Breeder’s information/referral list Proposal
to the Rescue Prevention Committee
Contents
1. Proposed Program
2. Questions and consideration for particular aspects of the proposal
3. Rationale for the program
4. Intial inquiry to the committee regarding the breeder’s list
PART 1. Rescue Prevention “Breeder Referral Preliminary Proposal”
1 .Purpose: To provide an initial personal contact to individuals looking for
Newfoundland breeders.
Contact volunteers would conduct an initial discussion and convey during that
discussion the basics of living with a Newfoundland, what the common genetic
problems are in the breed and how they should expect a breeder to approach these
problems (more important than the actual screening strategy is that the breeder should
be informed and willing to discuss their philosophy and practices). Specific
screening practices that have formally been recommended by the NCA may be
conveyed. They would refer individuals on to NCA breeder’s list breeders and/or
regional clubs and encourage them to approach the regional club, even in the absence
of a specific breeder with a litter.
Contact volunteers would also offer the potential owner an opportunity to meet with
and interact with Newfoundlands before they pursue a purchase further. They would
inform the caller of any reasonably local Newfoundland events at which the
individual might meet both dogs, owners, and breeders.
2. Volunteer criteria.
a) Members of NCA and/or regional club: demonstrated commitment or
involvement in the breed for a period of at least 5 years
b) Have to be willing to have people visit and meet their dogs
c) Be able to give impartial direction to callers, i.e. the program should be
distinct and independent from rescue and should work through the NCA
breeders list, though referral to the rescue network would be encouraged.
d) Must have earned an AKC, CKC, or NCA title on a Newfoundland
e) Must have been the breeder of record of an AKC or CKC registered litter.
f) Items d and e may be waived in lieu of a recommendation by your Regional,
Obedience or All Breed Club.
3, Phone lines and logistics.
a) the NCA will establish a number from which individuals can reach the local
volunteers
b) Numbers for volunteers should be posted on the NCA web site
c) “Before you buy” advertisements should be periodically purchased in major
newspapers with a local breeder referral number. The NCA should provide
funds for that purpose.
4, Recruitment of volunteers. Volunteers should be recruited through a NewfTide
advertisement and through regional clubs.
5, Information script : volunteer participants would be required to provide consistent
information including at least the following.
a) Inform the caller that Breeders will want to interview them and why. That
sport breeders are not “in business” and do not worry about keeping stock.
Finding the appropriate puppy may take some time.
b) What to expect in a contract and why
c) Normal or average prices
d) importance of buyer/breeder relationship and how it contrasts with pet
store/puppy mill/backyard breeders
e) Buyer references—they should be prepared to furnish references to the
breeder, vet references if possible
f) Breeder references-they should ask the breeder for references
g) Should offer the caller an opportunity to meet Newfoundlands in person,
preferably at the volunteers residence, but other arrangements may be
made
7. Tracking the success of the program.
Program participants should track the number of calls received each week and the
average time spent with each. These data should be compiled over time and
should not be retrospectively estimated. Further, the source of the referral (NCA
web site, dog-breeder web site advertisements, newspapers) should be determined
for each call and recorded. These data should include notation of any local
advertising. Information can be sent either to the regional club or regional
coordinator and subsequently to the oversight committee who shall be responsible
for reporting periodically to the board.
8.
Administration.
To provide stability, the program should be administered by a board-appointed
NCA committee. This committee should be relatively small (NCA members who
wish to participate in the program, but do not meet the criteria as referral
volunteers may participate in the committee) Regional clubs should be given the
opportunity to provide regional coordination of volunteers and data collection. In
the event that the regional club declines, or that no regional club exists, the
oversight committee may appoint a regional coordinator.
9. NCA Support
The NCA should fund this program sufficiently to allow local or regional adds to
be placed periodically at NCA expense. Regional Clubs or regional coordinators
may request funds for advertisements through the oversight committee. Little
justification would be required for the Christmas season, but other requests would
require a justification, e.g. a major dog show in the area with high public
visibility. The organization of regions and the budget shall be negotiated by the
oversight committee.
PART II. Questions and consideration for particular aspects of the
proposal
Overall organization:
To be effective the program will require one-on-one converstations between volunteers
and potential puppy buyers. This requires much more than a short response to an email
or dropping a breeders list in the mail. Also, while the program is national in intent, it
may be the case that it’s best carried out at a local level. In addition to actually manning
the phones (and returning emails, which can clearly be carried out at a national level),
advertising will have to be done at a local level. If the program is carried out through
regional clubs, the NCA will clearly have less control since the regional clubs have a
great deal of autonomy. It is unreasonable to assume that the NCA can can depend on
regional clubs to do the bulk of the work and then dictate exactly how the program is
carried out and exactly what the criteria for volunteer participants would be.
Even if administered by the NCA, regional clubs can be encouraged to participate by a)
permitting regional clubs to validate volunteers who do not meet the formal criteria and
b) providing resources for local advertising to counter puppy mills, pet stores and “Backyard Breeder’s” in periods of high demand, i.e. after local dog or pet “events” with high
publicity and/or during holiday periods, obviously especially Christmas. Further the
local club should benefit from the program by the reduced work load of answering puppy
enquiries during these times. Whether formally administered at a national or regional
levels, regional clubs should be encouraged to participate to as great an extent as
possible.
1. Formal Qualifications for breeder NCA breeder referral:
There are several philosophies for qualifying referral volunteers ranging from
something as restrictive as breeder’s list requirements (without the recent breedings)
to a completely unrestrictive policy not requiring even NCA or regional club
membership. Clearly, if we are to do more good than harm, there will have to be
some sort of “quality control” of volunteers. A further consideration is whether
qualification should be done at the national level or at the regional level. Initial
discussions of the proposal at the face-to-face RPC meeting suggested that members
of the committee were relatively strongly for rather strong administrative services at a
national level
2. Information script : volunteer participants should be required to provide consistent
information. Again, proposals for the information content and the style of
conversation could range from completely unrestricted to highly scripted. A
completely scripted conversation would probably not only frustrate callers, it
would undoubtedly decrease the willingness of most to participate as volunteers.
The degree of scripting used would also depend upon the qualifications used for
volunteers. The less restrictive the qualifications, the more restrictive the script.
At the very least volunteers should be provided with a consistent set of prioritized
“facts” to work from.
3. Advertising.
Clearly, establishing a breeder referral network will do no good if the public is not
informed of it. Advertising would be most effective in reaching people we are not
already reaching through the web site if handled through local newspapers, local
veterinarians and the like. Local newspaper advertisements should be
concentrated around holidays as well as coordinated with local dog or pet events
in the community. Further, any local breeders referral programs (e.g. other breed
clubs, all breed kennel clubs, private rescue organizations, and shelters) should
be notified of the existence of this program
Conclusion:
Increasing intervention prior to acquisition is would clearly benefit the rescue
situation. The main issues to be resolved are the overall organization off the plan,
and whether it is carried out by the national or by regional clubs. Perhaps the best
balance would be cost-sharing incentives to regional clubs to help support local
advertisements, etc. This may require a relatively high degree of regional autonomy.
PART III Rationale for the program
Over the past year the Rescue prevention committee has completed a survey of
regional rescue groups (R. Donner first quarter, 2001 Newftide) and these data
have been examined in the context of the epidemiological data on relinquishment
of dogs to shelters (P Randall, third quarter, 2001 Newftide). A number of issues
in both of these reports strongly indicate at least one direction where committee
programs could make a substantial difference in the numbers of Newfoundlands
needing rescue.
The studies of shelter relinquishment (Patronek, G.J. et al JAVMA:209, 572-581,
1996) and the committee data suggest that for Newfoundland, and undoubtedly
for other breeds as well, it is likely that the greatest risk factor for relinquishment
is acquisition from an irresponsible, or uneducated breeder. (although it is not
universally true, we can probably use this to mean non-“NCA” breeder. The
rescue survey suggested that only 10 of 240 rescues (about 4.2%) originated from
“responsible” breeders and in 50% of those cases, the breeder aided in the rescue.
From these data it is clear that increasing breeder’s list requirements will do little
to decrease the flow of dogs into rescue. Further, participation in the breeders list
has decreased precipitously over the past 10 years. The AKC has also reported
that the bulk of dogs registered are from breeders who breed only once and do not
participate in AKC events. It is unlikely that Pet Store puppies represent a
significant fraction of these dogs.
Some of the factors that are likely to contribute to the reduced risk are a) better
screening and buyer education (reporting that the care of the pet required more
time and/or effort than anticipated is a major risk factor), better support
(encouragement to neuter and encouragement to obedience train the dog would
be expected to reduce relinquishment), greater involvement in the pet (including
bonding and more regular veterinary care), practical suggestions for solving
behavior problems (needing advice is a substantial risk factor that is ameliorated
by helpful and practical advice--impractical or poor advice are actually substantial
risk factors). The rescue survey data are entirely consistent with these data. In
spite of the central position of the breeder in maintaining the animals in homes,
the participation in the NCA breeders list has decreased strikingly over the last 10
years. Analysis of these data show that the major problem has been a decline in
attracting new participants. The loss of breeder’s list members has been
effectively constant over the same period of time.
In all of these ways the breeder/buyer relationship is a strong factor in successful
placement. Purchases from so-called “backyard breeders”, puppy mills and pet
stores leave the new owner adrift and, unless the dog is trouble free, at greater risk
for relenquishment. It is important to recognize that relinquishments are not
predominantly “spur of the moment” purchases. Degree of planning in the shelter
data was not associated with a differential risk of surrender. Instead, it appears
that planning that does occur is often unsuccessful in creating a relatistic appraisal
of what living with the dog is like. Patronek et al describe this risk factor as
irresponsible acquisition rather than irresponsible ownership. It would probably
be more accurate to describe it as inappropriate acquisition. We will do better in
our educational efforts if we refrain from vilifying those relinquishing dogs, in
spite of the popularity of doing so. The Patronek group also interviewed
individuals relinquishing pets to shelters and found that the majority felt that they
had tried their best to find the animal a good home, but were unsuccessreful.
The rationale above suggests strongly that one of the most important, if not the
most important opportunities for intervention is prior to the acquisition of the dog.
Interestingly, the NCA’s breeder-referrral contact reports that many or most of the
inquiries occur after the individual has the dog, i.e. too late for the program to
serve its purpose. Further, my experience manning an all breed breeder referral
list is that most callers are not looking for “education”. They are adamant that
they simply want to be referred to breeders. I believe that the experience in the
General Education Committee experiment, was similar: callers are expecting to
speak to, or at least be referred to a breeder who actually has puppies. They are
unlikely to respond favorably to purely educational speeches when they looking
for a puppy. This proposal is that we separate the educational components of the
breeders list and establish a “breeder referral/information” program to provide a
more substantial initial contact with the general public at the point that they are
first considering a Newfoundland.
It is important to recognize that the purpose of the program is not to talk the
caller out of getting a Newfoundland. Any tactics that leave the impression that
the AKC dog breeders are “elitist” will leave the potential buyer vulnerable to the
large scale breeder’s similar statements and the use of alternative registries. The
overall requirements for the program are 1) respondents inform caller about a)
what to expect from the breeder,nd what to expect from the dog. 2) that the
respondent take the time to speak to the caller, hopefully at a local level, 3) that
the caller does not make enemies for the sport of dogs, 4) that the caller feel the
respondent is helping to steer them toward a dog they can live with. The primary
philosophy of the program is that it will help them obtain a dog that is appropriate
and likely to be successful (whether it’s a Newfoundland or not)
Intial inquiry to the committee regarding the breeder’s list
The role of the breeders list in education & rescue prevention.
Initial inquiry for submission to Rescue Prevention committee
Pat Randall
The NCA could do a much better job at rescue prevention by increasing the utilization
of the breeder’s list. It is often assumed that most rescue dogs are impulsive acquisitions
made with little or no planning. Interestingly, in the most complete study of shelter
acquisitions, "degree of planning" was not found to predict shelter relinquishment.
Apparently, the planning of many future owners was ineffectual in preparing them for the
actual ownership of the dog. Clearly, since unrealistic expectations regarding the work
involved in keeping the animal, was an extraordinarily strong risk factor, for many people
the planning was ineffectual preparation.
We have only anecdotal data, but from several years manning the Austin Kennel Club
Breeder referral line (just prior to Christmas) it has been striking that many of the callers
in search for a puppy, are not, at the time, interested in speaking to anyone who is not a
breeder, or at least someone who will direct them to an actual breeder. They are unaware
that they need the "education" we have to give them and resent what they view as 1) a
holier-than-thou sermon, 2) a speech meant to keep the "market" to ourselves or 3) an
off-the-wall animal rights tirade (after all they're only dogs, right).
A breeders list or breeder referral program gives us access to potential buyers at a
critical stage, before they make an unwise purchase. It appears that NCA breeders
(whether or not they are on the breeders list) do a good job of keeping the dogs they
produce out of rescue (presumably in large part by screening and education of puppy
buyers). Individuals that, out of frustration or because of a conflict in attitude with
breeders on the list, go on to buy puppies from less reliable sources are lost to us. The
next time we will see them is when we get their dog in rescue.
In spite of the critical position of the breeder's list participants we have seen, over the
last 8 or 9 years a precipitous decline in the participation. Fig 1 shows the number of US
breeders on the breeder’s list from 1987 to the current year (we are missing one year of
data).
We would expect that there would be some relatively constant turnover of participants,
some dropping off (if only because they forgot to do the paperwork) and some coming on
each year. It would be possible to lose overall numbers because of increasing numbers
leaving the list or decreasing numbers coming on to the list. Figure 2 shows the loss and
gain each of these years. It is clear that there is considerable variation in loss of members
across years, but there is not consistent trend. There is, however, a consistent decrease in
the number of new members recruited each year.
add
sub
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
I think that revamping the breeder's list program might be in order. I am not opposed to
having someone keep up on the paper work and ensuring requirements are met, but it
certainly should be a more active program than simply sending out a copy in response to
requests. In addition, we should make it logistically easier, rather than more difficult, to
be on the breeders list, at least in terms of renewals, and I would like to see the fee
greatly decreased if not eliminated. I have a number of other ideas for changing this
program, if you think it's something viable for the committee to work on.
Note Added: The current year’s breeder’s list is now out. Similar to previous years 22
breeders dropped off the list with 9 being added. It should be noted, however, that of
those 9 added breeders, only 1 was actually new. The other eight were individuals who
were previously n the list and had dropped off in a previous year. The total breeder’s list
(including Canada) now lists only 40 breeders, down from a high of 122 in 1990.
While the number of breeder’s leaving the list per year has not increased, it cannot be
ignored that over the last few years several very high profile breeders have dropped off.
New breeders either do not see the benefit (i.e. with internet web pages, hey no longer
need the breeders list to sell puppies) and there is little incentive to join when it is no
longer a part of the “breeder’s culture” to belong to the list. Essentially they are
providing an educational resource for the NCA and paying for the privilege—if they
decide they want to abide by the increasing number of restrictions.