Anonymous wrote:We really wanted a german shepherd and I searched hard to find a rescue. I found a very pretty 1 year old girl at a local shelter. She was heartworm positive and due to the shortage of medication, we would have to wait to treat, but that was okay. We were told that she would be fine if we kept her on antibiotics. We brought her home. She was sweet, but she wasn't bonded to us. She jumped/climbed out of our yard every chance she got. She had terrible diarrhea from the antibiotics. After 10 days with us, she jumped/climbed our fence and was picked up by animal control. They returned her to the shelter, which then called us and reamed us out for "letting her run loose." This included swearing at my SN who answered the phone and couldn't answer the shelter manager's questions. It was abusive. We released the dog to the shelter. It was a terrible experience and upsetting to my kids.
A year later we purchased a purebred German Shepherd puppy from a breeder. The breeder was pleasant and friendly. She screened us for safety and other issues, but was very nice about it. We picked out our puppy and brought her home at 8 weeks. She is a sweet, healthy, happy dog. She is well-bonded to us. She is well-behaved and doesn't leave our yard, unless she is on a leash. We adore her and she loves us. Buying a dog from a breeder was more expensive, but it was all around a better experience.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Responsible breeders will take their dogs back for life and provide them a home if at any point the owner is not able to.
While it might be viewed as more "ethical" to rescue a dog, purchasing a dog from a responsible breeder does not contribute to over population.
Please explain.
Because the breeder takes responsibility for homing the dog for life.
Which affects the dog overpopulation in what way? It may give one dog (or however many dogs the breeder takes responsibility for) a guarantee of a home. It has absolutely no effect on the problem of pet overpopulation. The breeder is still producing dogs, when dogs need homes elsewhere.
Probably the better term is overpopulation of unwanted dogs.
Every single self-righteous shelterdog owner out there better for darn sure never have biological children of their own. there are thousands and thousands of children in need of good homes, right?
Actually no, there are not thousands and thousands of children in need of good homes. You might try talking to some couples who are trying to adopt.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Responsible breeders will take their dogs back for life and provide them a home if at any point the owner is not able to.
While it might be viewed as more "ethical" to rescue a dog, purchasing a dog from a responsible breeder does not contribute to over population.
Please explain.
Because the breeder takes responsibility for homing the dog for life.
Which affects the dog overpopulation in what way? It may give one dog (or however many dogs the breeder takes responsibility for) a guarantee of a home. It has absolutely no effect on the problem of pet overpopulation. The breeder is still producing dogs, when dogs need homes elsewhere.
Probably the better term is overpopulation of unwanted dogs.
Every single self-righteous shelterdog owner out there better for darn sure never have biological children of their own. there are thousands and thousands of children in need of good homes, right?
Actually no, there are not thousands and thousands of children in need of good homes. You might try talking to some couples who are trying to adopt.
Anonymous wrote:I get my pets from the pound but don't judge people who buy them. After all, I spend many thousands buying nice horses to compete rather than adopting some awful lame ones with no talent from feed lots. Who am I to say people shouldn't enjoy nicely bred dogs?
I do judge those who harp about this subject but refuse to purchase all their clothes from Goodwill. I mean, really, there would be no sweatshops if Americans just quit buying new, unneeded clothes for vain reasons.
Just kidding. Kind of.
agreeAnonymous wrote:To the person who says she had to have a purebred to train to guard her. Sorry, that's utterly ridiculous. Any dog can be trained to guard. Hell, you don't even have to train them.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have a shelter dog and a shelter cat and I think it is not immoral for people to buy purebreds from a reputable breeder.
A potential pet owner has no moral obligation to save the life of a homeless pet. That moral duty fell squarely on the owner of the pet who either turned it over to the shelter or who failed to spay/neuter the parent of the unwanted pet.
A pet owner's only moral duty is to take care of the pet appropriately once s/he takes it in.
If a potential pet owner chooses to take in a shelter pet, that is a good thing, but not doing so is not immoral.
For example, do you judge people who don't own pets but who are in a position to do so negatively for not saving the life of a pet? Should my brother, whose dog died two years ago, who has a nice house with a fenced in backyard, time on his hands, and no issues that would prevent him from owning a pet, be considered a bad person because he has not adopted a shelter pet?
Has anyone even remotely suggested this? Why are you setting up straw men to battle?
NP here but the pp is not saying someone suggested it but is taking your argument to the next logical level. Why is it a potential pet owner's moral duty to take a shelter dog any more than it is any able person's moral duty to do so? In other words why should someone shopping for a pet have the moral duty to save a shelter pet and not the moral duty of a person who is currently not shopping for a pet? I get what she's saying.
We were on wait list for x months (the bitch has to be conceived naturally) and paid $X + flight + vaccine
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have a shelter dog and a shelter cat and I think it is not immoral for people to buy purebreds from a reputable breeder.
A potential pet owner has no moral obligation to save the life of a homeless pet. That moral duty fell squarely on the owner of the pet who either turned it over to the shelter or who failed to spay/neuter the parent of the unwanted pet.
A pet owner's only moral duty is to take care of the pet appropriately once s/he takes it in.
If a potential pet owner chooses to take in a shelter pet, that is a good thing, but not doing so is not immoral.
For example, do you judge people who don't own pets but who are in a position to do so negatively for not saving the life of a pet? Should my brother, whose dog died two years ago, who has a nice house with a fenced in backyard, time on his hands, and no issues that would prevent him from owning a pet, be considered a bad person because he has not adopted a shelter pet?
Has anyone even remotely suggested this? Why are you setting up straw men to battle?
Anonymous wrote:I have a shelter dog and a shelter cat and I think it is not immoral for people to buy purebreds from a reputable breeder.
A potential pet owner has no moral obligation to save the life of a homeless pet. That moral duty fell squarely on the owner of the pet who either turned it over to the shelter or who failed to spay/neuter the parent of the unwanted pet.
A pet owner's only moral duty is to take care of the pet appropriately once s/he takes it in.
If a potential pet owner chooses to take in a shelter pet, that is a good thing, but not doing so is not immoral.
For example, do you judge people who don't own pets but who are in a position to do so negatively for not saving the life of a pet? Should my brother, whose dog died two years ago, who has a nice house with a fenced in backyard, time on his hands, and no issues that would prevent him from owning a pet, be considered a bad person because he has not adopted a shelter pet?
Has anyone even remotely suggested this? Why are you setting up straw men to battle?