Skip to content

Why Backyard Dog Breeding Cannot Be Criminalized

Breeding Business is passionate about all sorts of domesticated pets. They have written dozens of articles across the web.
Published on
Thursday 23 March 2017
Last updated on
Tuesday 9 May 2023
Why Backyard Dog Breeding Cannot Be Criminalized
This page may contain affiliate links. We may receive a commission if you make a purchase using these links.

When, like me, you are running one of the leading sources of reliable information on dog breeding, one of the most polarizing topic ever, you hear a lot of good and bad things. There is a stance on dog breeding that is however defended by most people, dog breeders, and animal rights activists included. It is the criminalization of backyard breeding.

Yet, I am writing this blog post to explain why I believe backyard breeding cannot be criminalized and heavily punished by a court.

Animal Cruelty vs. Backyard Breeding

The first step when discussing this topic is to separate cases of animal cruelty from so-called backyard breeding, puppy farmers and puppy mills.

Animal cruelty is defined as innocent animals being neglected, abused or forced to fight.

Backyard dog breeding has no accepted definition but commonly labels dog breeders who are breeding dogs using substandard breeding techniques and/or in inadequate breeding facilities. Backyard breeders are often described as profit-obsessed people who cut corners on their dogs’ wellness and health.

Now, if a backyard breeder is treating its dog(s) extremely bad, it would be considered as animal cruelty and should indeed be prosecuted under the current legislation.

However, the problem with the idea of criminalizing backyard breeding is that it requires a legislative framework along with a set of rules clearly separating legal from illegal dog breeding. And in my opinion, this is where the whole idea of criminalizing backyard dog breeding collapses.

Incompetence Cannot Be Outlawed

If we detach animal cruelty that is already criminalized from backyard breeding, you are left with the wish from a lot of people to condemn some dog breeders because they are not experts in canine reproduction, nursing, and care. I’m already hearing all of you (and myself, too) say that «it’s not like in any other field because there are actually living beings at stake here.»

Let’s think about it with another species so we can hold a comparison that may help us understand how slippery this slope would get:

  • Should we screen human parents to make sure they are experts at parenting?
  • Should we shut down any recipe website that is not written by nutritionists and scientists?
  • Should we restrict any health content so that only doctors can be the authors?

I am purposefully driving my point far because this is the problem: freedom allows a lot of people of doing things they should never have done in the first place. A lot of these words and actions are going to have negative effects on beings of all sorts. Restraining such freedom would lean towards fascism and an impossible to enforce a set of laws.


Unless we are talking about a country’s corpus of Laws, everybody is allowed to have freedom of ignorance. We most definitely all are revolted about it but such freedom is here to stay in our society. And unless incompetence falls into animal cruelty, any punishment seems impossible or even unfair.

Can’t We Agree On a Strict Set Of Rules?

Nope, we cannot. That’s the very short answer. To add some meat to my potatoes, how do you want animal right activists and actual good dog breeders to sit down and agree on a regulation? The debate will be heated and not much juice will actually come out of it. Additionally, for almost every single rule or regulation you can make, you will have plenty of counter-examples and exceptions.

This makes criminalizing unethical dog breeding impossible unless you accept placing an undue burden on responsible dog breeders who have been bettering the breed, according to their own definition, since the day they started breeding dogs.

Requiring a Kennel Club Registration

Despite recognizing 189 dog breeds to date, the American Kennel Club is leaving hundreds of other dog breeds on its doorstep. These rejected breeds are, on the other hand, accepted by other huge international kennel clubs such as the Fédération Cynologique Internationale which recognizes over 332 dog breeds.

Plus, we know that purebred dogs can be sensibly more at risk with inherited medical conditions because they are all coming from the very same closed gene pool of the few dogs that started the breed. Kennel clubs are purebred dog registrars promoting the breeding of purebred dogs and therefore, for many, they are part of the problem dog breeding is facing, called inbreeding depression.

A lot of dogs are bred because of their specific aptitudes at performing a particular task, these are usually working dogs. To those breeders, breeding a purebred dog is of very little interest since their mission is not to match an arbitrary standard mainly based on looks, but instead, it is to breed in order to better their bloodline’s purpose and skills.

Sniffing dogs for drug or bombs aren’t bred to be part of a pure breed or to be registered to the American Kennel Club! Instead, each dog is bred to a complementary partner in order to improve the bloodline’s olfactive performance. Same for herding dogs, hunting dogs, therapy dogs, racing dogs, assistance dogs, retrievers, and so on.

Requiring Specific Health Tests

Medical conditions affecting dogs can be classified in several ways:

  • Hereditary — both parents can contribute to affecting their offset with a given condition
  • Acquired — the given condition is acquired throughout the dog’s life
  • Mixed — some conditions such as hip dysplasia are partly acquired and partly inherited

But more than a type of health problem, the way it expresses itself is extremely variable:

  • Binary — a given condition is either present or not such as congenital deafness
  • Gradual — a given condition can fluctuate on a spectrum such as obesity
  • Late — arthritis and hip dysplasia are often appearing at an older age

Screening binary hereditary conditions is rather common nowadays and it would be easy to enforce such law. However, for everything else, it would be terribly difficult to enforce.


For example, a Sire may have hip dysplasia despite having both his parents genetically cleared for it. What if this dog is also completely clear of all hereditary conditions — would you not breed such a stud despite all the genetic greatness his blood would bring to the next generation?

Additionally, where should we place the cursor on what health conditions are acceptable, especially gradual ones, and which ones are not?

Finally, there are hundreds of dog breeds out there! Each breed is affected by its own set of commonly found diseases and health problems. Such a list is poised to frequent changes thus can quickly become outdated. Who would be in charge of maintaining such a crucial list and even more problematic, what list should mixed-breeds and mutts follow?

Requiring Achievements In Order To Breed a Particular Dog

Speaking of ethics, only allowing champions to be bred is an extremely unethical though. Let’s leave ethics out of this discussion and focus on the principle of breeding champions only. A dog needs several years in order to become a Champion. If it’s a female, she might be past her prime-time thus breeding wouldn’t even be an option.

Like I mentioned above, most dogs who are acclaimed and awarded only are so because they look like their official breed standard’s description. This would encourage the breeding of dogs purely for looks which have caused some incredible problems over the past decades.

On top of that, a lot of dog breeders are breeding dogs for their abilities, and no championships are held to award their skills. They are working dogs doing a great job that is only seen by their owner.

Why Not Cows, Pigs, and Hens Too?

It would be unfair to criminalize backyard breeding for dogs only; and because we have properly defined backyard breeding as the breeding of an animal using substandard breeding techniques, we should also enforce it for every single animal bred in our country. Do you realize this is impossible — especially if we are using health screenings as a condition to breed an animal?

Imagine a surprise test, today, in most slaughterhouses and industrial farms. These animals, for a large part, are full of health conditions and for some of those who are problem-free, it’s mainly because they got packed with antibiotics and other drugs. Let’s face it, it’s just not feasible, or realistic.

Last Words and Last Thoughts…

My last words may revolt some readers but when it comes down to the essence of this problem, animal reproduction, there is a question we cannot avoid. Who are we to remove a dog, his or her reproductive rights? Because most of the above rules are extremely subjective at best, and totally unfair at worst.


We would basically be ranking animals as per our own subjective definition of perfection and only allowing the top 1% to reproduce. It would bring up a whole new set of genetic issues in the long run, but it’s also completely unethical.

Imagine doing it with humans! Allow a couple to have a child only based on how healthy, wealthy and great looking both are, is a thought none of us could ever have. So why would we do it with dogs?

  • To prevent pet overpopulation? So humans can take over the Earth but dogs cannot?
  • To empty rescue centers? So we remove dog’s reproductive rights because of owners’ stupidity?
  • To prevent animal cruelty? Acts of animal cruelty are already a criminal offense.
  • To only have healthy dogs? Where do you place the cursor on the healthiness gauge?

I wish we could come up with a great way to penalize and criminalize backyard breeding but I don’t see how it could technically happen without penalizing the canine species and ethical dog breeders who have for decades been practicing ethical dog breeding.

8 comments on “Why Backyard Dog Breeding Cannot Be Criminalized”

  1. Kasey

    Not only all this, but the consumer needs to be held just as responsible. If you don’t like someone’s breeding practices, then don’t buy from them! Educate them if they’re new, actually ask them what their practices are (I find a lot of people automatically label people as a BYB just for having the gall to breed any dog at all, it doesn’t matter what the persons standards were – BYB is just a negative slang term intended to attack/offend any given breeder – it actually doesn’t mean anything in a legal sense, there is no legal definition of it because there is no way of defining it in a legal manner without also applying it to all breeders).

    Having said that, a poor breeder would not be in business long if no one paid for sub-par animals or if they failed to meet the pre-existing laws on the books regarding proper care of animals (there’s a lot of them).

    I wanted Maremma’s (One of these “working breeds” you mentioned as well as “Not recognised by the AKC breeds” (thank goodness)) and had to look for years for animals that fit what I was looking for; sound dogs from actual working lines. I didn’t need super magical animals that farted trophies and the people who want that are few and far between. I finally got a pair together this year. Each one from a breeder folks would likely label a BYB simply because they are “farms” (I saw more than one article online specifically defining farmers whom breed dogs as BYBs because hey – someone who breeds goats, cows, etc. for a living and to feed the rest of us clearly has no idea when it comes to breeding dogs). I like their animals, I liked their husbandry, and I like my results. People forget that dogs came to be alongside humans for many more reasons than just a “housepet”, which is actually a very recent trend. My mom grew up in a society that loved their dogs but considered it dirty to have them in your house. They got their own shelter outside just like all the other farm animals.

    Honestly, breeders aren’t even contributing to overpopulation nearly as much as irresponsible owners/strays just roaming loose and breeding indiscriminately on their own. I hear talk of “so many pure breds in shelters” – I volunteered and worked for years at several high-population shelters. I don’t see these mythical pure breds. In fact, the rare times one is brought in straying they are usually claimed by their owner nearly immediately – usually by then the shelter already got a ton of calls from people wanting to adopt the dog or “rescue” it. Heck, one time they got a rottweiler and within a day had more than one possible owner SWEARING it was their dog and accusing the other of stealing their dog. It was the only rottweiler that shelter has seen in who knows how long so it had to be theirs. One of the rescues even went out of their way to ship pure breds, puppies, and any small dogs from shelters out of the county/other states because the demand is so high and not being met by the real unwanted strays; hound type and pit type mixes. Lab mix? Meh. Clearly a pure bred lab? People lined up immediately once it was released trying to be the first one so they could adopt it.

  2. Kasey

    Regarding my comment before, this is literally the closest thing you will even find to a general definition of BYB anywhere; “Backyard Breeder is a term used for breeders of dogs in a largely pejorative sense by the Animal Welfare community, ASPCA, larger established breeders and dog club. It is used to refer to one of the groups usually deemed not to be a Reputable Breeder.”

    So it is essentially, just a derogatory term for breeders people feel don’t meet their personal standards, pretty much. No wonder it can’t be outlawed! It’s too vague and is based entirely on opinion and not fact. Notice it doesn’t say anything about being abusive or cruel to their animals, these groups just deem certain breeders to be so.

    You can see why there’s never going to be a way to make it an actual legal term. No legal definition, no way to make it illegal. Ship sunk before it can even be placed on water.

  3. JessicaWilson

    I volunteered at a shelter in Phoenix for about a year. We had pits, gsd, and chihuahuas. If there were Purebred the owners claimed them within hours. I quit volunteering after I realized the animal shelter was basically a for profit dog mill.

    1. I think people imagine shelters to be what we would ideally want them to be. Reality is extremely disappointing, if not revolting and disgusting. Of course, a lot of people working there aren’t inherently bad people, but the whole machine is actually not always on par on the image they try to project.

  4. Matt Crader

    1st I do not believe pet ownership should be a right, but a privilege. I also think breeding should be taxed and regulated to a point that it’s revenue balance the cost local communities bear in shelters, support staff, corpse removal from roads, and euthanasia, as well as subsidize free spay/neutering. And to directly answer your question, yes I believe general poor ownership does merit pets (dogs) losing their “reproductive rights” as you put. Fewer dogs in a given locale does not effectively “punish the canine species” if the quality of life for all dogs vastly improves. Dog overpopulation is also a public health issue. I am unaware of any stray cows attacking people or pets. If you want to contribute to the problem you should be willing to contribute to it’s solution. But we all know that won’t happen because at the end of the day no matter how ethical you think you are this is about people making money. Not even the “euthanization” of thousands of furry cridders will get in the way of that. I can imagine all the AKC lobbyist now.

  5. lily

    What an abominable article on breeding that could only be hosted on a website that capitalizes off the practice itself. “Productive rights”? This is such a silly argument it’s almost not even worth addressing, not to mention being reductive of the actual issues surrounding sex and bodily rights in our society. What sort of hoops do you have to jump through to seriously suggest that a dog makes the choice to mate in the same way a human consciously chooses to have sex? Dogs are nowhere near the same cognitive level as us, which is a fact that you are well aware of and use to take advantage of, so suggesting that dog procreation is anywhere near as complex as human procreation is ridiculous. As is the “pet overpopulation” response- dogs are domesticated animals and have been bred for millennia to be entirely dependent on humans, so yes, I would prefer to have more humans than dogs.

    The most insulting argument of all here is the comparison to disabled children. Last I checked, humans do not procreate for the intention of producing the cutest offspring to then sell off for a profit. Nobody is saying that you should abandon any impaired dog or that they are worth anything less than a healthy one, they are saying that we should try to reduce the chances for them to be born with deformities and impairments that cause them to suffer. I wonder if any of you actually believe this or are only pretending to in order to sell more people into the idea of your unnatural business practices.

    1. V

      Amun… exactly what I’m talking about. Nothing less than Pet Chattel slavery profit, design so some people that can’t get along with people could exist while feeling good about themselves.

  6. Nicole Devine

    There are plenty of good hobby breeders. Not being allowed to freely breed rhem and sell them is a crime in my opinion. Get rhe government off our backs. What they are really after is making it sifficult o breed and jacking up the price of pure bred and mixed breed dogs licensed and unlicensed by reducing their availabilty. Supply lower is cost higher. So if you sont want to hobby breeders ro make a few dollars for home bred and fed dogs cAuse it floods the msrket and you gave ro lower your price the easiest thing to do is to criminalize what was not a crime. I hate californias new laws. They are so restrictive nere. As aoon as i can i am moving to a state with water, more freedom, more pace. And less layers of jurosdictional blah.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *