How irresponsible it this article? :mad:

[bexVN]

Now I do not read Grazia, EVER!! but this was shown too me via fb. Can't believe what I have just read. As a result I have commented on their fb page (would do twitter but I'm not on it). They are actually receiving quite a backlash.

I would like to think most people would agree this is an irresponsible article, I really hope they retract it or something. I believe Grazia is quite well read (unfortunately!) I would hate to think it will give others an idea that a bit of 'on the side breeding' sounds easy and a good idea especially when they may not have considered previously!

Edited by bexVN on Sunday 5th July 12:15

[bexVN]

^^^ I hope she bred out the horrendous ailments the breed suffers.

Re: the Tax thing there is no way to know if she has declared or not but whether they would be interested or not, she would have to declare the income. They would then decide.

[bexVN]

Piersman2 said:

Err... I'm not sure... what is so irresponsible in that article? Genuinely.

If people want pets where do they come from? Other people's pets. I'd rather buy from a person breeding their own pets than from some dodgy intensive breeder who gives not a jot about the animals he's churning out.

Or am I missing something?

Yes.

It is not the fact that she is a breeder that annoyed me so much about this article, there are always going to be breeders, good and bad.

This article stinks because:

She went into breeding not out of passion for the breed but purely for money, first big cross.
The article is at fault for promoting this type of breeding as easy and a great way to earn extra money without even mentioning the responsibility that goes along with long term follow up of the pets you breed and sell on. That repeated breeding from animals too make money is also not thinking about your pet (it is a pet, not a money making machine) It states that they had been too busy to get their pets neutered, so it is not as though this is what they had planned all along. It just shows a lack of forethought.

The first paragraph states how much money can be made from each pup/ kitten. Genuine breeders whilst they do charge for their pups (obviously) would not make that their foremost thought (again I blame the way the article is put across as well, not just the 'breeder').

There is no mention of the number of abandoned/ unwanted pups/ kittens every year (which includes pure breeds) a more thoughtfully researched article would have at least briefly mentioned this.

There are no negatives really discussed, such as the emergency caesarians (expensive and traumatic for the Mum), neonate loss, failed matings (which cost each time), and other complications. There is very little to suggest that she researched what she was doing which gives the impression that anyone could fall blindly into it.

[bexVN]

CaptainMorgan said:

Saw this earlier, went to post my disgust at the article on their facebook page (not that I expected it to do anything) but it appears the rest of the animal loving world have got there first, and made a better job of making a point than I could.

a vet nurse group I'm a part of has gone a bit mad at them for a start .

[bexVN]

Last week Grazia published an article looking at how more people are making money through a variety of different income streams. One of the stories included in the piece featured a pedigree cat and dog breeder.
We have taken all the feedback and comments for this article on board and we apologise for causing any offence.
In response to some of the comments we have received, we’d also like to make it clear that Grazia in no way promotes or condones irresponsible breeding or unfair treatment to any animal.
We want to thank everyone who took the time and trouble to write to us.

This is what Grazia have just written on their FB page, bit of a cop out if you ask me.

I have suggested they do another properly thought out article; this time pointing out all the possible negatives to home breeding (I gave them a decent list to help!)