WE did it, but did not mean to.

[PSmitty]

Jodi, since you felt the need to quote me, allow me to explain my comment. The reason I said "we're all just talking to dead air" is because I posted *after* Sherry said her last post was her final response to the thread. I meant that I doubted she was even reading anymore.

 

But, whatever.

[bcnewe2]

I'm going to share what will probably make me very unpopular, but there you are.

 

I don't actually believe you. I didn't believe whatsherpickle when this 'happened' to her alleged spitz mix a few years back and I don't believe you either. If you REALLY didn't want puppies, your dog would have been spayed already. Or she would have been spayed immediately afterward. Or you wouldn't have allowed your child to take a bitch in season for a walk. And then, when it was clear it had happened, you wouldn't have played ostrich and "hoped it didn't take." It's just so freakin' irresponsible that I can't fathom this was purely accidental. I tend to classify this in the "happy accident" category. Not that *I* consider it a happy thing.

 

After rereading your original post this is probably the paragraph(s) where I was taken back. I felt like I was back in grade school watching someone get yelled at for doing something they knew better but still did it. Then the whole class laughing/yelling at them. Who knows, maybe I was flashing on that happening to me. But it sure was a bad feeling for me.

 

You even stated that what you were about to write would make you unpopular, So I guess you were expecting my responce?

 

Your advise wasn't bad, but the way in which you wrote it never let me digest the whole message.

 

It was after your response I felt that most of the other posters were jumping on your bandwagon beating the dead horse or puppies if you will.

 

If I were a poster looking for info. I might have gained some important info but when the same stuff kept being spit out I ceased hearing the info for the energy that I got out of it.

 

 

The only reason I to put your name on my previous post is IMO where I remember the thread spiraling off on a personal vendetta against the op. Sorry to make you the leader but that's how it felt to me.

 

If you want to vilify me and make the gang leader of some kind of mob mentality, that's dirty fighting Kristen.

 

I think it was already dirty fighting with a mob mentality.

 

Here's the thing. The discussion pendulum has swung full circle to the predictable part where people start jumping on the opposing bandwagon because they have forgotten what the actual topic was about (irresponsible, completely avoidable, potentially intentional - and if not intentional, certainly subconsciously permissible - and completely redeemable, breeding of a 9 month old rescued mixed breed puppy) and now have decided to fight for the little guy. I almost had a pool going as to when this faction would start chiming in, down to the hour. It'd be laughable, if it wasn't so sad that we are forgetting that someone has just forced their rescued puppy to have more puppies in an country where hundreds of thousands of puppies lose their chubby little lives every year in gas chambers and the like. (Your bloody country still has NIGHT DROP and roadside once-a-week-shoot-'em cages. Your problem is BIG. Recognize it.)

 

 

 

That sure felt like more dirty fighting to me? Yes I did tend to forget the original message because of the energy blaring out.

 

Don't you think the op already received, if not before, but within the first 4 posts the info that she had to gain from posting?

 

Now you're going to say that there is a band wagon of people jumping in to say play nice? OK.... maybe they have a point.

 

So if you would like to disagree with something specific that I said, I am open to debate.

 

That's my whole point, I don't disagree with your specifics only your attitude or at least the one I "heard" when I read this thread.

 

SO....lets say, I'm guilty of inserting your name where I should have inserted the "group" name. oh and sorry about the "shi**y" word. Can we change that to crappy? Sound better? I'm sorry, my bad.

 

If there's two parties here then I guess I'm on the play nice side and maybe we can still have the same opinions on some things. Maybe not?

 

Kristen

[PSmitty]

One more thing, and I bet I'm not the only one...

 

I am so. tired. of the "mob mentality" comments that get thrown around here. For God's sake, just because people of a like mind happen to hang out on the same message board (funny! how does *that* happen?), and post messages of similar feelings, suddenly none of us can think for ourselves anymore.

[Laurae]

^^^

YES!! (Oh, am I engaging in mob activity by agreeing with Paula?)

[Brandon M]

One more thing, and I bet I'm not the only one...

 

I am so. tired. of the "mob mentality" comments that get thrown around here. For God's sake, just because people of a like mind happen to hang out on the same message board (funny! how does *that* happen?), and post messages of similar feelings, suddenly none of us can think for ourselves anymore.

 

I agree. I try not to offend people with my posts though. But yeah, just cause one person says something and then a bunch of others either agree or post the same thoughts doesn't make it a mob mentality or a bandwagon. I dont take into account what RDM or anyone thinks when I post. Its my oppinion.

[Odin's Momma]

^^^

YES!! (Oh, am I engaging in mob activity by agreeing with Paula?)

 

 

Uh oh . . . I guess I'm in the mob too?

 

Who here has a farm? Maybe someone can donate pitchforks? (my attempt at humor, s orry if it's lame )

[Brandon M]

Uh oh . . . I guess I'm in the mob too?

 

Who here has a farm? Maybe someone can donate pitchforks? (my attempt at humor, s orry if it's lame )

 

I forget.. where do we keep the torches?

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Grr, these horror stories just reinforce my support for mandatory spay/neuter laws. If you truly are a reputable breeder (whatever that is) and can pass some review of your dog breeding practices then you can qualify for the certificate that allows you to leave your animals intact. Otherwise, for the sake of the infrastructure that is forced to deal with the thousands of unwanted animals that end up in shelters every year, you should be required to sterilize, just as you are required to vaccinate for rabies and can be fined if you do not. Also for the sake of the lives of those animals who end up abandoned and euthanized needlessly each year.

 

I wonder what the posters who advocate the tender teaching response would have the rest of us do with the OP? Oh, there there sweetie. You know what you did was a naughty thing, right? We really don't need any more puppies in the world, I hope you learned. Ok, now let's get you set to be a puppy mommy!!! Gimme a break! I think that alot of the responses won't have any effect on the OP at all, she's probably not looked again and continues to put that head in the sand and "hopes" the birth will be an easy one. After all, animals do this every day, right? Kids will be kids! You never NO what they will do!

 

What I do hope is that any idiots out there who may still have intact animals may read this and heed the warning. Maybe it will open their eyes to the risk they are running and they will decide that something as silly and insignificant to a non-working, non-show, non-breeding animal as a little extra or less height will not be as important as preventing an unplanned pregnancy and all the complications that can involve. And please spare me the crap responses about "that will never happen to MY DOG" from those of you who choose to keep intact dogs but claim you don't plan on them ever mating. Dogs jump fences, jump out of cars, bolt through doors and the like every day. It happens. And as has been stated here, a dog pursuing a bitch in heat can be quite aggressive, if you think you're magic and can fight off several while walking your bitch, you're deluded. I had a dog crash INTO my house when a neighbor came by to ask if my dog had gotten out. The dog (another airedale male curiously) pursued my poor puppy with a vengeance and mounted him in a heartbeat. Even with two grown men yanking on him to get him off and out of the house.

 

The only way a dog is not going to make or have puppies is if the equipment is removed. There are very few reasons not to do it.

[Eileen Stein]

RDM, you are right that Kristen's post (and some others) departed from the topic to express blame toward you and other posters. But flames beget flames -- that's what's bad about them. IMO, you started the flaming by accusing the OP of lying, on the basis of no evidence. (Each of her reported actions is just as consistent with ignorance/inexperience and/or carelessness as it is with intentionally breeding. Just because people have been known to claim a breeding they actually wanted was an accident doesn't make it any more likely that that's the case here.) That accusation was a departure from the topic too. I have no problem with your criticism of what she reports having done, however harshly phrased it may have been and however counterproductive it may or may not have been to phrase it so, but accusing her of dishonesty is an unjustified personal attack. Besides, if you accuse her of lying when she is in fact telling the truth, that gives her every reason to reject and ignore everything else you said.

 

Please, can we climb back up onto a plane of civility here?

[Pippin's person]

I think the OP has been reading this thread (and the one Maria started about "oops" litters). I've seen her name on the "users reading this topic" several times this afternoon.

 

Sherry,

 

You've gotten lots of advice about what to do--you can either spay Candy now and abort the pregnancy or you can start learning everything you can get your hands on for helping her whelp, raise the puppies and then eventually to place them----and if you go through all the posts that offered advice and write it down AND check the various sites that Julie, RDM and others referred you to, you'll have a lot of suggestions concerning how to help her, what to plan for (the good and the bad), etc.

 

Get a vet on board now so that you'll have someone to call if something goes wrong. Start contacting rescue groups who might help you place them--or who at the very least can offer you courtesy listings. Let the people in your social circles who you know to be good dog owners know that this litter will be on the ground soon and ask them to spread the word, making it clear that you will be screening homes. Look at BC rescue sites (or any rescue sites really) for the kinds of things they seem to expect of their adopters and use that as a template for figuring out what you need to ask about in potential homes.

 

When the time comes to place the puppies, I guarantee you that folks here will help you do that, too--you might not like the price of the advice, but sadly, that's how it is with advice sometimes (and I'm not saying that to be sanctimonious--it's something I learn again and again--seems almost daily). It's up to you to decide whether you can or want to see past the things you find unpleasant in the framing of the advice, I think.

[shatchp]

I haven't been around this board too long, but long enough to know the interesting posts are those with multiple pages of replies...and this is no exception.

 

I have nothing of substance to add ( and so it's with fear and trepidation that I continue ) ... only that we BC owners are as distinct a breed as the breed we love...and the fierceness with which some of us defend our ideals, which may fall on either or any side of any particular issue, speaks to this distinction. Some here will speak softly, some will growl...some might take a bite out of your arse. Such is life in the pack...

 

I'd be surprised if the OP returned to this board. If she does, it should be with tail slightly between legs, and I'm sure she'll find this skirmish has largely blown over. It would certainly be in the best interests of the puppy mother and upcoming litter to have all these voices speaking advice and support through the months to come. If you can come back after a routing like this, you belong here...

 

I thought I'd throw my thoughts into the mix since everyone else has. Please don't bite...

[Kyrasmom]

Hopefully she does come back, I can't really disagree with many of the criticisms because there are so many red flags that I'm personally not sure which one to point at first..but in the end the only thing that truly concerns me, aside from Candy's well being, is that these pups be altered ASAP if they are not aborted. If that means holding onto them until they can be safely altered, then so be it. That is something that needs to be done.

 

As for the mob mentality, with regards to both tangents, that always amuses me because a certain cohesive group can be a mob in one thread and then completely disagree in another...so it's not really a mob, it's just a lot of people reacting honestly in a similar fashion to ONE thing.

 

Sherry, if you do come back, please update us with your decision and Candy's well being. Doing right by her and the pups is reallly all that is important.

 

Maria

[MrSnappy]

RDM, you are right that Kristen's post (and some others) departed from the topic to express blame toward you and other posters. But flames beget flames -- that's what's bad about them. IMO, you started the flaming by accusing the OP of lying, on the basis of no evidence.

 

Sorry Counselor, but I disagree with you. Whether I 'flamed' the OP or not doesn't give anyone else license to string me up for the crime of leading a mob against the OP. My opinions are my own, how I choose to express them is arrived at by myself and anyone who wants to disagree or agree is at their discretion to do so. I won't accept that I'm to blame for anyone else's feeling on the subject, however erroneously that connection gets made.

 

An equal number of people have agreed and disagreed with me, which suggests that they've got their own minds and the capacity to express the thoughts and opinions therein. It also suggests you can't make everyone happy, so I don't bother trying. I just speak.

 

But I will reiterate - virtually every step leading up to this litter of puppies was a conscious decision to not prevent a litter of puppies, up to and including an alleged denial that it was even happening until it almost has. Those choices by default make it a non-accident. One would assume the mother of a child has some idea how the process of conception works so deny it is unbelievable. Ergo, my opinion remains that may have been negligence or irresponsibility, but either way it was not an accident - it was simply a litter not prevented.

 

Calling it an "accident" is just easing out of one's responsibilities. If that sits okay with you, that's your opinion and I'll respect that too. But I certainly won't agree with it.

 

RDM

[Eileen Stein]

Sorry Counselor, but I disagree with you. Whether I 'flamed' the OP or not doesn't give anyone else license to string me up for the crime of leading a mob against the OP. My opinions are my own, how I choose to express them is arrived at by myself and anyone who wants to disagree or agree is at their discretion to do so. I won't accept that I'm to blame for anyone else's feeling on the subject, however erroneously that connection gets made.

 

I don't think Kristen did criticize you for leading a mob. She criticized you for your "[expletive] words." She criticized others for piling on. I don't think the "mob mentality" criticism (which was not particularly directed toward you) is valid. It's true that it may come across as "a mob" when a lot of people express the same view, but each person is entitled to express their views even if their views coincide with those of others. You/they do run the risk of evoking sympathy for the person dogpiled, but I assume you've exercised your judgment on that point, as you're entitled to do, and decided to proceed anyway. I do the same. Everybody has their own style.

 

But I will reiterate - virtually every step leading up to this litter of puppies was a conscious decision to not prevent a litter of puppies, up to and including an alleged denial that it was even happening until it almost has. Those choices by default make it a non-accident. One would assume the mother of a child has some idea how the process of conception works so deny it is unbelievable. Ergo, my opinion remains that may have been negligence or irresponsibility, but either way it was not an accident - it was simply a litter not prevented.

 

But you said more than that -- you accused the OP of lying, with no justification that I can see, and that's what I think is objectionable. I don't agree with what you say here in the above quote, but nevertheless that's a valid on-topic opinion that you're entitled to express.

 

I disagree with you, BTW, because the essence of an accident is an undesirable event that is unintended. For example, every traffic accident for which damages are awarded involved a finding that the losing party was negligent, and his/her negligence caused the accident. That doesn't keep it from being an accident. Like it or not, many people postpone spaying or neutering with every intention of preventing a litter of puppies. According to the only evidence we have here, that was the case with the OP. She intended to prevent her dog from being bred. She failed in that intention. No doubt she knows plenty about human conception, but you and I both know that the odds of pregnancy resulting from a single act of canine coitus is way, way, way higher than the odds of pregnancy resulting from a single act of human coitus. The OP may well not have known that. She may have thought it was entirely reasonable to hope that her bitch was not pregnant -- that the odds were pretty good she was not. A very unfortunate, very deplorable misconception, but simply not evidence that this was not an accident.

[IronHorse]

Grr, these horror stories just reinforce my support for mandatory spay/neuter laws. If you truly are a reputable breeder (whatever that is) and can pass some review of your dog breeding practices then you can qualify for the certificate that allows you to leave your animals intact. Otherwise, for the sake of the infrastructure that is forced to deal with the thousands of unwanted animals that end up in shelters every year, you should be required to sterilize, just as you are required to vaccinate for rabies and can be fined if you do not. Also for the sake of the lives of those animals who end up abandoned and euthanized needlessly each year.

 

Regardless of what the OP gleans from this thread that may assist them in making decisions as to the unfortunate situation they find themself in now, I am personally 100% opposed to your statement supporting mandatory spay/neuter laws.

Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

meanwhile I'll just direct you to this link which I feel basically sums up the pitfalls of such legislation. [Mandatory spay/neuter laws: Solution or folly?]

[Guest WoobiesMom]

Regardless of what the OP gleans from this thread that may assist them in making decisions as to the unfortunate situation they find themself in now, I am personally 100% opposed to your statement supporting mandatory spay/neuter laws.

Perhaps this would be a good topic for a new thread?

meanwhile I'll just direct you to this link which I feel basically sums up the pitfalls of such legislation. [Mandatory spay/neuter laws: Solution or folly?]

 

 

And that is your right, it is a hotly debated topic. Not one that I'm particularly interested in starting as a new thread. You can if you choose. I predict it will become as heavily read as this one and perhaps some will actually learn something. But it will also degrade into a battle of the links and studies and in the end, OPINIONS. One way or the other. I can 100% say that my neutered dog will never produce a litter of puppies. Can I say he never did? No, he wasn't found until approx 8 wks, maybe he could have sired during that short time, who knows? But now that I am responsible and in charge, he will not be the father of any pups that may eventually be harmed, mistreated or euthanized. Can ANYONE who has an intact animal say the same? Nope. "Accidents" (definition previously debated by others) happen if your animal is intact. Even if you're careful and diligent, you cannot say it's impossible. EVEN IF you do the right thing and find homes for those "accidents" you are preventing others from getting a home. Unless you are a serious breeder, developing a line of dogs that work and improve their breed, or your animal has health problems that make the surgery dangerous, you do not need to leave your animal intact and risk adding to the teeming pet population. And anyone who does deserves at a minimum, a tongue lashing, if not a fine from Big Brother to require that they address the impact they'll have on the animal control community. Again, MY OPINION ONLY.

[Odin's Momma]

I don't want to get into a huge conflict or anything but I don't agree that "accident" is an appropriate term here. An accident is generally an unforeseen and unintended event. This for me was a situation easily forseen. And if a person truly does not intend for something like this to happen, there are much more effective methods of prevention than the ones that were used in this situation.

[Shetlander]

What I do hope is that any idiots out there who may still have intact animals may read this and heed the warning. Maybe it will open their eyes to the risk they are running and they will decide that something as silly and insignificant to a non-working, non-show, non-breeding animal as a little extra or less height will not be as important as preventing an unplanned pregnancy and all the complications that can involve. And please spare me the crap responses about "that will never happen to MY DOG" from those of you who choose to keep intact dogs but claim you don't plan on them ever mating. Dogs jump fences, jump out of cars, bolt through doors and the like every day. It happens.

 

I know a number of people who keep intact dogs and have never had an unplanned mating. It does involve management, vigilance and taking extra precautions as necessary, in other words they need to be savvy and responsible dog owners. But perhaps those aren't the "idiots" you're referring to? I personally would never keep an intact bitch beyond 6 - 8 months of age. I'd also never want to breed. But that's me. As long as people are being responsible with their choices for their particular dogs. And even in those cases where a dog gets bred unintentionally (jumping a fence, getting loose, etc.), the pregnancy can still be terminated with a spay or a medication, I believe, if you catch it early enough. Mandatory spay/neuter can end up creating lots of problems that I don't think any of us want.

[Shetlander]

I don't want to get into a huge conflict or anything but I don't agree that "accident" is an appropriate term here. An accident is generally an unforeseen and unintended event.

 

There's also negligence, which you can be held accountable for in certain situations.

[Odin's Momma]

Yes, I agree.

 

I actually think negligence is more approprite than accident.

But again! That's jmo . . .

Maybe I'm weird, but to me there's just something icky about tacking the word "accident" onto a situation like this.

[Laurae]

I don't want to get into a huge conflict or anything but I don't agree that "accident" is an appropriate term here. An accident is generally an unforeseen and unintended event. This for me was a situation easily forseen. And if a person truly does not intend for something like this to happen, there are much more effective methods of prevention than the ones that were used in this situation.

 

Even if the OP really was simply caught off guard by an unintentional breeding, once she knew it happened, she had a solid, clear responsibility to do something about it (whether that meant educating herself as thoroughly as possible about whelping and puppy rearing, or finding and working with a rescue organization to place the pups that might come, or learning about termination/spay procedures--at the very least she should have talked to a vet for doG's sake). To put it kindly, even the least dog-savvy person understands that there is a risk of a pregnancy if their female dog is bred. Thus, she knew there was a risk, however big or small she hoped that risk was. And yet she did nothing. For weeks and weeks, she ignored the problem, perhaps either hoping it would go away or pretending that it didn't happen. This, to me, suggests that since she knew there was a risk and she did nothing to address that risk, the potential outcome of that risk was acceptable to her. (This cavalier attitude is what galls me the most, I think.) She did not try to educate herself about any options available to her or her puppy until the whelping was about to occur, so she couldn't take advantage of many solutions that were available. Again, even the least dog-savvy person understands that pregnancy is a time-dependent event; thus, the options to intervene reduce as time passes. That she asked for help only when the puppies were sure to come suggests to me that she was negligent far beyond what a reasonable person would be at best, and deliberate (and dishonest) at worst.

[Pippin's person]

Not to belabor things too much--BUT,

 

the OP never actually called this an accident (unless I missed it in the two posts)--she explained what happened in terms that I see as indicating that she saw the behavior that led to the outcome as negligent (though that's my opinion--others may disagree). She said she wished it hadn't happened and that she didn't want it to happen (but not that it was an accident) and noted that, despite their attempts to control Candy's accessibility to an intact male, they were unsuccessful.

 

There are things about the situation that I don't understand exactly and certainly things that could and should have been done differently. Those have been pointed out as they should be.

 

Regardless, the situation is what it is now. Either the dog will be spayed or she won't be. From the description of the situation, my sense is that she won't be.

 

So, what now?

 

Here comes a litter of puppies to someone who doesn't seem (by her own admission) to know a whole lot about what is coming her way or what the way to proceed is. I think that she wants to do what is right for these puppies. She asked for help and she got some (which I hope she takes). If she asks for more, I assume she'll get that too. It seems to be that genorosity of spirit runs rather rampant on these boards. And, really, that's what counts in situations like these.

[Becki's Boys]

This hits close to home with me. Jack came from an accidental breeding. The woman owned both dogs his mom is a purebred BC, his dad was at least half. I wasn't even involved in the breeding and I worry about those other puppies every day. I hope they all got a good home like Jack, but I'm a realist that's probably not the truth for some of the pups. People just need to be more careful.

[Odin's Momma]

Not to belabor things too much--BUT,

the OP never actually called this an accident (unless I missed it in the two posts)

 

Nope,the OP didn't. Eileen suggested that it was "accidental".

My personal opinion is that 'accident' isn't the right term and "negligence" is more fitting.

But like I said before, that's jmo!

[Eileen Stein]

There's no inconsistency between "accidental" and "negligence." As I wrote, many accidents are caused by negligence.

 

I used "accidental" only in contradiction to RDM's suggestion that it was intentional. If, as the OP said, "we were absolutely sure she would not have a chance to get bred," then the breeding was both unintended and unforeseen by her, which fits the definition of accidental. I can understand impatience and disapproval toward the OP, but I don't see the point of saying that what happened here was the same as intentionally breeding your dog. There is a difference between accidentally running over someone and deliberately running over someone, even if the accident occurred because the driver was wrong in thinking he could drive safely in icy conditions. Both are bad, but there is a difference.