Jump to content
BC Boards

How widespread is rescuers hate for breeders?


Recommended Posts

I've placed bomb detection dogs and police dogs right out of the shelter. And a lot of SAR dogs, assistance dogs, border sniffing dogs, bomb detection dogs, hearing assistance dogs, therapy dogs, seizure alert dogs etc etc etc come straight out of shelters too.

 

I can attest to this. We had someone who came in looking for SAR and detection dogs, and they took more than a few (although I don't know how many eventually washed out, since they had their own placement program). This is why Mark's comment that "you breed when what you need is not available in rescue" is an important qualifier for me (and I would include shelters in rescue in this instance).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find this thread quite fascinating. I think there needs to be a balance. Obviously irresponsible breeding needs to end, but also, irresponsible pet guardianship needs to end, too. Just one look at craigslist or kijiji can break your heart - "baby coming, dog must go", "new boyfriend, dog needs home", "no time for dog, needs farm". This isn't a breeding problem, this is a guardianship problem. And irresponsible breeding often is a response to the demand for cute puppies. BYBs breed lots of puppies because people buy lots of puppies - but we all know this.

 

FWIW, before we purchased Juno, I applied for three different rescues. The first, my application was denied because our "yard" is not fenced - but it's a *farm*. The second, my application was denied because we have young children in the home. The dog in question had no problems with kids, but the policy was no children under 8 for any rescue dogs. The third dog, our application was denied because our beagle, who at the time was just turning 6mos, had not yet been spayed. We were waiting for her first heat cycle before spaying, and the woman who did the interview with me was so appalled that I would not spay my beagle before she reached maturity. It's a real shame, because we have a loving and devoted home where we put in much time and effort with our dogs, and provide a pretty stellar life. Three border collies with the opportunity to go to a herding home, and three border collies who were denied the chance. And so, finally, we went with a breeder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can attest to this. We had someone who came in looking for SAR and detection dogs, and they took more than a few (although I don't know how many eventually washed out, since they had their own placement program). This is why Mark's comment that "you breed when what you need is not available in rescue" is an important qualifier for me (and I would include shelters in rescue in this instance).

 

My brother is a police officer and they also oversee the local airport. Most of their dogs (including drug, bomb dogs) are from shelters. They like to take the high drive dog that was dumped because of 'too much energy', etc and mold them into wonderful dogs who help their officers everyday. The rest are imported from out of the US. From what my brother says, most departments who buy from breeders do not buy from the US. Hard to find well bred shepherds and Malinois in the US.

 

And also, I really don't agree with the whole rescues kept denying us so we were forced to buy from a breeder attitude. No one forced you to buy a dog. You could have easily found other rescues who don't care about fencing, etc. You could have found a dog that a private owner needed to rehome. I hear these stories a lot at work-rescues denied us, we couldn't find what we wanted in rescue, etc. There are millions of dogs out there in shelters/rescues and not all shelters/rescues have the same requirement. I think it comes down to impatience most of the time (for some, just shear ignorance about what rescue dogs are). I have 2 friends who cried that a rescue denied them so they were forced to buy a pup. When in fact, no one forced them they just became impatient and bitter towards rescue and decided to buy a puppy. The one, supported a show breeder of aussie's (when we have an aussie rescue close by) and the other bought from a commercial doberman rescue and the dog came with behavioral problems (was kept in a kennel until purchased at 5mos). Rescues put so much money, time, and effort into each individual dog so they want what is best. But for every rescue that requires a ton from its adopters (ever see the GHF form? Those dogs are guaranteed awesome homes!) their are shelters/rescues that will adopt to anyone willing to take a dog.

 

If you truly want to rescue a dog in need (either from a shelter/rescue or a private person who needs to rehome their dog) you will find one. I waited a year to find a dog in need and couldn't be happier. I know I never supported a bad breeder and that I have a great dog to spend years with. It comes down to how strongly you feel about rescue vs buying. Getting denied from a rescue would never make me want to buy, but for others that's enough to make them buy. I guess my point is that it comes down to the persons beliefs not whether or not the rescues did this or that to you.

 

Edit: This is not directed at anyone, just sparked my emotions from mommaloves's post. I have no issue with buying from breeders but don't like to hear people blame rescues. They have every right to deny someone and make their own rules. But that does not mean every rescue is the same. I think most of the time people wanted to buy a pup in the first place but felt pressured to rescue because it is the 'right' thing to do so when they hit a road block they go right to a breeder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sound very like the extreme no-kill people- not the people who think it isn't feasible in their area, but the people who follow a certain cluster of ideas.

 

It's axiomatic that 'the public' are terrible, irresponsible people, and that unwanted animals are dumped because there are just too many animals in this country. For some reason they will get personally offended if you point out that it's a high absolute but low relative number, or try and compare it to the number of people who are looking to add a cat or dog to their home.

 

It often involves the rhetoric that "Sure, we'd love to become no-kill, and we plan on doing just that. As soon as we have mandatory spay-neuter laws and all the irresponsible people disappear, everyone vaccinates/donates/adopts, no dogs get sick, only small fluffy purebreds get donated, and greeders stop breeding."

 

Then there's the others, like Peta, who think that no-kill means stuffing the animals into tiny cages until they go insane. http://www.peta.org/issues/companion-animals/overpopulation.aspx

 

"Noel Griffin, the ISPCA's chief executive said that his group's put to sleep figures were higher than other pounds because it does not give dogs to other welfare groups to rehome in Britain. He questioned how other Irish animal-welfare groups were managing to find homes for dogs that he said were of "no value" & "not the prettiest"... "a load of old mongrels"... "With all due respect to the little dogs they are not the prettiest so what is the attraction ?. Why would someone take five or six dogs to England ? These are not thoroughbreds that have a value. When a dog has no value I think animal welfare goes out the window".

 

Could it be burnout, lack of education, or guilt when someone feels they aren't doing enough?

 

 

Edit: not trying to turn this into a topic about no-kill, it's just that this seems like another aspect of a familiar argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the comments that note that breeders are necessary because not everything you need can be found in rescue.

 

I also agree with the comments that laying the blame at the feet of all breeders ignores the entire role of the responsibility of the OWNER. We live in a throwaway society. I doubt that making puppies difficult or impossible to get would somehow change that "pets are disposable" attitude that so many people have. People would adopt from shelters and still dump the animals when they became inconvenient.

 

It's a dynamic of course; if there is demand, breeders will breed. How do we educate the public about doing the right thing? Getting their pets from the right place, be that shelters/rescue or a good breeder. One poster here was turned down by rescues and got a pup from what she thought was a good breeder. She has since realized that the breeder she chose wasn't exactly a good breeder. I think it's perfectly legitimate to try to somehow get rid of those sorts of breeders, but I don't think we should throw out all breeders to get rid of those who are poor breeders.

 

If I want a pet, I'm perfectly willing to go to a shelter or rescue or private adoption (unwanted pets advertized on CL or similar). But if I want a working dog, I want to be able to go to a breeder and choose (as much as is possible) the working type that suits me. And that's not just for border collies; it applies to livestock guardians and any other sort of working dog that I need to work to a high standard without a lot of remedial work from me (that is, jobs for which instinct/genetics plays a large role).

 

We ought to be able to satisfy all those needs (pet, working) in a reasonable way.

 

I've never quite understood the no-kill movement. I could get completely behind it if pets were adopted out relatively quickly, but I honestly don't see how warehousing animals in rescues, special shelters, whatever is necessarily the best thing for the animal. Some animals probably do fine in such situations; others may not. There are many forms of suffering, and some of them are not immediately visible.

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of the time people wanted to buy a pup in the first place but felt pressured to rescue because it is the 'right' thing to do so when they hit a road block they go right to a breeder.

 

Definitely.

There's always a way if someone cares to look.

In our club we have a high proportion of rescue dogs that have been acquired in a variety of ways from rescues that make adopters jumps through as many hoops as they can think of to no questions asked private rehomings or even going to an agility show with 2 dogs and coming home with 3.

We have a member who has gone over to Ireland to take a dog from rescue and another who is a vet nurse and has ended up with a dog taken in to be pts, and helped rehome others in a similar situation. It's worth registering an interest with local vets.

Ask at local training groups too. I get lots of people wanting me to help them rehome their dog just because I help run a club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I only get "used" dogs. I volunter to improve the potential that a shelter dog will get adopted. I have seen many a shelter dog that is truly extraordinary. I wish people did not breed their dog just because their dog is "cute". There are way to many dogs waiting for good homes. It strikes me, that to be a good breeder you need to be a well educated person about all the things your are looking for to improve the breed. Fear issues, working potential, physical issues..... to many breeders (IMO) don't have this knowledge and just breed for the money. Then again, I have no idea how or even if you try to limit who gets to breed their dog.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "all pets should be spayed on neutered" statement is 100% PETA. They hold that animal ownership is slavery and do not believe that there should be pets or animals in zoos. They believe that animals are better off dead. It sickens me to see uneducated pet lovers join or support PETA because they have not done the research to find out just how extreme their views are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "all pets should be spayed on neutered" statement is 100% PETA.

 

Nope. Sorry. That isn't just PETA. I happen to think all 'pets' (pet being the operative here) should be spayed and neutered, and I appreciate the fact that most rescues that I have come into contact with make sure it is done. I might be flexible in that viewpoint if said pet owner has a damned good containment system and/or a medical reason for not spaying/neutering their pet, but how many have boasted of that (sans medical exemption) only to have an 'oops' litter? I know of a few.

 

If that view elicits the label of extremist, then so be it, but consider the irony of labeling me based on an opinion borne of 'education'. The promotion of spay and neuter among pet owners has been the key to checking pet overpopulation (not to suggest the problem is totally solved).

 

So what do I do about that? I spay and neuter my own pets, I don't breed pets, and I try to promote spay/neuter in any way I can. But I stop short of trying to police everyone else or promoting mandatory spay/neuter legislation. Just to clarify, I don't think stating my opinion is 'policing', but that's, well, my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they say pets, they are not making a distinction between working dogs, quality animals, etc... If it is owned by a person, it is a pet.

 

I personally don't breed, don't think most people who do, should, and would like to see most unneutered pets neutered, but not ALL. I want responsible breeders with top quality dogs so there will be a future of responsible pet ownership. They do not want ANY animal to be owned by anyone. That is what I label extremist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an animal is a responsibility. Whether it's a budgie or a horse. I have a right to get a budgie or a horse or a Border Collie. But what comes with that right is responsibility - the responsibility to educate yourself as to what is involved in the keeping of an animal.

 

If you get a parrot, you should educate yourself as to whether the species is suitable for your lifestyle, whether the species is endangered, and where that baby bird came from. Was it hand-raised or wild-caught? Was it mass-produced like a box of disposable diapers? Was it caught or shipped illegally?

 

It's no different with a dog. There are responsibilities in how you acquire a dog, and how you care for it once you acquire it.

 

Whether to spay or neuter is a personal choice. It should not be mandatory, regardless of why you got the dog. (pet or working) I have owned 3 intact males that never put a pup on the ground. They were not behavioral nightmares. They were simply looked after in a manner appropriate to their potential to create pups. This is part of responsible dog ownership.

 

Of course spaying or neutering will be the best option for many pet owners. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to micro-manage an intact male or female. Nor is everyone immune to the "he's/she's such a wonderful dog - shouldn't there be more of him/her?" syndrome.

 

There is not a pet overpopulation problem because there are intact animals. There is a pet overpopulation problem because there are careless, uninformed or greedy pet owners. Some of these are commercial breeders. Many are not.

 

Responsibility cannot be legislated any more than thinking can. Both can, and sometimes are, punished. I will leave the wisdom of that for another discussion. I can only make choices for my own animals, based on my information and situation. Other pet owners must make those choices for themselves - unless they ask for help or an opinion.

 

While it is true that most pets, most sport dogs, and many types of working dogs can be obtained from rescue situations, it does not follow that dogs should never be bred. There is nothing wrong with buying a dog from a careful, responsible breeder who puts a reasonable number of pups on the ground for a specific good reason. The making of money does not qualify as a good reason. Nor does the perpetuation of a bunch of "cute" dogs. The breeding of an animal with a highly specialized, and difficult to assemble and maintain skill-set does.

 

As has been covered here over and over, great working dogs must be carefully bred to maintain their qualities. This is true of stock dogs, gun dogs and various other purpose-bred working dogs. Anything else can probably be found in a rescue situation if you look hard enough. With pets, as with the working dog, you cannot always get the perfect animal. But choosing the best of what's available and working with that animal's strengths, you can have a satisfying pet or co-worker if you will exert yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree with what Geonni Banner says. I wish more people would get a clue, but you can't legislate cluelessness, we would all be arrested for something. We live in an imperfect world and each of us needs to do our best to make it a better place, but we can't make each other do it our way. And I don't think we really want to live in a world that does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is not a pet overpopulation problem because there are intact animals. There is a pet overpopulation problem because there are careless, uninformed or greedy pet owners [/Quote]

 

 

This has a morally satisfying sound to it, but if you filter out the moral subjectivity in this and just look at the facts, both an intact animal and a 'careless' pet owner are necessary conditions (of equal cause, it could be argued) for unplanned litters.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't think there are people for whom containment can work, but the only way to know this for sure is pretty much a posteriori, IOW, it didn't come back to bite you in the a posterior ;) (you meaning the general you). Since spay/neuter is a more effective bet, i.e. it is proactive, I think it is advantageous for society to promote it to pet owners. My two cents.

 

ETA: I reiterate though, that I do not think it should be legislated

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Edit: This is not directed at anyone, just sparked my emotions from mommaloves's post. I have no issue with buying from breeders but don't like to hear people blame rescues. They have every right to deny someone and make their own rules. But that does not mean every rescue is the same. I think most of the time people wanted to buy a pup in the first place but felt pressured to rescue because it is the 'right' thing to do so when they hit a road block they go right to a breeder.

 

I certainly was not blaming the rescues! Of course they have every right to deny based on their rules. I spent a good long time volunteering at our local shelter before I had children, and I continue to donate & support however I can.

 

I spent a long time looking for a rescue dog, and after three rejections I just didn't want to deal with applications and phone interviews anymore. Then, I started searching through private re-homing ads, for weeks on end. I don't have the money to ship a rescue dog in from out of province, or even to drive eight hours within the province. *shrug* I don't regret buying a dog, and in the future I'll look for a rescue dog again, when I don't have very small children and can afford to put up extra fencing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That 10% number comes from the No-Kill Advocacy Center and is comprised of estimates of the percentage of shelter animals that are either "irremediably suffering, hopelessly ill or truly vicious" (est. at <10%). So essentially what this quip is saying is either 'keep the animal alive irrespective of its quality of life' or 'I only read the Cliffs notes'.

 

 

That's what I thought also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put every puppy-mill in the country out of business, there wouldn't be enough pups from accidental breedings to supply the demand for the pet market. It's the egregious planned matings that are responsible for the surplus - whether they take place in a puppy mill or a show kennel, or a "designer-dog kennel." The people doing these matings don't care squat about dead dogs, and all the education and/or proselytizing in the world will stop them.

 

Sure, accidental matings happen with dogs owned by caring and otherwise responsible dog-owners. Is it OK? No it is not. But the numbers of pups produced in the big picture do not justify a blanket statement that all pet dogs should be neutered.

 

Most of the Pit Bulls I know of are neutered, but when I go to the shelter, 50% or more of the dogs I meet are Pits. They aren't usually the product of and unplanned breeding, nor do they come from commercial puppy mills. They come from greedy people who find out the hard way (hard for the puppies) that there's almost no money in Pit Bull pups. I was at a no-kill shelter with a friend a few days ago. I saw 6 dogs while we were there. Four of them were Pit Bulls. With Pits in every other run at the County and City Pounds, how long do you reckon it will be before they get a home capable of managing a Pit? Pit Bulls are the canine poster-children for stupid, careless or greedy dog-owners. Do you think those people give a rat's patooty about the moral issue of unwanted pups?

 

:angry:<_<:(

 

I was once told by the director of a "no kill" shelter that there is no such thing as a "no kill" shelter. Some animals are so mentally or physically screwed up that they need to be put down. Happens to everyone. Personally, I don't see the point of holding an animal with major issues in a facility for months or years, while healthy, well-adjusted, adoptable animals are turned away. It's not that I don't care, it's about intelligent use of limited resources.

 

A local "No Kill" Humane Society in my neck of the woods does not accept surrenders. They only take animals from other shelters and pounds. So you can offer your animal to them, get turned down and take it to the pound, where it may or may not get bailed out by a rescue or the Humane Society, or it may be euthanized.

 

Six of one, half-dozen of the other... There are pounds, and there are shelters, and there are rescues. There's good, bad and indifferent of each. Read the fine print.

 

OK, I'm ranting. Sorry. I'll shut up now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, accidental matings happen with dogs owned by caring and otherwise responsible dog-owners. Is it OK? No it is not. But the numbers of pups produced in the big picture do not justify a blanket statement that all pet dogs should be neutered.

 

It may not justify the statement to you, but it obviously does to others. Personally, I think it's a better slogan than statement (slogans are more effective marketing tools), but that is another discussion.

 

If there are too many pets, and unplanned litters account for some of them, then how do you section off "otherwise responsible" pet owner oops litters from "it's more trouble than money" pet owner oops litters? By intent? That might say something about the breeder's character, but it does squat for the surplus. I would hope the "otherwise responsible" pet owner would be a better bet for careful placements. I will give you that. But if you're talking surplus, every unwanted pet adds to it. Working breeders might also at some point, but in my own ethics, they get a free pass (within reason) because they make a greater contribution.

 

The other question here is, how much do unplanned breedings in general add? I do like to base my opinions on the best available data (since ancedote is not very reliable), and the last statistical survey I saw showed pretty significant numbers of unplanned litters (43% in numbers of puppies). Are you using actual statistical data or anecdotal evidence?

 

We can divvy up the surplus by our own moral dictates, but judging from the numbers of breeders of the type mentioned, the public doesn't seem to be paying close attention (although that may be changing). That doesn't mean I think it is useless to educate regarding buying choices, but unless and until it has an equal impact, I like to stick with what works. What has proven effective is promoting spay/neuter, and you don't do that by saying, "well you should spay/neuter your pet, but I don't have to because I'm real careful". The average pet owner is going to think the best of him/herself as well. What makes you special? You may or may not be, but the public will likely see you as a hypocrite. So, since I promote it, I practice what I preach.

 

"Spay and neuter all pets" seems a reasonable blanket slogan (I don't know why people take such umbrage at it), since there will always be those who choose otherwise. I support their legal right to do so. Cast the widest net and you still won't get them all, and with some, that might just turn out to be okay.With others, it won't.

 

 

ETA: Just wanted to add that I am not saying spay/neuter ALONE is the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A 3% euthanasia rate doesn't sound like a major overpopulation problem, especially when you factor in the variations due to different levels of competence at different shelters.

 

I don't think anyone sane believes that 'no kill' should involve warehousing of sick or suffering animals. The term 'no kill' means anything from a euthanasia rate below 10% to not killing healthy, adoptable, not-dangerous animals (however you define that). So you do things like find fosters, decrease surrenders, increase the number of stray dogs returned to their owners, promote adoptions more heavily etc.

 

What's interesting is that kill shelters aren't necessarily less expensive. In my neck of the woods there's a 'shelter' which kills something like 70% of all dogs who come in, but they're consistently over-budget, whereas the no-kill shelter in a similar area spends a little over half the money per animal and takes in a lot more animals. I never could figure that out.

 

Puppy mills produce an estimated 500,000-4 million pups per year, depending on who you ask. So if you switched all of those new owners from puppy mill pups to shelter dogs you'd now have either cut the problem by 1/6, or eliminated it (for dogs at least). That's not counting the dogs who are actually used to produce the pups, who end up in shelters frequently as well. You'd have a rush of them initially, as the commercial breeders went out of business, of course. There are a lot more people looking for new pets every year and open to getting them from a shelter than there are dogs and cats put to sleep. Persuade enough of them and you'd be sorted.It seems less of a 'pet overpopulation' problem and more of a 'undesireable dog' problem.

 

Attitudes are changing, and the kill rates are too.

 

Mandatory spay-neuter would be very difficult to enforce. The people who'd want to set it up would probably fail to make a distinction between pet and working bred dogs, the puppy mills would have the incentive and probably the clout to try and get exemptions, and the show breeders/Yahoo answers lot would try to make it a condition of exemption that the dog must have been shown successfully for conformation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never quite understood the no-kill movement. I could get completely behind it if pets were adopted out relatively quickly, but I honestly don't see how warehousing animals in rescues, special shelters, whatever is necessarily the best thing for the animal. Some animals probably do fine in such situations; others may not. There are many forms of suffering, and some of them are not immediately visible.

 

J.

 

Me neither.

 

For every long term dog taking up kennel space several other perfectly good dogs will die.

 

It's sad and I wouldn't advocate having a hard and fast time limit on every dog as every dog should be treated as an individual but I do feel that resources could be better used than some no-kill rescues do.

 

And "no-kill" can be misleading. "We never put a healthy dog down" is the slogan of the Dogs' Trust here in the UK (one of the biggest welfare organisations) but "healthy" doesn't necessarily mean physically. They still reserve the right to pts for behavioural reasons so in effect they are no different from many rescues that don't claim to be "no-kill".

 

However, most people in rescue are volunteers and they are perfectly entitled to prioritise where they direct their efforts as they wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. Sorry. That isn't just PETA. I happen to think all 'pets' (pet being the operative here) should be spayed and neutered, and I appreciate the fact that most rescues that I have come into contact with make sure it is done. I might be flexible in that viewpoint if said pet owner has a damned good containment system and/or a medical reason for not spaying/neutering their pet, but how many have boasted of that (sans medical exemption) only to have an 'oops' litter? I know of a few.

 

If that view elicits the label of extremist, then so be it, but consider the irony of labeling me based on an opinion borne of 'education'. The promotion of spay and neuter among pet owners has been the key to checking pet overpopulation (not to suggest the problem is totally solved).

 

So what do I do about that? I spay and neuter my own pets, I don't breed pets, and I try to promote spay/neuter in any way I can. But I stop short of trying to police everyone else or promoting mandatory spay/neuter legislation. Just to clarify, I don't think stating my opinion is 'policing', but that's, well, my opinion.

 

This 100%.

 

While a dog remains entire there is always the temptation to breed, especially if pestered by people who want a dog like yours. Neuter and the option is removed.

 

What has proven effective is promoting spay/neuter, and you don't do that by saying, "well you should spay/neuter your pet, but I don't have to because I'm real careful". The average pet owner is going to think the best of him/herself as well. What makes you special? You may or may not be, but the public will likely see you as a hypocrite. So, since I promote it, I practice what I preach.

 

This too.

 

Back on the subject of breeders - most breeders do it for what I consider unjustified reasons, but that's from my own perspective.

 

I can't think of any excuse for breeding show dogs but other reasons are more of a grey area when I put my realistic hat on.

 

Working dogs that hopefully will provide a valuable practical service - OK, if rescue can't fulfil the demand.

 

But then we get on to the market for dogs to pursue a hobby - herding, agility, obedience, flyball, hunting or whatever. Who am I to say that one hobby is more worthwhile than another?

Activities like dog sports can keep people away from the doctor and off antidepressants and have the bonus of creating the sort of supportive community that can be difficult to find in the sort of society many people live in today.

 

If someone prefers to shorten the odds of getting a dog that can perform the way they want by buying from a specialist breeders rather than risk taking pot luck with a rescue, why is my view that they shouldn't buy any more valid than theirs that they should?

 

And the people who just want a nice little trouble free pet? Probably the biggest market. If they know someone whose nice little mutts produce equally nice offspring that would fit the purpose perfectly then why not? Of course such a dog could be found in rescue but why would it be wrong for them to prefer a pup from a known background when it's OK for people who consider that what they do with their dogs is more important?

 

I practice what I preach too. I would hate to feel like a hypocrite so I will always rescue although there are occasionally dogs I see that could tempt me. (A working cocker I know is a case in point, but I tell myself that she is such a great dog with that owner. A pup of hers might not be so great with me.) I'd like my daughter to follow suit but maybe one day she will buy and that will be her choice.

 

I hold the view that a carefully chosen rescue dog can fulfil most needs. Others aren't prepared to take a chance and prefer to buy from proven breeding because it's very important to them. My ethics are more important to me than my ambition but even the ambitious normally provide a good home for their dogs and love them very much, so why am I right and they wrong? Other people have a right to an opinion too.

 

My heart will always be with the rescue dog and nothing else in my life that needs a dog will override that. My ambition isn't important when balanced against a dog's life, but hopefully it wouldn't be an either/or choice.

 

Pam

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is a "responsible breeder" and who decides? I know a lot of AKC breeders who consider themselves responsible breeders. Are they? It is subjective. Where I bristle is where others want to legislate their idea of who that is.

 

Unfortunately 'responsible' doesn't equate with producing quality dogs, but it does mean they show responsibility fo those pups they bring into the world and are willing to takc care of any pups that they place that are no longer wanted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF is a "responsible breeder" and who decides? I know a lot of AKC breeders who consider themselves responsible breeders. Are they? It is subjective. Where I bristle is where others want to legislate their idea of who that is.

 

My initial reaction when I hear the term is that it is an oxymoron. Breeding and responsibility (with very few exceptions) just don't go together in my mind.

 

All I can say is that some are less bad than others.

 

IME most people (not all before anyone perceives a personal slight) breed for personal vanity, or money, or because they want child substitutes, or a misguided sense that the world really needs the dogs they produce - usually pretty selfish reasons. I don't call those "responsible" but if they take care in pre sale socialisation and homing and have a lifetime return policy then they could be worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know I am getting into this conversation late, but I think your frame of reference is way off. Sure 3% is very small number when you talk about percentages. But apply that to the whole population of 165,000,000 dogs and cats and we are talking about 5,000,000 animals euthanized every year. I hate to see anybody state that the euthanasia of 5,000,000 dogs and cats is acceptable as a percentage of the overall population. And it’s a completely different story if you are talking about euthanasia rate as compared to shelter intake. These are some euthanasia rate statistics for 2011 in Texas:

 

Harris County VPH 82.6%

Dallas Animal Service & Adoption Center 74.80%

San Antonio Animal Care Services 67.50%

Houston (BARC) 53.40%

Fort Worth Animal Care & Control 50.18%

Austin Animal Center 7.50%

Montgomery County, Texas Animal Control 12%

Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction when I hear the term is that it is an oxymoron. Breeding and responsibility (with very few exceptions) just don't go together in my mind.

 

All I can say is that some are less bad than others.

Without responsible breeders you wouldn't have the breed you own. Were they (and are we who continue to improve the breed) bad?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...