Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Dp. What’s wrong with a back yard breeder? Not sure what I know what exactly that means but isn’t that like a regular person who has a dog that gets pregnant?

I agree with the earlier poster who commented that rescues have not been great about advocating for reasonable sourcing of family pets. And stop saying people want a ‘bargain’. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not to want to wait a year and spend 5k for a family pet- who may or may not have health problems (I know so many stories of people who paid top dollar for ethical breeders and they still ended up with a dog with health issues- in breeding does that and pure breeds are inherently the result of indirect inbreeding). And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not want to adopt a dog from a rescue with an unknown history who may/is likely to have a tendency to aggressiveness and is a potential safety issue. The fact is that people should come first, period. Some people on this thread seem to forget that.

So what’s the answer? And if it’s to say ‘well then don’t have a dog at all’ that’s sort of silly too. There are lots of reasons it is important and healthy for people to have pets- the elderly for comfort, children to learn how to care for pets, etc. I don’t think that should be denied just because some rescue thinks all dogs from X Y Z are inherently bad, while adopting their dogs is inherently good. That’s silly.

You’ve just made the argument for using puppy mills. Inexpensive, readily available puppies for the public’s convenience.

Rather than providing living creatures to the lowest denominator, maybe we should make it harder for the average idiot to inexpensively acquire a living creature. "Inexpensive" and "convenience" should NOT be the deciding factors for someone who wants a responsibility, which is what a dog is.

Puppies should be a lot harder to get, IMO. Ownership knowledge tests required for mandatory licensing, mandatory liability insurance (for all breeds, not just the "scary" ones), additional fees for intact animals (probably included with initial license and refunded when proof of neuter/spay provided). We'd have fewer problems if we had fewer problematic owners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Dp. What’s wrong with a back yard breeder? Not sure what I know what exactly that means but isn’t that like a regular person who has a dog that gets pregnant?

I agree with the earlier poster who commented that rescues have not been great about advocating for reasonable sourcing of family pets. And stop saying people want a ‘bargain’. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not to want to wait a year and spend 5k for a family pet- who may or may not have health problems (I know so many stories of people who paid top dollar for ethical breeders and they still ended up with a dog with health issues- in breeding does that and pure breeds are inherently the result of indirect inbreeding). And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not want to adopt a dog from a rescue with an unknown history who may/is likely to have a tendency to aggressiveness and is a potential safety issue. The fact is that people should come first, period. Some people on this thread seem to forget that.

So what’s the answer? And if it’s to say ‘well then don’t have a dog at all’ that’s sort of silly too. There are lots of reasons it is important and healthy for people to have pets- the elderly for comfort, children to learn how to care for pets, etc. I don’t think that should be denied just because some rescue thinks all dogs from X Y Z are inherently bad, while adopting their dogs is inherently good. That’s silly.

You’ve just made the argument for using puppy mills. Inexpensive, readily available puppies for the public’s convenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Dp. What’s wrong with a back yard breeder? Not sure what I know what exactly that means but isn’t that like a regular person who has a dog that gets pregnant?

I agree with the earlier poster who commented that rescues have not been great about advocating for reasonable sourcing of family pets. And stop saying people want a ‘bargain’. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not to want to wait a year and spend 5k for a family pet- who may or may not have health problems (I know so many stories of people who paid top dollar for ethical breeders and they still ended up with a dog with health issues- in breeding does that and pure breeds are inherently the result of indirect inbreeding). And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not want to adopt a dog from a rescue with an unknown history who may/is likely to have a tendency to aggressiveness and is a potential safety issue. The fact is that people should come first, period. Some people on this thread seem to forget that.

So what’s the answer? And if it’s to say ‘well then don’t have a dog at all’ that’s sort of silly too. There are lots of reasons it is important and healthy for people to have pets- the elderly for comfort, children to learn how to care for pets, etc. I don’t think that should be denied just because some rescue thinks all dogs from X Y Z are inherently bad, while adopting their dogs is inherently good. That’s silly.

You’ve just made the argument for using puppy mills. Inexpensive, readily available puppies for the public’s convenience.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Designer dog mutts = unethical. Ethical breeders follow breed standards and don’t sell mutts.

You do realize this is just a nice way of saying inbreeding, right?

I don’t think you know what inbreeding means. Breeding two same-breed purebreds isn’t inbreeding. Inbreeding is breeding two dogs who are very closely related, as in breeding two dogs who are siblings or are the equivalent of father and daughter or uncle and niece or two first cousins, something like that.

You end up with inbreeding when you have only one or two male poodles who repeatedly sire litters with every female dog in several Amish households so they can produce every kind of doodle imaginable, and then they breed the resulting offspring together.

I know what inbreeding means and the fact is that breeding for ‘breed standards’ is essentially inbreeding, whether directly intentional or not, eg breeding direct offspring. Look into the genetic lines of every single AKC breed- they are all ultimately highly inbred. The NYT posted a survey recently and it was eye opening.

I’m not a doodle owner but I see nothing particularly wrong with breeding a poodle and another type of dog. It’s probably healthier than pure-breeding in most cases.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with cross breeding, but it only takes one male poodle to generate dozens and dozens of different doodle crossbreeds who are all closely related and become the breeding stock of the future. That’s inbreeding. There’s a reason why you can walk into the same Amish pet store and see puppies of 20 different breeds/crossbreeds available every.single.day. Ask yourself how an insular community with low population density can have so many breeds available at all times — an endless supply.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Dp. What’s wrong with a back yard breeder? Not sure what I know what exactly that means but isn’t that like a regular person who has a dog that gets pregnant?

I agree with the earlier poster who commented that rescues have not been great about advocating for reasonable sourcing of family pets. And stop saying people want a ‘bargain’. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not to want to wait a year and spend 5k for a family pet- who may or may not have health problems (I know so many stories of people who paid top dollar for ethical breeders and they still ended up with a dog with health issues- in breeding does that and pure breeds are inherently the result of indirect inbreeding). And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to not want to adopt a dog from a rescue with an unknown history who may/is likely to have a tendency to aggressiveness and is a potential safety issue. The fact is that people should come first, period. Some people on this thread seem to forget that.

So what’s the answer? And if it’s to say ‘well then don’t have a dog at all’ that’s sort of silly too. There are lots of reasons it is important and healthy for people to have pets- the elderly for comfort, children to learn how to care for pets, etc. I don’t think that should be denied just because some rescue thinks all dogs from X Y Z are inherently bad, while adopting their dogs is inherently good. That’s silly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Designer dog mutts = unethical. Ethical breeders follow breed standards and don’t sell mutts.

You do realize this is just a nice way of saying inbreeding, right?

I don’t think you know what inbreeding means. Breeding two same-breed purebreds isn’t inbreeding. Inbreeding is breeding two dogs who are very closely related, as in breeding two dogs who are siblings or are the equivalent of father and daughter or uncle and niece or two first cousins, something like that.

You end up with inbreeding when you have only one or two male poodles who repeatedly sire litters with every female dog in several Amish households so they can produce every kind of doodle imaginable, and then they breed the resulting offspring together.

I know what inbreeding means and the fact is that breeding for ‘breed standards’ is essentially inbreeding, whether directly intentional or not, eg breeding direct offspring. Look into the genetic lines of every single AKC breed- they are all ultimately highly inbred. The NYT posted a survey recently and it was eye opening.

I’m not a doodle owner but I see nothing particularly wrong with breeding a poodle and another type of dog. It’s probably healthier than pure-breeding in most cases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Designer dog mutts = unethical. Ethical breeders follow breed standards and don’t sell mutts.

You do realize this is just a nice way of saying inbreeding, right?

I don’t think you know what inbreeding means. Breeding two same-breed purebreds isn’t inbreeding. Inbreeding is breeding two dogs who are very closely related, as in breeding two dogs who are siblings or are the equivalent of father and daughter or uncle and niece or two first cousins, something like that.

You end up with inbreeding when you have only one or two male poodles who repeatedly sire litters with every female dog in several Amish households so they can produce every kind of doodle imaginable, and then they breed the resulting offspring together.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

I agree with some of this, but disagree with other parts. I do think rescues up north are perpetuating the pipeline of excess dogs from the south that result from lower spaying and neutering rates in the south. We really shouldn’t be filling our shelters with their pit bulls.

However, I think the “adopt, don’t shop” pressure is very effective at getting exactly the kind of people who would buy from Amish breeders to stop and think about puppy mills and consider a rescue dog. People who are willing to wait a year and half and spend $3k on an ethical breeder who makes them jump through hoops aren’t the problem. It’s the people who want a dog now and want to feel like they got a bargain who should be looking at rescues, because the only other alternatives are a puppy mill or one-time backyard breeder.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Designer dog mutts = unethical. Ethical breeders follow breed standards and don’t sell mutts.

You do realize this is just a nice way of saying inbreeding, right?

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PP who criticized dog rescues. I’m sure there are some “rescues” out there that are just fronts for profit making, but that’s not most of them I don’t think.

But on the whole, the dog rescue sector has done a ton to stigmatize buying puppies from breeders without articulating a vision for what they’re trying to achieve. How do they want family pets to be responsibly bred and acquired in the US?

In the meantime, they seem to be dedicated to propping up a pipeline of backyard bred pit and hound mixes from the south into family homes in the northeast. I’m not opposed to placing those puppies on an emergency basis (although I’m also not opposed to euthanizing them). But if you’re building infrastructure to keep doing that indefinitely, and at the same time you’re shaming people who try to buy dogs bred purposefully to be family pets, I don’t support that.

At the same time I’m also angry at the fancy breeders for not doing anything to help people find responsibly bred puppies for their families. It’s as if they see making it difficult as a point of pride.

So how can I be mad at the Amish breeders, who are meeting the market where it is? If puppies raised under certain conditions won’t sell, they’ll change the conditions. The rescue people, if they really disapprove of the way those breeders conduct business, could really help those puppies if they established some sort of standards based rating system. Instead they keep trucking up puppies who are bred with absolutely no oversight and promoting them as the most compassionate choice. That makes no sense to me.

Anonymous wrote:Designer dog mutts = unethical. Ethical breeders follow breed standards and don’t sell mutts.