How widespread is rescuers hate for breeders?

[PSmitty]

Three million animals killed yearly is a problem to me, not an illusion. But you're right as always, Eileen, to each his own.

[Eileen Stein]

Three million animals killed yearly is a problem to me, not an illusion.

 

well, I don't think anyone's saying that the animals killed in shelters each year, whatever the actual number might be, are an illusion, or are not a problem. The question is whether it's correct to conclude that the deaths resulted from overpopulation. On the face of it, that seems like an obvious conclusion to draw, but could it be erroneous?

[mum24dog]

well, I don't think anyone's saying that the animals killed in shelters each year, whatever the actual number might be, are an illusion, or are not a problem. The question is whether it's correct to conclude that the deaths resulted from overpopulation. On the face of it, that seems like an obvious conclusion to draw, but could it be erroneous?

 

Well if your situation is similar to ours here in the UK (and I suspect it is) the overpopulation is largely of types of dogs that are overbred aren't easy to home. Not everyone wants a pit bull (illegal here)or any bull breed type.

 

We have rescue dogs here regularly shipped over from Ireland and, to a lesser extent, Romania, plus a few from various other countries. They are generally the sort of dogs that the receiving rescue is hopeful of finding a home for. The fact that our rescues are already bursting at the seams with bull breeds is irrelevant; an Irish GR is not going to be taking a potential home from a bull breed.

 

Overpopulation is more than simple numbers; it results from an over supply of dogs that people don't want. That doesn't mean they don't want a dog at all, and it doesn't mean that they wouldn't consider adopting a rescue dog - just not the sort that fill the rescues and deprive rehomable dogs of a place of safety.

 

If dogs are being killed then that indicates that there is an overpopulation somewhere. If that were untrue someone would have surely have found a way to make money out of the dogs that currently die.

[Sue R]

Overpopulation is more than simple numbers; it results from an over supply of dogs that people don't want. That doesn't mean they don't want a dog at all, and it doesn't mean that they wouldn't consider adopting a rescue dog - just not the sort that fill the rescues and deprive rehomable dogs of a place of safety.

I think this is a big part of the issue. For certain types of dogs, there is always a waiting list, and they don't languish in shelters when they are surrendered there.

 

In addition, many people want a *puppy* and not someone else's adolescent or adult dog that has been surrendered, oftentimes with a lack of training or reasonable upbringing that would make them a bit easier to fit into someone's household. In this case oftentimes, maybe it's more about *wants* than anything else.

 

I understood from some rescuers in the UK, that one issue with Irish dogs (Border Collies, in particular) is that there are people who are breeding them as a source of income in Ireland, when there is not the demand for the numbers that are produced and/or that they are not sold into situations that are appropriate for this kind of dog and wind up being in rescue.

 

I think this whole topic is more complex than it looks on the outside and than the numbers alone indicate.

[mum24dog]

I think this is a big part of the issue. For certain types of dogs, there is always a waiting list, and they don't languish in shelters when they are surrendered there.

 

Someone I know used to live near London and fostered dogs for Battersea Dogs Home.

She then moved north to a small farm and continued to take dogs from them as she always had people wanting small dogs and she could rehome more active BCs to people she knew in agility, or even to work on local farms.

 

In London some of those dogs could have taken up kennel space for a long time, or even been pts for behavioural reasons, but in a different location with a different market available their chances of finding a home were much better.

 

Her rescue activities have expanded and now she runs her own rescue concentrating on BCs from the UK and Ireland and a few other dogs that might be suitable for agility. Potential workers she tries out on her own sheep.

 

I understood from some rescuers in the UK, that one issue with Irish dogs (Border Collies, in particular) is that there are people who are breeding them as a source of income in Ireland, when there is not the demand for the numbers that are produced and/or that they are not sold into situations that are appropriate for this kind of dog and wind up being in rescue.

 

This is true - puppy farms supply the dog dealers who bring over van loads of puppies for sale to the unsuspecting, sometimes pretending to be rescuing the dogs and because there is no rescue back up, I'm sure some will end up in rescue here. Some dealers have been prosecuted on welfare grounds but they keep coming. That is not the same thing as the rescue route though.

 

As far as genuine rescue dogs are concerned, Ireland is a small traditionally rural country with very few pet homes available for BCs. Neutering is not widespread in the culture and roaming BCs mating at will are common, so far too many unwanted litters are born. Some of those will be bucketed at birth, some will be lucky and the whole litter taken on by a rescue which sends them to a rescue in the UK where there are many more potential homes. A local rescue recently homed 2 such litters at the same time.

 

Most older BCs that arrive here through rescue seem to be failed workers that may have dodged a bullet in the head or just strays. Strays are often uncomplicated and well socialised but too many failed workers demonstrate signs of abuse, especially in their fear of men.

 

Of course we don't get to see the ones that are living out their lives in a caring home.

[Sue R]

Thank you, Pam, for explaining that in more detail. I think there might be quite a lot of similarities between that situation and the situation over here in the rural southern/central United States, where there is a culture of not neutering, dogs living outside on chains and in pens or roaming, and oftentimes little responsibility taken for unwanted dogs or pups. Of course, that sort of behavior is not tied to any one demographic/geographic group but may be more common or "traditional" in some areas.

 

And, of course, you don't get to see the ones that did get bucketed, or shot, or live out their lives in abject conditions, however long or short those may be.

[rushdoggie]

Overpopulation is more than simple numbers; it results from an over supply of dogs that people don't want. That doesn't mean they don't want a dog at all, and it doesn't mean that they wouldn't consider adopting a rescue dog - just not the sort that fill the rescues and deprive rehomable dogs of a place of safety.

 

 

Bingo.

 

Why do shelters in the NE import puppies from the SE? Because the people seeking a dog at their shelter don't want the type of adult dogs that end up there, they want puppies and they want different types. It works to move puppies into those areas because those adopters would look elsewhere for what they want, and at least then those pups are being placed vs being euthanized for space in the SE.

 

This is a hard subject...your perspective will be colored by your own experiences and peer group.

 

I used to work in a shelter in SC and I have been active in rescue for many years and I do see what happens when people don't pay attention and I do know there are great second hand dogs, because I have handled many of them.

 

But as a "dog person" I know a ton of people with intact dogs who are able to be responsible, train and know how to manage dogs have never had an oops litter and maybe only breed occasionally or not at all, and they do great. My views on the ability of an intact dog are different because of what I see.

 

Other friends and family live in rural areas where poor management is endemic and who see tons of strays and unwanted litters and believe anyone who doesn't neuter is an irresponsible turd. They assume any intact dog will ignore training and breed because of "base instinct." I just had an argument with my brother who told me that no intact dog would do his work if there was a receptive female around, that as soon as the leash was off he would bolt, ignore his owner and training and immediately mount her.

[Maja]

Lots of very interesting input a valuable observations.

 

I just wanted to add that in Poland the push for sterilizing dogs is very strong, and yet - that thing that bugs me the most is that it is preaching to the choir - the people who do it are very diligent pet owners for whose dog's chance of an accidental mating is next to nil, anyhow. Dog shelters are not filled with oops litters. They are filled with dogs from owners who don't give a darn and multiply them on purpose. That's why I think neutering is not the right direction in the case of dogs who have owners (shelter dogs are another thing). And I can prove it - forgive me for bringing up Sweden here again - but they do not have the homeless dog problem and yet they do not routinely castrate their dogs.

 

Maja

[terrecar]

That's why I think neutering is not the right direction in the case of dogs who have owners (shelter dogs are another thing). And I can prove it - forgive me for bringing up Sweden here again - but they do not have the homeless dog problem and yet they do not routinely castrate their dogs.

 

Maja

 

Only you haven't proven it. Correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. Just as I cannot say that neutering has 'caused' the drastic decline in US' pet euthanasia rates from the 1970's until now without some data to back that up, you cannot (credibly) look at an event and say (definitively) that it is directly caused by a correlating event. Correlating events may give rise to a hypothesis and further investigation, but they do not prove a thing (and in fact a hypothesis based on one is often proven to be false).

 

Doesn't Sweden take a less uptight view of euthanasia in general? That may be another correlation worth investigating.

 

As far as "dog people" being responsible and able to keep their dogs from creating an oops litter, I would agree they are more likely to successfully keep intact dogs than someone who doesn't care one way or another. I did. However, the lines are just not that easily drawn a little fuzzy. I have known "dog people" who have had oops litters, and they weren't your average 'hill folk' by any means.

 

ETA: Does that mean that I think "dog people" should all run out and neuter their pets? Of course not. What it means is that I think it is advantageous to society to promote (but certainly not mandate) neutering.

Edited February 8, 2013 by terrecar

[Maja]

Oh dear.

 

Sweden introduced a way of dealing with the problem of dogs in shelters many years ago, and although they did neuter shelter dogs, but not neuter those with owners and they solved the problem another way. There are no homeless dogs in Sweden, there are very few shelters, and they did it without castrating. It is not legal to do anything surgical to a dog for looks or convenience in this country.

 

I have no example of castration actually working, that is eliminating the problem do you?

 

But I do have a example of a different system that did work and does work. There was no accident in why the problem of dogs in Sweden became non-existent. It was a systematic multi-layered plan they carried out.

 

People all over act as though castration is the only way. But is is not. And may be it's not a way at all.

 

Maja

[Maja]

P.S. And of course oops litters happen in the best of a families. I own a dog from an oops litter. What I said is that oops litters are not the main population of shelters.

[juliepoudrier]

Maja,

What was the systematic approach that Sweden used? Do you have links to anything I could read about it? I'm curious about what they did and how it worked.

 

J.

[terrecar]

I have no example of castration actually working, that is eliminating the problem do you?

Since I never suggested that castration 'eliminated' the problem, I am glad you asked the question (rhetorical though it may be), otherwise the charge would be a strawman. I DO have data that suggests that it is an integral part of a multi-faceted approach. Again, how much does euthanasia figure into Sweden's picture? My disagreement with your post was that you fallaciously purported to 'prove' something. That's all.

When you say oops litters are not the main population of shelters, I wonder, how do you arrive at that conclusion? How are you defining oops litters? Unplanned litters DO make up a significant portion of animals produced in the U.S., according to one study I read. Of course, unplanned litters are not divided by "dog people" accidents and everyone else's accidents. But then, I think I made it clear that I don't think everyone should run out and neuter their dog.

ETA: In fairness, had you said you could prove castration is not the ONLY direction, I would not have disagreed with your statement

Edited February 8, 2013 by terrecar

[terrecar]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't dog breeding regulated in Sweden?

[Maja]

Sweden is a proof that you can solve problem of dogs without homes without castration of dogs who have owners. I may have not expressed it clearly.

 

Julie:

My link

[juliepoudrier]

Well we do know, thanks to another thread, that one cannot crate one's dogs in Sweden.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Okay, here's what I gathered from the FAO report WRT Sweden.

 

Dogs are expensive and represent a serious investment. Very few Swedes own more than one dog. Microchipping (or some other form of ID)is compulsory, so lost dogs/strays are generally quickly reunited with their owners.

 

Most breeders are small-scale and their practices are regulated through legislation or the Swedish Kennel Club.

 

There is an enormous commitment by the Swedish people and authorities for strict dog control and an

impressive degree of social responsibility where dog ownership is concerned. Owners readily comply

with the law. Furthermore the high investment and status of dogs within Swedish households means

that they are not readily disposed of or abandoned. Responsible ownership and enforced leash laws

mean that animals, that aren’t neutered do not breed uncontrollably.

 

The report noted that Swedish citizens would take it upon themselves to collect strays and get them to the appropriate authorities.

 

Some other interesting facts from that report, in no particular order:

 

Only thirteen (42%) out of the thirty-one countries surveyed had national legislation that specifically addressed pet ownership i.e. who could own a pet (Table 5). With the exception of Switzerland,

current regulations stipulated the age at which a person or persons could be considered responsible

for an animal. In most instances the legislation required owners to be over 16 years of age. Switzerland, however, has adopted extraordinary legislation; from early 2007 all dog owners will be required to undertake practical and theoretical courses in responsible dog ownership including dog training and behaviour.

 

Surprisingly, only one of the respondents reported that the numbers of stray dogs were collected and

monitored nationally in their country. Since, 2000, the chief veterinary inspector of Poland has

annually reported the number of unwanted dogs and cats entering animal shelters either as strays or

relinquished by their owners (Appendix 5). All but four countries (Poland, Portugal, Ukraine and the United Kingdom) failed to provide an estimate on the numbers of stray dogs in existence.

 

One country exclusively practiced

catch, neuter, release of dogs (Greece). This approach was reported to be problematic because it

appeared to result in owners “dumping” their dogs in areas “where they knew they would be looked

after”.

 

Three countries (10%) (Germany, Greece and Italy) (Table 8) did not permit the killing of healthy stray requiring them to be kennelled for life if they are unable to be re-homed (also reported for some

autonomous communities in Spain), or in the case of Greece re-released, after neutering. In countries

where euthanasia was permitted ten countries (32%) euthanised strays that had not been re-claimed or

re-homed after the statutory holding period. Whilst two countries euthanised all animals immediately

upon their capture and therefore not giving owners sufficient time to re-claim their animals.

 

Interesting reading. It seems to me that in countries where stray control was successful and accidental breedings were few, there is a correlation between people being willing to abide by the laws and people being willing to police themselves and others.

 

J.

[Sue R]

I wonder what sort of percentage of households in Sweden do even own dogs. I know that we could not have dogs under their laws unless I was able and willing to never crate my dogs at home. Could I even crate them if traveling? What about on trips to train? If I remember correctly, I could not even have them loose in the house for the extent of my normal workday without having someone come and take them out during the day sometime. Many working farmers/ranchers in North America could not have the working dogs they have under their current management since kenneling is limited under law in Sweden (if I understand correctly).

 

There may be a lot more factors at work in Sweden then just whether or not neutering is common, in terms of affecting the homeless/shelter dog numbers.

 

There is a great deal of regulation in certain European countries which may affect the homeless and shelter populations, but I sincerely doubt that Americans and Canadians would give up their freedoms to that extent.

 

Just another offshoot of the original question...

[terrecar]

Sweden is a proof that you can solve problem of dogs without homes without castration of dogs who have owners. I may have not expressed it clearly.

 

Julie:

My link

 

Looking at that link, it looks like breeders are regulated and required to be licensed. If you regulate dog breeding, [ETA: enforce leash laws], and euthanize unwanted pets, of course you can control the problem without neutering.

 

One point that I don't want to be lost here is that Sweden neuters its shelter population. This is a fundamental flaw in at least some of our shelters. I know that my own shelter did not follow up on spay/neuter, even when they issued reduced cost certificates.

[Christina]

Overpopulation is more than simple numbers; it results from an over supply of dogs that people don't want.

 

Overpopulation, by definition, is simple numbers. If most or all the dogs being surrendered to shelters had a home at one point, there is no overpopulation. Overpopulation is an excess of a specific population so that the environment cannot possible sustain it.

 

What you are talking about is an owner retention problem. People want puppies- but they don't want somebody else's leftovers.

 

Why do shelters in the NE import puppies from the SE? Because the people seeking a dog at their shelter don't want the type of adult dogs that end up there, they want puppies and they want different types.

 

To be more specific, our shelters in CT are primarily comprised of Pit Bull types and adult Chihuahuas (many with temperament problems).

 

--

 

I have to say, I am rather surprised at how many people here feed into the animal rights agenda of legislating dog breeding and mandatory spay and neuter. Are we all aware that AR groups are seeking to end pet ownership altogether? And that they intend to do this with legislation?

[Mark Billadeau]

Overpopulation, by definition, is simple numbers. If most or all the dogs being surrendered to shelters had a home at one point, there is no overpopulation. Overpopulation is an excess of a specific population so that the environment cannot possible sustain it.

When a household decides it cannot or will not keep a dog (right or wrong), the size of the environment has decreased. For example, during the housing bust the overpopulation of pets increased in the same regions where there was an increase in families loosing their homes.

 

 

[Sue R]

Just who here is feeding into *mandatory* spay and neuter and legislating dog breeding? A few people have commented on the situations in other countries and suggested spay/neuter for shelter dogs, but just who has suggested that the US adopt this as law?

 

I wonder just how much you have actually read here (on these boards, on multiple topics) when you say this this sort of blanket statement (which, in all my many years here, has never been my impression of the population of these boards) -

 

I have to say, I am rather surprised at how many people here feed into the animal rights agenda of legislating dog breeding and mandatory spay and neuter. Are we all aware that AR groups are seeking to end pet ownership altogether? And that they intend to do this with legislation?

 

When this sort of legislation has reared its ugly head in certain states or areas, it has often been brought up here so that people are aware and can contact their elected representatives and express their views on why those have been the wrong approach.

 

Maybe we are just reading or understanding some things very differently...and maybe this should be my new avatar -

 

[terrecar]

I have to say, I am rather surprised at how many people here feed into the animal rights agenda of legislating dog breeding and mandatory spay and neuter. Are we all aware that AR groups are seeking to end pet ownership altogether? And that they intend to do this with legislation?

 

I think you are misreading what is being said here. I haven't seen one person support mandatory spay/neuter or legislated dog breeding. In fact, most here bristle at mandatory spay/neuter laws and legislating breeders. There is no evidence that either will work here in the United States, where commercial breeders are (somewhat) regulated yet continue to pump out puppies.

[Christina]

I must have misread what was being said. My apologies.

[Sue R]

We all make mistakes. I make more than my share, for sure.