How do you justify buying from a breeder instead of rescuing a mutt?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1) Because the rescue market has created some strange incentives, and it’s not as straightforward a transaction as it may seem.

2). Because I prefer to minimize the variables by getting a breed of dog I’ve selected after doing research on what’s best for our family.

Same here (NP)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

This truly takes the prize for the most disingenuous argument on this thread.

No. The PP hits the nail on the head. Very well written post, actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you OP.

The answer is, there is no justification. Buying from a breeder kills a dog in a shelter, period.

And you need to look beyond that to the welfare of all future dogs, otherwise you're stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

Not exactly. She’s saying let’s not pay people (breeders) to create more puppies that are more to our desires when they already exist. Are people PURPOSEFULLY creating more orphans that are to a specific race or other characteristics? That is the comparison.

People aren't purposefully creating more orphans, but by creating their own biological children there continue to be orphans without families is the anaology. Ethical breeders who are highly focused on their breed also aren't creating litter after litter of unwanted orphan dogs. I appreciate your response but you are conflating ethical breeders who perhaps have 1-2 litters per year that are sold to pre-screened and interviewed families with a contract, and random people either not spaying/neutering or puppy mills churning out dogs.

Some posters also seem to be treating it as if a dog is a dog is a dog, rather than accepting that in fact there are lots of differences among dogs and many potential owners and their families do have a preference for certain things.

[Anonymous]

Huh, NP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

This truly takes the prize for the most disingenuous argument on this thread.

Nonsense. It's an excellent point. Why should people bring new children into the world when there are so many who need good homes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huh, NP?

When I say PP I'm referring to the poster who describes another post as "well written, actually." Surely she doesn't mean the one before hers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

Not exactly. She’s saying let’s not pay people (breeders) to create more puppies that are more to our desires when they already exist. Are people PURPOSEFULLY creating more orphans that are to a specific race or other characteristics? That is the comparison.

People aren't purposefully creating more orphans, but by creating their own biological children there continue to be orphans without families is the anaology. Ethical breeders who are highly focused on their breed also aren't creating litter after litter of unwanted orphan dogs. I appreciate your response but you are conflating ethical breeders who perhaps have 1-2 litters per year that are sold to pre-screened and interviewed families with a contract, and random people either not spaying/neutering or puppy mills churning out dogs.

Some posters also seem to be treating it as if a dog is a dog is a dog, rather than accepting that in fact there are lots of differences among dogs and many potential owners and their families do have a preference for certain things.

Showing your true colors. Very selfish.

[Anonymous]

Why do I have to justify it? And to whom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

+1. Great post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Showing your true colors. Very selfish.

What's selfish?

[Anonymous]

Can we please stop the silliness? No one goes through this process:

1. I want a dog.
2. I refuse to support rescues because they're bad people and do things wrong.
3. So I'll go to a breeder and get the exact dog that I want.

This is the real process:

1. I want a dog.
2. I want a certain kind of dog.
3. So I'll go to a breeder and get the exact dog that I want.

Own up to what you're doing and thinking, people. Quit the bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should also stop having children of our own as long as there are kids who need adoption!

That makes no sense. Literally.

+1

Oh but it does make sense under the bizarre logic of the OP. OP tells us that anyone who chooses a specific dog from a breeder rather than one of the many unwanted ones in a shelter is responsible for their euthanasia, and is selfish for wanting a particular dog rather than rescuing. By that logic, other people have had children that they can't or won't raise. Those children are in foster care, orphanages, and other temporary care environments. It's selfish to be picky about the type of child you want (ie. a bio child), when there are already all these other perfectly good children out there in the world in need of homes.

This is exactly the argument that OP and whatever other strident idiots are making, that if a child never finds a permanent home then any family who gave birth to their own child rather than adopting is responsible for the plight of the one without a family. Just like any family that chooses a specific dog from a breeder is responsible for the death of a dog in a shelter.

It's incredibly extreme in terms of defining our responsibilities with regard to others, and it puts all of us at the mercy of the worst decision-makers among us. I hate the idea that dogs are euthanized, but I don't think it's my job to support puppy mills every time a rescue swoops in and gets all the dogs.

+1. Great post.

Except, again, it's bs. Just another poster who is too ashamed to admit that this thought process had nothing to do with her decision to get a designer dog. She went to a breeder to get the dog she wanted. End of story. These are all just after the fact justifications, and they all ring hallow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we please stop the silliness? No one goes through this process:

1. I want a dog.
2. I refuse to support rescues because they're bad people and do things wrong.
3. So I'll go to a breeder and get the exact dog that I want.

This is the real process:

1. I want a dog.
2. I want a certain kind of dog.
3. So I'll go to a breeder and get the exact dog that I want.

Own up to what you're doing and thinking, people. Quit the bs.

What's the BS? My family wants and/or needs certain things in a dog, including behavioral traits. Some families need dogs that are hypoallergenic or don't shed. I also want a dog that I know is clear of certain medical issues, and that requires results of genetic tests. I also want a dog that I know has a healthy and happy background and is not coming to us with major issues. I want a dog somewhere between 8wks and 2yrs old. Point me to the rescue organization that can do that, and I won't go to a breeder.

Otherwise you are still working on the presumption that any dog will work for any family and that is simply not true.

[Anonymous]

Does it count as a breeder if a family has two dogs that they breed?
They have a mommy and daddy dog that have a few litters over the years? They sell the puppies, but mommy and daddy are their family dogs?
Is that still evil?