 21, 2007)

I had the difficult decision of having to put my best friend, a golden, down. i was crying and sobbing so hard she hardly charged me anything. She knew if we thought we could save her we would.

I just can't imagine doing it to my own dog. I guess it stems back from childhood,and my best friend's dog, Barney was really ill. I used to see her everyday. i spend so much time there. One day I went to visit,and she told me her older brother tied her up in the back and shot her. I still can feel sick when I think of this. We also bottle raised a raccoon, and had him as a pet at her house, till the local police found out and shot this baby on the spot. 

I can't say I would feel the same about a wild raccoon, coyote , fox, deer etc. But , somehow, dogs I feel differently.

I also know of the kennel where the man shot 80 dogs. 

I also know of a woman who is a collector who has pigs so sick that can't stand, or move. I would offer to put them out of there miserable life, living in their own feces 24-7..

Soo I have mixed feelings about this. But I draw the line when i comes to dogs. I know to many of my neighbors' who would shot any stray just to the thrill of the kill. I have weird neighbors.. It is open season on cats, dogs, if it also flies, it dies..eg...

i could go on,,, but i won't ,, Maria


----------



## TexasEd (Jul 28, 2008)

SPIB698 said:


> While I couldn't do that to a dog of mine, I don't think it's the State governments place to tell me that I can't do it! What we need is less government, not more.


I agree. I might be able to do it if we were out hunting and it was a way to limit suffering before I could get to a vet for a traumatic injury.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I couldn't look at this face and put a .22 into her. I went to the vet, had the IV put in her. The vet administered the dose and left the room. I was there with her as she slipped away. Can't imagine dropping her like beef/game I plan to put in my freezer, just would never seem right. (I grew up around a turkey ranch, chopped the first head off one when I was 4 and raised beef, rabbits, chickensall my life) 










Still not putting any bullet into my dog.....

Save the bandana jokes, bad girlfriends doing bad things to good dogs.......


----------



## DMA (Jan 9, 2008)

Had a budy that had a short hair get mortally wounded while hunting. He had to shoot the dog on sight to lessen the suffering. He buried the gun with the dog, said he could never shoot that gun again.

I agree though fewer laws are better, I guess I am pro choice on this one, ironic isn't it?


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

DMA said:


> Had a budy that had a short hair get mortally wounded while hunting. He had to shoot the dog on sight to lessen the suffering. He buried the gun with the dog, said he could never shoot that gun again.
> 
> I agree though fewer laws are better, I guess I am pro choice on this one, ironic isn't it?


Doug, 

I suppose if, they take away your right to shoot your dog, what is next? 
I guess they could make a law against 4 year olds killing turkey's. Then, competitions for the kids seeing who could catch the turkey without a head the fastest! (see what happens in Eastern Washington) 

I had THE best upbringing I could have ever wished for....geeze kids are missing out these days! --  Paul


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

We try to have vet come to house. If dog is able, we shoot them a short flyer, let them keep it when shot is given. They go to sleep with their duck, and are buried with it. 

Better to allow gun than let dog suffer. Some will not pay for vet.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> We try to have vet come to house. If dog is able, we shoot them a short flyer, let them keep it when shot is given. They go to sleep with their duck, and are buried with it.
> 
> Better to allow gun than let dog suffer. Some will not pay for vet.


That is really nice.....


----------



## TexasEd (Jul 28, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> We try to have vet come to house. If dog is able, we shoot them a short flyer, let them keep it when shot is given. They go to sleep with their duck, and are buried with it.


Hopefully it is a long time away, but that is how I want mine to go.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Lynn Dubose shared that idea with me, that is the way they did it for the wonderful Hattie. We both had tears that day.

Seems right somehow, when all their lives they have given up every single bird, that they get to keep that last one.


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

I have a 12yr old Golden that isn't long for this world. When that day comes it's going to be really tough. 5yrs ago I had to put down my 15yr old lab and I balled like a baby in the vets office. 

Depending upon the circumstances you do what you have to do. Preferably you can get to a vets office.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

cakaiser said:


> We try to have vet come to house. If dog is able, we shoot them a short flyer, let them keep it when shot is given. They go to sleep with their duck, and are buried with it.
> 
> Better to allow gun than let dog suffer. Some will not pay for vet.


That's the best way for a retriever to go.. I hope all mine can go like that..


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

News from Colorado ealrier this week...
_________________________________________________________________________

GREELEY (MyFOXColorado.com) - Greeley Police arrested a woman on felony cruelty to animal charges. She told officers that she killed her dog because it was old and sick, and she couldn't afford to pay a veterinarian to euthanize her pet.

Police said they found Paula Harding, 33, crying in her front yard when they arrived at her home Sunday. She told them she shot her 15-year-old dog to death. 

Harding told the Greeley Tribune that, "Bailey was my best friend. I had a lot of financial problems lately, and my car was stolen, so I didn't have any money to take her to a vet to have her put down." The dog was described as a terrier/poodle mix. 

Harding told police that at first she gave the dog drugs to try to put her to sleep. Harding said she gave the dog Xanax, an anti-anxiety prescription drug. But it didn't work, so she tried the same thing the next morning, but the dog still didn't die. So, she dug a hole in the yard, and shot the dog with a .22 caliber handgun.

Officers arrested Harding and took her to jail. She is out of jail on a $5,000 personal recognizance bond. That's basically a personal promise to return to court.

____________________________________________________________________________

I could never do it unless as said before we were in the field and it needed to be done to end suffering of an injured aniumal. I've got a couple cowboy and ******* friends that think anyone that can't look their dog in the eye and put them down themselves shouldn't be allowed to own a dog...

Not sure that's what the legislature of any state needs to be spending their time on...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I've got a couple cowboy and ******* friends that think anyone that can't look their dog in the eye and put them down themselves shouldn't be allowed to own a dog...


That says something about me as that is exactly what I used to think. Our dogs life is short compared to ours. We'll outlive them, we know this when we get in to dog ownership. I used to think there was something basically wrong with paying someone to do an odious chore that we wouldn't do ourselves. Still, somewhere underneath, I feel somewhat like this. There's something wrong paying a vet to do what is our job. I know it's not true, but my feelings of responsiblility for my dogs won't go away.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

I didn't mean cowboy or ******* as derogatory in any way. I guess down to earth would have been a better description.

I feel the same way you do Howard, I'm just afraid I don't have the stomach or the stones to do it, which is a bit odd with the amount of hunting I do. I probably humanize the deal way too much and get stuck on my own perceptions about 'violent' versus 'peaceful' passing...

If I had to I could, hope I never have to.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I don't think it is wrong if, someone can do it themselves. I grew up around the farm. I just couldn't do it myself. 

But! For legislature to waste any time and money passing such a bill is extremely wasteful spending considering the issues all state government is currently facing.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

I've seen a lot of animals 'humanely' euthanized both as a shelter worker and as a vet assistant. Unfortunately it's not always a peaceful passing - some dogs just don't react properly to the drugs. It's rare but it happens. Having witnessed a few of those really makes a person think that a well-placed 22 shot is the kindest solution. 
Just thinking about this decision tears me apart but I hope I have a choice when the time comes.


----------



## mattoleriver (May 21, 2005)

Can somebody please post a link to the text of this law. I think this whole discussion may be based on a misunderstanding of the legislation. A few weeks ago, when this was going through the legislature, only commercial kennels would be required to use professional euthanasia. If you're not running a puppy mill you're still free to go plug ol' Rover right 'tween the eyes!

George


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

mattoleriver said:


> Can somebody please post a link to the text of this law. I think this whole discussion may be based on a misunderstanding of the legislation. A few weeks ago, when this was going through the legislature, only commercial kennels would be required to use professional euthanasia. If you're not running a puppy mill you're still free to go plug ol' Rover right 'tween the eyes!
> 
> George


I believe this is it: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...d=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2525&pn=4322

As far as I can tell from a quick reading the requirement that euthanasia only be performed by a vet only applies to licensed kennels. Kennels must be licensed if they house _or transfer_ more than 25 dogs per year. I will admit I'm not sure of the accuracy of my understanding of this definition. Requirements vary by size and type of kennel, but the restriction on euthanasia and a requirement for a formal plan for veterinary care extends to all kennels.


----------



## mattoleriver (May 21, 2005)

YardleyLabs said:


> I believe this is it: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS...d=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2525&pn=4322
> 
> As far as I can tell from a quick reading the requirement that euthanasia only be performed by a vet only applies to licensed kennels. Kennels must be licensed if they house _or transfer_ more than 25 dogs per year. I will admit I'm not sure of the accuracy of my understanding of this definition. Requirements vary by size and type of kennel, but the restriction on euthanasia and a requirement for a formal plan for veterinary care extends to all kennels.


This is my layman's take on it, it is certainly not a legal opinion.
That is a copy of the bill which may, or may not, have passed in that form. The pertinent parts seem to be:
Pg 3 Line 24+ Definition of a Commercial Kennel
Pg 22 Line 22+ Classes of kennels
Pg 33 Line 8+ Class C (commercial) extra requirements
Pg 39 Line 29+ Professional euthanasia

Basically it says that only Commercial Kennels must have professional help when euthanizing dogs. A Commercial Kennel is one that sells/transfers any dog to a dealer or pet shop, or one that produces more than 60 pups in a calendar year. 

George


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

mattoleriver said:


> This is my layman's take on it, it is certainly not a legal opinion.
> That is a copy of the bill which may, or may not, have passed in that form. The pertinent parts seem to be:
> Pg 3 Line 24+ Definition of a Commercial Kennel
> Pg 22 Line 22+ Classes of kennels
> ...


There were actually five separate copies of the bill on the web site but there were no differences between them that I could readily identify. Where I am getting confused in the language is that anyone having or transferring 26 or more dogs per year is required to be licensed as a Class I kennel. The section describing the requirements designates the requirements as applying to all kennels. The euthanasia requirement (para 17) is straightforward, saying that all euthanasia must be performed by a vet. However, the language is convoluted and definitely looks like a bill cobbled together in response to a particular problem. Fortunately, the bill is much more limited in its impact than a more comprehensive oone considered last year that would have effectively shut down most hobby breeders and trainers. Unfortunately, the requirements for a large kennel allow conditions that most would consider inhumane.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

I have a small kennel in PA that needs a state license. The reason for the no kill law is that they do not what the puppy mills killing the dogs. They want to force them to make the improvements to the kennels that the new law states. The fear is that the mills would start killing the dogs instead of putting the money in the kennels. I have seen pics of the mills. It is sick how some of the dogs live. The way of stopping this is just stop buying the puppies! PA is not the only state with mills. All states need to crack down on this issue.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

mattoleriver said:


> … If you're not running a puppy mill…





born2retrieve said:


> …The reason for the no kill law is that they do not what the puppy mills killing the dogs…


What is a puppy mill?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

subroc said:


> What is a puppy mill?


OK, I'll bite. Obviously, the term puppy mill is perjorative. However, in my mind a puppy mill is a high volume (typically hundreds of puppies per year) breeder that sells primarily or exclusively through wholesale channels. There may be excellent puppy mills. However, most in this area:


breed multiple breeds including "designer" breeds
do not participate in any breed or performance competitions
use unscreened breeding stock without regard to pedigree or health clearances
breed bitches in every cycle and typically destroy animals when their breeding life is complete
provide little or no socialization or exercise for breeding stock or puppies
provide little to no veterinary care for breeding stock or pups
Many use a variety of convoluted structures to conceal the scope of their operations. This includes extended families with related businesses in close proximity (the Zimmerman family being a case in point), use of farmed out breeding operations where pups are whelped outside of the kennel and the puppy mill acts as a distributor, use of fraudulent techniques where commissioned sellers sell pups caliming they are home bred and raised when they actually came from a mill (I once purchased a pup where this was the case), etc. Much like the Medicaid Mills that used to be very prevalent, puppy mills are hard to define legally and difficult to control without also undermining the ability of more honest breeders to operate.

With Medicaid Mills, the ultimate solution was not the creation of new laws but the creation of new enforcement techniques that identified the true abusers and then harrassed them out of existence. I believe that a similar enforcement focused approach is also the only solution for puppy mills and that increasingly onerous laws are more likely to backfire because only the crooks make enough money to make it worthwhile to continue trying to operate in an over-regulated environment.


----------



## leo455 (Aug 15, 2008)

I have read this tread from beginning to end and had some thoughts.
1. We do not need more socialism in America. With Wall st., banks, Health care going that way already.
2. The Education of the General public on the purchasing a puppy. Who, What, When, Where, and How.
3. Away to report bad Breeders (Puppy Mills, Backyard Breeders) Publicly. 
4. Formation of our own Lobbying group to watch out for our beliefs, with Guns, Dogs, and Hunting.


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

leo455 said:


> I have read this tread from beginning to end and had some thoughts.
> 1. We do not need more socialism in America. With Wall st., banks, Health care going that way already.
> 2. The Education of the General public on the purchasing a puppy. Who, What, When, Where, and How.
> 3. Away to report bad Breeders (Puppy Mills, Backyard Breeders) Publicly.
> 4. Formation of our own Lobbying group to watch out for our beliefs, with Guns, Dogs, and Hunting.


Leo, if you have 4,3, and 2, you most _certainly_ have 1. We do not need more government, more regulations, or more control over what we do with our dogs.

There is one easy way to do away with puppy mills: simply make it _illegal_ to sell puppies (or kittens) in a retail environment. Given the liablilities with human allergies, diseases caused by fecal material, puppy bites, etc. it could probably be couched as a public health and safety issue. No place to sell them equals no demand. 

However, though I am dismayed by irresponsible breeding (which is not only "backyard" breeders, but also so-called breeders who produce too many litters with not enough health clearances) I would be more dismayed by legislation to regulate them-- which plays right into the hands of the "Animal Rights" organizations. 

Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## leo455 (Aug 15, 2008)

I disagree with you on this. 
Would your Kennel club put on a public seminar on how to buy a puppy? 
Would you report a known puppy mill on this board for everyone to see? 
If this board(I am not speculating that it would) hired lobbist to support The ideas that we believe in(hunting, guns, and dogs) and would fight in the state level as well as the federal level against the beliefs of "Animal Rights" groups. 
How does this make for more socialism?


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> OK, I'll bite. Obviously, the term puppy mill is perjorative. However, in my mind a puppy mill is a high volume (typically hundreds of puppies per year) breeder that sells primarily or exclusively through wholesale channels. There may be excellent puppy mills. However, most in this area:
> 
> 
> breed multiple breeds including "designer" breeds
> ...



Good post. The only argument I have (and what has been a sticking point for the ever-burgeoning anti-breeder laws) is the definition of puppy mill as someone who sells at wholesale. Used to be, not any more. Many puppy mills (thanks to the internet) now sell directly to the public. They finally figured out that cutting out the middle man results in consideral improvement in their profit margins.

I'd like to see the term "puppy mill" removed from the lexicon. Rather, there are those breeders who care for their dogs and those who do not, according to the laws already on the books. Find new labels that apply to each of these, and things become clearer. And I say already-existing statutes, because the ones the AR folks are trying to push through will actually *promote* puppy mills, because they require certain kenneling, specific care, etc. that most hobbyists can't afford. 

And for Larkin, I'd stay away from ANY kind of health testing requirement. That just plays right into the hands of the AR groups. Pluis, ties the hands of breeders in numerically small breeds, or those with small gene pools (not the same thing). Not to mention, there is one commercial breeder-managed "registry" that's "hook" is that they require health checks on all their dogs. Of course, these health checks must be performed before the pup you buy is 6 months old, but as they say, there's one born every minute...

Lisa


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Puppy mill? my definition: a place where they treat pups as a commercial crop like broilers or fryers and are ONLY in it for the profits.

I could shoot some people easier than I could my own dog. If a bullet is so humane then why have states gone to lethal injection instead of the firing squad?


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Larkin said:


> However, though I am dismayed by irresponsible breeding (which is not only "backyard" breeders, but also so-called breeders who produce too many litters with not enough health clearances) I would be *more* dismayed by legislation to regulate them-- which plays right into the hands of the "Animal Rights" organizations. .


_"And for Larkin, I'd stay away from ANY kind of health testing requirement."_

Lisa, I specifically said that I would *not* want legislation to regulate health testing. 

I understand that it is currently in vogue to be concerned about the zeal for health clearances and how that may affect breeds with limited gene pools, but it would be ridiculous to throw out the baby with the bath water and do _no _health clearances. Still, this is the individual responsibility and choice of the breeder and _in no way_ should it be mandated by ordinance, statute or other legislation.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

When the time came , We went to the field , and put out a cock bird ,his favorite .Gunney made me alot of money when I was guideing , and as a stud dog, he got it done , even with problem girls . This dog put food on the table for my family . Shouldn't his last day be spent doing what he loved ?
He got out of the front of the truck (where he hadn't been since he was a pup) ,and started working the bird . One last quarter , one last flush , one last shot , one last retrieve to hand.
A long goodbye at the vets ,my girlfriend and I holding him ,and crying , and remembering . He was cremated with the pheasant , and his blood will always be in my lines .
A bullet to end his life ? I don't think so.

BASHAKILLS SON OF A GUNNER RIP OLD FRIEND


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Larkin said:


> _"And for Larkin, I'd stay away from ANY kind of health testing requirement."_
> 
> Lisa, I specifically said that I would *not* want legislation to regulate health testing.
> 
> I understand that it is currently in vogue to be concerned about the zeal for health clearances and how that may affect breeds with limited gene pools, but it would be ridiculous to throw out the baby with the bath water and do _no _health clearances. Still, this is the individual responsibility and choice of the breeder and _in no way_ should it be mandated by ordinance, statute or other legislation.



I think we need to draw the difference between health checks and health clearances. In your first post, you refer to backyard breeders (another undefinable term, by the way) as those who do no health clearances. Do you mean do no health checks? Because there is a difference, a BIG one, especially now with DNA tests.

I'd rather use a dog for breeding that is a known carrier for some defect because he was tested, and therefore a known quantity, than one with no checks at all. And I'd rather use a mildly dysplastic dog from a family that is loaded with OFA Goods and Excellents, than use an OFA Excellent whose close relatives have not been checked.

Do you see the difference? Presence or absence of a health clearance does not, in itself, determine the quality of the breeder. 

Lisa


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> In your first post, you refer to backyard breeders (another undefinable term, by the way) as those who do no health clearances. Do you mean do no health checks? Because there is a difference, a BIG one, especially now with DNA tests.


Lisa, I didn't say that "backyard" breeders are those who do no health clearances. Here is the phrase to which you refer: (I have cut and pasted it from the original post, I have added the new emphasis) 

_However, though I am dismayed by irresponsible breeding (which is *not only* "backyard" breeders, but also so-called breeders who produce too many litters with not enough health clearances)_

I did leave out the modifier between "so-called" and "breeders," it should have said "responsible." 

I have never used the term "health check," as it is too vague to be useful. To most, a "health check" would be like the exam the vet gives your dog before giving him a certificate for shipping. 

I try to test for everything we can test for (it also helps the testing protocol) but I believe that everyone should be sensible about the breeding decisions that they make with this information. I have a dog that is a PRA carrier. When I bred him,-- the mother was clear, of course-- I tested the puppies so that the buyers could make informed decisions to avoid breeding a carrier to a carrier. 

An excellent case can be made that carrier and even affected dogs can contribute positively to the gene pool. I wouldn't choose to breed them _to another carrier_, because I don't want to contribute to the problem, but I certainly wouldn't remove them from a breeding program.

It's a lot better to have the information and make an educated decision than to be flying blind, which is the situation with Foxhounds. 

And in any case, getting back to my original point, I think these decisions are the breeders' to make and should not be legislated.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Larkin said:


> _However, though I am dismayed by irresponsible breeding (which is *not only* "backyard" breeders, but also so-called breeders who produce too many litters with not enough health clearances)_


But you see, that line is just chock-full of indefinable terms and judgmental labeling. "Irresponsible breeder" "backyard breeder" "So-called responsible breeder", define these terms. You can't. 

And define "not enough" health clearances? Who decides what constitutes "enough"? I'd like to see this type of labeling (sorry to say, all too common among conformation folks) go away entirely. After all, it is usually applied by one breeder to put down another, and has no place in determining real-world policy. 



Larkin said:


> I try to test for everything we can test for


Have you seen my new website? It's got all the Chessie health clearances in a database for all to search. Not visible yet, but should be after I write some more code this weekend. People will be able to search on any health clearance they want to, or any dog, any title. It'll be fun!

Lisa


----------

