Can we just stop importing dogs from other states?

[Anonymous]

Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I foster for a rescue that pulls from local shelters and one in Arkansas that is high kill. Rural shelters are generally high kill and the dogs run out of time quicker. The rescue will bring them here for higher chances at adoption.
It’s sad all around for all the dogs in shelters.
What should be banned outright are puppy mills and breeding for profit.

To me, you’re just propping up backyard and accidental breeders by reducing policy pressure to deal with the consequences. Those states have more unwanted dogs than northern states directly because of public policy.

What is your end game? If you succeed in reducing the number of unwanted dogs below the demand for pets, what do you want to fill that market? I’ve spent so much time watching rescues like yours shipping van fulls of pit mixes north that I no longer think you want anything different.

People want family friendly dogs, not pitbulls.

Virtually the only dogs available in shelters are pitbull breeds and pitbull mixes.

The only way to get a good breed, unfortunately, is to go through a breeder.

There is a reason why animal shelters are not full of goldens, doodles and beagles and only have unadoptable pit bulls and pitbull mixes.

because. breed rescues. take them. from shelters.

That's the reason. Still.

Nobody gives up goldens and poodle mixes to shelters.

It is a total myth that rescues are snatching up all these abandoned goldendoodles and lap dogs people keep dropping off at shelters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

Abused dogs with difficult behavior and violent breeds should be put down, not readopted to injure again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

No, they are buying them at auctions and reselling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

The rescue I adopted from that ships dogs from SC also ships them from Puerto Rico. I mean at some point, it stops being rescue and it just starts being an intentional pipeline to support the careless breeding of a lot of puppies. Pits/hounds from SC and chihuahuas from PR. There’s no indication they have a plan to stop that flood of puppies or replace the system with something more sustainable. They built a whole permanent facility in SC. That’s not “rescue,” that’s making those puppies business as usual. If it weren’t a nonprofit, it would be a puppy mill. It’s like the uber of puppy mills - the breeders are all independent contractors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I foster for a rescue that pulls from local shelters and one in Arkansas that is high kill. Rural shelters are generally high kill and the dogs run out of time quicker. The rescue will bring them here for higher chances at adoption.
It’s sad all around for all the dogs in shelters.
What should be banned outright are puppy mills and breeding for profit.

To me, you’re just propping up backyard and accidental breeders by reducing policy pressure to deal with the consequences. Those states have more unwanted dogs than northern states directly because of public policy.

What is your end game? If you succeed in reducing the number of unwanted dogs below the demand for pets, what do you want to fill that market? I’ve spent so much time watching rescues like yours shipping van fulls of pit mixes north that I no longer think you want anything different.

People want family friendly dogs, not pitbulls.

Virtually the only dogs available in shelters are pitbull breeds and pitbull mixes.

The only way to get a good breed, unfortunately, is to go through a breeder.

There is a reason why animal shelters are not full of goldens, doodles and beagles and only have unadoptable pit bulls and pitbull mixes.

because. breed rescues. take them. from shelters.

That's the reason. Still.

Nobody gives up goldens and poodle mixes to shelters.

It is a total myth that rescues are snatching up all these abandoned goldendoodles and lap dogs people keep dropping off at shelters.

I've volunteered at local shelters on two coasts, and for 7 different breed-specific rescues, so no, not a myth. It's a deliberate action to try to rehome dogs who might disintegrate further in a shelter environment. Every day they're in there is a risk to their health, and makes it less likely they'll find a permanent home. Breed-specific rescues with sufficient fosters/room to hold dogs will 100% work with shelters to try to pull dogs so they don't start to crash out from the extreme stress of a shelter environment.

This is why it's "only pits" in shelters (it's not, but there are far more of them). There are far fewer pit-specific rescues able to pull dogs, so many pit and pit mix dogs languish in a shelter environment, often until they're no longer adoptable. This only contributes to their reputation as bad/dangerous dogs.

Few people who relinquish their dogs take the time to find them a good placement. Most people "getting rid of a dog" drop them off at the local shelter, or just let them loose. So yeah, there are plenty of all breeds of dogs who find their way to the shelter. The lucky ones don't stay long.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

The rescue I adopted from that ships dogs from SC also ships them from Puerto Rico. I mean at some point, it stops being rescue and it just starts being an intentional pipeline to support the careless breeding of a lot of puppies. Pits/hounds from SC and chihuahuas from PR. There’s no indication they have a plan to stop that flood of puppies or replace the system with something more sustainable. They built a whole permanent facility in SC. That’s not “rescue,” that’s making those puppies business as usual. If it weren’t a nonprofit, it would be a puppy mill. It’s like the uber of puppy mills - the breeders are all independent contractors.

This is a good point. There's a market, and a demand. Until there's less demand, the supply will stay high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

Abused dogs with difficult behavior and violent breeds should be put down, not readopted to injure again.

Dogs with difficult behavior or dogs with a bite history most often are, unless there's a volunteer on site who takes them in personally. This myth that shelters would rather put a dangerous dog in a home vs. drop them is nonsense. We don't like euthanizing animals, but we all understand what's best for the animal. A clean death after a good day is much better than multiple rounds of placements and instability, or a bad death after an incident. We're not stupid.

The idea of "dangerous breeds" reflects an ignorance of what dogs are. All dogs can bite. Any dog under stress can bite. Yes, a bigger dog with a bigger mouth can do more damage, but that's not because they're an inherently dangerous breed. Reasonably intelligent people understand this and don't adopt more dog than they can handle. Stupid people blame breeds for human failures. Every single incident of a dog "snapping" and behaving dangerously "out of the blue" involves a human (or several) who didn't understand dogs well enough to protect their dog and themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

The rescue I adopted from that ships dogs from SC also ships them from Puerto Rico. I mean at some point, it stops being rescue and it just starts being an intentional pipeline to support the careless breeding of a lot of puppies. Pits/hounds from SC and chihuahuas from PR. There’s no indication they have a plan to stop that flood of puppies or replace the system with something more sustainable. They built a whole permanent facility in SC. That’s not “rescue,” that’s making those puppies business as usual. If it weren’t a nonprofit, it would be a puppy mill. It’s like the uber of puppy mills - the breeders are all independent contractors.

This is a good point. There's a market, and a demand. Until there's less demand, the supply will stay high.

You’re missing the part where you show that the breeders are being paid for this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I adopted my first dog from a FL rescue that trucked the dogs up here to an adoption event at a Pet Supplies Plus in Tysons.

I had tried to adopt many dogs here but no one would give me a dog due to various and sundry reasons -- no yard, had never had a dog before, etc., etc., etc. So I was grateful when the rescue that did adopt to me approved my application. Ten years later and my sweet mutt is still living her best life. I've since volunteered in rescue here in NoVA and things are very different now fortunately; the rules are no longer ridiculously strict with this no-yard-no-dog stuff (some dogs need a yard, yes, but others do not -- my dog has done amazingly with 3 walks per day, and that has been better for her than the dogs that are just let out into a yard).

We adopted our second dog a couple of years ago from a big NoVA rescue I was fostering with. She had been rescued from a puppy mill situation in FL and had been brought up here from FL as well. This is pretty common.

They BUY them from puppy mills. In auctions. It’s not like they’re doing commando raids on the Amish.

They also come in and take dogs from backyard breeders/hoarders when animal welfare gets called in, when strays get picked up and no owner can be found, when municipal shelters are full, or when owners just suck.

My current dog was left to his own devices by his first owner, sort of taken in/taken care of by a neighbor, and turned in to a rescue when the neighbor couldn't afford his medical bills. The rescue treated his heartworm and the adoption fee covered less than half of what the vet bills were.

Sure, and there will always be a flow of homeless, viable dogs and I totally support adoption processes for them. But the “rescues” are also full of intentionally bred and then discarded southern puppies, accidentally bred southern puppies that are a direct result of bad public policy, and dogs purchased from the very breeders they claim to despise and then resold as “rescued from a puppy mill.”

Name the rescues that you allege are doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I recognize this is an irrational vent and irrational pet peeve.

Why do local “rescue” groups continue to import dogs from other states when the shelters in the local DC area are overflowing, full, and people are currently surrendering their own pets?!

Almost every day I see pleas emergency fosters, dogs that haven’t been adopted out, for emergency help, all for dogs imported from other states.

Sorry, this is just a vent. I am well aware I am in the minority, but it makes me so upset that all of these dogs are in our shelters and people just keep bringing more dogs in.

Please provide the ranked list of which dogs should be rescued first, and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I adopted my first dog from a FL rescue that trucked the dogs up here to an adoption event at a Pet Supplies Plus in Tysons.

I had tried to adopt many dogs here but no one would give me a dog due to various and sundry reasons -- no yard, had never had a dog before, etc., etc., etc. So I was grateful when the rescue that did adopt to me approved my application. Ten years later and my sweet mutt is still living her best life. I've since volunteered in rescue here in NoVA and things are very different now fortunately; the rules are no longer ridiculously strict with this no-yard-no-dog stuff (some dogs need a yard, yes, but others do not -- my dog has done amazingly with 3 walks per day, and that has been better for her than the dogs that are just let out into a yard).

We adopted our second dog a couple of years ago from a big NoVA rescue I was fostering with. She had been rescued from a puppy mill situation in FL and had been brought up here from FL as well. This is pretty common.

They BUY them from puppy mills. In auctions. It’s not like they’re doing commando raids on the Amish.

They also come in and take dogs from backyard breeders/hoarders when animal welfare gets called in, when strays get picked up and no owner can be found, when municipal shelters are full, or when owners just suck.

My current dog was left to his own devices by his first owner, sort of taken in/taken care of by a neighbor, and turned in to a rescue when the neighbor couldn't afford his medical bills. The rescue treated his heartworm and the adoption fee covered less than half of what the vet bills were.

Sure, and there will always be a flow of homeless, viable dogs and I totally support adoption processes for them. But the “rescues” are also full of intentionally bred and then discarded southern puppies, accidentally bred southern puppies that are a direct result of bad public policy, and dogs purchased from the very breeders they claim to despise and then resold as “rescued from a puppy mill.”

Name the rescues that you allege are doing this.

Not PP but Lucky Dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

The rescue I adopted from that ships dogs from SC also ships them from Puerto Rico. I mean at some point, it stops being rescue and it just starts being an intentional pipeline to support the careless breeding of a lot of puppies. Pits/hounds from SC and chihuahuas from PR. There’s no indication they have a plan to stop that flood of puppies or replace the system with something more sustainable. They built a whole permanent facility in SC. That’s not “rescue,” that’s making those puppies business as usual. If it weren’t a nonprofit, it would be a puppy mill. It’s like the uber of puppy mills - the breeders are all independent contractors.

This is a good point. There's a market, and a demand. Until there's less demand, the supply will stay high.

You’re missing the part where you show that the breeders are being paid for this.

the rescue in PP post most definitely doesn't pay any breeders.
And I want to believe there were less supplies recently - couple years ago that rescue was only taking dogs from a couple neighboring county shelters, and that's not the case now - dogs are coming from various places - several county shelters, and also from TX, KY and FL. They're also doing street dogs rescues in PR, not just taking dogs from shelters
As for facilities - it allows them to take dogs in case of emergencies like hurricanes (there were several Helene evacuees from FL) or hoarder cases when dozens of dogs were confiscated, and local shelters just don't have capacity to deal with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I adopted my first dog from a FL rescue that trucked the dogs up here to an adoption event at a Pet Supplies Plus in Tysons.

I had tried to adopt many dogs here but no one would give me a dog due to various and sundry reasons -- no yard, had never had a dog before, etc., etc., etc. So I was grateful when the rescue that did adopt to me approved my application. Ten years later and my sweet mutt is still living her best life. I've since volunteered in rescue here in NoVA and things are very different now fortunately; the rules are no longer ridiculously strict with this no-yard-no-dog stuff (some dogs need a yard, yes, but others do not -- my dog has done amazingly with 3 walks per day, and that has been better for her than the dogs that are just let out into a yard).

We adopted our second dog a couple of years ago from a big NoVA rescue I was fostering with. She had been rescued from a puppy mill situation in FL and had been brought up here from FL as well. This is pretty common.

They BUY them from puppy mills. In auctions. It’s not like they’re doing commando raids on the Amish.

They also come in and take dogs from backyard breeders/hoarders when animal welfare gets called in, when strays get picked up and no owner can be found, when municipal shelters are full, or when owners just suck.

My current dog was left to his own devices by his first owner, sort of taken in/taken care of by a neighbor, and turned in to a rescue when the neighbor couldn't afford his medical bills. The rescue treated his heartworm and the adoption fee covered less than half of what the vet bills were.

Sure, and there will always be a flow of homeless, viable dogs and I totally support adoption processes for them. But the “rescues” are also full of intentionally bred and then discarded southern puppies, accidentally bred southern puppies that are a direct result of bad public policy, and dogs purchased from the very breeders they claim to despise and then resold as “rescued from a puppy mill.”

Name the rescues that you allege are doing this.

Not PP but Lucky Dog.

Are you saying Lucky Dog paying backyard breeders for dogs??? Do you have any proof for those accusations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why? Because the dogs have a much higher chance of being adopted if they bring them to the DC area. Many of the rescue pets are brought to the DC area following natural disasters in their home state...there's a huge surge in available pets. If they couldn't bring them to other parts of the country they'd have to be euthanized.

Meanwhile there's a huge demand to adopt pets in the DC area that isn't met by the local supply - and regardless of how you might feel about it, people looking to adopt pets are often looking for specific breeds or puppies/young dogs and might not have the experience, skills or desire to adopt a pet with a history of abuse, difficult behaviors or health issues. Denying a chance for adoption to highly adoptable pets isn't likely to increase the supply of homes for difficult to adopt pets. Instead, many DC-area families that would have adopted a pet are more likely to turn to purchasing pets from breeders or traveling longer distances outside our area. Presumably the goal is to get more pets adopted in the US overall rather than focusing only on the DC area and not caring about what happens to animals elsewhere - right?

The rescue I adopted from that ships dogs from SC also ships them from Puerto Rico. I mean at some point, it stops being rescue and it just starts being an intentional pipeline to support the careless breeding of a lot of puppies. Pits/hounds from SC and chihuahuas from PR. There’s no indication they have a plan to stop that flood of puppies or replace the system with something more sustainable. They built a whole permanent facility in SC. That’s not “rescue,” that’s making those puppies business as usual. If it weren’t a nonprofit, it would be a puppy mill. It’s like the uber of puppy mills - the breeders are all independent contractors.

This is a good point. There's a market, and a demand. Until there's less demand, the supply will stay high.

You’re missing the part where you show that the breeders are being paid for this.

They get to unload their unwanted puppies, which is definitely worth something. It costs money to keep puppies and it costs money to euthanize them.