# Ideas for fixing the overpopulation problem



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I noticed that the Chicago thread had digressed into suggestions for solving the pet overpopulation problem. I'd like to keep it specifically about Chicago (close to home) so I thought I'd start a new thread for us to toss around ideas.

To fix the problem you HAVE to start at the top - the source of the pets.



> Quote:
> 1. Anyone that sells, barters, gives away or in any other way hands over ownership of a puppy or kitten their dog/cat gave birth to will be known as A Breeder. It doesn't matter if the litter was planned or an accident. If you have an intact female and she gives birth - you are A Breeder.
> 
> 2. A Breeder is only allowed to sell/barter or give away the offspring DIRECTLY to a new owner. No middlemen, pet stores, distributors, resale, etc. A Breeder may only sell directly to the new owner.
> ...



1 - This describes what a breeder is - anyone that has dogs or cats that produce offspring (on purpose or not).

2 - This gets rid of puppy mills completely.

3, 4 and 5 all hold the breeder accountable for any animals they bring into this world.

Accountability is what this country sorely lacks (and not just when it comes to animals). 


So ..... any thoughts or additions? Next will be to hash out the Owner part of the equation.

ETF typo


----------



## shepherdbydesign (Mar 7, 2007)

Val We do everything on your list. I thought that this maybe another thing to add.

What about the owner that turns his dog/cat into a shelter? should they have the right to get another months later or should they loose their rights to own a dog / cat fore a certain amount of time.

Selling pups we check out potential buyers to the best of our knowledge and think they are going to great homes, but there are the few that hide or fool us into thinking they are great homes but really are not.

How about limiting the dogs that are imported from Europe and start using what is here in the states

I think this would be a start


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

Owner rules are forthcoming. I wanted to stick with the Breeder side at first.

Sidenote - no, limiting the breeding stock will just cause more problems. Look at England. They are talking about Crufts being on it's way out. They have very limited importing of breeding stock so the dogs there are being inbreed to the extreme.


----------



## shepherdbydesign (Mar 7, 2007)

Or limit the amount of litter a breeder can produce per year may also help.

But to charge a breeder like Chicago wants a 100.00 per breeding adult is a bit over the top in my eyes.

Like the state of Illinois Dept of Ag only inspects a kennel once a year, unless a complaint is filed. Well have them inspect a kennel more like 4 times a year to help keep the breeder honest and dogs taken care of like they should.

Any violations or fines that are paid should go to shelters to help fund them to eliminate putting dogs/cats to sleep.

That would be a start


----------



## Kayla's Dad (Jul 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: chuckLike the state of Illinois Dept of Ag only inspects a kennel once a year, unless a complaint is filed. Well have them inspect a kennel more like 4 times a year to help keep the breeder honest and dogs taken care of like they should.
> 
> Any violations or fines that are paid should go to shelters to help fund them to eliminate putting dogs/cats to sleep.
> 
> That would be a start


You would probably need to use some of the violation/fines $$$ to pay for increasing inspections and enforcement as well as support the shelters.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

> Quote:. Anyone that sells, barters, gives away or in any other way hands
> over ownership of a puppy or kitten their dog/cat gave birth to will be
> known as A Breeder. It doesn't matter if the litter was planned or an
> accident. If you have an intact female and she gives birth - you are A
> Breeder.


To lump all "breeders" together does a great disservice to those that work their butts off to maintain our breeds, title and work their dogs, rear their puppies correctly, stand behind the animals that they bring into the world and place them in great homes. 



> Quote:. A Breeder is only allowed to sell/barter or give away the
> offspring DIRECTLY to a new owner. No middlemen, pet stores, distributors,
> resale, etc. A Breeder may only sell directly to the new owner.


This would not eliminate puppy mills. They would start selling on line more than they already do and they would find ways around this rule. And, no matter how much we hate it, they are doing legal business.



> Quote: 3. A Breeder MUST keep signed contracts for EVERY offspring they
> sell/barter/give away. The contracts would be standardized but cover
> different sales types - pet, performance, show, breeding, etc. Each contract
> would stipulate spay/neuter requirements and ownership
> responsibilities.


Why? What would this do to keep dogs out of shelters and rescues? Who is going to check these contracts? Some government agency that comes into our homes several times per year? 



> Quote:4. A Breeder must microchip every offspring that leaves their
> premises. The microchip information must have the Breeders contact
> information as the secondary contact and this must be updated at any time
> the Breeders' information changes.


My puppies are tattooed. My puppy buyers chose (freely) not to have their puppies microchipped. Should I have forced them to accept this? Many have questions about the safety of microchips. And where will this information be kept. In some government database? How about vaccines and what the 
puppies are fed. Should we mandate these too and strip people of all free will and their own ability to chose?

#5 I do agree with except in extenuating circumstances.

The answer is education about keeping dogs in general and cheap/free spay neuter clinics AND cheap/free training. Many people get rid of their dogs because of behavioral problems due to poor or no training. We also must change the societal mindset that animals are disposable.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Here are the problems with these suggested laws for dog breeding. They are emotion based, directed at the worst segment of a group of people. There is no line drawn that distinguishes who is a good breeder from who isn't . These laws are designed to punish everyone equally, good the same as the bad...and that's the aim of labeling anyone who breeds dogs, no matter what circumstances, as "breeders". Makes it easier to place the bulls eye and take aim with these laws when everyone is herded into the same pen. There is long history behind this practice, look it up at your local library. In reality, the good breeders will be punished more than the rest since they will comply with all of the extra fees and costly requirements and will not realize what is really going on. 

The people who are doing it right don't need laws to convince them to operate in that fashion and the people who aren't, won't be changed. I'm sorry but that is just the reality and until the mentality of PETA and HSUS is changed, any of these laws must be viewed with suspicion. They won't budge an inch in their fanatical views but the rest of us will be monitored, controlled and punished by "their laws". Another historical similarity that you can read about at the library.

PETA believes there is NO SUCH THING as a "responsible breeder". Their vision is to achieve a " no birth nation". They are behind many of these SN laws sweeping the country. Therefore, any laws made in an attempt to reel in the "bad breeders" will be used against the good ones. If you make laws about how dogs can be kept in order to eliminate puppy mills, those same laws will be twisted and used against the rest by the fanatics who hate dog breeders. It's really that simple. 

The path to change the way things are is through education. People can make a huge difference without enacting laws to punish aand threaten with. I have helped MANY people keep their pets simply by giving advise when they needed it. Yes, I get paid to train people's dogs but I give lots of it away when I think it will save a dog from the pound. I didn't need a penal code to refer to before I did that and those that do, won't anyway.


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

I am not against importing German dogs -HOWEVER if there was some sort of reciprocal trade agreement such as for every 5 dogs imported X number need to be exported-wouldn't that encourage high quality breeding and attention to improving breed here in states?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Meanwhile destroying our police and military K-9 programs, the majority of their dogs coming from Europe. But what does this have to do with the current thread?


----------



## jake (Sep 11, 2004)

I believe importing dogs from another country is directly related to dog overpopulation in USA (if that is the topic)when dogs are imported to this country when there might possibly be qualified dogs available here we are adding to "Overpopulation of dogs-specifically GSD in this case-if no qualified dogs are being bred here maybe we should try to improve our standards.I resent being viewed as someone who intends to "DESTROY police and K-9 programs.Maybe I am misinformed but are there NO dogs bred in USA who are suitable for these positions?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I am glad to see this discussion. As a person deeply involved with rescue but _not_ a member of either PETA or HSUS, I think it's important that all dog lovers put their heads together and try to come up with some solutions. I fully support the existance of responsible breeders and I am deeply saddened by the multitude of animals currently dying in our shelters. I'm open to pretty much any solution that will work! 

Here are a couple questions that I'd like to get people's thoughts on especially since we've got some good breeders on this thread. 

What do you feel like a breeder's responsibility is to second generation of their dogs? I mean, if you sell a puppy and that dog grows up and is bred (oops or otherwise), do you feel like the original breeder has any obligation to those puppies if they end up in shelters or is that the buyer's responsibility? And I guess the second part of that is that either way, what do you feel like responsible breeders can do to minimize the irresponsible breeding of the dogs they sell? 

I ask because I've had this situation come up a lot in rescue, where we ended up with dogs that were the offspring of dogs from very well-known kennels. And I suspect that happens even more than we realize since unless there's a surrendering person who gives us papers, those second generation dogs are impossible to identify since they're not themselves chipped or tattoed.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

There are dogs imported specifically for adoption, but not the European dogs brought in for work. No, the USA does not come even close to producing enough dogs that are suitable for the police and military work. Yes, we should try to improve our standards, but we should not limit the working dog programs in the mean time. 

I do agree we should not be importing rescue dogs when there are so many dogs in need over here.


----------



## DianaM (Jan 5, 2006)

Education in grade schools. Get the message to the kids when they are malleable. Dog breeding is not a good way to make money, dogs can be born with health problems, dogs are not throwaways, basic obedience, choosing the right pet, etc. A little education would go a long, long way. Forget legislation and prevention of importation (no offense, but to me that idea is silly as that allows for transfer of gene pools amongst other things), focus on education. ALL shelters need to speuter adopted dogs; some do not. AKC should cease all registrations of pet store and puppy mill pups and put out campaigns to educate about the "garbage registries." UKC should do the same. 

More vets could possibly look into ligations and vasectomies as acceptable alternatives for keeping dogs intact while severing their ability to breed. That way, that blue GSD sold on a limited registration may not end up on a different registry pumping out "RARE BLUE GSD PUPPIES $700!!!" 

Shelters also need to try to work with rescues more and have more opportunities for volunteers to work with the dogs and find them homes. This is a very successful thing to do! Mobile spay/neuter should be more commonplace and vets should be encouraged to volunteer time and resources wherever possible, maybe in exchange for rewards or awards from their boards. Common sense dog laws need to be made and ENFORCED. 

Good trainers who wish to be part of the solution and involved in their community should put together "outreach programs" where they travel to communities to assist those who cannot afford training with just basic knowledge and maybe even inspire the youth to participate. 4-H programs should become more widespread and even class electives in animal husbandry/behavior should become part of a child's electives choices. Our society is so integrated with animals that to not find educational solutions like these is detrimental to all involved, human and animal.

Keep your laws off my dog, but let's work together to learn about and understand the critter that's at the other end of the leash.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

No chipping, no way, not to eight week old puppies. 

You all can do that if you please. That is your business. 

I would like to see microchips be safer first. So no way am I chipping puppies.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I'd like to see a research based type program developed. Look at root causes, who is "supplying" all these dogs, who is buying them and who is turning them over to shelters. Using 2 good pilot areas-one like an Ithaca type place with resources, and one rural, poor area, incorporate various interventions that are easily measurable utilizing something like a public health approach of social marketing, subsidized speuters, education at the appropriate literacy levels, low cost pet training, reinforcing any GOOD existing legislation, positive reinforcement for good breeders and owners, community/health/people partnerships, etc. 

Love some of DianaM's ideas-like the 4-H groups. Kids are often used in social marketing because they have often huge influence over parents. 

My thinking is to be heavy on the use of positives and good associations, low in usage of aversives. See, I even think that works for people!







Fun contests, inclusion to welcome all in, and progressing toward a total wellness approach for people and their pets.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Find us a grant Jean! I would love to work on something like this - let me put all this stupid science education to something useful like DOGS!!!









Seriously though - I am right there with you. And I think there are a lot of misconceptions and inaccurate "conventional wisdom" about everything from why dogs end up in shelters, to which dogs are there, to where they came from in the first place, to what can be done to stem the tide. People think they "know" but a lot of what is "known" doesn't line up with the reality. 

In my field (human-wildlife conflict) there are lots of mitigations that everyone uses but that simply don't work and no one's ever stopped and asked the right questions about how we can improve.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Yes-like we always assume socio-economic impacts, and it might, but we could really look at it closely and utilize some theories (that some don't like) from Ruby Paine (sp?) and others for people in the poverty zone, but ALSO look at people who get pets as status symbols and turn them over because they don't fit in the Porsche (and who needs a Porsche AND a big dog if ya know what I mean). But that kind of thing-who is doing what-no assumptions. 

Asking those essential questions-starting from square one-looking for best practices. I think it's difficult to get people to agree on a lot of things, but building consensus based on non-biased research is much easier. ETA-also going across the board in terms of input. Whaddya call a MAPP process or something... (Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships)

Maybe Maddie's Fund would give us a grant.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Oh, you joke missy but seriously! I think this could and should be done if it hasn't been already. To the archives Batman!


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Now we are talking.








There have probably been other threads like this before my time. I have not been on that long. 

This is what I think of constantly! 

Not war, not the next president, (OK, sometimes), 
Mostly I think, how can we stop this!! 

Keep talking. 

I agree with OP. 
I also agree with the education, at a young age. 

I love GSD's and most all pure breed dogs, service dogs etc. 
I am glad people protect breeds. Show dogs, K9, 
but these are the people that should be at the front line of this. 
I just think enough is enough, it all needs to stop until this is fixed. 
No one should make any more money until shelters are clear. 
Done. 
I did not know dogs were imported. That is new to me. I am shocked. I am uneducated about the reasons and will read on, but right now I am just shocked. 
My biggest fears right now is there soon will be no more help, every caring compassionate person will soon have 3 or more dogs, no more room... I have seen it on this forum, no answers, no response, I am nearing my end, when I think my family can do no more, we keep going. Then I see a truck at the post office with GSD puppies for sale. 
KEEP TALKING! Make it your goal to stop this!


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-30-dogs-usat_x.htm

http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/Week-of-Mon-20040223/019975.html

http://enews.tufts.edu/stories/020603FillingEmptyPounds.htm


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Thankfully, at least MA has closed that with strict regulations about just even state to state transports, and I am hoping they continue to close that door until we can get things taken care of here first. I believe, and do not know for sure, that this is not the trend it was, once people saw that places like Ohio, TN, KY, and GA were full of dogs. 

Another thing that needs to be looked at more carefully and with current information on what people are doing. I don't think most people who are doing legitimate rescue are really in support of it. I do believe that "rescues" posing as such will buy puppy mill dogs in bulk and take these island dogs and SELL them. To whoever wants them, not supporting the rescue concept of making the next home, the last good home for a dog. 

I do remember reading they smuggle tiny breeds from Mexico-I think the tiny breeds are really at the mercy of unscrupulous people even more than our own dogs.







But again, I am just assuming that.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

I hope you are right Jean that importing has stopped. 

Thanks for the threads Anne.
Just when I thought is was horrible, it gets more horrible!


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think state to state transfer programs are a Godsend for shelters in the southeast. Most of our shelters would have 90-100% euthanasia rates if we were not able to export our animals to states without the same pet overpopulation problems. 

I do believe in solving the problems at home first, so a state with a large overpopulation problems should never import dogs _that are redundant to what they already have._ However, I don't think they need to be entirely no kill for importing to be a legitimate practice. 

The sad reality is that if your shelter is full of Pit Bulls or adult Shepherd mixes and someone comes in wanting a Chihuahua puppy they aren't going to shrug their shoulders and adopt the adult Pit Bull. I wish with all my heart they would, but they won't. People want what they want. They are going to leave the shelter frustrated and head to the nearest petstore or open their newspaper and buy the dog they want. This is human nature. With my background, I'd never buy a dog from a petstore, but even I would not go to a shelter for a purebred PB and go home with a Lab mix. I too want what I want. 

Here in Kentucky (and TN, GA, SC, NC, MO...) we are euthanizing puppies by the thousands. We are putting small, highly adoptable dogs to death every day. If these dogs are in demand elsewhere, I think it's unconscionable not to send those dogs where they can find homes. Nobody down here is making any money doing it. In fact, we're all hemorrhaging. We rent cargo vans out of pocket, we fundraise for gas $ because exporting dogs is far and away, bar none, the best way we have to save lives. 

I have no problem with NE shelters charging large adoption fees provided those adoption fees do not exceed what it would cost someone to find that animal and have it vetted themselves. As long as the adoption fees represent vetting and as long as the animals being placed are altered, I see this as win-win. Dogs from the south are saved and people find what they want in the shelter and a little more of the blood supply to pet stores and mills gets cut off. 

Some of the state transport laws, which I think were intended to curtail puppy mill traffic, have really hurt our ability to send rescue dogs and that's unfortunate. 

However, all that said - I do entirely agree that it's unreasonable for the state's low cost S/N funds to be used on imported dogs. That money should be used to help the low income people of the state and reduce the numbers of dogs that have few options.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:I hope you are right Jean that importing has stopped.


I don't think that's what was originally meant by importing. The dogs in the newspaper articles are animals that are facing euthanasia and should be placed already spayed or neutered. They are NOT contributing to future pet overpopulation in their new state. I'm not saying there aren't people abusing the system but done correctly, this is a lifesaving strategy and part of the solution not the problem.

That's a totally different thing than importing breeding stock from other countries. Which, actually, I think it okay too - but it's a totally different thing with different associated issues. 

Again, the second a state is importing large numbers of dogs that are redundant to the ones already dying in their own shelters, that's a problem. But importing dogs that people want but which aren't available in-state, just makes sense if we've got more than we know what to do with down here.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

Importing hasn't stopped. http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/secondchancepr.html

Scroll to the bottom, there are coordinators for CT, Virgina and Minnesota listed. MA closed its borders to outside dogs and some of those rescues moved to CT.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

No, it definitely hasn't. I'll be helping load a van in the morning. 

And seriously - I'm not saying there aren't problems or bad people out there but done correctly and responsibly at least domestic importing is a GOOD thing all around for both people and dogs and it is helping not hurting the effort to control overpopulation and reduce the number of animals dying in shelters.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Transporting dogs from a state that has a lot of dogs to a state that doesn't is not a problem, IMO. What I feel needs to stop is importing rescues from other countries. "Save the poor feral dogs of Mexico" for example. We have enough here already. My mother just retired from a shelter in VA. Shelters from NY used to come down and take highly adoptable dogs back to their state. This is a good practice since it helps the animals and the overwhelmed southern shelters.


----------



## Candacee1224 (May 11, 2008)

There is a very simple reasons why Mandatory Spay/Neuter does NOT work! It does nothing to address stupid dog owners ;-) It does not prevent dogs from being loose, roaming, from being vicious or biting. It's not a magic panacea for all the troubles of ill-informed,uneducated, irresponsible dog owners. In fact, in cities where MSN has been implimented the statistics have shown a rise in shelter surrenders (whoa AC Officer, that's NOT my unlicensed, intact dog ~here take him), translated to more euthanasias, a rise in rabies infected dogs, a significant decline in licensing compliance, increased costs to cities and States. 

MSN is a punishment looking for a crime, fueled by AR agendas and carefully crafted, well oiled political machines. Who isn't touched by those pictures of the worst atrocities of animals? It's by design! It's meant to touch you, to the very core of your humanity!! Everyone say "ah." But to each of us, look to your own dogs and animals, and know that this is not the normal behavior of the majority. When you watch the news and hear/see these types of atypical cases, whether you buy it to it or not, those messages are still sublimally implanted there. The media, PETA and H$U$ have turned the word "breeder" into a four letter word. And WE have ALLOWED it to happen!! 

Always remember the core reasons for the AR agenda..."NO Birth Nation". They believe if there were no animals, there would be no animal abuse. What better way to achieve the "Master Plan", than MSN! Please do NOT make the mistake of believing because you are a good breeder, good dog owner, good trainer that you will be exempt! This is not about puppy mills and irresponsible dog breeders/owners, even if we'd like to believe that. You can not make people ethical and responsible by legislating morality. They won't comply regardless and who is left to target? Those that follow the law and do the right things

I do believe that education and training should be part of dog licensing protocols. Licensing for the human, not the dog ;-) As well as offering low cost spay/neuter clinics for those that WANT them. This works in Canada and is fully capable of working here. 

We urge you to take a pro-active role of getting to know your leglislators "before" these types of issues come up. Know their past voting records, keep in contact, make home office visits in your district and represent yourself and/or club affliations. Be a face to a name. Let them know that "my dog votes" and back it up! Each time one of these types on draconian pieces of legislation rears it's ugly head, you will find yourself on the defensive...from experience an exhausting place to be, even when you win!


----------



## JanH (Jan 21, 2007)

I agree candyE. 
If every dog in shelters right now were spayed/neutered and adopted out - even if it happened a couple times...it wouldn't stop. In this area there is at least a dozen dogs roaming loose and another 6 moved in just up the block. It is not illegal, there is no leash law and with that many males anything female not locked up tight *will* get pregnant. I don't let my dogs roam...but that's the exception here. If they get run over...*shrug*...there's more. They get stolen get another and if it don't work out well try another. 

In all fairness regarding what people want and not taking the larger dogs - some *can't*...for those who live where there is a weight limit or size limit they can't take a dog over 30#. And there's homes that want dogs that are denied homes too.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: candyEThere is a very simple reasons why Mandatory Spay/Neuter does NOT work! It does nothing to address stupid dog owners ;-) It does not prevent dogs from being loose, roaming, from being vicious or biting. It's not a magic panacea for all the troubles of ill-informed,uneducated, irresponsible dog owners. In fact, in cities where MSN has been implimented the statistics have shown a rise in shelter surrenders (whoa AC Officer, that's NOT my unlicensed, intact dog ~here take him), translated to more euthanasias, a rise in rabies infected dogs, a significant decline in licensing compliance, increased costs to cities and States.
> 
> MSN is a punishment looking for a crime, fueled by AR agendas and carefully crafted, well oiled political machines. Who isn't touched by those pictures of the worst atrocities of animals? It's by design! It's meant to touch you, to the very core of your humanity!! Everyone say "ah." But to each of us, look to your own dogs and animals, and know that this is not the normal behavior of the majority. When you watch the news and hear/see these types of atypical cases, whether you buy it to it or not, those messages are still sublimally implanted there. The media, PETA and H$U$ have turned the word "breeder" into a four letter word. And WE have ALLOWED it to happen!!
> 
> ...


Wow, this is quite a spiel! Who are you/ "we" anyway?

And I sure would be interested to see the sources for the statistics you mention above.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

_"Who isn't touched by those pictures of the worst atrocities of animals? It's by design! It's meant to touch you, to the very core of your humanity!! Everyone say "ah." But to each of us, look to your own dogs and animals, and know that this is not the normal behavior of the majority. When you watch the news and hear/see these types of atypical cases, whether you buy it to it or not, those messages are still sublimally implanted there."_

When I look to MY pets, it is clear to me that they are in the MINORITY of pets who are safe in this country. Many of us don't need to wonder about pictures of the worse case of atrocities of animals because as volunteers, we LIVE them every single day. No 'subliminal' messages, but rest assured, there ARE messages, although not everybody GETS them. Some deal in theory, others in reality, and some prefer, for whatever reason, to simply look the other way and pretend it never happens.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: MatsiRed...
> When I look to MY pets, it is clear to me that they are in the MINORITY of pets who are safe in this country. Many of us don't need to wonder about pictures of the worse case of atrocities of animals because as volunteers, we LIVE them every single day. No 'subliminal' messages, but rest assured, there ARE messages, although not everybody GETS them. Some deal in theory, others in reality, and some prefer, for whatever reason, to simply look the other way and pretend it never happens.


I'm not saying that there aren't unfortunate animals in this counry who are abused, that some have atrocities committed on them, that there's a problem, however, I've read on these boards people claim that the *  'AVERAGE'  * dog owner in the US is irresponsible and now I read a claim that only a *  'MINORITY'  * of these animals are safe!

I don't think much of the HSUS, however, I got the following statistics from their website, and no, I don't know how accurate it is. The information was compiled by the AMERICAN PET PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (APPMA) 2007-2009 NATIONAL PET OWNERS SURVEY. 

The report states that there are 74,800,000 dogs in the US. They further state 63% of the people own one dog (47,124,000), 25% own two dogs (18,700,000), 12% own three or more (8,975,000). The site states that the "average" owner spent $279 on "veterinary visits (vaccine, well visits) annually" so I assume this excludes money spent on treatment for sick and injured animals. It also reports that of the 74,800,000 dogs, 75% (56,100,000) are spayed or neutered. 

Now for my question. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find the statement startling, so I have to ask what proof (not anecdotal observation) do you have for your claim that a *  MAJORITY * - that over 37,400,000 of these animals in the United States are not safe?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm extremely skeptical of their S/N numbers. If that's accurate, it's sure not regionally accurate. I will try to get some numbers for KY but in the meantime, I don't see their statistics as being incompatible with what Donna is saying. Think about it this way, if $279 annual expenditure is the _average_ (versus the median or mode) that could mean that it's an estimate of what most people spend but think how much more than that you and the rest of us spend every year. It's more likely to mean that there are a lot of people who spend a whole lot more than that and a whole bunch more who spend less than that or maybe nothing at all.


----------



## Candacee1224 (May 11, 2008)

My bad...I didn't realize I had to be "somebody" to offer an intelligent opinion. But I digress ;-) 

"We" are the dedicated dog owners/trainers who resoundingly defeated AB 1634 in California!! WE learned more about AR agendas, true statistics (not a slant) and the legislative process than we ever wanted to know. 

Now it's my turn to ask a few questions...now that I've offered my bona fides ;-) 

Everyone wants to place a high degree of ethics and responsibility on breeders (I am NOT a breeder, in case it matters) because for some convulted reason they think breeders are wholeheartedly responsible for the overpopulation of abandoned, abused and surrendered dogs in this country. Where does the personal responsiblity and accountability lie with dog owners themselves?

And some questions sure to create controversy...where do rescues figure into this equation? I'm sure some rescues do good work and are of a great service for _redeemable_ dogs. As a general rule do rescues have dogs honestly evaluated by a professional trainer for temperament issues, screened for health issues, follow ups with the new owners, or taken back if needed because the evaluations weren't done or correct or life long health issues were just too much for the new owners? Are dogs ever mismatched? Or is there just such an overwhelming desire to save every dog that rescues are willing to just put them in homes where they are not suitable? 

Although these statistics are from California's San Mateo County's first Mandatory Spay/Neuter (and why it does NOT work) program, you get the picture. 
California Statistics Prove Mandatory 
Spay And Neuter Law Will Backfire 

by JOHN YATES 
American Sporting Dog Alliance 
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org 

SACRAMENTO, CA – Californians who support legislation to mandate spaying and neutering of dogs claim that their intention is to reduce the number of unwanted dogs taken to and euthanized at animal shelters. Mandatory spay and neuter legislation is expected to be reintroduced in California this year, and the City of Los Angeles recently passed the nation’s most restrictive pet sterilization ordinance. 

However, actual animal shelter statistics from California conclusively prove that these laws are unnecessary and will backfire in a way that will harm or kill thousands of dogs – and they prove it dramatically! 

Not only do the statistics clearly refute the stated purpose of this law, they also show that such a law will greatly increase the number of dogs taken to animal shelters and killed, an analysis by The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) shows. 

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of dog owners and professionals who raise breeds of dogs used for hunting. We work at the grassroots level to protect the rights of dog owners across America, and are supported solely by the donations of our members. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Your participation and membership are vital. 

An ASDA investigation of this issue gathered shelter statistics statewide for the past 10 years, and then compared them to data from San Mateo County, which passed a very restrictive spay and neuter ordinance in 1996. We also analyzed data from the City of Los Angeles. ASDA’s analysis is based on statistics published by the Veterinary Public Health Section of the California Department of Health Services. All animal shelters are required by law to report their annual statistics to the state. 

The California legislation is but the tip of the iceberg. Similar legislation is being seriously considered in several other states and municipalities around the country. What happens in California – and what has happened – will have a major impact on dog owners everywhere in America. 

Current state law in California leaves the decision to spay or neuter up to individual dog owners and their veterinarians. A strong public education program has greatly increased the number of dogs that are voluntarily spayed or neutered by their owners. 

This approach has worked. This conclusion is written in neon lights in the data collected by the State of California: 

· In 1996, 494,998 dogs entered animal shelters in California, and the number peaked at 521,300 in 2002. Since then, however, statewide shelter admissions have dropped dramatically to 292,531 dogs in 2006. 

· The number of dogs entering shelters has fallen very sharply since 2002, declining by 228,769 since then – which is a 44-percent decrease over four years. 

· A large percentage of dogs received by municipal shelters are euthanized. During the same period, the number of dogs euthanized at California shelters dropped from 276,789 in 1996 to107,022 in 2006. In the past four years alone, the number of dogs euthanized has declined by almost 40-percent. 

California’s pet overpopulation problem clearly is solving itself, mostly because of an increase in awareness by dog owners that has led to voluntary sterilization. 

In addition, more dogs from shelters are finding good homes. Shelter adoptions declined steadily in the years prior to 1999, when the statistical low point of 57,620 dogs found homes. Since then, however, the number of shelter adoptions has soared to 93,795 in 2006. 

Those state statistics on shelter admissions, euthanasia and adoptions clearly and dramatically refute the need for mandatory spay and neuter legislation. 

But San Mateo County’s statistics are even more clear and dramatic, and offer conclusive proof of the unintended consequences of mandatory sterilization. They show a huge increase in the number of dogs entering shelters since a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance was passed in 1996, and also a large increase in shelter euthanasia. In fact, it took San Mateo County 10 years to get back to the rates it had the year before the ordinance was passed. 

While San Mateo County was struggling to get back to “Square One,” the rest of the state was making rapid progress to solve the problem of unwanted animals. 

Dogs paid the price for the San Mateo ordinance. They paid the price with the loss of their homes, and many paid with their lives. 

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals sponsored and drafted the San Mateo County ordinance, which mandates that every dog over six months of age must be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains a very restrictive and expensive breeders’ permit. It became law in October of 1996. Violators are subject to heavy fines, prosecution and seizures. 

In 1996, 4,922 dogs entered the San Mateo County shelter system. Then the ordinance was passed. In 1997, this number rose to 4,939 dogs, but then soared to 8,771 in 1998. The county began to approach pre-ordinance levels in the Year 2000, with 4,144 dogs received, and the number gradually fell to 3,520 in 2006. However, percentage of this decline in the number of dogs entering San Mateo County shelters is far smaller than comparable statewide figures during the same period. 

The ordinance has hurt dogs, not helped them. It is believed that financial hardship, and fear of fines and prosecution, has led many people to abandon their pets, while discouraging other people from adopting pets at shelters. 

Many more dogs were killed in San Mateo County shelters in the years following the passage of the ordinance, and the shelter kill rate did not drop to pre-ordinance levels until 2006 – a bloody 10-year-long trail of death for dogs to reach euthanasia levels that existed before the ordinance was passed. 

Dogs killed at San Mateo County shelters rose from 1,286 to 1,525 in the year following the passage of the ordinance, and rose again to 1,621 the following year. In 2006, 1,317 dogs were killed, which basically puts the county where it was before the ordinance was passed. During this same period, the rest of California reduced shelter euthanasia by 66-percent with a voluntary program. 

Because of the burdens of spaying and neutering, fewer people adopted dogs in San Mateo County. Pet adoptions from the county’s shelters were 1,188 the year before the ordinance was passed, but had fallen to 839 by the Year 2000. 

The Los Angeles City Council passed the nation’s most restrictive spay and neuter ordinance last month. 

The statistics show, that there was no need for it. Los Angeles shelter admissions of dogs have fallen steadily from 96,374 in 1996 to 74,445 in 2006, prior to the passage of the ordinance. 

Likewise, shelter killing in Los Angeles dropped from 58,457 in 1996 to 28,591 in 2006. San Mateo County’s experience shows that shelter euthanasia is likely to increase significantly in the wake of the new Los Angeles ordinance. 

During 2006, 27,516 dogs were adopted from Los Angeles shelters, and another 13,138 were returned to their owners. Both numbers are expected to decline dramatically in 2008, based on the San Mateo County experience. 

Please visit us at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Your membership and participation are vital, both to save thousands of California dogs from losing their homes and facing certain suffering and death, and to defend the rights of dog owners.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally Posted By: Arycrest
> 
> I'm not saying that there aren't unfortunate animals in this counry who are abused, that some have atrocities committed on them, that there's a problem, however, I've read on these boards people claim that the *  'AVERAGE'  * dog owner in the US is irresponsible and now I read a claim that only a *  'MINORITY'  * of these animals are safe!....
> 
> Now for my question. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I find the statement startling, so I have to ask what proof (not anecdotal observation) do you have for your claim that a *  MAJORITY * - that over 37,400,000 of these animals in the United States are not safe?


I'm at work awake 24 hours now, and no time to search for statistics, not even sure there are statistics to back me up.

But my point is this. Considering that an atrocity means any shockingly cruel act, atrocious condition, etc there are 8 million homeless pets housed in shelters every year, many of those who eventually succumb to gruesome deaths by gas or heartstick, many who wait and suffer with untreated injuries and illnesses, many who are tortured by those who were supposed to protect them, and many who get recycled back into a culture of breed for greed. And those are the lucky ones. Less fortunate are those who live in isolation their entire lives at the end of a backyard chain or in tiny cages while they produce babies for profit. And there are whole cultures, LARGE sections of the population, who mindlessly own dogs who roam and fend for themselves, starving and freezing to death, get hit by cars and suffer on roadsides, or who have basic medical needs neglected suffering and dying 'from natural causes', in many ignorant minds. And then there are the backyard breeders, who in addition to abusing and neglecting their bitches and sires, use their legal rights to kill off their 'business' as they see fit, with one shot to the head, one after the other, or leave the dirty deeds to the 'officials'.

One doesn't have to portray a dog bludgeoned to death, or a cat set on fire, to consider it an atrocity. All the above examples are atrocities, only they occur so readily in our society, that it's become part of our culture, and people have become fairly immune to them and don't even recognize them as atrocities. In fact, given the widespread neglect, abuse, and murder of so many pets in our society, legal or otherwise, and the corruption behind some of it such as in terms of gas chambers, I often wonder why there hasn't been more of an uprising over all of this. The level of complacency often boggles my mind, especially when I hear someone speak about how 'rare' it is, or how it's all been 'designed' for our brainwashing. The denial is THICK.

So, although I don't have the 'statistical' proof that the safety of my pets are in the minority in our society, I'd say the proof probably isn't that far away if one REALLY wants to look close enough. I'd start by asking for a tour by your nearest rescue.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

BTW, speaking of neglect, abuse, and murder of helpless animals, legal and otherwise, what pending MSN legislation DOES seem to be accomplishing, is that many collective groups can no longer say, 'aint my business, 'aint my problem'. Even if MSN NEVER passes, at the very least, it's forced all of us to take a closer look at the issue, and that in my own mind is a good place to start.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

_"Everyone wants to place a high degree of ethics and responsibility on breeders (I am NOT a breeder, in case it matters) because for some convulted reason they think breeders are wholeheartedly responsible for the overpopulation of abandoned, abused and surrendered dogs in this country. Where does the personal responsiblity and accountability lie with dog owners themselves?"_

NOT everyone. Only the extremists will focus the blame on one side or the other. Many, including myself, see it as a SHARED responsibility.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: pupresq...
> Think about it this way, if $279 annual expenditure is the _average_ (versus the median or mode) that could mean that it's an estimate of what most people spend but think how much more than that you and the rest of us spend every year. It's more likely to mean that there are a lot of people who spend a whole lot more than that and a whole bunch more who spend less than that or maybe nothing at all.


Since the statistic is only for "well" visits - I honestly feel this amount is in the ballpark. I admit, I spend a LOT of money at the vet, especially with the seniors, however, I honestly don't believe my average "well" visit goes over $279 per annum (I'd include HW meds and flea and tick preventatives in this amount). 

Now if you want to include other vet visits for health problems with the seniors, etc. then the amount goes WAY WAY WAY OVER that total and definitely would skew any "average" amount for vet visits.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

CandyE - go back and read the thread. I don't think anyone on it has said that Mandatory S/N is the golden answer or even that they think it's a great idea. You are coming in with a lot of rhetoric and hype but you're not looking around first. 

California's pet problem did not "solve itself" and to say that it did is not only silly, it's insulting to the thousands of men and women that worked so hard to turn things around. Fighting pet overpopulation is a war waged on many fronts - from promoting shelter adoptions and discouraging purchases from mills and BYBs, to offering low cost S/N to owners that want it, to networking, to education. Is mandatory S/N necessary? Perhaps not - but then, no one here ever said it was. We said more needs to be done. This thread is about brainstorming, so calm down and help, if you're that interested. 



> Quote: As a general rule do rescues have dogs honestly evaluated by a professional trainer for temperament issues, screened for health issues, follow ups with the new owners, or taken back if needed because the evaluations weren't done or correct or life long health issues were just too much for the new owners? Are dogs ever mismatched? Or is there just such an overwhelming desire to save every dog that rescues are willing to just put them in homes where they are not suitable?


Seriously? PLEASE tell me that you're not trying to blame rescues for pet overpopulation because that would be beyond preposterous.

In answer to your question - 

Yes, rescues honestly evaluate the animals they take in. If there are temperament issues that dog is either evaluated by a behaviorist or shifted to foster home with experience in that arena or both. Dogs with behavior problems that make them unadoptable are either euthanized or they're kept as permanant fosters. 

Yes, rescues do post-adoption follow up and do take animals back that for _whatever reason _don't work out or are later given up. 

Yes, I'm sure that from time to time rescues make bad placements but not because they're in such a hurry to save animals, typically it's because we don't have magical powers to see into the future and sometimes in spite of all our screening and experience, things just don't work out. When that happens, we take the dog back as I said above. 

I hope that's helped answer your questions about rescue. That's great that you're asking questions and trying to get informed given how enthusiastic you seem to be about dog-related topics. However, let me point out something - none of those things are particularly relevant to the issues at hand because the dogs (and cats) leaving rescue are altered. They are not contributing to future production of more animals. From a population standpoint, rescue is a dead end for growth. 

I am not of the opinion that established breeders are the root source of pet overpopulation. I think they're a source, but not the only one and probably not even the biggest one. I think that most of the dogs showing up in shelters come from regular people who let their dogs have puppies - either by not spaying/neutering or confining them or because they have a purebred dog and so does their buddy so they think it'd be cool to get them together. 

I'd like to ask you the same question that I've already asked once on this thread but no one has answered - in your group, what responsibility is taken by breeders for the second generation of their dogs? Yes, I'm aware that most responsible breeders will take back their own puppies if the sale doesn't work out (I certainly hope that's the policy of your group's members anyway!) but what is the policy for the offspring of the dogs you sell? If you sell a bitch and she has puppies and they wind up in a shelter or off reproducing themselves, do you take them back?


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

_"And some questions sure to create controversy...where do rescues figure into this equation?...As a general rule do rescues have dogs honestly evaluated by a professional trainer for temperament issues, screened for health issues, follow ups with the new owners, or taken back if needed because the evaluations weren't done or correct or life long health issues were just too much for the new owners? Are dogs ever mismatched? Or is there just such an overwhelming desire to save every dog that rescues are willing to just put them in homes where they are not suitable?"_

The rescue I volunteer for is low volume high quality, and our contracts stipulate SHARED OWNERSHIP of the dog, and the dog is safe with us for the life of the dog, no matter what happens along the way. We microchip the dog under our name in foster care. Our return rate is very LOW. We have professional trainers who are active with our dogs, a trained front line evaluation team who does formal temperament evaluations and then the board decides who gets approved for our program, and the safety and matching of foster homes always takes priority, a great fundraising team to handle any health problems for our dogs, and a followup coordinator who does a preplanned annual 'check-up'. In fact, I'd rate this rescue right up there with any high caliber breeder, just that the goals are very different.


Of course, not all rescues are high caliber, and although I don't know of any, I'm sure some have other agendas other than saving dogs. But most I'm familiar with ARE upscale, and if you visit the rescue section of this forum, you'll often hear volunteers speaking about transparency, and watch as they police each other. In fact, if more groups policed each other more effectively, including rescues, there might be less of a need for legislation. But I can't imagine rescues will add substantially to the overpopulation problem, although we have very much been part of the solution, and THEN some.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I was originally just responding to your post but this time I looked at their site and you're right - they do seem to be trying to specify routine care. The accuracy of the numbers people gave is going to depend a lot on how good a job they did asking the questions and what the statistical reliability is of any of the survey results. I just went and looked over their methodology and the biggest concern I have is a nonresponse bias from people who spend nothing/very little on pets and/or aren't particularly pet oriented (even if they have them). Their list provider claims to address this by weighting their mail outs (and thus says they don't need to weight their returns) but without doing a non-response bias follow up, I'm not sure how they can conclude that works. Survey methodology is tricky and the people you are most likely to miss are the ones of greatest relevance to this discussion unfortunately. 

Still, it's interesting. Anecdotally, I'd say that far and away the majority of dogs and cats in many areas here are in trouble. But again, that may be a regional thing that gets lost on a national scale.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

I'm taking Mac in for surgery Monday AM, but am having Bruiser's yearly physical done that afternoon when I pick up Mac. I'll let you know what Buriser's bill is along with a guesstimate of his annual bill for HW and flea preventative.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote:The information was compiled by the AMERICAN PET PRODUCTS MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (APPMA) 2007-2009 NATIONAL PET OWNERS SURVEY.


I think most of us would agree that most people who leave their dogs chained in the yard or let them run loose and have litter after litter or that dump them on the side of the road when they become too much trouble, didn't answer this survey. Surveys like this are answered by people who care about their pets.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: ninhar ...
> Surveys like this are answered by people who care about their pets.


Besides quoting "facts" out of thin air, how does one go about getting the proper statistics to go on? If only good owners participated in the survey in question, what's the correct dog population? What's the correct number of people who own only one dog? Two dogs? Three dogs? How much does the average owner pay for well visits to the vet? I guess we have 78,400,000 dogs owned by good owners, how do you go about getting the statistics about the remainder of them?


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

That's a good question! The S/N conference I went to had some mathmatical formulas that allowed you to extrapolate the number of cats and dogs per person in a community by looking at shelter intake figures but I'm not sure that's any better - seems like it could be skewed the other way. It would all depend on what kind of accuracy testing they've done. 

In all likelihood getting any kind of close estimate of the number of dogs and cats out there - and then how many are owned "responsibly" versus not would be really difficult. I think we can agree though that the numbers dying in shelters - the one kind of number we do have lots of - are unacceptably high.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I hope people will simply respond and not start to take it personal. I can see this is already starting to take place on this thread so, maybe I am just being stupid but here goes. BTW, I don't get to the point until the last paragraph, so, even though this is a long post, try not to jump the gun.

I have a rather busy boarding kennel and I also train dogs for the public. I have a number of clients who have gotten their dogs through rescues, not all GSDS, other breeds as well. Now, while some of them have worked out just fine there are other situations where the rescue had been either less than honest or they didn't seem to know enough about the dog to place it properly. In two recent instances, the owners have told me the following when we discussed their dog. They were screened and selected a dog they thought would work for them. When they went to pick up the dog, at that time, they were handed bottles of medicine and instructed to give it to the dog. During the selection process, they were not told that the dogs had health issues that required life time medical care. One man told me they did not know what their dog's ailment was until they took him to a Vet some weeks later. Turned out the dog had perianal fistulas and a rather serious case at that. Of course they were upset and felt betrayed. I have one little old dog here right now for boarding. Same situation, handed the medicine afterwards and the severity of the problem was not made clear. The dog seems to have an issue with hearing and also some pretty significant behavioral issues, maybe as a result of that, I can't tell. The woman loves the dog but she is a tad angry that she wasn't told during the selection process that the dog had problems like this.

My intent here is not to pick on rescues although I am sure some will take it that way. However, it seems to me that breeders are held to such a high standard, while some of the other dog providers can operate differently. Yes, I realize that breeders are creating some of the dogs and that is where this attitude comes from but if a breeder did something like what I just talked about and the people on this board got ahold of that information, oh my, I can just imagine what that thread would look like.

I know the intent is to save these dogs, I don't need a lecture. The point is, these people have stated that they will not be getting a dog from a rescue again. They feel betrayed and if what they are telling me is true, now that, is a sad state of affairs. These are not people who could handle one of my dogs. They are both older and are just the kinds of people rescues need. Now they have a bad taste in their mouth and two possible homes are gone. These are people who really love their dogs. They both spend a great deal of money on them and have real concern about their dog's welfare. 

I am currently training a young GSD for a couple with a small baby. They called me because the dog was growling at the husband when he would lean over to kiss his wife. Something about that disturbed the dog. The man called me for advise when they were about to give up on the dog. I spent two hours on the phone with this man trying to help him. I explained all the things I thought it could be, discussed the baby in length since that made me more cautious and a few weeks later, he called me for training help. We have solved the growling issue but I do see things in this dog that worry me . These are very sensible people, so, they completely understand what I tell them and are following instructions. Anyway, they did call the rescue but besides telling them the dog came from a kennel north of here, that is all the information/help they could provide. I have another rescue dog who boards here who will be happy to bite me if I give her a reason, like say, trying to put her leash on. These are just a few recent examples, I can list more but you get the point.

Now, here, at last, is my point. Let's say I find myself getting a bit miffed about the things I am hearing about rescues. Even though I am sure there are good ones, I continue to get reports like I talked about above and experience dogs like the one I am training now. What if I get a wild hair and decide to lobby my representative to pass a law that will monitor the rescues in the state because I have seen so many instances like I just talked about? Lets say the Rescue can be fined for each one of the incidences I just mentioned? Or maybe they should be forced to pay for the dog's training and lifetime medical costs. The Govt. will see to it that happens.
Now we have the Govt. coming in to your rescue telling you how to run it. I can assure, you, they don't know HOW to run it but who cares? I am doing something for all those victims of the rescue's shoddy practices. No doubt, there are some rescues who will be shut down because they do not live up to the Govts standards. People who hate rescues, ( and let me tell you , there are people who do, including Ingrid Newkirk), will be using the new laws against even the good rescues making it too cost restrictive for you to operate.
I think you guys *might* be getting the point. Everyone needs to be aware of involving Govt. in things where they don't belong. While Candy made the point that no breeder will be safe if PETA has it's way. I am willing to expand that thinking to Rescues as well. You also have a little something to be worried about when fanatics are behind law making. That's no joke and that's not me trying to be a smartass. That's the truth. 

I offered my ideas, education. Right now I am offering my opinion on what WON'T work. I think that people who buy pets are the ones responsible for their well being. Do I take mine back if something goes wrong?...YES. Do I think I should have to ? **** NO!!! I do it because I love the dogs, that's why, not because I believe I am responsible for irresponsible people. I didn't raise them! They are not my children. I do all I can to avoid selling to people like this and for the most part, I am successful. However, I also realize that not everything in this life can be controlled by me. We are competing with many tragedies in life....because THAT IS life. There are other tragedies that other people think are more important. So, you have to live in reality and maybe stop looking so hard for someone to blame. It solves nothing. Look at what you can do now, the rest is already done and none of these laws will stop it. IMO, they will make it harder for everyone and they are also making it harder for breeders and rescues to even want to work together. Even in this thread people have claimed they have nothing against "good breeders" and then in the next sentence they say something like "breed for greed" . I could pick them out and quote you but what would that accomplish?.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

> Originally Posted By: pupresqThat's a good question! The S/N conference I went to had some mathmatical formulas that allowed you to extrapolate the number of cats and dogs per person in a community by looking at shelter intake figures but I'm not sure that's any better - seems like it could be skewed the other way. It would all depend on what kind of accuracy testing they've done.
> 
> In all likelihood getting any kind of close estimate of the number of dogs and cats out there - and then how many are owned "responsibly" versus not would be really difficult. I think we can agree though that the numbers dying in shelters - the one kind of number we do have lots of - are unacceptably high.


Thanks for the explanation. I was trying to respond to a claim that the majority of animals in the US are abused, but I guess that's impossible to prove or disprove without being able to get accurate data on the subject.


----------



## MatsiRed (Dec 5, 2004)

I hope people will simply respond and not start to take it personal. I can see this is already starting to take place on this thread so, maybe I am just being stupid but here goes. BTW, I don't get to the point until the last paragraph, so, even though this is a long post, try not to jump the gun.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Anne, I had to laugh because I was thinking earlier about how well I thought everyone was doing considering the amount of passion we all feel. But I haven't seen anything yet, including the nice tone of your own post, that should shut down communication, fingers crossed. And I, for one, am very interested in hearing more about the breeder end of things. </span> 

I have a rather busy boarding kennel and I also train dogs for the public. I have a number of clients who have gotten their dogs through rescues, not all GSDS, other breeds as well. Now, while some of them have worked out just fine there are other situations where the rescue had been either less than honest or they didn't seem to know enough about the dog to place it properly. In two recent instances, the owners have told me the following when we discussed their dog. They were screened and selected a dog they thought would work for them. When they went to pick up the dog, at that time, they were handed bottles of medicine and instructed to give it to the dog. During the selection process, they were not told that the dogs had health issues that required life time medical care. One man told me they did not know what their dog's ailment was until they took him to a Vet some weeks later. Turned out the dog had perianal fistulas and a rather serious case at that. Of course they were upset and felt betrayed. I have one little old dog here right now for boarding. Same situation, handed the medicine afterwards and the severity of the problem was not made clear. The dog seems to have an issue with hearing and also some pretty significant behavioral issues, maybe as a result of that, I can't tell. The woman loves the dog but she is a tad angry that she wasn't told during the selection process that the dog had problems like this.

My intent here is not to pick on rescues although I am sure some will take it that way. However, it seems to me that breeders are held to such a high standard, while some of the other dog providers can operate differently. Yes, I realize that breeders are creating some of the dogs and that is where this attitude comes from but if a breeder did something like what I just talked about and the people on this board got ahold of that information, oh my, I can just imagine what that thread would look like.

I know the intent is to save these dogs, I don't need a lecture. The point is, these people have stated that they will not be getting a dog from a rescue again. They feel betrayed and if what they are telling me is true, now that, is a sad state of affairs. These are not people who could handle one of my dogs. They are both older and are just the kinds of people rescues need. Now they have a bad taste in their mouth and two possible homes are gone. These are people who really love their dogs. They both spend a great deal of money on them and have real concern about their dog's welfare. 

I am currently training a young GSD for a couple with a small baby. They called me because the dog was growling at the husband when he would lean over to kiss his wife. Something about that disturbed the dog. The man called me for advise when they were about to give up on the dog. I spent two hours on the phone with this man trying to help him. I explained all the things I thought it could be, discussed the baby in length since that made me more cautious and a few weeks later, he called me for training help. We have solved the growling issue but I do see things in this dog that worry me . These are very sensible people, so, they completely understand what I tell them and are following instructions. Anyway, they did call the rescue but besides telling them the dog came from a kennel north of here, that is all the information/help they could provide. I have another rescue dog who boards here who will be happy to bite me if I give her a reason, like say, trying to put her leash on. These are just a few recent examples, I can list more but you get the point.

<span style="color: #CC0000"> Any high caliber rescue that I'm familiar with would frown upon any dishonest behaviour by ANY dog provider, including and maybe even especially, fellow rescues. In fact, there's some pretty significant pressure in place already that handles the type of problem you're talking about. For instance, most rescues carry liability insurance, and walk on eggshells when it comes to putting dogs out there with major behaviour issues or undisclosed health problems. Also, many rescues work with each other and one bad incident will easily isolate them from the rest of the rescue community, making it harder for them to operate. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing, and you will find excellent examples of this in the rescue section on this forum. I will add that we are still talking about human beings here, breeders and rescues alike, who make honest mistakes and there needs to be a certain degree of forgiveness in place too, but for repeat offenders, they need to GO, and many HAVE. </span>

Now, here, at last, is my point. Let's say I find myself getting a bit miffed about the things I am hearing about rescues. Even though I am sure there are good ones, I continue to get reports like I talked about above and experience dogs like the one I am training now. What if I get a wild hair and decide to lobby my representative to pass a law that will monitor the rescues in the state because I have seen so many instances like I just talked about? Lets say the Rescue can be fined for each one of the incidences I just mentioned? Or maybe they should be forced to pay for the dog's training and lifetime medical costs. The Govt. will see to it that happens.
Now we have the Govt. coming in to your rescue telling you how to run it. I can assure, you, they don't know HOW to run it but who cares? I am doing something for all those victims of the rescue's shoddy practices. No doubt, there are some rescues who will be shut down because they do not live up to the Govts standards. People who hate rescues, ( and let me tell you , there are people who do, including Ingrid Newkirk), will be using the new laws against even the good rescues making it too cost restrictive for you to operate.
I think you guys *might* be getting the point. Everyone needs to be aware of involving Govt. in things where they don't belong. While Candy made the point that no breeder will be safe if PETA has it's way. I am willing to expand that thinking to Rescues as well. You also have a little something to be worried about when fanatics are behind law making. That's no joke and that's not me trying to be a smartass. That's the truth. 

<span style="color: #CC0000"> I think most rescues will agree with you in terms of wanting to keep the government out of the rescue world. They have already started to infiltrate in certain areas of rescue, such as what happened here in Massachusetts a few years back when the Dept of Agriculture started forcing us to isolate dogs coming into the state (and they somehow enacted this new rule VERY quickly!). That law has made things MUCH more difficult for us since we cover six states, and now we are forced to tie up valuable volunteers and valuable funds, and in the end, completely unnecessary.

There are many fanatics on both ends of the spectrum, and these people hurt, more than help, the cause. (I do think, though, that many people use that term, fanatics, too loosely). I also think breeders and rescuers have more in common than most people are aware of, especially when it comes to fearing more government involvement. But if we don't do a better job of policing each other, if alternative solutions are not found, then government penetration is inevitable, is it not?
</span> 

I offered my ideas, education. Right now I am offering my opinion on what WON'T work. I think that people who buy pets are the ones responsible for their well being. Do I take mine back if something goes wrong?...YES. Do I think I should have to ? **** NO!!! I do it because I love the dogs, that's why, not because I believe I am responsible for irresponsible people. I didn't raise them! They are not my children. I do all I can to avoid selling to people like this and for the most part, I am successful. However, I also realize that not everything in this life can be controlled by me. We are competing with many tragedies in life....because THAT IS life. There are other tragedies that other people think are more important. So, you have to live in reality and maybe stop looking so hard for someone to blame. It solves nothing. Look at what you can do now, the rest is already done and none of these laws will stop it. IMO, they will make it harder for everyone and they are also making it harder for breeders and rescues to even want to work together. Even in this thread people have claimed they have nothing against "good breeders" and then in the next sentence they say something like "breed for greed" . I could pick them out and quote you but what would that accomplish?. 

<span style="color: #CC0000">In the rescue world, there is a saying that goes something like this. "Any dog you put your hands on is your responsibility for life." We take that very seriously, so seriously in fact, we co-own our dogs with adopters. In the end, we completely remove the piece about the owner, and the focus becomes purely about the welfare of the dog. So with that in mind, we are incredibly picky about who we place our dogs with, and in the few cases where things don't work out, the dog comes back to us, NO IFS, ANDS, or BUTTS!

In terms of using the term greedy breeder, that would be me. I realize there are grey areas, but for those that procreate to maintain the purity of the breed, and TRULY stand by their offspring, that's very different. In fact, highly responsible high caliber breeders really don't fit into the equation of rescue work. But in terms of SO many breeders who reproduce simply to put food on their table with little regards for the welfare of their dogs, those are the greedy breeders I make reference to, and they drive the numbers way up and are 'part' of the reason we even have this thread.</span>


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Anne - I am sorry to hear about your clients' experiences with rescued dogs. I do not think that is the norm, but it should not happen at all. I'm certainly not going to claim that every rescue is good or that every one operates to the same high ethical standards. Rescues, like breeding operations, pet food companies, boarding kennels, trainers, and pretty much anything else in dogdom exist along a continuum. 

I think it's a mistake to tar any group of people this diverse with the same brush and that's a big part of the problem right there. "All breeders are bad!" "All rescue dogs have problems!" "Everyone's in it for money!" You name it, stereotypes are there and they benefit no one, least of all the animals. 

I don't take your post as picking on rescues because "rescues" is not one big club to which we all belong any more than a post about a recent mill bust or even some of the other questionable breeding practices I read about on this very board impunes all breeders. Nor would criticism of bad breeding practices be a criticism of your breeding operation, which, from everything I hear is excellent. 

I realize that as a breeder you probably feel personally attacked by anti-breeder rhetoric, just as I sometimes feel attacked by anti-rescue or anti-shelter rhetoric, but I think if we both take a step back we'll see that neither group is one dimensional. There are those in both categories who deserve criticism and those that deserve praise. 

Part of the problem IMO is when people try to simplify a complex issue into good/bad, right/wrong. Candy's post is typical







full of comments and rhetoric that either says or implies that rescuers are somehow by definition anti breeder, or that all rescuers belong to PETA etc. For example, I do NOT belong to PETA. I never have and I have major problems with a lot of what they do. I'm not a sheep and no one else should be either. I think perhaps people say things like that to offer up a straw man. If we make each side the devil, then we can spend all day screaming and never have to address the real issues. 

I like that many people on this thread, including Donna and Anne both, have NOT done that.







Only when people who can see the big picture keep talking, can we find real solutions. 

As far as a perceived double standard or having more oversight for rescue in the same way as is being called for for breeders - I don't think that's a bad thing as long as the oversight is intelligent and well-crafted by people who actually know something about the issues. If it's not then, we should fight it just like we fight BSL or anything else wrong headed. The legislation that Donna mentions is a real PITA for rescues and I'm not sure it helps what it was designed to help. Similarly, breeder restrictions that hurt small hobbiest while giving giant mills a pass, are also bad ideas.

However, there _is_ certainly something terribly wrong with an awful lot of breeding operations and, it is true, quite a few so called "rescues" as well. And if breeders/rescuers won't police each other and demand better, then, as Donna says, governmental penetration is inevitable. It's not enough to know that WE are running a good operation. If we care about dogs, not just _our_ dogs, we need to know that others are as well, and if they're not - we need to be active in the effort to fix that.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

> Quote: Candy's post is typical full of comments and rhetoric that either says or implies that rescuers are somehow by definition anti breeder, or that all rescuers belong to PETA etc. For example, I do NOT belong to PETA. I never have and I have major problems with a lot of what they do. I'm not a sheep and no one else should be either. I think perhaps people say things like that to offer up a straw man. If we make each side the devil, then we can spend all day screaming and never have to address the real issues


. 

I think it may not be enough to simply "not belong to PETA" . I think if you do not believe in what they are saying, you should speak up loudly because you 'are' being lumped together with them whether you like it or not....and not just by Candy...although I don't see where she said that...... 
I think these are dangerous people and I think Rescues have made the mistake of "getting in bed" with them in order to advance animal welfare, ( I said welfare not animal rights ). Even if what PETA is proposing "today" seems like it might help the situation with unwanted pets, I think it is just a huge mistake to go along with it for a number of reasons...... the biggest of which I already listed.

Look up AB 1634 on google and then look at the web sites that are both for and against. The "against" side displays a long list of dog clubs, breed registries, and breeders all opposed to this mandatory Spay and Neuter Law. Then go look at the web sites "for" AB 1634. They also display a list of supporters. Most are Rescue Groups and Animal Control agencies. What AB 1634 did was turn a strained relationship,( between breeders and rescues), into all out war. These laws are indeed "painting with a broad brush", I made that point in my first post and tried to say it again and place you guys in the same position to try to clarify what I meant, in my last post. 

<span style="color: #FF0000">*One other important detail...it was the GOOD breeders fighting AB 1634, not the worst breeders!! They didn't give a rat's arse!! Only the good ones cared what that law might do to working dog breeding*.</span> WHAT a waste of energy! Could have been so much more useful if it had been directed elsewhere. I do not agree that AB 1634 was worth it. It wasn't. The people for it also spent a huge amount of time, MONEY and effort that could have also been better spent elsewhere. What was accomplished? Nuttin!! Just alot of hard feelings. 

These laws are not solving anything other than to create more hard feelings. In some ways, I think the rescue community is being used by these ...yes.....I am going to use the word....FANATICS....to promote their agenda. It's easy to do that when you have people who are so moved by the plight of animals. It is emotional and when people are emotional they are easier to influence. I think that was what Candy was alluding to. We are humans and some people are experts at manipulating us.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Now I will offer up one suggestion for Rescue Groups. Over the many years I have been in dogs, there is one CONSTANT theme as far as why people "get rid of" their pets.....in this case...dogs. Although I have not kept stats, I can tell you that probably 99 per cent of the people who contact me, (when they are thinking about giving up on their dogs), are dealing with training issues. Problems they have created by not managing the dog correctly. With aggressive breeds it is usually about just that.....aggression. Usually where they accidently protection trained their dog or the dog is dog aggressive. Sometimes there is a temperament factor as well that people have no idea how to deal with. Yes, there are a few other reasons, usually moving but the training aspect is numero uno. 

With small breeds, it seems they are dealing more with house breaking issues although I am pretty sure I am not getting all the calls about small dogs. Just when they do call, that seems to be where it's at. If the small breeds are aggressive, due to their size, people seem to feel better about dealing with that than they do with large breeds.

So, if I ran a rescue, you can be certain a huge amount of my effort would be geared toward educating people about training and also MANAGING their animals. By managing I mean " if you don't want your dog to learn to do something wrong, don't put him in the situation to do it". People seem to think it is somehow cruel to manage them. Meaning, they do not like to use a dog run to put the dog in when they can't supervise it. Therefore, the dog destroys their yard. Much more humane in their eyes to scream and yell at the dog after it has done something wrong than to simply prevent that. 








I am constantly reassuring people that they are not being cruel when they use a dog run. If the dog gets to be out when they are home and interact with the family, there is absolutely nothing cruel there and the dog grows up to be well behaved. So, my point is.....get people to help you who REALLY know what they are talking about when it comes to training and managing dogs. Just like everything else we have talked about, not all trainers are created equal. 

I know there are lots of adoption events but I do not know what really goes on there. Maybe it's already happening but if I put on one of those events, you can be sure I would have a speaker there talking about training and managing dogs or doing a training demonstration. Maybe a 10 minute presentation....something like that. People are attracted to the animals and while you have their attention, you can educate them and even if they do not adopt one, maybe you can help another dog who is sitting in someone's yard. People are interested in dog training. I hate going to parties because if anyone spills the beans about what I do, I am there all night answering dog training questions. It's like being a doctor. Everyone wants a cure for what ails them and in this case it is about their dog. My point is, they are a very interested audience when it is there for the watching.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:Rescues have made the mistake of "getting in bed" with them in order to advance animal welfare


The reason rescue groups sign on for this kind of thing is because no one is presenting any viable alternatives and we're tired of seeing animals die. I'm in favor of anything that works. And before someone comes back and says mandatory S/N doesn't work 1. I have not said I'm in favor of it and 2. even though it was the last thing she intended the figures presented by Candy's group actually present some of the most compelling evidence I've ever seen that maybe it DOES work.

But anyway, this thread was supposed to be about finding alternatives, about proposing solutions, but instead it's rapidly turning into a rehash of the same old debate. I am saying, as a rescuer - if breeders don't like the proposed legislation, what ideas are they bringing to the table instead? When I go to bat against BSL, I bring a laundry list of alternatives that people can try to achieve the desired goals and I'm there offering practical advice and my help in implementing them. I think this needs to happen here. Lots of anti legislation people are fanatical enough in their own right and some of their attitudes are enough to drive moderate people away, just as surely as the other end's tactics are to pull them in. 

It's not enough to say "this is bad, we don't like it" if you don't offer anything in it's place. I am tired of bagging up dogs that were healthy and sweet and deserved a lot better. 

The attitude that I see from a lot of breeders, even some of the better ones, is that as long as _their_ house is in order, whatever is happening to the rest of the dogs is none of their concern. But the reality is that breeders, ALL breeders, unless they practice pediatric S/N, are putting reproductive dogs into the population and must accept their own roll in the current situation. Still, no one has answered my question about what breeders do with second generatin offspring.









It would be nice if _everyone_ participated not by criticizing what others have come up with and not by coming up with suggestions for _other _people to carry out but by actively participating in the drive to reduce pet overpopulation. A few breeders do, great! There need to be more!!!

Rescuers, almost by definition, care not only about their current crop of fosters, but about dogs in a general sense and about animal welfare (yes, not rights) on a national and even global scale, so it's alien to us when people don't want to look beyond their own backyards and that could be part of the disconnect right there. 

People also need to understand that rescuing isn't a hobby and while rewarding, it's not enjoyable. It's exhausting and depressing. It's something we do because we can't stand by and do nothing. We need reputable breeders to step up and do more than just rescue the occasional dog from their breed club or offer free advice. We want to see the people who are making more dogs in the trenches with us, spending their weekends shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us trying to save animal's lives.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:So, if I ran a rescue, you can be certain a huge amount of my effort would be geared toward educating people about training and also MANAGING their animals. By managing I mean " if you don't want your dog to learn to do something wrong, don't put him in the situation to do it". People seem to think it is somehow cruel to manage them. Meaning, they do not like to use a dog run to put the dog in when they can't supervise it. Therefore, the dog destroys their yard. Much more humane in their eyes to scream and yell at the dog after it has done something wrong than to simply prevent that.


The shelter I used to work at actually had it's own obedience program and every rescue group I've ever worked with has done extensive outreach and training to try to keep dogs in their homes. Occasionally it works. I definitely appreciate that you're offering solid suggestions but the main problem with I see is just not enough hours in the day. We need more people stepping up to do these exact kinds of things instead of adding something to the already overfull plate of the relatively small number of people in rescue. Everybody's got ideas of things the people in rescue could do better and complaints about how long it takes people to answer their emails or process an application but the reality is that we're just regular people doing this as volunteers on top of our jobs, families, care for our own pets, and other obligations. And unlike breeding, showing, competing in dog sports, or any of the other activities covered on this board, we are not doing it as a hobby. We're doing it because it's literally life and death and we feel compelled to chose life at every chance we get. ETA, I'm sure someone is going to come back and say that breeding isn't a hobby, but from the point of view of what I'm talking about, it is. It's important, it's worthwhile, but people are doing it because they want to not because they feel like they have to. I don't know if I'm articulating this mindset difference well, but it's there. Long term rescuers are tired and somewhat bitter. We want to spend time with our dogs too, we want to do other things too, but we just can't look into these abandoned animals' eyes and not try to help. 

In addition to posting voluminously on the GSD board (which, thankfully I'm able to pair with work, so I can get by with it







), I coordinate and drive transports, plan and execute events, solicit donations, foster around 6 dogs at a time so feed, train, care for etc, do obedience training, train volunteers, temp test dogs, educate shelters, run spay/neuter events, and the list just goes on and on. I am literally doing all that I can and I know I'm not the only one in that boat. This is actually pretty typical of rescuers. We need people outside the current rescue community to join us in this effort if the suggestions to combat pet overpopulation are things that involve rescuers doing more work. I think this is probably one of the reasons that legislative proposals appeal to people. If breeders or anyone else doesn't like those proposals, we need alternatives that don't mean more work yet for us, or we need their help in the trenches.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Thanks, pupresq for all of your comments. I truly believe that if you're not part of the solution then you're part of the problem. I have spent countless hours counseling people on how to manage/train their dogs. Some of this was through rescue and lots of it is just on my own because I love dogs! 

Rescues are not responsible for the overpopulation problem and I can't see how they contribute in any way to that problem. Many hours and lots of money and brain power have been spent on combating mandatory speuter laws--what is being asked in this thread is how to combat the animal overpopulation problem! 

Education is certainly of paramount importance but equally important is building and using bridges between breeders and breed aficionados and rescues. Everyone needs to get together on this one and figure out some workable solutions and stop throwing rocks from those glass houses! 

Perhaps a coalition type organization needs to be formed and funded.


----------



## Avamom (Sep 28, 2004)

Vandal, its stories like yours that confirm my feelings that bad rescues are like backyard breeders, all they do is malign the good name of people who spend their lives trying to improve the dogs they love...byb give good breeders a bad name as well as bad rescues give rescues a bad name. A good rescue is like a reputable breeder in that they hold themselves up to high standards and have their dogs best interest at heart.

I hope that "rescue stories" like your client's are the exception instead of the norm, but when I see things that happen on our own rescue section of this board I am not surprised. I see people get flamed because they have the nerve to ask where that dog is going or to ask a rescue for references or question their practices.

To help the problem of pet overpopulation you have to reach some of the core issues....where people get there dogs and why people dump their dogs. In my perfect world people would only buy dogs from reputable breeders and they would only adopt dogs from shelters and reputable rescues....but people don't, they buy from craigslist, puppy mills and byb and they rescue from crappy rescuers who are sometimes no better than the bybs.

I don't have answers for how to solve these issues, but I think a good start would come with who we as a dog community chose to support. Support good breeders and good rescues. 

Another answer is money....I am not sure we need too many more laws but more we need the money to support and enforce those laws. Here in SC we have an awful overpopulation problem and high kill shelters. Just in Richland and Lexington Counties over 23,000 dogs and cats entered the two main municipal shelters last year. Over 19,000 of those same dogs and cats are put to death. These are two of the better funded counties. In many SC county shelters dogs are not altered before being adopted out and it is not enforced that the new owners ever get then altered.

How can the pet overpopulation problem ever get better if shelters don't even spay/neuter an animal before adopting out!!! This is how SC Senator Williams was allowed to adopt Gretchen (for those who remember her story) and then breed her only to dump her BACK at the shelter two days before giving birth. Had the county enforced the STATE law that *all* shelter animals be altered then her ordeal would have been a little better. But shelters time and time again cite that there is no money in the budget to alter dogs before being adopted even though its a STATE LAW....so its not always the laws that are the problem!


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

I had to catch up. I printed out and read as much as possible, I still agree with the OP.









Can I copy it and send it to my local reps? 
I am ready to act on this. Put it to the vote. 

Now let's hear the owner's side.









From what I have read about importing, (not to bring it up again), some of it is OK. State to state, or to keep good bloodlines. 
But please from other countries, because we can help?? I do not think so, *we* have problems. 

Not to knock Petfinder. But just as the average Joe (that's me), I have rescued as much as I can from squirrels to dogs, but I am not anyone official. So like many of you look a Petfinder A LOT, probably to much. 
I cannot believe I maybe looking at imports. OR thinking wow what is going on in AK they have so many? 
Not that I am doing official research just my opinon. Now I know what I know is messed up because some of the animals may be from Mexico. 
Also I feel, The agencies on Petfinder need to be better defined. 
This is a non profit, been a rescue x about of days, etc. 

It just would have helped me to know what I know now about Shadow's rescue. 

Education is the key. In all area's of life. Even more so with this. I make my family and friends crazy with the "did you know?"








Even more so now that I come here.


----------



## tracyc (Feb 23, 2005)

This was in our paper today. I hadn't head of a "litter permit" idea before, and thought it made some sense--especially that they offer a refund to people who subsequently neuter their animal. 

Responsible breeders would have to incur an additional fee (which would be passed on to puppy buyers), but perhaps this might make casual BY breeders think twice? 

Thoughts? 





> Quote:SPRINGFIELD, Mo. — The City Council is considering fines and permits for people who try to sell or give away unwanted puppies and kittens born to their animals.
> 
> The proposals would require anyone who wants to give away or sell litters to pay the city $100 for a "litter permit."
> 
> ...


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Ok, didn't like that idea...I'll try again but first I have a few things to say that will more than likely piss you off. If it does, well, so be it, the intent is to help, even if you don't like hearing what I have to say. 

Just so you know, I am not thinking I will be providing the answer to world peace here. This is a bit of the same type of problem. It's a case of always putting out fires and never really being done. There is no finish line, you just try to keep it under control. There will not be one suggestion that accomplishes "enough". You will need to get over that thinking if you do really do want suggestions or ideas as the thread title suggests.

Before owning a kennel, I managed a very large business and my experience was that the great big ideas never solved much. It was always the little things that people wanted to immediately discount that had the biggest impact. That is if someone was willing to really listen and then implement those ideas. Resistance to those ideas was one of the biggest obstacles. Most of the employees would try to tell me they did not have time to try new things but usually those little ideas ended up saving them lots of time in the long run. People get stuck in how they do things and do not want to accept that maybe there is another way. They dismiss ideas as not doing enough to solve the problem and if they can't physically count the results, they assume there are none.. Well, there is rarely one thing that will completely solve any big problem. It has to be a multi pronged approach and it really is not a good idea to belittle people who offer suggestions since even the not so brilliant ideas can sometimes help even if it is just a little help. Even offering suggestions shows a willingness to help, so, how you respond to those people is important in my opinion. I have also seen old ideas that when implemented differently, really make a difference. Sometimes, it just comes down to using the old ideas the right way. 

You may think that everyone should just get on board and do it your way. Sorry, that ain't gonna happen, even if your way is the best way. Like the guy who is trying to change the image of shelters so people will be more willing to look for dogs there, IMO, the rescue groups could do a better job on their own image. I have read both threads about this topic. Almost every suggestion, even though they were asked for, was shot down and not really in a nice way. Just "yeah we are already doing that and it didn't work" or "it's not enough". Well, maybe you are not doing it right or maybe you have never tried it. Yes, I am certain that will make people angry but it just may be the truth.
It may be this situation does indeed need to be managed more like a business. Like the dogs I talked about. Yes, not all rescues operate that way but perhaps some of these dogs should have been put down. Not only for their sake but for the sake of keeping people available to take pets and to pass the word about where they got their nice dog. People who run around talking about the unstable, sick dog they got from the rescue is, well,.....not good for "business". May be some rescues are already doing that, so, no need to defend yourselves, I am just using that as an example here, not trying to point a finger or debate about what I just said.




> Quote: If breeders or anyone else doesn't like those proposals, we need alternatives that don't mean more work yet for us, or we need their help in the trenches. <snip>
> 
> We want to see the people who are making more dogs in the trenches with us, spending their weekends shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us trying to save animal's lives. <snip>
> 
> ...



Maybe it's not "enough" for you but I know how many dogs I have saved from the shelter and for one person, it's a decent number. I have not accomplished it the same way you do but that should not matter one bit. I know I am not alone and not the only person who does not do "formal rescue work" but is still making a difference any way they can. I think most people just don't feel the need to talk about it. You choose to involve yourself to the degree you talked about. That is your choice and what you want to do. Other people may be more limited in the time they devote but I sure would not belittle it. You already know you need all the help you can get and yet you seem to be saying that if people are not doing as much as you or doing it just like you do, then it's not enough. I think that may not be the right message to be sending. It turns people off. Whether it should or not is not the question, that is the reality. People like to feel good so IMO, someone is going to have to make this more that way instead of using the guilt button to try to motivate. You can scream all day about how breeders should do more because after all, it's THEIR FAULT. That approach just doesn't work . I have seen people do this in business and what you get is a whole bunch of unmotivated people walking around or in this case, people who will just choose not to deal with you or to help you. When I worked at a business I was the hardest worker in the place and yeah, it made me angry that everyone else didn't try as hard as I did. Once I became a manager, I found out the hard way that trying to make people into me, didn't work, in fact, it had the opposite effect. I was never satisfied that they were doing as much as I did. Then someone sat me down and basically told me that my management style sucked. I didn't like hearing that either but it did wake me up and made me realize that each person is different and that there was not a very good chance that someone was going to be just like me. People are alot like dogs. If you are going to work with them, you have to understand what motivates that individual. Just like a dog, if you take them out and club them over the head everyday, they will be slow, unmotivated and will try to avoid being around you. 
Volunteers are not being paid, they don't have to help you. So, the trick is, trying to motivate people to help, not beat them over the head and blame them at every turn. Maybe your posts have not always reflected that attitude but there it is a common thread that runs through all these topics. I enjoy trying to solve problems, that is why I was a good manager and that is why I am talking here. I also have a little thicker skin and can maybe handle it better than some others but there is a reason more breeders are not participating in this thread and I can assure you, it is not because they don't care or don't love dogs.





> Quote:The attitude that I see from a lot of breeders, even some of the better ones, is that as long as their house is in order, whatever is happening to the rest of the dogs is none of their concern


You may think some breeders are just minding their own business but you just might be surprised how many dogs some people are saving with, among other things, good sound advice that I talked about in my last post. Advice from people who really know their breed and train and work that breed daily is very valuable. I get lots of people coming to me with their GSD after they have been to numerous dog training classes. It is clear that most trainers do not understand aggressive breeds and really offer some hair brained advice when that is the problem. I have solved NUMEROUS problems for these people, if they make it up here before they give up.Most of it involves educating the people about the breed they own and how they need to handle that dog. I am in contact with my clients, most board their dogs here, so, I do know what I have accomplished. I even think some of the training advice on this board has made a difference. You can't count it in real numbers but I am betting it has. Charity begins at home and I do have to keep my house in order, that's true . If I didn't, there would be more dogs in rescues, so yeah, to me it is vital that I keep my house in order. If everyone did that , you wouldn't be talking on this thread. It's not a bad thing, so, you might want to be a bit less critical of it.

That's my suggestion and now here is one idea that I am certain will not "be enough". I know of a number of police depts and police training schools who are paired up with Animal Control agencies.When the AC gets in a dog they think might be a good prospect for a detection dog, they contact the dept or school and they go down and take a look. I know of MANY dogs who came from the pound doing detection work for police depts. I used to work with detection dogs and I also placed them on depts. All of mine I rescued from the pound. It was quite rewarding actually. Not only did the PDs benefit, the dogs were saved and placed in a situation they actually belonged in..... and they loved it. Detection work is all motivational and the dogs love doing it. I mentioned this to the owner of a GSD rescue in my area some years ago. Her response was a furious tirade about how badly the police treat dogs. I attempted to explain detection work to her but she was dead set against it. I always thought that was really too bad. 

Since 911, there is a huge demand for these dogs. There are many dogs here in the US who have the right aptitude and many are in the pound or in rescues. Just a thought and maybe something that can save a couple of dogs. You have to save them one at a time I think, there will be no answer for the entire problem. IMO, it is a case for many "little" answers and different approaches to the problem, and not just everyone manning the rescue or doing it exactly like you do.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Anne, I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the nature of my posts and I'm not sure what more I can say to clarify them. Nowhere did I say they were bad ideas, I said we need more help to implement them. And on a larger scale, what I was trying to explain was the need for a mindset shift. 

You make generalizations about rescues based on your observations and perceptions and rightly point out that other people do as well, but when I say what I've observed and perceived about breeders, then suddenly that's not kosher? It's the same thing! You've made some good points, they just need to be turned around and applied in the breeder direction as well. 

As far as the rest - It appears you are making a lot of assumptions about me, what I think, why I think it, and what I have done or not done or my experience working with communities or getting programs off the ground. Yes, I understand about motivating volunteers. Yes, I have tried these things. I run a rescue group the express purpose of which is to lower euthanasia rates at rural shelters. In the last 18 months we've saved something like 2000 dogs and we're a tiny group. I'm *not* saying that to brag - there are many people doing similar work and I am not doing this alone. I'm saying that maybe I do actually have some experience and knowledge in this area. And more than that, the other rescue people on this thread are saying similar things. You might conclude that's because we're fanatics or don't want to try new ideas but an alternative explanation is that we do this day in and day out and so we know a little something about it! I believe you know a lot about breeding and from what you've posted, a lot about training as well. It's what you do and you're experienced. The people that have posted here who do rescue are experienced in that arena so when we point out problems it's because of that experience not because we won't try anything new. 

The mindset that I object to is one I see so frequently - it's the "here's what YOU should do" mindset. It's not that they're bad ideas, it's that more people need to be involved to implement them any further than what it already happening and maybe some of the ideas should address that. What would be even better is if from time to time people would say "here's what _I_ can do." When you answer a question about how to solve pet overpopulation with suggestions for more things for rescuers to take on, you are talking to people who have been running flat out for miles and saying they need to sprint. There aren't more hours in the day and most rescuers are doing the very best they can. And no, it's not exactly what they've "chosen" to take on but this is another mindset difference and one I think may be impossible to explain. 

So thank you for your suggestions. I hope others continue to offer them as well. Now I have a couple questions which I'm sure you hold strong opinions on and on which I'd sincerely like your input: 

What can breeders do to combat pet overpopulation? Do the people making more dogs, however responsibly, have a social obligation to help? Why or why not?


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Man that is the 3rd time you have asked that question. I wish a breeder would answer you. 

Until then I want to promote the OP's post and let's put it into law. 

Laws are made for criminals (the byd, the uneducated, etc) for lack of a better term. 
In this situation the good breeders, show dogs, K9, service dogs, are going to have to take a few hits in this situation. 
Deperate times call for desperate measures. 

The day of OH, my dog had puppies let's show the kids, put up a sign let's give them away, are'nt they cute?? IS OVER. 

EVERYONE has to change. Easy for me to say, I do not making a living this way. 
It is just not my heart. I love GSD's and other breeds with all my heart, would love to see Shadow's children, but not on my watch...

I thank breeders, I would not have a GSD or other people would not if they did not protect them. 
Now protect all and let's just stop, slow down, clear the shelters. 

If people are serious about breeding or their business than any permit, fee or whatever to stop other less serious, will just be a temporay annoyance.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

Actually, I made no generalizations about Rescues. I talked about things I have seen with my own eyes. You talk about me assuming things about you but that is exactly what you are doing with breeders. You don't really know what they are doing. You don't know what I am doing other than what I just told you. Maybe there is more, how would you know? Almost all of my sentences started with maybe, I wasn't assuming anything, I was offering some advice based on my experiences trying to motivate people but you have already tried all those things so, nevermind. I made my comments based on your words and I provided those. Still, I don't know that you completely understood what I was trying to convey and I just don't have time to keep typing.

I already answered the first part of your question and what will my opinion do to help the pet over population problem? My opinion hasn't accomplished a thing on this thread.









I know when to quit and I think it is now. Good luck, sounds like you are saving lots of dogs, my hat is off to you.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Thanks for posting that Tracy. 

Hey you are kinda close, Hello in St. Louis. 

That is very interesting what is going on in St. Joe. I need to look into that. 

I read a MO law that stated a person could have up to 3 female dogs, and sell pups with no fee or permits. 

I wonder if this law in St. Joe, states a number of dog. 

MORE research. 

I have been contacting Jason Grill's office and E-mailing with someone to find out about laws, etc. and someone in Jeff City.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

> Quote:that is exactly what you are doing with breeders


Anne is maybe off this thread but I do want to address this - anything I've said about breeders, pro or con, is what I've observed - on this thread, in person, in rescue etc. As I've stated previously here and on other threads, I have no beef with breeders just because they're breeders but I do see pet overpopulation as a social problem and one that should concern all dog lovers. I think there are breeders who share that view and I appreciate them. 



> Quote: I already answered the first part of your question and what will my opinion do to help the pet over population problem? My opinion hasn't accomplished a thing on this thread.


Hmm. That's a good point. I guess I should have stated that better- I meant what ideas do you have for things breeders could be doing to combat pet overpopulation? Do breeders have any obligation to be doing anything to combat pet overpopulation? Why or why not? I have not seen these questions answered here or elsewhere. I have also asked several times what breeders feel their responsibility is to second generation offspring of the dogs they sell and no one has ever answered.









And if Anne is typed out (starting to feel that way myself







) maybe others could offer their ideas? 

My point is not to make this a bash-the-breeders thread, and definitely not to pit rescues against breeders in an ongoing conflict. I guess I am just mainly hearing breeders (observed, on the board and elsewhere, not assumptions) make suggestions for more things rescues can do. And since most breeders aren't in the trenches of rescue some of those suggestions, however well-intentioned, aren't viable either because they are already in place or won't work for reasons that might be obvious to rescuers but not necessarily to someone outside that realm. We've also heard the breeders talk about why some of the ideas coming from the rescuers are not good ideas and won't work based on their more in depth experience in breeding. It was that dynamic, in fact, that started the Chicago thread. 

So, I guess my question is what can each side do _themselves_ that helps? Maybe if we were to come at it that way, we'd make more progress.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

Man, I love this site.
I love how passonate everyone is. 

Vandal I went to your site you have posted. 

I am very impressed. The love, the committment, I cannot even begin to understand, as a pet owner. 
Your facility is so nice. If I lived in Cali I would leave my dog there for boarding in a sec. 

I wish I could pick a breeder, like you. Pick a puppy, that I thought was healthy, that had a guantee, etc. 
I dream of doing that. That would be so cool. I would buy a pup from you in a sec. 
You are so devoted. 

I am not kissing up or being condesending. I just wanted you to know. 

I just cannot do that. 
I have 3 throw aways. As long as there are throw aways, I cannot go pick out my pup. 
Just me. 
I almost passed Shadow by and kept fostering him because I told someone he is so beautiful (that is before I knew people preferred blk and tans) he will get adopted. 
Someone said you deserve him too. With all his troubles, I do not regret it. He needed me, I needed him. 

I wish there was a way to put all this passion together into one dog loving solution. 

But the only way I know to help is to keep giving them love and homes. 

I also want to take Shadow to places (school, etc.) and talk to kids. Educate.


----------



## lizziebo (Jun 26, 2008)

Well, I can share what influenced me when I was in the market for a GSD puppy. I considered buying one through the local GSD rescue, but the $500!!! adoption fee made me reconsider. I had to consider the risks I would be taking in getting a dog from a rescue -- possible behavioral issues that put it there, inability to see its parents (check out their temperaments), no papers (in case I wanted to enter competitions), health issues that may not be disclosed to me. I know that it costs money to run a rescue, but if I'm going to pay that much money for a dog, I'll just pay a little more and get it from a breeder.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

I do have to respond to that with information I have gotten through watching on the IMOM forum-anytime a dog comes in with an incredibly high estimate (or cat-same thing) I would always gasp and ask if they were in California-and that would be the case. Vetting there is SO high. Maybe = to the standard of living, I don't know and hard to tell but I know if I had my income there, I would maybe be able to afford one dog. 

So the rescue vets the dogs-HW test, treatment if necessary, speuter, bringing utd on shots, all the stuff that you may end up doing after purchasing a dog which may = > the amount of the dog. 

San Diego: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/CA1115.html
Orange County: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/CA997.html
Coastal: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/CA856.html
Westside: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/CA785.html

I am not sure if I got the So Cal GSD rescues but there are a lot of nice dogs there! Just in case anyone else wants to take a look. I also see that there are plenty more in the shelters there. 

Congrats on your pup-you have to want a rescue-and that's okay not to want one.


----------



## lizziebo (Jun 26, 2008)

Thanks, JeanKBBMMMAAN, for the congrats. My "pup" is now 3 1/2 years old ... I was really reaching back into my history for something to say. I'm glad to know that most rescues don't charge as much as the quote I got. I was bothered by the reference to "greedy breeders" somewhere in the thread because of my experience with the L.A. rescue. My suggestion, which I never actually got to, is that rescues should try to keep costs reasonable so that it makes sense to go that route. I live in L.A., and my vet bills aren't that bad. Also, there are all kinds of low-cost spay/neuter programs here that I'm sure rescues would have access to.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: I have a rather busy boarding kennel and I also train dogs for the public. I have a number of clients who have gotten their dogs through rescues, not all GSDS, other breeds as well. Now, while some of them have worked out just fine there are other situations where the rescue had been either less than honest or they didn't seem to know enough about the dog to place it properly.


Are the only dogs that you see with issues - medical and/or temperament - adopted from rescue? None of the dogs that come from breeders have any issues? Or is it just that you make a point of the dogs from rescues that have issues. No one here has said that rescues are infallible. Breeders aren't either. I know people who have purchased dogs from well regarded breeders and have had major health issues with the dogs. 

I think its wonderful that you stand behind your dogs, not all breeders do. Have you ever called a breeder of a dog who came into your care as a rescue and asked them to take the dog back only to be told "sorry, but no" ? I have and I'll bet that most people who have been involved in breed rescue for awhile have also. That is what causes many people in rescue to get bad opinions of breeders. Yet if a breeder contacted a rescue and asked for help placing a dog, I can pretty much guarantee that the breeder would never be told "sorry, no".



> Quote:The attitude that I see from a lot of breeders, even some of the better ones, is that as long as their house is in order, whatever is happening to the rest of the dogs is none of their concern.


Yep. It would be a wonderful thing if breeders and breed rescue worked together. In some breeds, breed rescue is an arm of the breed club with breeders being actively involved in rescue. Unfortunately, German Shepherds is not one of those breeds. 

Pupresq, as usual your posts were eloquently stated. I never saw where you were making presumptions about any one or doing any bashing, but had legitimate questions.



> Quote:I have also asked several times what breeders feel their responsibility is to second generation offspring of the dogs they sell and no one has ever answered.


Don't hold your breath.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

LuvmyGSD, was that fee perhaps including a refundable spay/neuter deposit? Rescues charging $500 for a puppy are not the norm. Rescues try extremely hard to keep adoption fees very reasonable. Usually they lose money on every dog adopted. Thats why they do so much fundraising, the adoption fees never cover the amount spent on the dog.


----------



## lizziebo (Jun 26, 2008)

Ninhar, I think they may charge more for the more desirable dogs/puppies to recoup costs on other dogs that don't get adopted as quickly. I'm not sure on that. I'm just glad that we have choices when it comes to finding the right dog. Hope it stays that way!


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

> Quote:Hmm. That's a good point. I guess I should have stated that better- I meant what ideas do you have for things breeders could be doing to combat pet overpopulation? Do breeders have any obligation to be doing anything to combat pet overpopulation? Why or why not? I have not seen these questions answered here or elsewhere. I have also asked several times what breeders feel their responsibility is to second generation offspring of the dogs they sell and no one has ever answered.


Breeders, even the small hobby breeders and the commercial breeders, have a market for their dogs. If they didn't, the breeders would soon be over-run with unwanted puppies. In some areas of the country, purebred, registered dogs can be bought for the same price as the adoption fee from a rescue or shelter. 

So maybe we should do something to make shelter pets more desirable. There is a huge supply -- we need to increase demand. How do we do this? Education of the public -- shelter pets and rescues can become excellent members of the family. Ask every dog trainer in the area for a certificate for a free set of classes for a rescue dog (I used to do this one all of the time when I was teaching classes). Law enforcement agencies are always on the look-out for a dog with a good nose. Many of the ones used by Customs are former shelter dogs. The St. Louis Police Department only uses donated dogs for their K-9 unit, most of which are GSD's with less than stellar histories. 

Responsible breeders already do things to prevent dogs from their breedings from adding to the pet problem -- we sell with s/n contracts (most of which are not inforceable by law, btw), we only breed when we want something for ourselves first, we keep in touch with buyers, and offer advice and help when they need it. If we quit breeding, then the only German Shepherds (or any other breed for that matter) will be the ones bred by people who don't really care about the dogs. 

As for the second generation -- I'm sorry, but not my problem. We as breeders try to screen not only the people we sell our dogs to, but also poeple we let breed to our stud dogs. At some point, it has got to be their responsibility, not mine.


----------



## Daisy1986 (Jul 9, 2008)

I was with you all the way until the last part, Andaka.
The second gen. not being your problem. I understand what you are saying. But that is the whole point of this post it is everyone's problem. 

The fee's for rescue and buying from a breeder are comparable, true. BUT..when you buy from a rescue, it includes so much that has already been done to the dog, microchipping, shots, HW testing...

I agree with your ideas on making shelter and rescue dogs more desiralbe through education, etc.


----------



## JanH (Jan 21, 2007)

*putting on flame suit* 

As far as making shelter pets more desirable...IMO that is not an issue. There are people who WANT a dog and are denied a home. That actually CREATES a demand for puppies. 

Some shelters and rescues are so inflexible they beg for help but when it comes time to give back then it's "against policy." An excellent example of this - I see things all the time on email begging for transport of dogs. Now go to the site and every one I've seen has stated absolutely no unspayed/unneutered dogs allowed on the trip or in the vehicle. Now here's the thinig...someone going to a show with room for a couple of those dogs *could transport* - if these rescues **truly** were interested in working with breeders rather than against them. I used to try to volunteer and got so sick of the 6th degree on it that it's just not worth it. And my case it wasn't 40-50 miles offering to haul it was up to 700. If I'm going from AL to IL and have room and dogs need a ride absolutely I'm willing to help. But neuter my show prospect or other dog in order to do it? 

There are a lot of dogs turned down for homes. One lady went to multiple shelters looking for a GSx and was given the runaround and denied dogs. She finally hit a shelter that a dog had grown up in the shelter and took him home. I've seen people turned down for a lot of reasons without regard to the details of the situation. It's been several years but I was turned down by a Pyr rescue when I lived in CA. I *wanted* a spayed dog, had a fenced area, would have daily interaction and training, had a 100 gallon tank of water and private place to eat. The reason for denial - central coast CA the dog HAD to live in the house....not just shelter but *in the house*. Now my goats didn't live in the house. How was the dog going to alarm bark if he wasn't with the goats? It was not too hot/cold either! 

I've seen people turned down because both people worked and the dog would be alone (one worked nights, one days, dog would be alone *maybe* a half hour per day). Others are turned down because they don't work. Some are turned down because it's a farm and the dog might get hurt. The dog might have a long life too rather than being put to sleep for "lack of a home." Some are denied because the older owner might die. One was denied because of not having a fenced yard, without regard to what WAS in place (training, medical care, a covered pen for the dog when outside, loose with the owner most of the time during the day, inside when it was hot). 

In every case these folks went and got from a breeder...the lack of AVAILABLE dogs DRIVES demand for dogs. People hear stuff like this and think "if THAT home isn't good enough I don't have a chance of getting one - our home is imperfect". 

Now I try discussing this and get flamed for 457 ways I'm wrong. I've fostered dogs - I know the work that goes into retraining. That doesn't stop getting my head bit off for suggesting part of the problem is the unwillingness to PLACE dogs. 

The dogs aren't perfect either - they wouldn't usually be there if they were. But some of the best dog-owner bonds are imperfect dogs and imperfect people. 

I've even had 'rescues' tell me that the pups I found, trained, got in condition again were not of value because they weren't from a shelter. Now if I'd taken those dogs and dumped them at a shelter they'd be valued and worth getting a home?! It's the same dog with the same amount of time put on him. The fact is after 6-8 months handling the dog I knew WAAY more about him than the stray that's been at the shelter for 3 days. I never did find homes for those pups and they'll be here until they die. 

As long as shelters and rescues are importing from other countries it's hard to justify that there's a pet overpopulation. Yes I'm well aware of the number of dogs killed in the south. So why are they worth less than a dog from Taiwan or Puerto Rico or China? 

I've seen shelters and rescues that would rather kill dogs than give them homes - they were valued statistics when dead. I offered at one shelter to test any herding breed and livestock guardian breed - at my expense with my livestock - for working suitability and if they passed - again at my expense - I would train them so they could go to permanent homes. I'd do it under contract, it would cost the county and shelter nothing and they get the $ from adoptions. NO! They would rather kill the dogs than let them be tested for an hour or so. 

I no longer believe most shelters/rescues have the interests of the DOG at heart. Some do. I've heard all the excuses and reasons and all...but the fact is for many many dogs there ARE homes that want them. There's people BEGGING for suitable livestock working dogs in some areas due to strays getting into livestock - but can't get a shelter to let them get one. 
Not only does that dog not get a home, but it then creates a demand for breeders or puppy producers. And those people are criticized for being the reason for pet overpopulation...yet they wouldn't have a market if many of these people could get rescue dogs. 
Certainly a good home is wanted. But no home is perfect, not mine, not yours. We all do the best we can by our dogs and those who come through our lives. I have been so discouraged trying to work with shelters/rescue I have pretty much given up - and as far as being a breeder my last purebred litter was 6 years old and the 2 girls lost to a dog food issue earlier this year. Most of what's in the house now is mutts - including the remaining ones taken in so they wouldn't get hit and killed on the street. 

There was a time when I had the goats and sheep I could have placed a handful of guardian dogs every month - in good, permanent homes. I couldn't find a shelter in the southwest (where I was at the time) to work with me to do that. I had three pens for training. I had the stock. 

I believe there is more demand than people think - but restrictions and policies prevent the dog from getting the home so people quit trying and quit thinking of shelters and rescues as a viable place because even if they found the perfect dog for them they couldn't have him.


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Quote: I've seen shelters and rescues that would rather kill dogs than give them homes - they were valued statistics when dead.


Rescues don't kill dogs unless they have severe medical or behavioral issues that make them unadoptable. They don't kill because a dog has been in rescue too long or due to space issues. If you have fostered dogs for a rescue you would know that. 

Quality breeders generally have the same requirements as rescues do to ensure that the dog goes to a good home.


----------



## JanH (Jan 21, 2007)

True rescues d;-/on't kill dogs themselves - but when full up they can't take dogs that are killed in shelters. There's only so much room with foster homes. If every home is full and a dog comes in - there isn't room - the dog dies in the shelter but because the rescue was full. 

*shrugs* question what I've done - blow it off I don't care. The fact is many people want dogs and have been turned down...and go to breeders whether "quality" in our eyes or whatever. They are good home that get a dog...that could have been a shelter dog. But whatever.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Tell them to come to KY. They could walk into most shelters here, say they were going to tie the dog to a tree in their backyard, and walk out with a dog. And yet, as nonexistant as most shelter's adoption policies are, the shelters are STILL full. Amazing. 

Good homes can find dogs in shelters if they want them. Being turned down because of "too high standards" and "having to get a dog from a breeder" is simply an excuse that people make because they for whatever reason don't want to say that they just decided to get a dog from a breeder. 

So, just to get this straight - the second generation dogs from breeders aren't their problems but the dogs dying in shelters are mine? Because I volunteer to help the ones I can? And if I decide I don't want to place the foster dog I've just nursed back to health, housebroken, trained, whatever, with someone who will keep him outside then suddenly I don't "have the best interest of the dog at heart" and would rather kill dogs than see them placed? 

Um, yeah. Okay.


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

Nobody wants to offer ANY ideas on this one? 



> Quote: what ideas do you have for things *breeders* could be doing to combat pet overpopulation?


Anyone?


----------



## ninhar (Mar 22, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: JanHTrue rescues d;-/on't kill dogs themselves - but when full up they can't take dogs that are killed in shelters. There's only so much room with foster homes. If every home is full and a dog comes in - there isn't room - the dog dies in the shelter but because the rescue was full.
> 
> *shrugs* question what I've done - blow it off I don't care. The fact is many people want dogs and have been turned down...and go to breeders whether "quality" in our eyes or whatever. They are good home that get a dog...that could have been a shelter dog. But whatever.


Jan, If you can blame rescues for dogs dieing in shelters, then obviously you don't understand how rescue works. They work to find the best fit home for a dog in their care so that the dog doesn't end up in the system again. Just because you can provide a home, doesn't mean its a good home. Rescues commit to a dog for the life of the dog. 

Quality breeders have the same requirements for their homes that rescues do. They screen applicants for the best home for their pups. They take their dogs back if for any reason the home does not work out. They are not just breeding dogs to make a quick buck. 

So sorry, your rant is the same old anti rescue rhetoric from an applicant who has been turned down. Other than to blame rescues for the overpopulation issue, it has no bearing.


----------



## JanH (Jan 21, 2007)

My point was some blame the rescues, some blame the breeders, some blame potential owners for not being perfect. But I will pass along to the home that had a Pyr from 8 weeks until over 10 years when he had to be put to sleep due to cancer then was unsuitable despite the current dog being healthy and happy and now 3 years old that there's a lack of committment there. 

And I'll be sure to mention to the foster dog I kept because it was in his best interest that this is a bad home. 

For what its worth it wasn't a rant - a question was asked and instead of discussion it's not even considered. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in there. My own dogs taken on for life as well as the multiple ones dumped here, thankfully, don't know this is a bad home. They love it and are safe here


----------

