# Biden's GSD Breeder Regrets Selling to Him



## pamela berger (Jun 19, 2008)

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Bidens-Puppy-Breeder-Never-never-never-again.html


----------



## Todd (Sep 6, 2004)

You beat me to it...I just saw the story. I can't even comment...


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

The breeder's website still advertises "Biden Approved".


----------



## Lady Badlands (Mar 31, 2009)

Unbelievable! While I'm all for rescuing shelter dogs, I'm 100% behind free choice. Some of those PETA people are total hypocrites. 

"PETA seized the moment as an opportunity to blame the killing of shelter animals on people who buy from breeders."

I read recently that PETA kills thousands of animals in their own shelter every year! 

There are a lot of sick people out there masquerading as do gooders...


----------



## Lady Badlands (Mar 31, 2009)

Just in case anyone wants a link to information about PETA killing their own animals despite a $32 million dollar budget, here's just one of them:

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/03/peta_kills_95_o.html


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

It's a shame that it's come down to breeder versus animal rights activist in the story which is allowing this woman to ally herself with all breeders and overlooking the fact that this person is actually not a reputable breeder and probably needs the additional scrutiny.


----------



## JerzeyGSD (Jun 26, 2008)

I think that what PETA should focus on is helping people learn how to find the right dog for them (if getting a dog is even RIGHT for them!) The big problem the shelters are having is that many people either aren't fixing their pets as they should or are returning them to the shelter because they "can't afford it", "don't have the time", etc.

*Sigh*

This is just sad.


----------



## krystaltiger (Oct 6, 2004)

I had just read this too. How sad.


----------



## Kayla's Dad (Jul 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: JerzeyGSDI think that what PETA should focus on is helping people learn how to find the right dog for them (if getting a dog is even RIGHT for them!) .....


That is not PETA's mission. In their eyes, "the right dog" for anyone is no dog at all--removing dogs (and cats and any other animal for that matter) from our households and lives is theri ultimate mission.

I thought that breeder had "issues" before the Biden publicity. Sounds like she is now blaming or fousing all of that on the "Biden affair" as if none of it existed before that time?


----------



## SouthernThistle (Nov 16, 2005)

When Biden first got the puppy, there was a large thread here on the board about it. Wasn't the breeder later found to have dogs without current vaccinations, etc.?


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

PeTA and many other animal right activists are bombarding this woman and the Bidens with emails about how irresponsible they are because they did not adopt from a shelter or rescue. 

Linda Brown is NOT a reputable breeder by any stretch of the imagination, but instead of taking this opportunity to educate people on telling the differences between reputable breeders and puppy mills, the animal rights folks are making this about buying vs. adopting. Way to miss a good opportunity to make a difference.

Linda Brown's kennel is JoLindy German Shepherds / Wolf Den Kennels / von Braunhaus (not to be confused with another kennel by the same name!). Her kennel is a K5 facility, allowed to have over 250 dogs per year. Her breeding stock is just that, breeding stock. She has titled males purchased from other breeders, and untitled females that she breeds. She does not show or work any dogs, and none of her kennel names have dogs that show up on OFA or CERF. 

She was suspended from the AKC in 2006. She was inspected PRIOR to Biden picking up his pup, at which time she was cited for issues with record keeping, cleanliness, ventilation, food & water, etc. She was inspected AFTER Biden picked up his pup, twice, as re-inspections to make sure she was complying with the notices to fix after being cited. At one inspection, where she knew they were coming, she passed. At another, which was a surprised inspection, she was issued even more citations for issues. At one point, she was unable to provide proof of rabies because "records had been thrown away when they were cleaning before Biden's visit."

I wrote about this on my blog back in December 2008, and if you'd like to read that entry, along with the updates I made to it, and all the links to the inspection records and the like, it's located here - http://abbyk9.blogspot.com/2008/12/breaking-news.html


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:I thought that breeder had "issues" before the Biden publicity. Sounds like she is now blaming or fousing all of that on the "Biden affair" as if none of it existed before that time?


Exactly! PETA did what PETA does and no one should find that terribly surprising, but in the article she's the only one claiming that she and Biden are getting death threats about it and what isn't mentioned are all the very real issues that exist with her breeding operation which have nothing to do with adopt versus buy, they have to do with reputable breeder versus not so reputable breeder. The PETA stuff is a convenient red herring that allows her to claim us versus them - breeders versus animal rights people and get folks like the readers of the article all fired up, when that's not the real problem at all. I feel SURE that many of the letters she's gotten or that the Bidens have gotten address "why did the VP buy a puppy from _this_ woman?" rather than "why did the VP buy not adopt?" That is, sadly, completely unaddressed in the article.


----------



## Brackneyc (Dec 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq I feel SURE that many of the letters she's gotten or that the Bidens have gotten address "why did the VP buy a puppy from _this_ woman?" rather than "why did the VP buy not adopt?" That is, sadly, completely unaddressed in the article.


The article I read did not address "whom" he got the puppy from, but the fact that they did not adopt. To this, I would say it is none of anyones business whether or not he adopts. Of course we hate to see bad breeders selling poor quality/poorly taken care of puppies, but I have yet to see any evidence that this was the primary concern. 


An excerpt from the article:


When the story got out, Brown faced backlash from pet lovers who thought the Bidens should have opted for a shelter over a breeder to find their new puppy.

PETA seized the moment as an opportunity to blame the killing of shelter animals on people who buy from breeders.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Even if this woman is harvesting dogs for dog food, no one has any right to threaten her life. Where do these PETA people get off?

Assuredly there are issues with this woman's breeding program. But that is no reason for death threats. We do not have to like her. We do not have to agree with her policies and treatment of her dogs. 

Having some dogs with an expired rabies vaccination doesn't in my opinion convict someone of animal cruelty, and certainly doesn't warrant death threats. 

Breeding untitled bitches is not the ideal. And all the rest of it. 

Sanitary conditions, good ventilation, and providing water are a little more worrysome to me, but as AC did not remove the animals, I expect the issues were not severe cases. 

The number of dogs kept there is a big issue for many of us, because we cannot see how these animals are given love and attention and training. They are basically livestock, fed and watered, possibly turned out occasionally, but mostly used for breeding, whelping and raising pups -- not a pretty life for a bitch or dog. But not worth death threats.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:The article I read did not address "whom" he got the puppy from, but the fact that they did not adopt. To this, I would say it is none of anyones business whether or not he adopts. Of course we hate to see bad breeders selling poor quality/poorly taken care of puppies, but I have yet to see any evidence that this was the primary concern.


Um yeah... that was kind of my point. 

What I was trying to say is that the author of the article allowed the breeder to frame the issue and in doing so missed some important parts of the story. She's the one saying her life was threatened, she's the one saying that the inspections came to her house and only found trivial things. It would have been far better journalism to at least interview the animal control people who went out there or find out more on their own about why people were complaining. 

Instead what they created was a very two-dimensional dichotomy that winds people up and makes them think Us versus Them, instead of taking on what's a fairly complex issue or trying to talk about the spectrum of breeding practices that exist. From the looks of it, I'd say they were successful.


----------



## ILGHAUS (Nov 25, 2002)

> Quote: She's the one saying her life was threatened,


Yes, this is a big point. So far no word of such threats from the Secret Service about threats to the VPs life or local law enforcement on threats to anyone. Just this individual being interviewd by the newspaper and making statements.


----------



## Brackneyc (Dec 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:The article I read did not address "whom" he got the puppy from, but the fact that they did not adopt. To this, I would say it is none of anyones business whether or not he adopts. Of course we hate to see bad breeders selling poor quality/poorly taken care of puppies, but I have yet to see any evidence that this was the primary concern.
> ...


I think it might be instructive to look at the article and what was written, rather than speculate about what "wasn't" written. I think most journalism these days is substandard at best, and just lousy in reality. But, this is where we are. 

My problem is with the automatic assumption that most breeders are doing it wrong, and need to be stopped. There is no lack of information surrounding breeding issues and all that we know about the practices associated with them. In this case, I get a sense that the conditions of the facility is little more than an "added benefit" in order to make the point that buying from a breeder (any breeder) is a poor decision, considering so many dogs are killed as a result of not having a home.

Maybe I'm missing something. This is just my opinion.


----------



## rokanhaus (Mar 20, 2006)

I saw this coming a mile away. I never would have agreed to sell him a puppy for this very reason, even if he smelled like the best dog owner in the world. She is not very bright is she thought it never would have been a media and animal rights frenzy.


----------



## Kayos and Havoc (Oct 17, 2002)

Incredible!


----------



## gsdlove212 (Feb 3, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: Brackneyc
> My problem is with the automatic assumption that most breeders are doing it wrong, and need to be stopped.


Actually, if you consider the sheer volumes of people breeding, the harsh reality is that the reputable breeders are harder to find, and I would definately feel justified in assuming that the volume of back yard breeders and puppy mills (even the glorified ones) drastically outnumber the reputable ones who are breeding for the betterment of the breed and doing it right. 

I agree however that this would have been one of the best opportunities to educate people on the difference of reputable breeders and the not so good ones. Thus possibly making a huge dent in the pockets of the non-reputable breeders out there. When their pockets hurt...perhaps they would have reconsidered their "hobby". I also agree that people should have the right to adopt vs. buy.


----------



## windwalker718 (Oct 9, 2008)

I'm all for "rescues" in fact both the Shepherds I have now, and a number of the other dogs I've had in the past came from a Shelter or pound, or were adopted from collectors to give them a better life. 

HOWEVER....

If someone wants to get a purebred puppy to raise, train and love it's really irritating that there's a backlash from "do-gooders" that you're killing a shelter dog by purchasing a pure bred. I love the heck out of Duke and Kyltie... and will STILL love them when I get my pup in July... but I want to do training from puppyhood, and to know that his breeding was planned to combine certain traits, and to NOT CONTAIN other issues. Klytie would have done quite well in training for Schutzhund, but was 5 years old before she came here... very different than imprinting a baby from birth to grow in a certain way. 

This seems to be a relatively new trend as I can remember the positive response when Ford purchased his Golden from a well known kennel.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:I think it might be instructive to look at the article and what was written, rather than speculate about what "wasn't" written.


That's exactly the point. What wasn't written was anything about the actual conditions at this woman's facility. What wasn't written was anything from the reports of the investigators she'd had out there long before Biden ever bought a dog. What wasn't written was anything from the secret service or local law enforcement about people making threats against her or the Bidens. All that was written was her spin on the situation. That's not journalism and we should not accept it at face value because she says it's the way it happened.

As gsdlove212 says, the overwhelming evidence is that most breeders ARE doing it wrong, but even more relevant in this case is that Linda Brown IS doing it wrong. 



> Quote:There is no lack of information surrounding breeding issues and all that we know about the practices associated with them.


Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. The vast majority of people have no idea how to tell a reputable breeder from a bad one, they have no understanding of what mills and bybs are, they don't know anything about where the dogs in the pet store come from, nor do they know about the origins of the dogs in shelters. Read this board for a few weeks and you'll see plenty of people who found their dog from a newspaper classified and had no idea that they were buying from a byb until later, if it all. You will see people saying "the breeder met me in a parking lot" "I got my puppy at 6 weeks" "is this normal?" You will see person after person say "I'm thinking about buying from this breeder - feedback?" and the more experienced folks will take them through the steps to see the problems with that breeder's operation. And people on this board at all are probably far more knowledgable and dog-oriented than the general public. People _don't_ know this stuff. 



> Quote:I get a sense that the conditions of the facility is little more than an "added benefit" in order to make the point that buying from a breeder (any breeder) is a poor decision, considering so many dogs are killed as a result of not having a home.


Yes, you get that sense because that's what Linda Brown wants you to think. That's the point I keep trying to make. You can't let the subject of a piece like that set all the terms of your perception. I mean, she'd much rather have everyone think that people are attacking her because she's a breeder than people are attacking her because she's running a shoddy breeding facility. She's framing the issue to her benefit. However, anyone who has ever worked in animal care will tell you that witch hunts by the ACO are pretty few and far between. The folks who inspect places like that are not animal rights nuts. They're county employees who are enforcing the usually fairly mininimal animal care standards for the are. They do NOT cite people for a stray piece of dog food or 4 strands of hair. There is nothing on the books that would allow them to do that. The ideas she's putting forth are simply laughable and yet people are buying it.


----------



## Brackneyc (Dec 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq
> 
> 
> > Quote:I think it might be instructive to look at the article and what was written, rather than speculate about what "wasn't" written.
> ...


Have you been to her facility? Has anyone here been to her facility?


----------



## Brackneyc (Dec 7, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: gsdlove212
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted By: Brackneyc
> ...



I guess my main point was made by your last point. It is no ones business whether he buys or adopts, and that was/is my main focus concerning this issue. I don't care for puppy mills either, but I think there are those who love dogs, that consistently jump to the conclusion that anyone selling a puppy outside of "their" approved method, is a puppy mill owner. 

JMO.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:Have you been to her facility? Has anyone here been to her facility?


Did you read the info Historian posted? It's not jumping to conclusions that this woman is not running what most of us would call a "reputable" breeding operation. And if the person who wrote the article had done even a modicum of checking, they would have found that out. The reports from the ACO people might even be public record. I guarantee you they weren't citing her for a stray piece of kibble.

And I disagree that it's no one's business. We live in a larger society and people need to be informed about the problems with financially supporting mills, bybs etc. It's not always smooth, but social pressure can and does affect important social change. No, obviously death threats are completely inappropriate (and illegal) so if any were actually sent, clearly that should be addressed, but I don't think the rest of us should just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, not my business, not my problem" if we care at all about what happens to dogs beyond our own.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Quoteid you read the info Historian posted? It's not jumping to conclusions that this woman is not running what most of us would call a "reputable" breeding operation. And if the person who wrote the article had done even a modicum of checking, they would have found that out. The reports from the ACO people might even be public record. I guarantee you they weren't citing her for a stray piece of kibble.


For what it is worth, if you follow the link posted in my original post in this thread, you will find the article I wrote about this breeder on my blog. My article is based on research that is PUBLIC and AVAILABLE to anyone who cares to look for it. 

The pink text in my blog post are LINKS to sources that you can read yourself. They include links to ALL of the reports filed by the PA Department of Agriculture, the one PRIOR to Biden picking up his pup AND the ones on reinspection AFTER Biden picked up his pup. It also includes links to the actual text of her AKC suspension on the AKC website, as well as a public complaint from an area resident to the state regulatory review commission, made in 2007. Beyond that verifyable information, there are also links to online comments about this breeder that were made long before Biden ever thought about buying a puppy from her.

You can take the comments posted below my entry with a grain of salt, as they are from strangers on the web, but the kennel inspection reports and public complaint speak for themselves, even if you take everything else away.


----------



## HAROLD M (Mar 10, 2009)

Hello all, i live in New Jersey and most if not all "breeders" in upstate Pa. are known puppy mills, whether or not the dogs/puppies are unhealthy or not pb , i really dont know.i tryed to adopt a younge dog/puppy from the local animal shelter before i bought Duke from a pb pedigree gsd breeder of european bloodlines , the puppy was a pitbull/yellow lab mix she was ok at 1st then when she was told no or corrected for un wanted behavior she would juump up and bite not play nip i mean bite like an adult dog,she was spayed she prolly was abused or something ,she only bit after the ward no.so after contacting Dukes breeder who is also a trainer and modifyer he advised me to return her couse she would be a problem around others ,and i have too many small neices and nephews around all the time,its unfair to keep the dog in a cage all its life ,plus i wanted a pet/protector not an animal that couldnt be trusted .so iam all for knowing what breed of dog will fit your life style and your living habits.sometimes you do get lucky with a shelter dog ,most times they are thier for a reason and could have been someone elses failure or just a plain old mutt. people do not put perfectly good puppies or younge adult pb dogs in the shelter for no reason ,if your gonna buy a pb puppy get it from a responcible breeder not a mill or shelter,,,,,oh and buy the way if for any reason i am looking for another dog i would go to the shelter !st i always do.a good pb breeder normally has the whole litter sold before there even born,i just got lucky couse Duke was bought before i bought him the buyers just didnt have the time/money to invest in him, i was told it was an impulse buy and later mistake, also a great breeder will always take the puppy back any time in its life if unwanted .


----------



## SouthernThistle (Nov 16, 2005)

I don't know if this has been posted or not, but this is Biden's breeder's Kennel Inspection Report:

http://www.bidendog.com/LindaBrownReport.pdf

Areas found "unsatisfactory:"
Maintenance, ventilation, sanitation, housekeeping/pests, record keeping, bills of sale, rabies vaccination.

However, you might find "interesting" the ACTUAL citations (found below the "report card" including "cobwebs" or "excess dog hair.")

What I find shocking is the 251 or more dogs per year!
Number of dogs on premises: 86
Number of dogs transferred in last 12 months: 128


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Dog hair in the areas the dogs are housed and cobwebs IN A BARN? Oh horrors! And people actually wonder why so many breeders and other enthusiasts are against legislation and government involvement in breeding...


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

She can't be too upset over the death threats...

Given that her front page on the website still reads....

Kid tested, mother approved.....and Joe Biden approved! 

With a pic of Joe Biden...

It would appear to me that her 15 minutes of fame ran out and she needed to be on the front page again.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Except that the complaint wasn't really about dog hair. What the form says is that there was a significant ammonia smell and poor ventilation and that hair and food was collected up under pipes. I'm guessing then that it wasn't clean and fresh food and hair but they were instead referring to gunk accumulated over time that was contributing to poor sanitation, especially as one of their recommendations was they the dogs be cleaned out at least once a day. I would hope cleaning a kennel at least once a day would be a no-brainer for a reputable operation. This is hardly being cited for a few stray hairs and pieces of kibble on the floor as she suggested.

I'd also like to point out that the standards for these places are notoriously lax - witness as proof the number of quite horrific puppy mills that actually _pass_ inspection. So if she didn't, I think we really are safe in concluding that there was more to the story than she was letting on.


----------



## SouthernThistle (Nov 16, 2005)

I just think the whole "cobwebs" thing threw me off as well. I can read the report quite clearly, and I have no doubt it's not the luxurious palace that the breeder made her facility out to be, but you'd think she might receive more than a warning for the housekeeping?

As for the ventilation, chances are that the ammonia smell was still there in Spring and Summer but was only heightened when the windows were closed due to it being winter. Invalid excuse as there still should be SOME sort of ventilation.

Citations were only issued for record keeping and unavailability of Rabies vaccination documentation.

Pupresq, I have read other websites that are pro-Biden-breeder as well as statements from Biden's breeder that says stuff like, "they came in and assessed every little piece of kibble that was on the floor, and wrote it up as something far worse," etc. which, based on the report, is NOT the case.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

In my sunroom, I have nine crates and an ex-pen. The dogs eat in their crates. sometimes the kibble gets up under them. I do not move them every day to remove kibble and hair up under the crates. Maybe once a month I do a thorough cleaning of the room. Today, I had to get rid of a cobweb!!! 

There are more cobwebs in the windows, quick call the ASPCA -- oh yeah, that is just a New York shelter. 

Boy, i do hate doing windows!!! 

Yes, I clean their kennels every day. I still have some straw left over from the winter and it has to go, but there is no fecies anywhere. 

I found the report to appear really not that bad. Yes, it is a lot of dogs. 132 dogs transferred and it sounds like an average of 85 kept there. If that is the case, then that is really not like she is breeding every bitch every cycle. 

What they actually cited her for was not so terrible. Before they shut you down and/or remove your dogs, there should be evidence of gross neglect or cruelty. That goes beyond an excess of kibble/hair and a few cobwebs. 

While most of us would not want to use this type of facility to obtain a puppy, it is not illegal, and not as large scale what is often supplying pet stores. C-- for a commercial kennel.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:What they actually cited her for was not so terrible. Before they shut you down and/or remove your dogs, there should be evidence of gross neglect or cruelty.


They didn't shut her down or remove her dogs. The just cited her and told her to clean up.

They say "hair and food under the pipes" and you guys are imagining the sort of stuff at your house (and mine) but they're not going to use words like "filthy" or "digusting" etc. so you kind of have to look at the context.

If you look at the larger picture of what their standards actually are and the kinds of facilities who are passing you get a different picture. For example - "adequate space" according to PA statutes is 12 square feet for a dog over 45lbs. This means a GSD could live its entire life in a wire cage 4 x 3 feet with enough room to stand up and turn around and _that_ would meet their standards. Now Biden's breeder met those requirements, I'm just saying it's this kind of thing that is the "standard." The PA Department of Ag is not a super fanatical AR group. PA has some of the most notoriously lax standards in the country. If they're citing her, there's a reason.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

True, but they checked her out in December KNOWING that all the country was watching them. 

He did get his dog that long ago, correct?

Anyway, they probably were a little more careful on this inspection. 

I am not really defending them, and I know they were just cited and given warnings on other stuff. It sounds pretty much what I would expect. 

The business of mass producing puppies is not against the law so long as you are providing adequate care. 

Now here's the question. If you bought a facility and built runs that met or exceeded the standards, should you be forced out of business if the government decides that these runs which you built to code are not good enough? 

Just a thought. But if you have dozens of runs and suddenly all of them are not to code, you could be bankrupt.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I just haven't seen any evidence of heavy handedness on the part of government regulations regarding animal husbandry. These standards are bare minimums. Have you been to some of these places that pass? They're absolutely appalling. Unless we're going to argue that there simply shouldn't be any standards at all, then enforcing the minimal ones that are there doesn't seem to me like a slippery slope. It looks like this woman couldn't meet the minimum standards and was told to clean up. I don't see any evidence of a witch hunt - but the report is proof positive that she is not being honest in her spin of the situation in the press. As well as evidence of some pretty shoddy reporting on that reporter's part.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

But a new law was just passed in PA according to Animal planet's show last night. I know that some of the minimum standards have been changed. We might say, "and about time." But to the sizing of the runs, what time frame will these people have to get their facilities up to the new standards?

I think keepind a dog in that size space is horrendous even if it IS legal. But I also do not like the idea that a person could build something to code and then have to build again for the next code and then to the next code.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I get what you're saying. I guess I just don't have that much sympathy for people whose personal conception of "humane" doesn't far exceed the current (even improved) standards.


----------



## AbbyK9 (Oct 11, 2005)

> Quote:True, but they checked her out in December KNOWING that all the country was watching them.


Actually, when they performed the inspection in December, it was prior to Biden getting a puppy from her and her name (and her kennel name) being all over the news. So nobody was watching then, let alone all the country.

When they inspected her then, she was cited (or warned? I forget) about the conditions. Then after Biden got his puppy, they reinspected her and she'd cleaned up her act some. When they came back for another inspection, they cited her again because she'd let things deteriorate again.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: pupresqIt's a shame that it's come down to breeder versus animal rights activist in the story which is allowing this woman to ally herself with all breeders and overlooking the fact that this person is actually not a reputable breeder and probably needs the additional scrutiny.


^ this


----------

