But, none of that addresses regulating a body of people (dog breeders) because of something that someone else (a buyer) might do. Well, the gun part does, sort of, but unless you have a totally different idea, that isn’t the sort of regulations that most dog breeders face.
That is the kind of thing I have in mind. Require anyone who sells a dog to do a background check, of the sort that responsible breeders and shelters do now, on a prospective buyer.
We don’t do “background checks”, we do things like verify they have a fenced yard and try to find out if they’ve ever dumped a dog on a shelter. I cannot even imagine what it would cost to try to do actual background checks! :eek:
Even that would be an improvement over letting anybody who can come up with the money have a dog. Better yet, add a basic check for a criminal record to that. I don’t expect the kind of background check you’d get to get a security clearance.
Neither.
I’m sure you’re vibrating with the “children are more specialer than anything” meme, but my point is, buying a dog usually means supporting an immoral process that necessarily involves inflicting suffering for financial gain.
Saying that you’re okay with that immoral process inflicting suffering as long as some of the victims are treated nicely later is, in fact, analogous to saying you’re okay with a different immoral process inflicting suffering as long as some of the victims are treated nicely later.
I just used an example I thought likelier to register on the moral compass of someone who was fine with inflicting suffering on puppies for financial gain.
So you see, it’s not ignorant. It might be offensive. 
Sailboat, when you’ve crafted an analogy that incandescent you don’t have to explain it. Just stand back and let it shine.
How does one go about doing a criminal record check? And what would I use it for? 
What immoral process is necessarily supported when someone buys a dog?
So, it’s ok to inflict suffering on a puppy if there is no financial gain?
In other words, what are you on about?
Many European countries tightly regulate dog breeding, requiring mandatory registered test results and sometimes even requiring the national kennel club to pre-approve all breedings. In some ways this is fantastic. On the other hand, try proposing the idea to a handful of Americans that their government wants to RFID-chip, monitor, regulate, and control the reproductive actions of every dog in the country. I suspect it’s not gonna go over very well.
Good parent clubs and ethical breeders self-regulate. They test because by doing so they improve the health and lives of the dogs they put into the world. In my opinion, the fault lies more in the uneducated and lazy puppy-buying public. If people demanded health tests, were willing to pay the cost of a quality-bred and -reared puppy, were willing to wait the months or years it sometimes takes to get a puppy of the type they want, and were willing to hear good advice like “this really isn’t the breed for you, maybe a ____ would be a better fit”, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion. The unfortunate truth is people want everything cheap, easy, and right now, and there are plenty of people willing to fill that demand. Outlawing thoughtlessly-bred puppies won’t stop crappy breeders, it’ll just make them more creative about hiding their laziness/lack of ethics. Personally, I think we’re better off educating the public on responsible pet stewardship. the mechanics of responsible dog breeding, and the benefits of buying a conscientiously-bred dog. Increase the pressure and demand for well-bred and healthy dogs and breeders will step up and comply. Unfortunately, plenty of people believe that “no dog is worth more than $___” or “buying a dog from you doesn’t give you the right to pry into my personal home life” or those fantastic folks who, when told by the reputable breeder they aren’t right for a breed, go right ahead and find a puppy mill or shelter dog of the same breed at a third the price and zero hassle… then dump the poorly-bred and mishandled dog on rescue’s hands when oops, pow, surprise(!) it becomes a problem right around eighteen months of age.
Personally I detest the breeding of “extreme typey” dogs who, by virtue of being a canine novelty can’t function very well as a living being. That’s one of the reasons I chose the breed I did–my dog is as healthy as an ox, and monumentally physically capable, as were many dozens of generations before him. I’m surprised to see Rhodies on your list. Unless they’ve taken a spectacular nose-dive in health since leaving Africa, they’re very healthy and capable dogs. The ones I know from working kennels are fine, healthy hunting dogs.
I think I understand where your fervent attitude on the topic comes from, but you really haven’t argued your point much beyond “you’re spinning everything”. Her responses have been spot-on. I support absolutely everything she said. I also support what you’re saying about excessively over-bred dogs with extreme characteristics, and support that POV entirely. I don’t think it’s okay to breed bulldogs that are walking genetic messes or persian cats with noses placed above their eyeballs. However, a really ethical breeder doesn’t do those things because they’re not breeding animals exclusively for “fashion”. I think the conflict comes in where people frame “freakish show dogs” as necessarily equating to “bred by an ethical breeder”. Some dog show people are ethical breeders, and some ethical breeders show their dogs, but the two populations don’t by any means entirely overlap.
The biggest problem with the “no dog breeder is ethical” POV is… what’s your proposed alternative? We emerge with a culture where the only source for dogs is the random-bred product of irresponsible dog ownership? It’s a hysterical and extremist outcome. It’s wholly plausible to produce healthy, physically and mentally sound dogs through conscientious breeding practices. People have been doing it for tens of thousands of years now. I just think we’ve just gotten progressively worse at it over the last century, as we drift into a world where fewer and fewer people in this country relate to dogs as “physically functional, generally utilitarian” beings and more and more people relate to them as “furry children” or “living accessories”.
Um, sure… and drinking milk means supporting an immoral process that necessarily involves inflicting suffering for financial gain. We all draw “moral” lines in different places. Dogs are generally pretty happy to breed, if you let 'em. I place conscientious canine husbandry practices pretty well within my own moral spectrum. There are all different kinds of dog breeders. There are very few I personally would support with my dog-buying bucks.