Why ARAs think there are no good breeders.

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Read this over: http://www.coloradohrs.org/articles/ado ... eneric.asp

Can the breeding of rabbits for any reason be justified when there is such a massive over-population of rabbits, resulting in thousands being "humanely" killed (euthanized) in shelters and many more thousands meeting untimely deaths because they have been dumped outside where they do not have the abilities needed to survive? Note: Both "good" breeders and "bad" breeders contribute to the over-population of domestic rabbits!

Uhhh, LOL what? No, I do NOT contribute to "overpopulation." I eat my culls. I've sold quality breeding stock before, as well as ONE LONE PET sale, and no rabbit I've ever bred or owned has ended up in a shelter. The single pet-sale rabbit? They wouldn't have adopted a shelter pet instead, they'd have bought from another breeder if I hadn't sold him to them...they wanted a purebred who would be health-guaranteed.

So how do they logistically think I'm helping to contribute to overpopulation??? I know several breeders who never sell any of their stock. How are they responsible for shelter-abandoned rabbits???

MATH. THEY CAN'T DO IT.

Is it possible to satisfy a rabbit's natural need for the company of other rabbits, including a life partner with whom to snuggle, groom, and play, without having rabbits reproducing uncontrollably?

Uhm, my rabbits don't like other rabbits, LOL. They might mate just fine but gods forbid you leave them together. Rabbits do not need a "life partner."

Given that there is an 80% probability of uterine cancer in a female rabbit who isn’t spayed by the time she is five years old (whether she has been bred or not), is it appropriate to breed a rabbit for more than a year or two before getting her spayed?

I think they made that up. People who've dressed out older does...how often do you see cancer in there???

Why Do Breeders Breed?
To perfect a breed, in respect to specified standards regarding physical characteristics, health, and/or temperament;
For ego strokes when the breeding leads to winning at rabbit shows;
To make money;
To create a better commercial meat or wool product;
To let the kids “see the miracle of birth”;
Because people were careless with unaltered rabbits;
Because people thought they had two same-sex rabbits.

Uhm..........some of those don't sound like BREEDERS but pet people. Careless with unaltered rabbits? To let kits see the "miracle of birth?" LOL not reasons I breed, thanks!!!!

And LOL, I've never made money on a rabbit sale. EVER. My pet sales are at $10. My broodstock sales are at a hefty $40. That's right...in two years of keeping rabbits, I've made a whole $50 in sales. YEAH SURE, I'M MAKIN' LOTS OF MONEY....not. :lol: Nevermind that my feed bill is about $15 a month, and the cost of showing is just...lots.

As to the ego-strokes...actually, I go to shows to have my stock evaluated. Sure, I get a thrill when a rabbit does well on the table...but more importantly I learn based on the judge's statements what is good about my rabbits and what needs work. It helps me know where I'm going with my stock. I'm eager to see if this black kit can compete with it's sire...my goal is to improve, even if only a little, with each generation. Better health, better coat, better temperament though not sure how to do that last one since my rabbits are all excellent (except one...and she gets cooked as soon as I get a good replacement out of her!).

Nevertheless, whatever the purpose or reason - for every rabbit brought into the world, if it is given a home, another rabbit must die for lack of that home.

Simply not true. :roll:

[A good breeder] Breeds only for physical characteristics which benefit the rabbit (i.e., will not breed for physical standards that are detrimental to the rabbit - this automatically disqualifies breeders of certain breeds).

I wish they'd elaborate on this. What ENTIRE BREEDS are "detrimental?"

[a good breeder] Provides medical treatment, not killing, for every ailment, no matter what it is, no matter how contagious (using isolation to protect other rabbits).

Sorry, but no. I'll cull anything contagious IMMEDIATELY and if a rabbit has an ailment that will be expensive or difficult to treat, they will be culled. I'd rather spend my money on my HEALTHY stock, thanks.

This article isn't so bad, though. It does have some good things to look out for, if you were a pet person looking for a good breeder. But some of their descriptions of what makes a good breeder GOOD are just ridiculous.

 

[Dood]

What ENTIRE BREEDS are "detrimental?"

I would be very happy if the dwarf gene was eliminated in rabbits, the malfactor MAXfactor also is one the world can do without.

 

[Cottie]

What ENTIRE BREEDS are "detrimental?"

I would be very happy if the dwarf gene was eliminated in rabbits, the malfactor also is one the world can do without.

I'm slightly in agreement on this. Dwarf breeds are a novel exploitation of a detrimental genetic mutation. Doesn't mean those who do breed them are "bad breeders", though.

Sorry, Kyle, I know you raise MRs. It's just my personal opinion on the topic.

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Nah it's fine. I know it doesn't appeal to everyone. Not offended in the least!

 

[Secuono]

Anyone breeding for pets, sell as pets or sell to breeders who will breed them for pets is technically contributing to the problem.
Unless you eat all of the rabbits you create or make 100% sure the ones you sell will only be bred for meat, you're adding to the problem.

Shelters need to get over it, public needs to get over it. Toss them all into a grinder and feed dogs and cats with it.

 

[tailwagging]

It is just a way to shed bad light on all breeders. watch this.

listen to " it didn't appear that they were getting their flea treatment...I think we found worms.." and newborns on cold kennel floor (by animal care and control)

what???!!! they took this lady's dogs because the flea season is bad and nothing is working this year. and we "think" there was worms????!!!
they charged her with 1 that is right 1 count of animal cruelty and yet took 150 dogs/puppies.

But listen to what is said about the difference between a breeder and a puppymill!!!!!!!
http://www.wistv.com/story/22881523/for ... puppy-mill

just to be clear I don't condone selling pups at "flea markets" but if the pups are being taken care of then it is not legal to have nor breed them.

__________ Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:09 pm __________

Anyone breeding for pets, sell as pets or sell to breeders who will breed them for pets is technically contributing to the problem.
Unless you eat all of the rabbits you create or make 100% sure the ones you sell will only be bred for meat, you're adding to the problem.

Shelters need to get over it, public needs to get over it. Toss them all into a grinder and feed dogs and cats with it.

no it is the owner who actively looked and bought the pet THEN didn't want it and sent it to a shelter that is the problem.

 

[MamaMandy]

I disagree. There are stillborn babies in large breeds, just like there are stillborns/peanuts in the dwarf breeds. My peanuts are humanely put down, but most of them are stillborn. I also get lots of litters where there are no peanuts at all. I don't see what the difference is if large breeds have stillborns too. Just my opinion of course. For me, I don't raise meat rabbits (nothing against it and I may in the future) so the smaller breeds appeal to me. They are easier for my kids to handle, and I just like the look of them...always have. If the dwarf breeds had some sort of deformity that made their quality of life horrible then I could see that argument, but that's just not the case.

I do actually have a lot of pet sales (enough to cover my feed costs and then a little) and 4-H sales (which would technically still be a pet since I don't have meat breeds) and I resent CnB saying I'm contributing to a problem. The people I sell to are looking for a particular breed or look for their pet. That's why they seek me out. They don't want some shelter mutt that may or may not be healthy, and who knows how old it actually is. What's wrong with wanting a pretty purebred for a pet?! I make sure everyone that buys from me has my contact info and knows that I will always take the rabbit back at anytime. I've had 2 people do that so far. I highly doubt if any of my rabbits have ended up in shelters. It would be easier for my buyers to just bring them back here than to search out a shelter that actually accepts rabbits. Most of my customers have actually sent me photos or emails updating me on the bunny and telling me how much they or their kids are enjoying their pet. So, yeah, I totally disagree.

And yes, like tailwagging said, it's the owner that is actually the problem, not the breeder. I think Kyle said before there are irresponsible owners that buy from responsible breeders. Those statements I agree with.

 

[ottersatin]

Just about everything
the A R A'S Say:
Is the biggest load of Bull-Whappers
ever mentioned by anyone on the face of the Earth!
Does anyone with any knowledge about Rabbits and
their proper care actually believe a word that is
spewed from the mouths of the Animal Rights Activists?
Nah, We the Reputable Rabbit Breeders know what the truth really is!
Ottersatin. ldtimer:

 

[Dood]

I disagree

Rabbits can be small without the dwarf gene - brittania petite, polish, mini lop, dutch etc...

In some breeds you often cannot tell who is a dwarf and who's a false dwarf - mini rex, lionhead, jersey wooly so there is no 'unique' look to these breeds.

 

[Cottie]

Good job, Kyle. Way to :stirpot2:!

 

[HoppinHalfPints]

I disagree. There are stillborn babies in large breeds, just like there are stillborns/peanuts in the dwarf breeds. My peanuts are humanely put down, but most of them are stillborn. I also get lots of litters where there are no peanuts at all. I don't see what the difference is if large breeds have stillborns too. Just my opinion of course. For me, I don't raise meat rabbits (nothing against it and I may in the future) so the smaller breeds appeal to me. They are easier for my kids to handle, and I just like the look of them...always have. If the dwarf breeds had some sort of deformity that made their quality of life horrible then I could see that argument, but that's just not the case.

I do actually have a lot of pet sales (enough to cover my feed costs and then a little) and 4-H sales (which would technically still be a pet since I don't have meat breeds) and I resent CnB saying I'm contributing to a problem. The people I sell to are looking for a particular breed or look for their pet. That's why they seek me out. They don't want some shelter mutt that may or may not be healthy, and who knows how old it actually is. What's wrong with wanting a pretty purebred for a pet?! I make sure everyone that buys from me has my contact info and knows that I will always take the rabbit back at anytime. I've had 2 people do that so far. I highly doubt if any of my rabbits have ended up in shelters. It would be easier for my buyers to just bring them back here than to search out a shelter that actually accepts rabbits. Most of my customers have actually sent me photos or emails updating me on the bunny and telling me how much they or their kids are enjoying their pet. So, yeah, I totally disagree.

And yes, like tailwagging said, it's the owner that is actually the problem, not the breeder. I think Kyle said before there are irresponsible owners that buy from responsible breeders. Those statements I agree with.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Good job, Kyle. Way to :stirpot2:!

:yeahthat: I am in fact my own worst enemy, LOL!!!!!!!! :lol: So much for the OP.

Anyways...IMO, peanuts are no different than a larger breed's failure-to-thrive kits or stillborns, as MamaMandy said. I had runty kits who died who weren't peanuts...it was no less frustrating and honestly, thanks to some rotten luck and crappy does (all of which have been phased out) I've had less peanuts than larger-kits-who-died. Peanuts are a genetic roll of the dice...sometimes, you lose.

That doesn't mean it is for everyone...there ARE small breeds out there that do NOT have peanuts. None of those breeds happens to be Mini Rex, though, and it isn't just their size but their coats and temperaments I like, too. So I am just going to have to accept that I will get peanuts from time to time.

NOW. As to whether or not that is detrimental to an ENTIRE BREED, that's debatable. How is it detrimental to the non-peanuts? My normal kits, the non-peanuts, from a litter of 50-50 peanuts, are thriving so much I actually was beginning to worry they were being overfed!!! How did having peanut siblings harm them? They're fine. So to say an entire breed is "bad" or shouldn't be bred because of peanuts, I disagree.

So...do I no longer get to claim I'm a good and responsible breeder 'cause I get peanuts? Because if that's what this article is saying and people agree, well...dang.

Bearing in mind the article was PAINFULLY vague on that issue, and never mentioned peanuts once.

 

[Dood]

NOW. As to whether or not that is detrimental to an ENTIRE BREED, that's debatable. How is it detrimental to the non-peanuts? My normal kits, the non-peanuts, from a litter of 50-50 peanuts, are thriving so much I actually was beginning to worry they were being overfed!!! How did having peanut siblings harm them? They're fine. So to say an entire breed is "bad" or shouldn't be bred because of peanuts, I disagree.

So... 50% died but its not detrimental to the breed... OK then :shock:

 

[trinityoaks]

Kyle, the ultimate goal of ARAs is to COMPLETELY eliminate animal ownership of ANY kind. They won't be happy until EVERY animal on the planet is "roaming free" and completely wild. (Never mind that most of them couldn't actually survive that way--the ARAs can't fathom such a possibility.) The vilification of breeders is nothing more than a means to an end.

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Dood, don't get me wrong. I really like and respect you, but I must disagree. My first litter of Champagnes, the doe's milk never came in and I had 100% mortality. I'll take half over ALL any day. I see the milk problem as a fluke, and ultimately culled that doe for being very non-productive...where as the MR doe with the two remaining kits is raising some hefty little chunkers. Peanuts are just a fluke, it happens.

To be honest I kind of WANT small litters for my MR. Two to four kits would be ideal per litter. I don't have a lot of space and I don't have a huge market for sales over here, and while I have no problem eating my culls I also am not in the desperate need of inexpensive meat like I was originally.

I've seem posts here where people had large breeds who lost kits...someone just posted not long ago about how their doe lost about a third of a litter. No peanuts were involved. Kits will perish. Some just aren't able to thrive.

 

[Cottie]

Kyle, the ultimate goal of ARAs is to COMPLETELY eliminate animal ownership of ANY kind. They won't be happy until EVERY animal on the planet is "roaming free" and completely wild. (Never mind that most of them couldn't actually survive that way--the ARAs can't fathom such a possibility.) The vilification of breeders is nothing more than a means to an end.

Quick tangent...

Please think about another venue where "breeders" are vilified. I can't count how many enviro-nuts have lambasted me for "breeding".

These people are ALL the same nuts that brought us the "voluntary human extinction movement."<br /><br />__________ Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:13 pm __________<br /><br />

Dood, don't get me wrong. I really like and respect you, but I must disagree. My first litter of Champagnes, the doe's milk never came in and I had 100% mortality. I'll take half over ALL any day. I see the milk problem as a fluke, and ultimately culled that doe for being very non-productive...where as the MR doe with the two remaining kits is raising some hefty little chunkers. Peanuts are just a fluke, it happens.

To be honest I kind of WANT small litters for my MR. Two to four kits would be ideal per litter. I don't have a lot of space and I don't have a huge market for sales over here, and while I have no problem eating my culls I also am not in the desperate need of inexpensive meat like I was originally.

I've seem posts here where people had large breeds who lost kits...someone just posted not long ago about how their doe lost about a third of a litter. No peanuts were involved. Kits will perish. Some just aren't able to thrive.

Kyle, I think Dood's point is that breeding dwarf's is intentionally causing genetic problems. Unless you KNOW one of the parents is a false dwarf, you're breeding animals with the knowledge that some will be genetically malformed.

You can't control whether or not a doe lactates, or cares for her young. But most breeders would remove those genes from their line. If Mrs Howell's next litter loses more than 1, hate to say it, she's going to FC. I love her dearly, but why would I want those genetics?

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Here's the thing...I don't have room for rabbits who can't do double duty. I know some people claim "just buy a really big doe and breed little bucks to her" to get show rabbits, then hold back the big non-dwarf kits to breed with and just show the little ones. Never breed the little does. Uhm...I can't maintain a large herd. My rabbits all have to be tossed on a show table to earn the right to breed...meaning I will have small, dwarf stock. If I had 20 or 30 holes just for Mini Rex, maybe I could do that...but I don't. If I want to show AND breed, I am taking the risk of peanuts. My hope is to breed winners to winners to produce more winners. Plus...if I am only breeding big chunky does, how do I know they will produce the right type with the buck I pair them with???? I'm still new to this, I can't compare a big chunky non-dwarf to a little typey dwarf and see how they'll match up. Whereas I can kind of see it with the wee ones...for example, I put Jack and Nellie together because they both have great coats, nice hindquarters and very wee little ears. I think they compliment well.

I'm not saying peanuts are a GOOD thing...it's kind of sad when they pop up. But it happens.

I'm gonna say once more, if you don't want peanuts that's totally fine, we each need to do what is right for us and our rabbits. But far be it to judge others.

I've even made sure to have an outlet for my peanuts...talked to a friend who is also a herper (I used to keep pythons and still have snake-pals...heck I want another Ball someday, just can't afford any more pets right now) and they have offered to buy ANY kits I cull so long as they aren't diseased. I just delivered both peanuts from this current litter...how is it any different than someone who takes a perfectly healthy, normal kit and kills it for snake food??? My friend even remarked that the peanuts are just the right size for one of their snakes.

 

[MamaMandy]

Very well said Kyle! Makes total sense to me!

 

[Kyle@theWintertime]

Totally OT, never noticed your FB addy in your signature before. Hope you don't mind, I "liked" your page.

 

[Peach]

I don't disagree with having smaller litters...or having dwarfs that have peanuts...my focus isn't on meat production. I enjoy showing, and I don't need high numbers in my litters. I just cull the runts immediately cause they just never amount to much in all the litters I've raised. I like to cut down the litter by 1-2 kits...more if I can. I LOVE litters of only 2-3. It's makes the cutting down easier with less mouths to feed. I remove does with poor milk production and temperament, but I won't cull on litter size. I'm going for quality offspring.

My rabbits have no problem raising big litters...I just don't want big litters.

I don't feel raising breeds with the dwarf gene is detrimental. If I'm raising dwarfs, I know they can make great self serving meal or pet food, but it's not necessarily being raised for meat.