Talk:Backyard breeder

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animal rights Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles This redirect is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Agriculture Mid‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Backyard Breeder" is simply a pejorative term. Unless someone can find a rational way to merge it into the controversy over breeding, it shouldn't be an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf4NK (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a bad article. The only use I could find on the web was animal rescue groups, animal welfare groups, and "reputable" commerical breeders using basically as a synonym for puppy mills, or the equivalent with other animals. In particular, many of these groups are -not- referring to amateurs, but to small scale commercial operations with questionable practices. The one citation in the intro is just an article about puppy mills. The section of the article with a list of Undesirable Characteristics has one citation which contains none of the items on the list, just a two line definition in a glossary. I concur that the term should maybe be described in

I also agree. The term is Ill-defined and the article contents could be merged with another article dealing with similar subject matter. Adondai (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rather POV against "home-breeders". It sounds to me rather like professional breeders propaganda. Regards Loudenvier 16:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just flagged it. It sounds like a corporate breeder writing a personal essay using wikipedia as a soapbox. No references, just a string of assertions. StudyAndBeWise 19:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that this article could be made encyclopedic and also expanded with "correct" information. Loudenvier 23:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but you would need a neutral definition of a backyard breeder. (E.g., not from PETA). A scholarly journal article on backyard breeders with statistics would probably be the best source of information, but good luck finding it. StudyAndBeWise 02:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, and I'm not sure there needs to be a "backyard breeder" page at all. I'm not really familiar with the term. I mean, from reading the entry I see what some people think backyard breeders are, but it's way too subjective. It's more of a stereotype than anything else. I vote for deletion. Bderwest 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT support merging this with

This article needs a rewrite, not deletion or merger. Any rewrite will run the risk of appearing NPOV as this is largely used as a pejorative term by and within the animal welfare community, so a lot of word like 'alleged', 'in the view of' etc. will be needed. Finding a 'neutral' definition will, I think, be almost impossible - this is NOT a neutral term , or at least it isn't often used as one. It can, however, be reported in a NPOV manner.--BoatThing 11:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a suggested new version in my user area Backyard Breeder Draft-- This is a work in progress - suggestions welcome. BoatThing 13:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer your version, but it still lacks sources. To be NPOV you must try to back any allegations with as many reliable sources as possible. If the overall feeling on reliable sources is detrimental, then this article will look detrimental, but as a reflection of facts not speculation ;-) I have two

boxers. I'm not a commercial breeder. I will breed them because I am so fond of the temperament of the male that I cannot see it fading when he dies. I will breed them once, and then get the male vasectomized so that I will not have to sterilize the female, which I thimk is too risky and intrusive a surgery. The male was a blind buy. My girlfriend bought him to me without much knowledge about the breed but he grow up a superb dog, his temperament is like no other, so faithful, brave and well-behaving. The female, which was acquired recently to make him company and give birth to his puppies ;-) was another matter: we went to heaven and hell trying to find the best female we could. She is daughter to a brazillian bitch which was best in show more than once. So I think, in the end, I am a backyard breeder myself ;-) A conscius one, but one nonetheless. I just can't see the inherent evil with this compared to puppy mills. If I can't find a home for the puppies, then they will stay with me... But I think that not everyone would be so careful and caring as I am. Regards Loudenvier 14:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is that this is a case of reporting the type of breeder that is meant when using this term. It is not a case of reporting on the actual practises of small or home breeders (which would be a subject for an article on dog breeding) but on the use of the term. I can find multiple sources for the use of the term and making of the allegations but they are all Primary - that is, they make the allegation (in various ways). I am moving towards the conclusion that this article should be improved, but only as an intermediate step. The Dog Breeding/Selective Breeding/Backyard Breeding/Puppy Mill multiplex really needs reorganising. It is not appropriate that the issues relating to the pros and cons of various breeding approaches are covered in an article that defines the meaning of a pejorative term and the whole set of interrelated(!) issues regarding good vs bad practise fragmented across several articles. That is, however, to big a project for one ill-informed person to do alone. BTW, I think you might qualify as a 'Responsible Hobby Breeder' rather than a BYB, although the definition used varies by the organisation or person using it and their agenda. You would be excoriated by many of the more 'hard core' 'Breed Purity' types for your lack of genetic research and breeding for temperament rather than conformation (the Animal Welfare people focus more on healthy dogs with good homes). Some in the Show Dog world would classify you as a BYB simply for not showing your dogs on the competition circuit!--BoatThing 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the redirect there is noting in selective breeding on byb 137.48.221.104 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still see the problems reported earlier: this is essentially an attack upon the process. The article should be written with sources from all perspectives, avoiding propaganda.In looking for sources, remember that anecdotes are not encyclopedic content. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

POV fork. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

sounds good. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]