"rescue" dog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What you said was, "It's not like rescue dogs come from breeders. I'm unaware of bred dogs resulting in many unwanted dogs."

But as I demonstrated with just a few quick links, a significant number of these purebreds do end up being abandoned. And that's not even the entire universe of purebred rescue groups. There are thousands in the US.

Now you are pointing out the obvious, that people want puppies. Yes, I am clear on the fact that people prefer adorable little puppies with no baggage and no scars. That most people prefer to avoid the experience of having a beloved pet die. Thus discouraging the adoption of these many unwanted adult and senior dog.

That doesn't mean that those of us who care can't continue to try to get these dogs adopted. Including efforts to help educate people about the evils of breeders, puppy mills, and pets stores.

I don't harass people in public with their purebreds. I'm not rude. But on a discussion board, I'm not going to pretend to be OK with people saying "a breeder is the right choice for my family". It is a selfish choice which increases demand for an evil industry.

People will engage in all kinds of evil behaviors for a buck. Breeding puppies is an easy way to make money and there's very little regulation. Check out the story of breeding dog "Lily" - who was "registered" with the American Kennel Club. If you have the courage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/28/1174308/-Lily-a-Hero-for-Mill-Dogs

+1

[Anonymous]

None of you PP seem to be willing to connect rescues with bad breeders. It's weird. Where on earth do you think dogs in rescue come from? Why wouldn't you want to support responsible breeders? If every breeder was responsible, you wouldn't need a lot of rescue organizations. Are you worried that might happen if responsible breeders get supported? I don't really get the animosity from animal rescue people towards responsible breeders. It feels like some of them are more about calling themselves rescuers than they are stopping the problem at its origin. If I get a purebred puppy from a rescue organization, even assuming the organization is on the up-and-up, how is that not essentially just rewarding a bad breeder? If I want a purebred dog because I want certain characteristics (working dog, hunting dog, etc), isn't it better to go to a responsible breeder?

I have a mutt. But I think the animosity towards responsible breeders is pretty silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "evil" breeders are about as similar to breeders we have used as a 1 bedroom shack without proper HVAC/plumbing etc is to my home.

The dogs live better than most people.

Keep telling yourself that. Have you actually seen one? Where these "evil" breeders keep their dogs? And certainly you would concede you haven't seen them all.

No I have never been to an evil breeder. Why would I? As I wrote the breeders we have gone to have kept the dogs and puppies in excellent conditions.

[Anonymous]

Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

Really? I'd say we don't need more new dogs from shelters but it seems pretty difficult to get a dog from a breeder. I've faced many weight lists and the dogs are expensive. Breeders don't seem to have any issues in getting rid of the dogs they breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

Really? I'd say we don't need more new dogs from shelters but it seems pretty difficult to get a dog from a breeder. I've faced many weight lists and the dogs are expensive. Breeders don't seem to have any issues in getting rid of the dogs they breed.

No one denies that the demand for these dogs - particularly puppies - exists.
If designer puppies weren't sold, however, people would "settle" for adopting dogs. And wouldn't that be wonderful!

Rather than argue about the ills of breeders and the good deed of adopting and fostering, how about everyone on this thread considers becoming a foster? I have found it to be easy, rewarding, and inexpensive to add foster dogs to my existing dog family.

I hope you will please consider it.

[Anonymous]

We got a dog from Lucky dog when she was 2. The only time I tell people that she is a rescue is when they want to know what she is. I tell them I don't know because she is a rescue and doesn't have papers. I am not a better person nor do I think I "brag" about it. I only answer the question when asked. Do I think it is better if people adopt from shelters and rescue organizations? Of course! But, I am not going to lecture people on what they do with their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

+1

People keep missing the point that we don't need anymore NEW dogs. I'm starting to wonder if they're being deliberately obtuse about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

+1

People keep missing the point that we don't need anymore NEW dogs. I'm starting to wonder if they're being deliberately obtuse about it.

Yes, I didn't want to be mean and say so to him/her, but either that poster is very stupid or is just pretending to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

+1

People keep missing the point that we don't need anymore NEW dogs. I'm starting to wonder if they're being deliberately obtuse about it.

Yes, I didn't want to be mean and say so to him/her, but either that poster is very stupid or is just pretending to be.

You are the ones who are being obtuse, unless you're actually advocating for a complete end to all dog ownership within a generation of dogs (which is possible; I believe that's the position of some more radical dog rescue people). Maybe you actually are advocating for an end to all dog ownership, in which case I don't really have anything to say to you because I think that's outright silly. Otherwise, you're basically arguing for a system in which unethical breeders continue to thrive so you can continue to rescue, privileging your own desire to rescue over the health of dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

+1

People keep missing the point that we don't need anymore NEW dogs. I'm starting to wonder if they're being deliberately obtuse about it.

Yes, I didn't want to be mean and say so to him/her, but either that poster is very stupid or is just pretending to be.

You are the ones who are being obtuse, unless you're actually advocating for a complete end to all dog ownership within a generation of dogs (which is possible; I believe that's the position of some more radical dog rescue people). Maybe you actually are advocating for an end to all dog ownership, in which case I don't really have anything to say to you because I think that's outright silly. Otherwise, you're basically arguing for a system in which unethical breeders continue to thrive so you can continue to rescue, privileging your own desire to rescue over the health of dogs.

Until there are no more dogs to be rescued, there should be no dog breeding, period. Why is this so hard to understand?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breeders create more dogs and we already have more dogs than we can take care of. Breeding more dogs is irresponsible at best. I've read that approx. 1.2 Million dogs are euthanized each year.

Please don't use breeders.

This. Reputable breeder or not, we don't need more new dogs. That's the whole point.

So you'd rather have a system where new dogs come entirely from bad and unethical breeders?

No, we'd rather have a system where there are no unwanted, abandoned, mistreated dogs. Let's get all the dogs we can homes instead of breeding more dogs.

+1

People keep missing the point that we don't need anymore NEW dogs. I'm starting to wonder if they're being deliberately obtuse about it.

Yes, I didn't want to be mean and say so to him/her, but either that poster is very stupid or is just pretending to be.

You are the ones who are being obtuse, unless you're actually advocating for a complete end to all dog ownership within a generation of dogs (which is possible; I believe that's the position of some more radical dog rescue people). Maybe you actually are advocating for an end to all dog ownership, in which case I don't really have anything to say to you because I think that's outright silly. Otherwise, you're basically arguing for a system in which unethical breeders continue to thrive so you can continue to rescue, privileging your own desire to rescue over the health of dogs.

Until there are no more dogs to be rescued, there should be no dog breeding, period. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because others value well bred dogs who are true to type for temperment . People will never stop using these excellent breeders. Why do you think service dog organizations have inhouse breeding? They don't want any unknowns. I might be a puppy raiser and at least one organization has restrictions on breeds I can have as a family dog. Temperment, reliability, aggression, etc. FYI-my insurer will cancel my home owners if I allow certain breeds on my property and it is discovered due to an incident.