# Buy a dog - Kill a dog..



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

The message being pushed by PETA and many Rescues as well as many 'animal activists'... 

Have they lost the plot?

Do you agree with this message?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se0EMHOYBkU


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Ps How do I embed a youtube video into my post like others are doing..


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

That's a pretty disturbing video. I don't personally care what others think. Almost all my dogs are rescues from the shelter, the street, Craigslist, and rescue groups. Twice now I was in contact with a breeder and both times I ended up with dogs from the shelter and the side of the road. The way I see it, a dog through a breeder is safe and will find a home and hopefully end up with a good home or back at the breeders and not in the shelter. Shelter dogs font have that time or luxury. It's a personal choice and nobody should fault anyone for their choice.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

Never mind, didn't work for me either.

Warped bullying tatics, I'll get the dog I want.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Because PETA is all about saving lives. http://www.whypetaeuthanizes.org/

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/PETA2014.pdf


----------



## WirelessG (Jan 22, 2013)

PETA wandered off mentally years ago. Like most causes, they started out trying to make a point, but they couldn't stop there and went as far as to send the President a safe fly catcher, hoping he would use that rather than swat at a fly.

I have a rescue dog and a breeder's dog. I like them both (in fact the rescue is the smartest, most interesting dog I've ever known). I would be hesitant to buy a GSD without knowing what sort of hips it has. 

Unfortunately, rescue dogs will continue to exist as long as people continue to buy dogs and treat them like a toy or an ornament.


----------



## jafo220 (Mar 16, 2013)

llombardo said:


> That's a pretty disturbing video. I don't personally care what others think. Almost all my dogs are rescues from the shelter, the street, Craigslist, and rescue groups. Twice now I was in contact with a breeder and both times I ended up with dogs from the shelter and the side of the road. The way I see it, a dog through a breeder is safe and will find a home and hopefully end up with a good home or back at the breeders and not in the shelter. Shelter dogs font have that time or luxury.* It's a personal choice and nobody should fault anyone for their choice.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> I totally agree with this.
> 
> Before buying Cruz as a pup from a breeder, I tried to adopt from a local GSD rescue. I took me 45 minutes or so to fill out their questionnaire only to not ever be contacted by them. I've owned numerous other GSD's so I couldn't understand why I was not contacted. I really would have loved to adopt one. But it left me with one choice and direction. Buy from a breeder. I know I'm not the only one who has had this kind of experience. A GSD is what I wanted, it's what I got. It's my time my money and my life. Sounds selfish, but it is what it is.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Take the alpha numeric digits *after* the v= in this case se0EMHOYBkU paste them into the following bolded syntax with the square brackets enclosing.

*youtube*XXXXXXXXX*/youtube*

Use square brackets around youtube and /youtube.... [] and []



Lykoz said:


> Ps How do I embed a youtube video into my post like others are doing..


----------



## Zeusthegsd143 (Nov 24, 2014)

I don't believe I am killing a dog when I buy. It's my choice and I'd rather know where my dog came from. But I do understand rescuing it's great but I'd never hate on someone for buying from a reputable breeder.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

the people that are killing the dogs are the ones who are dumping them in a shelter or allowing it to happen.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Testing embedding video.

To make this post relevant I will try post the video (reffered in another thread) of the add by GoDaddy, that was pulled. 

Peta reffered to that video when posting their video on their facebook page. It was kind of a video reply:






Thank you Gwen


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

hmm, doesn't look like your embedded video is working Lykoz.

Is it working for you? I just see a white box.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> hmm, doesn't look like your embedded video is working Lykoz.
> 
> Is it working for you? I just see a white box.


It was white. Now it is working for me. I think you should be able to see it too now.

It didnt work because I had square brackets like this:

[..]
XXX
[/..]

Was meant to be

[..]XXX[/..]

When I changed to second... It worked... Don't know why first method did not work  but hey as long as it works.
Thanks for your help. much appreciated. I would have never figured that out alone.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

I can see it


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

onyx'girl said:


> the people that are killing the dogs are the ones who are dumping them in a shelter or allowing it to happen.


Amen. A dog's fate is not decided by whether it or any other dog comes from a breeder, rescue, shelter, etc. or by the actions of others, whether they buy or rescue a dog. The dog's fate is decided by the people who care for it and whether they choose to stay true to that commitment or abandon their dog. 

It's irresponsible ownership that kills dogs of all kinds.


----------



## Rei (Oct 10, 2008)

The whole "when you buy, shelter dogs die!" is such a load of junk. For one, if I did adopt it would be through private rescue and from a foster home, and the local ones here have a no kill policy. Soon PETA will be ripping on anyone who doesn't actually, literally save a life by either choosing a dog about to be pts that day, or by running into a burning building. 

Secondly, choosing a dog doesn’t work like that. In _this _context, a dog is not a dog is not a dog. If I was not able to get the type of dog I wanted (working bred, from a breeder, etc.), I’m not going to shrug my shoulders and say “oh well, guess I’ll go adopt a Pekingnese from a high kill shelter now!”. Those are two different types of dogs that serve very, very different purposes, and one doesn’t just replace the other. 

Essentially my decision to buy a dog from a breeder has nothing to do with me choosing not to adopt a dog about to be PTS. Those are two completely separate decisions. When I start looking for a dog, I’m not looking in general. When I decide to get a dog, I already have a very specific idea of what I want, and that includes where the dog comes from (whether it's a breeder or rescue/shelter dog).


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Good deal, I can see it now too. 

On the topic, I don't agree with PETAs message and I used to support them.

I changed my mind because breeders here (Anne/Vandal was key in this) and that I know personally explained their side. I could also see how this sensationalism was extending into everything dog/pet related. IMO it's become so pervasive and overwhelming that it's actually defeating the purpose of keeping pets out of shelters.

Most things like this start out with good intentions but then, in order to grow/survive/gain more power, resort to sensationalism and it can snowball.

This extremism has crept slowly but surely into the rescue world as well as I tried to explain in the other thread. 

I say this with humility too, because I used to be 100% on board with the 'fur babies' and anti breeder band wagon. 

I've seen the light....now looking back what I see is getting worse, more shrill, more antagonistic and I don't like it at all and won't support it.

I still care about the unwanted dogs/cats and animals that have been abused too. I am going to approach this problem with a different mind set and have been for the last few weeks working actively to tackle these problems from a proactive approach, rather then over-reactive. Working with local pet businesses and trainers, I'm going to test my idea, I hope it works and that I'm not demonized for it.......we'll see.





Lykoz said:


> It was white. Now it is working for me. I think you should be able to see it too now.
> 
> It didnt work because I had square brackets like this:
> 
> ...


----------



## maxtmill (Dec 28, 2010)

Rei said:


> The whole "when you buy, shelter dogs die!" is such a load of junk. For one, if I did adopt it would be through private rescue and from a foster home, and the local ones here have a no kill policy. Soon PETA will be ripping on anyone who doesn't actually, literally save a life by either choosing a dog about to be pts that day, or by running into a burning building.
> 
> Secondly, choosing a dog doesn’t work like that. In _this _context, a dog is not a dog is not a dog. If I was not able to get the type of dog I wanted (working bred, from a breeder, etc.), I’m not going to shrug my shoulders and say “oh well, guess I’ll go adopt a Pekingnese from a high kill shelter now!”. Those are two different types of dogs that serve very, very different purposes, and one doesn’t just replace the other.
> 
> Essentially my decision to buy a dog from a breeder has nothing to do with me choosing not to adopt a dog about to be PTS. Those are two completely separate decisions. When I start looking for a dog, I’m not looking in general. When I decide to get a dog, I already have a very specific idea of what I want, and that includes where the dog comes from (whether it's a breeder or rescue/shelter dog).


Amen to that! I agree.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

One more thought on this (which is what Anne raised my awareness of):

This isn't just PETA. This whole animal rights and 'pets are people too' meme has created a perfect storm. It also benefits large pet supply companies who would have consumers spend more and more on their pets. How better to do that? Well make people feel like they have to treat their dogs like they treat their real human children. 

That falls right into the PETA paradigm, probably not intentionally, but a long view would show both of these trends are counter-productive to pet ownership if left unchecked.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> One more thought on this (which is what Anne raised my awareness of):
> 
> This isn't just PETA. This whole animal rights and 'pets are people too' meme has created a perfect storm. It also benefits large pet supply companies who would have consumers spend more and more on their pets. How better to do that? Well make people feel like they have to treat their dogs like they treat their real human children.
> 
> That falls right into the PETA paradigm, probably not intentionally, but a long view would show both of these trends are counter-productive to pet ownership if left unchecked.


Agree completely.


----------



## brembo (Jun 30, 2009)

It's PETA, total white noise in my opinion. Easy to ignore.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

brembo said:


> It's PETA, total white noise in my opinion. Easy to ignore.


The 'white noise' is causing the majority of population to follow them... It might be white noise to you... But many in the public dont know peta or have an opinion on their policies... What they do know is they like dogs and they seem to be 'fighting the good fight'..

In another thread, a poster who was breeder talked about some new laws in the states, possibly going towards banning import of dogs?

'Animal Activists' are certainly campaigning for that over here...

People don't seem to care because it's not effecting them now...

When suddenly the pure bred GSD's start to get weaker, with more health problems... It will already be too late...

Will we make noise only if buying dogs is banned? (This will likely never happen)... But compromises will be made making pure bred dogs that are healthy more rare to come-by...


----------



## AKgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

While the ideal of adopting a shelter dog makes people feel warm and fuzzy, it's not that simple. We initially looked at pups from shelters and found many, many adolescent dogs that were train wrecks .
In addition to being untrained they were Under-socialized and with children in my home I just couldnt take that risk. I bought a puppy from a breeder knowing that if I made mistakes in raising and training her,
I could pinpoint and hopefully fix them. Feel like adopting a ? Dog with zero health tests and who knows what kind of
Parents does little to promote breed standards or a positive image of the breed, in General. If you want a mixed breed dog, absolutely go adopt one. Good for You! I applaud you! For me, personally, it makes more sense to support a solid breeding program so that when I bring my healthy, normal even keeled dog into a public space, she promotes the breed as well as dog ownership in general. I've met several rescued Shepherds. They tend to be a little neurotic and fearful, and promote the idea that GSD are neurotic and aggressive! I have three rescued dogs that I train with and They all have serious issues. Dog reactive, under socialized, pee on the walls, hate people. etc. I've met one rescued dog ever that didn't have at least one major problem. And although I REALLY admire those that have the training ability and time to deal with all the crud that comes with rescuing a dog someone else screwed up first,'it's really Not for everybody. Promoting responsible pet ownership by telling puppy buyers that they are murderers? Really?...the people that are responsible for those dogs being screwed up are the breeders of crazy dogs for profit and the people that take them home and don't do a single thing to turn them into a good adult dog. That's not on me, it's on them.


----------



## pianocandy (Dec 16, 2014)

AKgirl said:


> While the ideal of adopting a shelter dog makes people feel warm and fuzzy, it's not that simple. We initially looked at pups from shelters and found many, many adolescent dogs that were train wrecks .
> In addition to being untrained they were Under-socialized and with children in my home I just couldnt take that risk. I bought a puppy from a breeder knowing that if I made mistakes in raising and training her,
> I could pinpoint and hopefully fix them. Feel like adopting a ? Dog with zero health tests and who knows what kind of
> Parents does little to promote breed standards or a positive image of the breed, in General. If you want a mixed breed dog, absolutely go adopt one. Good for You! I applaud you! For me, personally, it makes more sense to support a solid breeding program so that when I bring my healthy, normal even keeled dog into a public space, she promotes the breed as well as dog ownership in general. I've met several rescued Shepherds. They tend to be a little neurotic and fearful, and promote the idea that GSD are neurotic and aggressive! I have three rescued dogs that I train with and They all have serious issues. Dog reactive, under socialized, pee on the walls, hate people. etc. I've met one rescued dog ever that didn't have at least one major problem. And although I REALLY admire those that have the training ability and time to deal with all the crud that comes with rescuing a dog someone else screwed up first,'it's really Not for everybody. Promoting responsible pet ownership by telling puppy buyers that they are murderers? Really?...the people that are responsible for those dogs being screwed up are the breeders of crazy dogs for profit and the people that take them home and don't do a single thing to turn them into a good adult dog. That's not on me, it's on them.


We have a rescue and we got lucky....a pup who was picked up on the side of the road at 7 weeks, went straight to a foster home with two other dogs to teach her the ropes, and we specifically picked a rescue who respected what we needed (people and dog friendly, shown herself to be trainable, etc.) We don't have the know-how to be able to deal with extra behavioural issues and I have 60 other people's kids coming into the house every week so we couldn't take that risk. I emphasize we got lucky that we found a rescue to work with us. I have a feeling the next pup will be purchased...I think it would be much worse for us and the dog to take a dog with issues. I don't however believe that means I shouldn't be allowed to have a dog....


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Sometimes rescues are a good place to adopt. It's sort of like breeders though, you have to vet the rescues too. Some of them do a good job assessing the dogs and their health, temperament and even do some training. 

Other rescues do not and we had one nearby me that was a total farce. The women who ran it was clueless but thought she was a dog whisperer. Of she couldn't train the dog she would euth it or dump it in another shelter. It finally caught up with her and she closed up her 'rescue'.

We have an excellent GSD rescue here that is run by a person involved in IPO and works with a really good trainer. She is business like and efficient too. If I ever wanted another rescue I would take a dog from her in a heartbeat. She is also not a PETA anti breeder person as she has puppies for IPO that she got from a breeder.


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

We have rescued and gone with a breeder. Our first dog, Roxy, came from a no-kill shelter, was adopted out twice and returned twice before we got her. We were complete newbies and definitely didn't do enough research on where we were getting our dog from. There was no temperament testing done, we weren't really given a clear picture of what we were taking home with us. We fell in love with her and took her home, then we spent the next two years getting her over her fear of strangers, total lack of obedience, lack of leash manners, lack of socialization... you get the picture. While I wouldn't trade Roxy for anything, and she was worth the effort, we didn't want to go through that again this time (especially with a GSD), so we went with a reputable breeder and couldn't be happier so far. I have no doubt we'll adopt again in the future, but we will make sure to do our homework before we take another shelter dog home.

I don't think purchasing a dog from a reputable breeder contributes to the abundance of dogs in shelters. I think people who consider animals to be disposable are the problem. People who get a dog and dump them because- SURPRISE!- a dog is a lot of work are the problem. Perhaps PETA should go after them instead of people buying dogs from reputable breeders.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

What is the purpose of this thread? To bash rescue? Or to bash PETA? PETA has been around for a long time and people have been adopting dogs from shelters for a long time. I don't care for PETA's tactics but I do support responsible local shelters and rescues. We have a pet overpopulation problem in this country and it's not a new thing. 

Why on earth would you want to bash rescues and shelters? Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Are they really adversely affecting responsible breeders? Because the good breeders I know of work with rescue because they care about the breed!!!!!!!! 

There have been responsible breeders for just as long as there have been irresponsible breeders. I remember when I was a kid my Siamese cat (purchased by my mom) had a litter because that was thought to be the healthiest thing back then. Same with our next cat. Then we gave them away to whoever wanted them. Then my mom got educated that it was better to spay the cat and not let her have kittens because we had a serious cat overpopulation problem. 

Is it a bad thing that more people are adopting instead of buying a dog on impulse out of the newspaper or from the flea market or farmer's market or off of Craigslist? Because that is the way that the majority of people who buy from breeders have been buying dogs. Then those same people often dump the dog in a shelter, or, in the old days, tied them to a tree in the woods or dumped them out in the country. And then those dogs were not-very-humanely euthanized because no one wanted a dog from the shelter. 

I have owned dogs for 29 years and cats for longer. None have been from breeders. None will ever be from breeders because I don't need a dog from a breeder. I just want a nice hiking and walking companion. I have friends who have purchased from responsible breeders and friends and relatives who have purchased from irresponsible breeders because they saw a cute puppy. Their decisions do not affect me but usually my dogs are great ambassadors for rescue because I train my dogs and take good care of them and people fall in love with them. 

I know that several of my dogs (Massie, Chama, and Rafi) have been the inspiration for others to adopt dogs and I am very happy about that. These are people who wanted a nice family companion and that's what they got. 

Yes, there are irresponsible shelters and rescues out there. Do your due diligence and be sure you are not supporting one of those. And, even better, volunteer at one of the responsible ones and help the dogs and cats find good homes. 

Kudos to anyone who read this far: I just can't understand why people feel so compelled to bash rescues and shelters! :headbang:


----------



## GypsyGhost (Dec 29, 2014)

BowWowMeow- I hope my post didn't come off as shelter/rescue bashing. I am aware that there are wonderful rescues and shelters out there and fully support them. Adopting from where we did was COMPLETELY our fault. We had never had a dog before, and honestly, didn't know what we were getting ourselves into. We didn't know the importance of adopting from a really good rescue. We do now, though! 

Like I said, I wouldn't trade Roxy for anything, but a reputable rescue would not have adopted her out to us, seeing as though she was to be our first dog and we basically had no dog experience other than family dogs when my husband and I were kids. 

Basically, I'm pro-responsible dog ownership, regardless of where that dog comes from. It just saddens me that anyone would try to make someone feel bad for getting a dog from a reputable breeder instead of a shelter.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

BowWowMeow said:


> What is the purpose of this thread? To bash rescue? Or to bash PETA? PETA has been around for a long time and people have been adopting dogs from shelters for a long time. I don't care for PETA's tactics but I do support responsible local shelters and rescues. We have a pet overpopulation problem in this country and it's not a new thing.
> 
> Why on earth would you want to bash rescues and shelters? Do you have nothing better to do with your time? Are they really adversely affecting responsible breeders? Because the good breeders I know of work with rescue because they care about the breed!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Take a deep breath... Relax... Nobody is bashing anyone... I am bashing a message in a video... Which in my opinion is WRONG...

I support shelters (Not directly but through my groomer, who has fund raising initiatives all the time)... I have also adopted a dog before...

But just because they rescue dogs... Does NOT GIVE THE THE RIGHT TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT....

PETA IS CLEARLY WRONG HERE... WHEN I BUY A DOG I DONT KILL ANOTHER DOG...

FURTHERMORE to add insult to INJURY NOT ALL DOG SHELTERS ARE GOOD....

SOME ARE JUST FRONTS TO STEAL MONEY...

I have seen 'shelters' keep dogs in deplorable conditions... They fill themseleves up.. make no attempt at placing the dogs... They just keep then for 12 days... Get a grant from government and or donations from dog lovers... Kill dogs thereafter... Sometimes even create fake fundraisers that they are going to 'send the dog overseas to the UK'... Online funds.. with cute pictures of dogs... raising large sums of money very quickly.
I have even seen shelters feed dogs to each other... Or even dogs kill each other out of hunger...

The fact is as with ANYTHING in life... There is no such thing... As ah shame they are raising funds for dogs... Lets support them...

Its about visibility... Its about sending the right messages...

Obviously lots of shelters are doing great work... I give donations often... Money that could be spent on orphaned children... Or disease research... It's all subjective...

My post was against the video... It was against idiots supporting shelters irrelevant of what they do... They also need to be held accountable...

No regulation + Money is the breeding ground of all FUps.

Wake up... It is not all sunshine and rainbows... The world is an evil place.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> PETA IS CLEARLY WRONG HERE... WHEN I BUY A DOG I DONT KILL ANOTHER DOG...
> 
> FURTHERMORE to add insult to INJURY NOT ALL DOG SHELTERS ARE GOOD....
> 
> ...


Is English not your language? 
You clearly do not understand the difference between shelters, rescues and PETA. Shelters (sometimes called dog pounds) are run by and funded by local governments. Rescues are privately operated usually by donations and PETA is a an animal rights organization. PETA tries to influence politics and legislation. You can not use the terms interchangeably. They are entirely different entities with different goals and resources.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> Is English not your language?
> You clearly do not understand the difference between shelters, rescues and PETA. Shelters (sometimes called dog pounds) are run by and funded by local governments. Rescues are privately operated usually by donations and PETA is a an animal rights organization. PETA tries to influence politics and legislation. You can not use the terms interchangeably. They are entirely different entities with different goals and resources.


You are right, sort of... maybe in the USA and other countries....been corrected on this more than once... And frankly I don't care... I dont confuse PETA with shelters/rescues... But I do use the other two interchangeably...

I am using them interchangeably, because I am not going to sit and write the same points for each one..

Where their funding comes from, is not so relevant, as the fact of the points I am making... If the one is kill and the other is no-kil.. Its also irrelevant... Because when a no-kill closes its doors, or cant support some dogs anymore they may/or may not send them back to death row...

I even used quotation marks this time. Fit in the right word... I don't care for valid arguments to be broken down on semantics.

In the country I am in, in many cases local cities does not provide for shelters... So sometimes all their is available are independent Rescues, as you put it... And some-times government funds them/gives them grants.....

Its not as clear cut as you make it out to be all over the world...

Every point I made can easily apply to all of them.. 

Again.. I support rescue efforts... Just need transparency/accountability/social consciousness to come with saving dogs...


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Lykoz said:


> You are right, sort of... maybe in the USA and other countries....been corrected on this more than once... And frankly I don't care... *I dont confuse PETA with shelters/rescues... But I do use the other two interchangeably...*
> 
> I am using them interchangeably, because I am not going to sit and write the same points for each one..
> 
> ...


Are you sure you don't confuse PETA with shelters and rescues? This is what you said in your very first post. *"The message being pushed by PETA and many Rescues as well as many 'animal activists'... "*

Seems to me, you are lumping them all together. And no, you cannot use rescue and shelter interchangeably, because they are not the same - not in his country. They are completely different in the US, so you are going to get arguments every time you lump them together.

I don't even know what you mean by a no-kill. If you are speaking of rescues, they are no kill. They don't close their doors and send dogs to kill shelters. Rescue dogs are in foster homes, not in facilities. 

Bottom line - Some breeders are better than others. Some shelters are better than others. Some rescues are better than others. It is up to each individual to do his/her homework to find a good breeder, good shelter, or good rescue to work with. Some breeder dogs may have issues. Some shelter dogs may have issues. Some rescue dogs may have issues. Rescue dogs come from shelters. The vast majority of shelter dogs are NOT lost causes. Shelter dogs are NOT substandard.

I don't care where people get their dogs. If they are happy with their dogs, that is all that matters. I am tired of these types of threads, where people get all butt hurt, because somebody looked down on them for getting a dog from a breeder, or somebody thought their dog was inferior, because it came from a rescue or shelter. Get over it. 

I have been a member here for years. My current dogs are shelter dogs. My previous GSD was a shelter dog. In the 6 or 7 years I have been a member, no one has ever said an unkind word about any of my dogs. When Annie died, in 2012 and I got a hound mix puppy, people were happy for me. Nobody told me take my hound loving butt elsewhere. When I posted pictures of my new puppy, people said she was cute.

My new puppy might be a PB GSD, or a mix. Her ears might go up, or they might not. I really don't care one way or the other. Most importantly, I don't care what anyone else thinks about my dogs. I don't care if people think they are ugly, or stupid, or less special, because they are shelter dogs. Why should I care what anyone else thinks? They are mine and I love them.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Are you sure you don't confuse PETA with shelters and rescues? This is what you said in your very first post. *"The message being pushed by PETA and many Rescues as well as many 'animal activists'... "*
> 
> Seems to me, you are lumping them all together. And no, you cannot use rescue and shelter interchangeably, because they are not the same - not in his country. They are completely different in the US, so you are going to get arguments every time you lump them together.
> 
> ...


Are you serious?

I not once said anything bad about shelter dogs... You are losing the point of the thread entirely...

Does not change the fact that many people from shelters/rescues/peta push the idea that buying a dog=killing a dog... Its a common theme... A common mentality... And I believe that is completely wrong... I am sorry if you believe those statements are correct...

Maybe I should start marketing the idea, that donating to a shelter = killing a human child... or not feeding a child dying of hunger... This would just be nonesence... There is no connection..

Its a ridiculous association to imbue buying dogs with killing other dogs...

In a perfect world with only responsible breeders and good owners... There would be no problem... 

In fact I would be very interested to know how many top breeders dogs actually end up in shelters? Most responsible breeders often have a "buy back- or require you to give the dog back to them as the first option"...

The fact remains that victimising all bought dogs is unfair... The people that get dogs from really good breeders are not the ones adding or creating the problem.

As far as good work done by Shelters, Recue people... I wont include PETA, because they have too much misinformation... Yes they are invaluable... And people who adopt dogs need a special mention, and a thank you by society...

But for every good... There is some bad too.. And we should not let anyone have carte blanche, and tell us that we "are killing dogs" when we buy them...

It is not fair... 

Sure there are bad owners/bad breeders, but there are also good ones...
Similarly there are good shelters... But there are also bad aspects... 

Again they should have us on their side... Not be against us..

The dog has evolved from selective breeding.. Without it there would be no dogs... We would still have wolves in their original form...

If PETA and co. are going to push the message that buying=killing... Maybe they should start adopting pigs too, so they dont get slaughtered... Their whole campaign has completely lost the plot... And people are unfortunately buying their rubbish...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> Does not change the fact that many people from shelters/rescues/peta push the idea that buying a dog=killing a dog...


I really don't think you understand shelters in the USA.

"An animal shelter is a facility that houses and disposes of homeless, lost, or abandoned animals; mostly dogs and cats. In the past, such a shelter was more commonly referred to as a dog pound, a term which had its origins in the impoundments of agricultural communities, where stray cattle would be penned up or impounded until claimed by their owners."

Many of the people who work for shelters would be fired for voicing an opinion on buying a dog. They are government employees plain and simple. They must follow the rule and they are not allowed to push political agendas. They are like the police or fire department. It is a government service. They do not background check or have rules about fences or intact dogs in the household (other than their state laws which they have to follow) They enforce local animal ordinances and they deal with all animals not just dogs. 

You are confusing the heck out of people here with your improper terminology. We can't understand your rants against shelter dogs because anyone can pay the fee and walk away with a dog or cat. 

I personally have 1 rescue dog and two shelter dogs and I also had a dog from a breeder who just recently passed.


----------



## AKgirl (Jan 14, 2015)

If by definition a "rescue" is no-kill and all animals in a rescue end up well treated and trained in foster homes, then that leaves the shelter pets that are being killed "every time a person buys a puppy." All of the dogs I referred to came from shelters, but they are all "rescued," just ask their owners! They were saved from execution!  I never meant that shelter dogs were second rate or "bad" or not worth investing in, just that without any temperament testing or basic training or anything, to hand an inexperienced adopter a leash with a cute adolescent or adult dog at the end and saying "happy trails" isn't really setting them up for success, especially not first time owners. 
People that adopt human children over the age of about two have to be prepared for behavioral issues and medical needs that aren't easy or simple...and adopters of dogs past puppyhood should be prepared for some serious issues as well. Food aggression, leash reactivity, house soiling, anxiety, dog aggression, cat eating...not every adopted dog has issues, but in my experience if they end up in the local pound their previous owner didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. :/ when I was looking for a little bit older dog the first time around, the well-trained (no jumping, biting, or peeing on the floor and will sit and lay down)! two year old purebred dog was nowhere to be found. More like...9 month old Marley. Lol! People tend to keep the dogs they actually put forth effort into! What an idea!

Nobody is out there saying "adopting a kid is for everybody!"  We can all support foster care and adoption without parenting orphaned kids ourselves, just as we can donate to our local shelters and rescues without bringing home the dogs that need a little extra...nobody should be faulted for saying "this isn't for me." And for the folks that love rescue and feel called to adopt their furry companions from a shelter or rescue, YAY for them! I hear the bond people get with a dog from a shelter is pretty awesome.  Long story short, there is room for both.  (and PETA is ridiculous!)


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

AKgirl said:


> If by definition a "rescue" is no-kill and all animals in a rescue end up well treated and trained in foster homes, then that leaves the shelter pets that are being killed "every time a person buys a puppy."
> 
> (and PETA is ridiculous!)


But not all rescues are no-kill and not all shelters are kill shelters. There is so many different rescues and shelters and it varies state by state. You can't paint with broad strokes the way lykoz is trying to do and you really can't blame a shelter for the fact a rescue wouldn't adopt a dog to a household with intact dogs. For that matter you can't blame all rescues because not all have that rule....

and even more importantly you can't blame either shelters or rescues for PETA's ridiculous ideas. PETA is pretty much an off the wall activist group and I don't know of many rescues who would step up and say they believe in PETA.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Eh, it just p*sses me off....

Overpopulation is sad. Puppy mills, BYB, even hobby breeders, they all contribute to it. Unless your dog is a prime example of the breed, and you know what you're doing with genetics, the ins and outs of what you're breeding and why, you have ZERO business breeding your dog. 

That being said. It's not my fault there are so many unwanted pets in the shelter system. I like my purebred german shepherds because I'm not a big dog fan. I don't really like dogs. Most of them are stupid, and it drives me nuts. I'm sorry, but at least I'm honest. What I want in a dog, a well bred german shepherd provides. Therefor, if I didn't have my well bred german shepherd, I probably wouldn't have a dog. I didn't kill a shelter dog by buying Berlin. And after having to euthanize a poorly bred shepherd due to temperament problems, that are genetic, and after seeing some of the genetic messes I see on a daily basis - I don't want to deal with that uncertainty and I shouldn't have to. 

People need to be educated on GOOD breeders vs. bad, instead of this hate against every breeder. In my mind, it's kind of comparable to contraception. You have some people that don't want to teach kids and teens about birth control because you don't think they should be having sex, period. But they're probably still going to do it. So they might as well be smart and know about it.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

That commercial is just plain wrong. We have adopted rescue dogs in the past, saved cats from life in parking lots, etc. 

BUT there is a need for good responsible breeders or all of our dogs will be mixed bags of who knows what. In the shuffle they can get crazy genes as well as excellent genes. My last rescue was a sweet thing but none too bright. We explored the idea of rescuing a GSD first but the application was daunting. We paid good money to a breeder who appears to do a good job trying to raise dogs with good temperaments and healthy bodies. That did not kill a shelter dog.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

And unfortunately, I think a lot of shelters and rescues DO have this hand in hand feeling with PETA. It's the reason I largely stopped dealing with them (I use to foster feral kittens). My club's decoy use to work for animal control and we have a lot of "fun" stories about rescues and shelters. 

You know how I think we could really fix a large portion of the overpopulation problem? Stop trying to fix broken dogs. Some dogs are just broken. It's sad, but true. That crazy fear biter? Or the dog that is heartworm positive and weighs 40 lbs when it should weigh 90? Yeah, it happens all the times. Shelters and fosters and what not take these problem dogs, and spend tons of money and time "fixing" them (or at least attempting to), meanwhile 4 million animals euthanized yearly, that's 11,000 animals a DAY. How many of those are perfectly happy, healthy, 100% ready to be adopted out with no problem? A lot. 

I knew someone who was bragging about how she helped her local shelter by fostering, and she took in a pregnant german shepherd that was HW positive. That dog ended up having 9 puppies, of course they were all adopted, and then she fostered the dog for over 4 months before it finally died because it's HW infestation was too severe. That is not something I think should be bragged about, I'm sorry. While I feel for the dog's plight, and understand it wasn't the dog's fault.... That dog should of been euthanized the second it was diagnosed with HW, pregnant or not. How many healthy dogs could the shelter of fed and adopted out for the money they spent on her? Going by this train of thought, 9 dogs were euthanized because a rescue allowed 9 dogs to be born and adopted out instead, because they were cuter. As an active foster, how many happy, healthy dogs could she of taken in, cared for, and adopted out in that 4 month period? Even guessing 2-3 a month, could she of helped adopt out 10+ dogs for the one sick dog so much time was spent on? And because a foster home wasn't available, were 10+ dogs potentially euthanized for lack of space?

I think shelters and rescues can be great, and I think rescue dogs can be great. If I know someone that wants a basic happy go lucky family dog, I send them off to the shelter. But I don't think people should be shamed or made to feel guilty because they want something specific in a dog and are willing to do it properly. SO I don't want it to seem like I'm shelter bashing, because I'm not. I just think a lot of times their priorities and superior attitudes are a little messed up at times. I've rescued every single cat I've ever owned (interesting fact, 75% of cats that enter shelters will be euthanized due to lack of homes)


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Too prove I'm not completely heartless, I did do something I said I would probably never do, I actually ADOPTED a dog from a puppy mill rescue in September 

I love her to death, but man is she a little pain in my butt, pees and poops on my floor, barks non stop at me like a little brat. After dealing with a dog with which I've had no control, it may steer me away from ever adopting another one.  But I am very glad I could give her a good life after she spent 5 years in a little cage doing nothing but producing puppies for pet stores


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

omg Anubis She is CUTE!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I don't understand why people have to take the topic so personally.

If you are involved in rescue but do *not* tell people who have bought purebreds from a breeder they should rot in you know where, great! If your rescue doesn't get caught up in the PETA vortex wonderful, please try to educate other rescue groups that meme is counter productive.

How many times must people who see and comment on a problem or negative trend repeat caveats over and over such as "I support rescue", "I don't mean all rescues" on and on, still to have those caveats be ignored. Ugh ugh ugh. Further, those of us who dare to continue on without abject surrender are "bad guys" forever more on and about everything. Amen.

Problems that go unchallenged become worse problems, they won't be solved by constantly tip toeing around those who 'are specifically' part of the problem. 

It's so tiresome and we know darn well that PETA, pet product marketing AND a good many rescues have gone off the deep end.

A lot of the public buys into this and ultimately it makes owning dogs harder, more expensive and more stressful which defeats the whole purpose of PETA et al. (And I am told that is PETAs ultimate goal...)

Just trying, even diplomatically, to challenge some of the notions about breeders are all evil, or positive only training is not the sole answer and you will get shut down, with a barrage of angry comments. Often an anger that is NOT even close to being proportional to the reality.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I think when you are doing something for a good cause, and you see the worst, it's easy to become fanatical. And PETA is 100% fanatical. It's easy to get caught in the mentality of laying the blame on innocent people because they do not do what you want them to do. And it seems to be more prevalent in all aspects of our society. Animals, politics, religion. In all areas, we need to come back to the middle and look at an issue from all angles. Nothing in life is black and white.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Welcome to the site AKgirl . And you bring up some good points.

Another notion that is perpetuated by *some* rescues...ahem...... Is that all rescue dogs are better, more loyal then dog bought from a breeder because they are "grateful". I used to buy into that myself. 

Turns out they can be quite the opposite and my current rescue is now a wonderful dog but Geeze he sure didn't act "grateful" when I first adopted him. He peed in the crate. He marked all over the house, he didn't give a poop about me and if he was pleasing me or not. He was and is an independent spirit and still one of the most difficult dogs to train I've ever had in my life. I brow beat myself over this too as I have had other dogs and was able to at least potty train them and they would be happy when I praised them. 

I was also on the positive only bandwagon as dictated by many, including the rescue I got him from. 

Nope Smitty had baggage, no foundation and his own way of 'seeing' things and I'm glad I didn't give up on him, but it wasn't easy and I can see how someone else may have given up and dumped him right back with the rescue or a dog pound.



AKgirl said:


> If by definition a "rescue" is no-kill and all animals in a rescue end up well treated and trained in foster homes, then that leaves the shelter pets that are being killed "every time a person buys a puppy." All of the dogs I referred to came from shelters, but they are all "rescued," just ask their owners! They were saved from execution!  I never meant that shelter dogs were second rate or "bad" or not worth investing in, just that without any temperament testing or basic training or anything, to hand an inexperienced adopter a leash with a cute adolescent or adult dog at the end and saying "happy trails" isn't really setting them up for success, especially not first time owners.
> People that adopt human children over the age of about two have to be prepared for behavioral issues and medical needs that aren't easy or simple...and adopters of dogs past puppyhood should be prepared for some serious issues as well. Food aggression, leash reactivity, house soiling, anxiety, dog aggression, cat eating...not every adopted dog has issues, but in my experience if they end up in the local pound their previous owner didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. :/ when I was looking for a little bit older dog the first time around, the well-trained (no jumping, biting, or peeing on the floor and will sit and lay down)! two year old purebred dog was nowhere to be found. More like...9 month old Marley. Lol! People tend to keep the dogs they actually put forth effort into! What an idea!
> 
> Nobody is out there saying "adopting a kid is for everybody!"  We can all support foster care and adoption without parenting orphaned kids ourselves, just as we can donate to our local shelters and rescues without bringing home the dogs that need a little extra...nobody should be faulted for saying "this isn't for me." And for the folks that love rescue and feel called to adopt their furry companions from a shelter or rescue, YAY for them! I hear the bond people get with a dog from a shelter is pretty awesome.  Long story short, there is room for both.  (and PETA is ridiculous!)


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Agree 100%.



Jax08 said:


> I think when you are doing something for a good cause, and you see the worst, it's easy to become fanatical. And PETA is 100% fanatical. It's easy to get caught in the mentality of laying the blame on innocent people because they do not do what you want them to do. And it seems to be more prevalent in all aspects of our society. Animals, politics, religion. In all areas, we need to come back to the middle and look at an issue from all angles. Nothing in life is black and white.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

The problem with these threads it they go round and round and round in the same old circles. People need to educate themselves on what exactly they are supporting - whether that is a breeder, shelter, or rescue. Do your research. If any of these are not transparent, you do not agree with what they are doing, or how money is spent do NOT support them.

People get bent out of shape, when they feel they are being bashed for supporting a breeder. There are some awesome breeders out there. People get bent out of shape, when they are rescue volunteers and see rescues criticized. There are some wonderful rescues out there. No one can control where someone else decides to get a dog, or how any organization decides to operate.

You can decide what you support and how you spend your money.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I don't understand why people have to take the topic so personally.
> 
> If you are involved in rescue but do *not* tell people who have bought purebreds from a breeder they should rot in you know where, great! If your rescue doesn't get caught up in the PETA vortex wonderful, please try to educate other rescue groups that meme is counter productive.
> 
> ...


So if you feel like you're not killing dogs by buying them, it shouldn't bother you. If you are happy with your decisions in terms of your acquiring of dogs, then you also can just nod and move on. Just like you want the people who rescue, help in shelters to zip it when things don't pertain to them. Don't take it personally - you didn't kill any dogs, I didn't kill any dogs, so move on. It seems like a double standard. 

And then it goes into some defense of the rights of people to breed and buy; the rights and needs of people to do things the way it's always been trump any other new ideas, and create fear in those who are deeply entrenched in those beliefs for whatever reason. When there's room for everyone at the table. 

Obviously, logically, when people get dogs and puppies from shelters, they are saving that one dog, plus not producing any more puppies or dogs from that dog. So there is a positive ripple in the number of dogs in need of homes. That doesn't mean that everyone has to do that. While I could get a puppy (less likely because I'd have to be better at evaling) or a dog for just about any purpose from a shelter or rescue, (NYS Police get dogs from shelters as well as donated from breeders https://www.troopers.ny.gov/Specialized_Services/Canine_Unit/ and NYS DEC does as well I believe Roster and Team Stats - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Matz anyway was fostered by someone who posts on this board) I understand that people want to get a puppy and do it that way. That's fine. I will never want to do it, because I really enjoy getting dogs the way I do, but as long as people are supporting non-commercial breeders who care about the breed as intended and into health and temperament, I am happy! 

And the thing about rescues taking dogs that are difficult health cases, people in rescue are already doing something to help, so if they want to do that, they are able to make those choices. All rescues are set up differently - I have seen rescues that do that, and who also have foster homes that are set up to be the ones that do short-term fosters, so they have people adopting out a new dog every 2 months or so, and then people taking care of dogs that need longer-term care. Even so, people who are not fostering don't have a dog in the fight so to speak. The values are different perhaps - each life matters, versus a consumer driven model, though I completely agree that aggression cases pulled from shelters with known, fixed (set), intractable people or other animal aggression is not the way to help. 

Regardless, what I have learned is that no matter what rescues do, no matter what breeders do, they aren't going to be right. Breeder has too many rules for purchasers, they are ridiculous, they don't require a fence a dog gets hurt, they should have thought of that, rescues don't pull a sickly dog, they are heartless, but if they do, they've killed 6 other dogs, etc. but like Gwen said, if it doesn't apply to you, don't sweat it.

eta Jan said it better and in fewer words! She wins! 

eta2 that mill dog is adorable - what is her name? And isn't it fun sometimes to have a dog that needs more, but also gives you a run for your money? I have 1 GSD who almost always behaves, and then a bunch of ninnies who run around being smarty pants, but that keeps me sharp.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It doesn't bother me personally, it's the fact that it is an illogical and counter productive trend to a particular goal and it's getting worse.

There is nothing wrong with identifying a problem and seeking to help correct it.

Part of it is bringing awareness that the problem exists in the first place. (Eta, which brings along with it the consequence of ruffled feathers and ensuing kerfluffles and being sternly admonished to start your own dang rescue.)

I've been on the receiving end of personal attacks but have not responded in kind. Though some may consider me defending my *reasoning* a personal attack. That's not my problem.

Based on the responses of others in this thread I am not alone. Jan didn't win anything.





JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> So if you feel like you're not killing dogs by buying them, it shouldn't bother you. If you are happy with your decisions in terms of your acquiring of dogs, then you also can just nod and move on. Just like you want the people who rescue, help in shelters to zip it when things don't pertain to them. Don't take it personally - you didn't kill any dogs, I didn't kill any dogs, so move on. It seems like a double standard.
> 
> And then it goes into some defense of the rights of people to breed and buy; the rights and needs of people to do things the way it's always been trump any other new ideas, and create fear in those who are deeply entrenched in those beliefs for whatever reason. When there's room for everyone at the table.
> 
> ...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Another notion that is perpetuated by *some* rescues...ahem...... Is that all rescue dogs are better, more loyal then dog bought from a breeder because they are "grateful". I used to buy into that myself.


Not only have I never heard that why would you think a dog could understand "grateful"? 

It sounds like you dealt with one of the really terrible rescues.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Ultimately, the people who are running the propaganda show are those who knowingly and unknowingly follow in the PETA wake.

This includes large pet supply companies, positive only fanatics and many rescues.

Each has a somewhat different agenda but of these which are really looking to solve the core problem- people who get a dog and then don't keep the dog.


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

*"Jan didn't win anything."*

LOL! Not a problem. I never win anything. I'm kinda used to it. In this case, I don't think there was a prize anyway. No matter, I'm still buying a powerball ticket for Wednesdays' drawing.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Stevenzachsmom said:


> *"Jan didn't win anything."*
> 
> LOL! Not a problem. I never win anything. I'm kinda used to it. In this case, I don't think there was a prize anyway. No matter, I'm still buying a powerball ticket for Wednesdays' drawing.


I'll send you chocolate for a consolation prize.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I work with dogs almost daily and their owners. Many of them adopted. It's a very common refrain amongst them and the rescues too. I've learned a lot over the years. 

I didn't work with a terrible rescue (I've worked with/around many). It was a typical rescue that I got Smitty from. To an extent I understand it too, they want to convince people to adopt so they can save more dogs. The problem is, it's not true and they are using an appeal to emotion that isn't always fair.






shepherdmom said:


> Not only have I never heard that why would you think a dog could understand "grateful"?
> 
> It sounds like you dealt with one of the really terrible rescues.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Hehehe. 



Jax08 said:


> I'll send you chocolate for a consolation prize.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Hence my comment....

I'll be starting that rescue real soon, you can send me some of those lottery winnings to fund it.

:angel:

:apple:




Stevenzachsmom said:


> *"Jan didn't win anything."*
> 
> LOL! Not a problem. I never win anything. I'm kinda used to it. In this case, I don't think there was a prize anyway. No matter, I'm still buying a powerball ticket for Wednesdays' drawing.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

...and I like Anubis's posts they were honest and on point. Though I would have never guessed that she doesn't like dogs! 

Agree little rescue is a cutie!!!!

I've loved and enjoyed all my rescues (cats, dogs, birds and horses) over the years though they weren't always the easiest critters I learned a lot from them. I had one especially batty rescued off the track TB. That horse was a nut and really never got over some of his demons.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

O.k. I have to move along, Hopefully Lykoz will be along to pick up the banner and march on.

 

(P.s. Any thoughts as to why people get a dog, dump a dog? I actually interviewed a vet tech/ACO about this last Friday.)


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

I don't think those in the trenches doing rescue are perpetuating this stuff, it's peta, husa, and other similar ar groups. They have no problem spreading misinformation or outright deceit to push their agenda. Just look to the whole Feld entertainment debacle and how many ar groups were caught up in that lie. 

I wish more people would actually pay attention and research these groups before sending in their donation. Its surprising how many people still fall for husa's tear jerker commercials.


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Stevenzachsmom said:


> *"Jan didn't win anything."*
> 
> LOL! Not a problem. I never win anything. I'm kinda used to it. In this case, I don't think there was a prize anyway. No matter, I'm still buying a powerball ticket for Wednesdays' drawing.


You won the prize for making the point in less words. But pretty much Jax's chocolates are it other than me appreciating the readability.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

At the end of the day dogs are the ultimate companions because of selective breeding. Again they would just be wolves otherwise...

Sure breeders of many lines are breeding for all the wrong reasons.. (i.e. little breathless pugs)... GSD's sort of have it more right... Although this opens up another huge debate on showline/working line.. low hips, higher hips, and that whole pandoras box...

But in totality selective breeding and consistent temperament in breeds is what dogs are all about.. To completely alienate this fact would be to not understand the whole history of how dogs became mans best friend. 

If Peta had their way... All dogs would be extinct, except backyard breeders... If some shelter's had their way, many GSD's for example would become much weaker genetically due to a severe decrease in their genetic pool, leading to many systemic diseases, and weakening of the lines, and their health.

I have always shown respct to people who include shelter dogs in their life, and make them part of their family... Similarly to shelters who do amazing work...

But to keep silent when I am attacked for having a pure-bred dog is something I will not do... I will not let public perception judge me for a personal choice, that has nothing to do with abandoned dogs...

Breeders/shelters/owners all need to be accountable for they say, do and believe...
Especially in a public forum of debate...

There is no need for me to keep quiet when somebody calls me a murderer... Just because I have pure-bred dogs...

The reason I started that topic is because an individual on facebook, a friend of mine posted that peta video on our 'dog park group'.. Stating simply: it's true..

He personally owns a rescued dog... He is a great human being... He is intelligent... Well adjusted, and loves his dog... He is educated and has critical thought... Yet, he agreed completely with the Peta video... I have had similar conversations with many people involved in rescue groups and shelters. This is not something I just made up... Many people in those circles ascribe to those belief systems (Complete agreement with what PETA is saying in that video).

I did not want to engage on that debate, with personal friends on facebook, and have my 700 FB friends see a debate that does not concern them.. So I ignored it, and brought my frustrations here on a DOG forum... Specific for these types of issues... Where this is Exactly what should be discussed... Critiqued.. Etc...

Yet I still get: "How dare you" posts about even starting this topic... Shelters for some people are like the holy grail... Its like commenting on the North Korean or Thailand Supreme-leader/King... You get hanged if you say anything bad...

I live in a terrible country with dog welfare right now... People are so fixated on their own country and situation, and dont realise peta's message has global reach... I have seen and heard stories of dogs eating each other alive due to starvation...

Yet we must ignore these things, simply because they have the word 'Shelter' ' in their names...

Show me a bad breeder... And I will march right into them... Ive done it even on facebook with backyard breeders... 

Its not fair to have to give any one the ability to do whatever the hel they like, no matter how flawed their views are...
To say anything against shelters is to be immediately attacked... You would think I was attacking Jesus, in a christian Church..


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Here is a thought I had. 

When other advertisers (social marketing [not social media - we did social marketing in a job I had] is the same, just for different reasons) do stuff, they tend to do broad strokes, because it is so hard to break down information into the sub-areas that are being addressed. 

For example, Windows is promoting their new operating system. I minimally understand that. If they started talking about Raspberry Pi (I think that is related to it), or started giving me ways that Apple is better at some things, but Microsoft is better than others, the first one would confuse me, and the second would get their ad company fired. 

While PETA may have an overarching agenda that people do not look into or understand, the messages adopt, don't shop or don't let you pets litter, are very simple and easy to understand. In advertising and social marketing you aren't going to have a nuanced discussion of the issues - that's not the intent. 

Last night in the US, we were all hit in the face with the wet sponge of the Nationwide ad during the Super Bowl. They issued a statement about their commercial and how they wanted to spark a discussion - that was the intent. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/02/02/nationwide-insurance-super-bowl-commercial/22734895/

So it is - PETA starts discussions, get donations. Some people follow without doing due diligence like Nigel said. Some people look, get the intent, don't get trolled by them, and move on. Some people get upset over it. Kind of like a bell curve, with the eye rolling whatever people not getting trolled being the biggest group, and then the 2 subgroups on the smaller ends. 

I don't think it's constructive and I don't think it helps dogs (or cats). 

That's just how I look at it, from a marketing point of view. 

Here, where I am, people love rescues and shelters, but do not see an issue with breeding their pets, buying from the neighbor, getting a dog and spending money on it from any number of places that are not good, and think I am insane when I say if you don't want a rescue, why not get a dog from a breeder that does these things (health, temperament, etc), and btw, the dog will be $1200 but you are supporting someone who is all about their dogs, just like a rescue is. Mind you, they will pay that or more on impulse at a pet store, with a credit card, but would never plan ahead to do that. Bizarre. So dumbing it down to that extreme may be what they are doing to reach the people that my polite reasoning and offers to help find a great breeder will not do. 

Meanwhile, people who are volunteering will continue to work, like Nigel says, and let that other stuff go on and occasionally think of it when it's right in front of them.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

There have been studies on why large groups of people will blindly follow an ideology. What was found was that if a message comes from what people perceive as a reputable source (NY Times, Politicians, large organizations) then people accept the message as truth.

So, here is the issue as I see it....PETA, HSUS start with a message. They have the money to put it on TV and reach large groups of people. Those large groups of people cry at Sara Mclaughlin (whom I'd love to just backhand) and send in money because the HS of United States MUST be all shelters. Wrong. They send money to PETA because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals MUST be good. Wrong.

And then they take those message and accept them as gospel. And they preach it. Adopt Don't Shop. And more people pick up the message without asking "Why?" and they spread it.

If you want to change how people think then you need to change the message.


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Jax08 said:


> omg Anubis She is CUTE!


Thank you!



JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> And the thing about rescues taking dogs that are difficult health cases, people in rescue are already doing something to help, so if they want to do that, they are able to make those choices. All rescues are set up differently - I have seen rescues that do that, and who also have foster homes that are set up to be the ones that do short-term fosters, so they have people adopting out a new dog every 2 months or so, and then people taking care of dogs that need longer-term care. Even so, people who are not fostering don't have a dog in the fight so to speak. The values are different perhaps - each life matters, versus a consumer driven model, though I completely agree that aggression cases pulled from shelters with known, fixed (set), intractable people or other animal aggression is not the way to help.
> 
> eta2 that mill dog is adorable - what is her name? And isn't it fun sometimes to have a dog that needs more, but also gives you a run for your money? I have 1 GSD who almost always behaves, and then a bunch of ninnies who run around being smarty pants, but that keeps me sharp.


Sadly, I still don't 100% agree although I understand it is the way it is. And you're completely right, as much as it's my right to buy from a breeder, it's their right to only want to save all the HW positive dogs, for example. Unfortunately I largely encounter rescue people who believe 100% they are the only force saving animals, and that since I bought Berlin from a breeder I should of just personally loaded up the car with euthasol and headed to the local shelter, yet they'll let 5 other dogs die because all their money and space is taken up by that one fear biter that "just needs a chance". When I told one woman that I bought Berlin, if looks could kill the look she gave me would of sent me straight down below 

That being said, I know there are many great rescue people because I have worked with them as well, so I don't mean to sound so harsh on them or anyone that does the work! The little dog is Rem  , I got her from the National Mill Dog Rescue. The woman that runs them is wonderful (and a german shepherd owner herself). She appreciated Berlin and the fact that I was smart and responsible in who I purchased from and the way I handle/treat my own dogs. Their application strictly states dogs will not be adopted out to homes with other intact animals but she didn't even bat an eye at Berlin being intact. 

Trust me, I love/hate Rem, that's for sure haha. She's still not sure of anything yet, poor thing has never had any human contact before August. But she's a little brat sometimes. Runs around barking at us non stop demanding attention, yet if you go to pet her she freezes in terror. She'll be outside for half an hour, then come inside and poop right next to the potty pad! She's so sweet though, and learning to want the attention, and she loves to play in bed and on the floor at work because that's where she's comfortable. It's so great, knowing 6 months ago she was in a miserable cage and now she can just enjoy bouncing around outside in the yard to her heart's content.

I knew what to expect from a puppy mill rescue, but it still makes me want to pull my hair out and never adopt again! lol



Gwenhwyfair said:


> ...and I like Anubis's posts they were honest and on point. Though I would have never guessed that she doesn't like dogs!


Haha yeah I am a cat person for sure!! Most dogs just drive me insane! Really its their lack of training - I would never let my dogs get away with most of what other people's dogs do! I tell my trainer all the time, I don't know how he handles training dogs (or actually training their OWNERS) for a living


----------



## RunShepherdRun (Oct 5, 2009)

Oh, yet another PETA paranoia thread. Nothing unites fanciers more than the word PETA! Us against them!

Oh, how horrible, there are people who are against breeding. The end of purebred breeding must be in sight! They will take over! We are their victims! Shout! Capital letters! Now the worst: They try to make us feel guilty!

You know what, there are also people who are against rescuing. There are some breeders and fanciers who are against saving shelter dogs and who call rescued purebred dogs and mixed breeds “trash dogs”. So what, I say. 

And yes, there are some people who are against breeding. So what, you don’t say.

If you want to have a good dog and save the life of a shelter dog, you do that. If you want to buy a puppy from a performance breeder and support the performance breeding that produced the GSD, you do that. If you want to just get a purebred dog for the looks and without knowing anything about them, go to a lowbrow breeder, no one will keep you from it. If you suffer from an inclination to feel guilty all the time, see a therapist. 

If you want to run a rescue and only cherry pick the dogs who have no medical issues, if you want to take the easy to place puppies and leave mom behind to be killed, you do that. If you run a rescue and a good dog with a treatable medical issue gives you his paw and you cannot leave him behind, you raise the funds and take him with you. Donors can choose which of the two approaches they want to support. 

If you are an armchair rescuer telling those in the field what we should do when you know nothing about the realities of shelter animals and rescue, just ramble on. Those of your ilk will listen, the people who do the work will keep doing the work. 

And no matter what some people and organizations say, good breeders will keep doing their work.

PETA is not going to have its extremist ways, nor are any rabid dog fanciers. There is some sanity in this world.


----------



## RunShepherdRun (Oct 5, 2009)

And thank you, Anubis Star, for taking an adult mill rescue dog while knowing what their challenges are. She looks adorable, and she sure is very lucky to have found you and your GSDs.

Btw, rescued dog is not equal to dog with issues. If you work with a shelter or a rescue organization with a good evaluation program for dogs and a sensible approach to adopters, you will get a rescued dog who is a good match for your expectations. Organizations that have financial and knowledge resources assess the skill level, living situation, interests and expectations of the adopter to make a lasting and happy match with a dog who has been behaviorally assessed and treated for any medical challenges.

Btw, the only dog my family ever had to euthanize for behavioral reasons (severe human aggression) was the only dog whom we ever bought as a puppy from a breeder. Parents titled GSDs. I would never generalize from there that all pups bought from a breeder are like this poor dog. It can happen everywhere.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

RunShepherdRun said:


> Btw, the only dog my family ever had to euthanize for behavioral reasons (severe human aggression) was the only dog whom we ever bought as a puppy from a breeder. Parents titled GSDs. I would never generalize from there that all pups bought from a breeder are like this poor dog. It can happen everywhere.


Yeah because the shelter guys often put those dogs down straight away...

I dont think the all positive hicks they employ or reccomend has the right experience levels to rehab those dogs, so they never get a chance... If any trainer that even suggest's anything other than all positive comes to help... They tell him where to stick it... And make a mockery of his name...

In fact if the shelter had the right contacts, and gave you a good trainer to work with, maybe some dogs ending up in the pound or euthanised, would not of had to have been. Instead they recommend and endorse idiots like: the infamous Victoria Stillwell...

P.s. never had an adult dog that I raised as a puppy, even so much as growl at me...
Not saying sometimes it could be the dogs fault... It can be...
But a good breeder will try breed against that...

In the pound... Well its left up to natural selection.. You conform or your gone to doggie heaven....


----------



## RunShepherdRun (Oct 5, 2009)

Lykoz, your ignorance is excusable. What is not excusable is being loud mouthed and judgmental about things you know nothing about.

I have evaluated countless shelter dogs of all breeds and non-breeds, and have rehabbed several in my home. I have been in GSDs since 1968 when I was a youngster training Schutzhund. Some very few dogs, owned or not owned, well bred or not, raised well or not, have a faulty wiring, and nothing can fix them. Blaming the owners or blaming the breeders is heartless and nasty. 

I will not engage further with your utterings.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Argument to authority and a flawed one at that. Lovely use of language and turn of phrase.
Reminds me of the Bard....

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8)




Hi Lykoz.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I say the same thing to my trainer. 

It requires a great deal of diplomacy and patience and sometimes knowing when to just walk away.

When I am dealing with other dogs, I often am relieved to come home to my crew. Not they are OB stars, but well trained enough that they are easy to live with. 



Anubis_Star said:


> Haha yeah I am a cat person for sure!! Most dogs just drive me insane! Really its their lack of training - I would never let my dogs get away with most of what other people's dogs do! I tell my trainer all the time, I don't know how he handles training dogs (or actually training their OWNERS) for a living


----------



## llombardo (Dec 11, 2011)

I think an important point about shelter dogs, especially GSDs is that they do not do well in a shelter setting. They become agitated, anxious and shut down. There can be s perfectly good dog that just loses it and by no means is it their fault. Midnite was at that point when I found him at the shelter. 8 months old and sitting there for half his life and more then half that time in the back in he sick area due to kennel cough and lack of space. There are many dogs that don't make it to the floor for adoption. So when I look at him and I hear people say things like why save one with issues when there are do many without, it aggravates me. These dogs with issues became nerve bags because they found themselves locked in a kennel 24/7 with no interaction. Yep that is why I adopt...


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Some do and some don't. Amazing to see the temperament of a dog that goes through so much and come out 'normal'. I can't imagine the stress the shelters hold, scent is the top, then noise. 
Karlo was at a vet university teaching hospital for 2 weeks, and I really worried about his psyche once I knew he was going to live. He came out none the worse for wear, in fact he got better at being handled by strangers. That place was very similar to a shelter, dogs barking, cinderblock kennels, though he had to wear a catheter and IV as accessories.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

When you think about it, what really ought to grind your bones on this subject, is that PETA _wants _the problem of over-population to continue. 

How can I say that!?! 

Easy. There is a LOT of $$ donated to PETA every year, and with no sad, emaciated, starved, euthanized pets people would stop giving. The machine would crash. There would not be money to fuel the lobbyists. There would not be money to run those shelters whose main function is to euthanize dogs, not to adopt them. 

PETA-run shelters (yes, they actually run some) do not put the dogs up on pet finder, and they do not hold adoption events, training classes, vaccine clinics and the like. Because they really, really do not want to adopt out ANY dog or cat. They sometime kill them in the van en route to the shelter. People think they are giving their dog to caring people that will help them find a good home, and the animal is euthanized before it reaches the shelter, and then dumped in a garbage dumpster.

But it is not everyone who believes in or gives money to PETA. Most of them think they want to preserve animals, and respect animals, and are overall a good organization. They are are an organization dependent on the destruction of companion animals. But no one realizes that. They are living and growing rich over animals that are slaughtered, because of all the donations. HSUS is the same. The vast majority of their money goes to salaries for the people on top, disgusting salaries, and lobbyists. Very little goes to any form of shelter. This at least, is not their aim. HSUS's aim is not to save individual critters but to drive legislation. That is where their money goes. Their advertising, showing emaciated dogs on chains is unethical because the people who are giving THINK they are helping abused or neglected dogs, but are actually fueling their agenda.

This ad has been around for a long time. It is excellent marketing. Like it or hate it, it grabs your attention and does not let you just walk on by. It makes you think. It makes you mad. If you can be swayed, it probably will sway you one way or the other. 

No, it isn't right. One should not have to _need _a dog from a breeder to get one from a breeder. One should not expect to do IPO, police work, or conformation shows if they want a dog from a breeder. There are plenty of reasons to get a dog from a breeder, or from a shelter, or from a rescue. None of them makes you a better person or a worse person. 

Those who rescue are not better people than people who go to breeders, and people who go to breeders are not better or worse than those who go to shelters or rescues. We do not need to rationalize where our dog came from. Don't buy into that crap. You do not have to say you wanted a dog from healthy lines, with hip scores known. That does not make you better of a person than the one who wants a dog that looks like a GSD. 

And yes, there are plenty of good looking GSDs in rescue or shelters. It doesn't matter. People do not need to justify where they want to get their dog. If you go see a litter, and decide not to buy, and go to a shelter and find a puppy you want to buy, go for it. 

People who go to rescues and shelters are not immune to being crappy owners too. It is not just those people buying from Craig'slist or from parking lots that are dumping their dogs, or neglecting their dogs. Some people get their pups from shelters, or even rescues, and then dump them when they become inconvenient. It doesn't matter where people get their dog. A percentage of them will dump their dog. Even a healthy price tag or clauses in the contract will not stop them. 

When we remember that these organizations survive because of dead and suffering animals. It will remind us that the problem is not breeding. The problem is the human condition. The human condition where some folks will keep a puppy for 8 months or 12 years and then dump them at a shelter, or in the woods. The human condition where some folks will use the suffering of animals to encourage other human beings to give to their organization where most of the money drops into the pockets of people who don't mind living off of and getting rich from the suffering of animals. The human condition that does not allow us to walk on by when we see a critter on the side of the road, or an ad with a dog in a body bag. We do not need to help people make dogs into little furry people. But we do need to help people understand what respecting and being responsible for critters actually does mean.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

This is being shared on fb(76,000+ as I type this). I shared it. Worth reading as there are links to support the opinion of the person who wrote it: 
https://www.facebook.com/nathanwino...9092957448290/921039421253636/?type=1&theater


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

RunShepherdRun said:


> Lykoz, your ignorance is excusable. What is not excusable is being loud mouthed and judgmental about things you know nothing about.
> 
> I have evaluated countless shelter dogs of all breeds and non-breeds, and have rehabbed several in my home. I have been in GSDs since 1968 when I was a youngster training Schutzhund. Some very few dogs, owned or not owned, well bred or not, raised well or not, have a faulty wiring, and nothing can fix them. Blaming the owners or blaming the breeders is heartless and nasty.
> 
> I will not engage further with your utterings.


Was not referring to your personal dog and as to why it had to be put down. 
I am just saying it is not normal for a well-bred dog, raised well to go off...

You stated the only pure-bred puppy you ever raised was the only one to have a problem.. Obviously you were trying to paint some type of picture.
You are right. I will not engage on that or be judgemental.
You brought that up to make some sort of point. And that point is flawed.
No need to push that further.

Suffice to say that a dog is influenced by nothing other than Environment and Genetics... There is nothing else that plays a role... The two work together in varying degrees.. But that makes the dog who it is.. Nature vs Nurture...

So good breeding+up bringing is the only way to set up a dog for success, anything else is out of our control (in fact there is nothing else we can do)....

Pure bred dogs, that are selectively bred make the genetics more predictable... Simple as that... If the dog has some sort of psychological disorder.. Well it happens..
People can pretend all they like that a Chihuahua or a mix can do the same tasks as a GSD for example but it's simply is not true.. If it is.. its an anomaly rather than the norm...
Also not all GSD's are created equal.. Some should never be pushed to do things they are uncomfortable with..

GSD's are bred for a certain type of owner... based on certain criteria...
If we have a match with the right owner and right environment you have the highest chance of success..

Shelter dogs are predictable simply because they are brought into our homes as adults... The real problem dogs are rarely offered... The real aggressive ones are euthanised...

But hey this little guy will have none of what I am saying...






If people focused on good breeding... Educated ownership... Placement and choosing of the right breed...

Instead of attacking all breeders...

I can guarantee you there would be less dogs in shelters....

Instead what people are doing is the following:

1) Boycotting ALL breeders... Good or bad... its Irrelevant.

2) Supporting their friends who had an 'accidental pregnancy'... Or thought it would be cute to have a birth... (An individual on the fence, about owning a dog, may jump in, if their relative, brother, aunt, friend etc has a litter and "just get a dog to 'help out')

3) Buying is killing = But saving a backyard breeders puppy's from the pound is ok....

The conclusion? Who pays? 
The only people doing good work for the advancement of the breed... The breeders... The professional guys... The good breeders...

Puppy mills wont be effected... they mass produce and throw dogs away like its nothing... Its not hard to be a puppy mill... Get two dogs that look the same... And make puppies...

The only people who pay in the end is GSD dogs etc. Weaker lines, smaller genetic pool, increase in costs, i.e. not able to import dogs to diversify their lines etc... Professional Breeders (Who have to lower their standards and make weaker dogs).

Everything 'black market' gets a boost... In my country the most breed of dogs are one of the only breeds that is banned.... You guessed it... AM PitBull... Except because this is not legal... The professionals are gone... And the country is full of backyard breeders... (When legislation goes wrong....)


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That picture is hard to look at. 





onyx'girl said:


> This is being shared on fb(76,000+ as I type this). I shared it. Worth reading as there are links to support the opinion of the person who wrote it:
> https://www.facebook.com/nathanwino...9092957448290/921039421253636/?type=1&theater


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

onyx'girl said:


> This is being shared on fb(76,000+ as I type this). I shared it. Worth reading as there are links to support the opinion of the person who wrote it:
> https://www.facebook.com/nathanwino...9092957448290/921039421253636/?type=1&theater


I think PETA's message and social ideals are completely wrong... They have completely lost track... They dont see the full picture.

I do however believe in viral marketing when you actually have an important message... 

i.e. Use of tragedy stories... Marketing a dog that has had a hard life at substantial cost to incentivise adoption of dogs on the whole..... 

I.e. spend a significant amount on a story that touches thousands, and people want to adopt another unrelated dog... (Even if that dog was not a good candidate... Simply by viral marketing you can help hundreds of other dogs to be adopted.)... (Buy a dog - kill a dog is not the type of story I would like to see obviously..) (But I think a dog dying of cancer, that looks terrible.. And is somehow saved, into a loving family's home, may get more people to adopt dogs in desperate need).

Again their strategy is flawed... Their reasoning is flawed...

However when I see these campaigns that PETA goes around killing thousands of dogs on purpose that could have been saved apparently... It just does not compute with me...

Its a missing part of the puzzle in my mind... Why would they run around doing that? I dont get it? How would they benefit as an organisation in any way? Would it not be easier to just disengage? Is it because they are flooded with dogs to help and they have to kill them because they make money from a marketing perspective? It it because they dont want to engage on ground level... and are greedy bussinessmen that want to keep all the profits, whilst pretending to make a difference?... (May have answered my own question here... Is this what is happening.. However they could still maybe just be apathetic, and not actually go and kill the animals personally?)

Am I missing something? Even in their flawed reasoning, there has to be a reason behind it?

Sometimes I think the anti-peta rebuttals are just as much of a miscommunication of what is really happening.. As is PETA's attack on Isses they dont understand...

There is some leakage of the truth somewhere...

I really wish people were just more pragmatic, open, and logical..


----------



## Stevenzachsmom (Mar 3, 2008)

Lykos, You misquoted RunShepherdRun. This is what she said, *"Btw, the only dog my family ever had to euthanize for behavioral reasons (severe human aggression) was the only dog whom we ever bought as a puppy from a breeder. Parents titled GSDs. I would never generalize from there that all pups bought from a breeder are like this poor dog. It can happen everywhere."*

She did not say it was the only purebred puppy she had ever raised. it was the only puppy bought from a breeder.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

I support our local HS, I think they do good work and from what I've been told, all their dogs are local. I don't understand importing from overseas like those in the article. You would think they could find all the dogs they want down south without having to resort to going overseas to keep up with adoptions.
With Rescue Dogs In Demand, More Shelters Look Far Afield For Fido : NPR


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Stevenzachsmom said:


> Lykos, You misquoted RunShepherdRun. This is what she said, *"Btw, the only dog my family ever had to euthanize for behavioral reasons (severe human aggression) was the only dog whom we ever bought as a puppy from a breeder. Parents titled GSDs. I would never generalize from there that all pups bought from a breeder are like this poor dog. It can happen everywhere."*
> 
> She did not say it was the only purebred puppy she had ever raised. it was the only puppy bought from a breeder.


Correction noted. Sorry.

I think what was in my post does not become less relevant because of that. 

I incorrectly assumed that Rescue dogs or dogs from a shelter are likely to be Adult dogs.
As you pointed out. This is not always the case.

She may have adopted another young pedigree pure-bred puppy from a shelter with titled parents. (i.e. well bred GSD dog)

Thank you.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Nigel said:


> I support our local HS, I think they do good work and from what I've been told, all their dogs are local. I don't understand importing from overseas like those in the article. You would think they could find all the dogs they want down south without having to resort to going overseas to keep up with adoptions.
> With Rescue Dogs In Demand, More Shelters Look Far Afield For Fido : NPR


So interesting...

This happens a lot in Cyprus... they often export rescued dogs to the UK...

The dog problem is huge in Cyprus... And the UK helps substantially in adopting animals here in Cyprus where the public is completely abusive/decensatised/hatred/cruelty packed shelters/minimal support from government...

I dont know if the UK does not have a substantial problem locally and they 'need' to import dogs from Cyprus... I never quite understood why they did this.. Could just be that there are many english x-pats in Cyprus, that are in communication with English residents and they see the situation directly daily through (Facebook) etc... And may feel sorry for a specific dog, that they just want to help save... (You can easily fall in love with a specific dog, that needs help... based on Facebook interest stories.. DOg profiles/history of dog.

I heard cases where it was all about money making... There are online 'fund raisers' to raise funds to get dogs to the UK... (Frankly you don't know if this is just a scam or not...) 

But being part of several facebook animal welfare/rescue/animal shelter groups.. There is personal messages and visible support of 'real people' trying to help, and volunteering to adopt some bad cases of neglect... And they seem to be legitimately helping the situation...

On the other hand.. And I really believe this to at least have some effect... It could be a complete scam... Making big money... "dog trafficking" as the article says...


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

It does seem to have become something of a business, at least in select areas. I can only guess as to why they would import at all when there are dogs available in country. It wouldnt surprise me if it was just easier to import vs dealing with individual us states and their bureaucracy.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It's not that hard. People do it all the time who show and compete dogs (and horses). Usually only requires a health certificate from a vet and off you go.

I donated to help with a rescue transport to the NE a few years ago. Huge success, people were lined up and some camped out the night before to be first in line. The only dog that came back was a yappy chi mix that would not stop barking. My friend who worked with the rescue ended permanently fostering that dog...

The question I have is why the south has such a problem with crowded shelters (dog pounds) in the first place. 

As for why import? Sounds better, better PR for the rescues or the flippers...

The question I ask myself and others is-

Why do people get a dog then dump the dog to begin with?

I think preventing this cycle and making rescues a rarity not the norm should be the goal.

The one common denominator in the whole mess no matter where the dog came from originally are the owners who give up on their pet.




Nigel said:


> It does seem to have become something of a business, at least in select areas. I can only guess as to why they would import at all when there are dogs available in country. It wouldnt surprise me if it was just easier to import vs dealing with individual us states and their bureaucracy.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

This!

And....

...on an individual or family level why do people give up on their dogs to begin with?

I see lots of excuses and an ACO told me 90% of people who dump their dog say it is due to "moving". That's not the real reason though, she told me. 

I'm researching that right now.

I have some theories and information that I've gathered. Once I have it fleshed out will start a thread if anyone would be interested. 





Jax08 said:


> There have been studies on why large groups of people will blindly follow an ideology. What was found was that if a message comes from what people perceive as a reputable source (NY Times, Politicians, large organizations) then people accept the message as truth.
> 
> So, here is the issue as I see it....PETA, HSUS start with a message. They have the money to put it on TV and reach large groups of people. Those large groups of people cry at Sara Mclaughlin (whom I'd love to just backhand) and send in money because the HS of United States MUST be all shelters. Wrong. They send money to PETA because People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals MUST be good. Wrong.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> This!
> 
> And....
> 
> ...


I have some practical experience here... 
The experience is very different in different parts of the world as a (Group mentality influence- Obviously there are good and bad eveywhere)

Some countries it is Not out of the ordinary to maybe get a dog and keep it locked up in a cage... Maybe Take it out to 'hunt'... Maybe never take it out... Chained up... Large population groups have this mentality.... It is not a part of the family... Its a pet... and that is 'its place'..

It's social status is nothing more than a caged bird...

That is a more extreme situation... But you will be surprised how much I see that in Cyprus.... 

Now add a bit of social consciousness (Just a little)... And you have a pet, in a garden... That is ignored... And is "just there"... Or does not take part with the family for anything... It is just fed.. Washed and sometimes played with when friends are over... (It was never part of the family... Not really)

Dogs are not a priority for most people... Its just an 'item' you get...

Some people give more or less priority to their dogs... People treat their dogs or buy dogs also based on 'how their community/friends/relatives does'... 

This is why I am such a big proponent of responsible breeders... They play a huge role, in placing a dog correctly and educating the new owners...

Unfortunately most people buy cheep dogs from family/puppy mills... Dont think twice to get a male and female to have puppies...

Unfortunately this group think mentality (you are influenced by the people around you) is contageous...

I see people who love their dogs... And only get shelter dogs... And follow positive groups exclusively... (In Cyprus too-Different oppssed group of social consciousness but still thinking as a 'Group'... The fact they adopt shelter dogs 'defines' them in some way... (Basically they all think the same way)

Similarly people who abuse dogs, or chain them up, often do it because it is a norm... People/friends/family who have had dogs do this... So as a first time owner who are they to say you are doing this wrong? They get aboard... They ask for advice from these people...

I feel so strongly if Animal welfare organisations gave Certificates of approval to breeders that met certain criteria... In correct breeding/education of buyers/buyback policies etc...

The problem would be so much better...

Unfortunately If you are a breeder... You are bad... So there is no communication... And they are hurting the responsible guys the most... To the point that it does not pay to have a conscience...

Most people cant recognise a good from bad breeder... And even if you could... Sometimes there just is not enough transparency...

My breeder took me for a bit of a ride and was careless... And he was the vice president of the GSD club of the country at that time...

Simply put and independent body ascosiated with animal welfare needs to REGULATE BREEDERS... NOT DEMONISE ALL OF THEM...
The GSD breed is a good place to start...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> I feel so strongly if Animal welfare organisations gave Certificates of approval to breeders that met certain criteria... In correct breeding/education of buyers/buyback policies etc...
> The problem would be so much better...


No it wouldn't. I wouldn't trust any of the corrupt animal welfare organizations approvals. Nope no way! It would just be a hotbed of more corruption and incompetence. Just as it would be if a government agency got involved. No thanks. I'll trust the guy with 30 years of experience breeding shepherds long before I trust someone who paid off a animal welfare place to give them a certificate of approval.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> No it wouldn't. I wouldn't trust any of the corrupt animal welfare organizations approvals. Nope no way! It would just be a hotbed of more corruption and incompetence. Just as it would be if a government agency got involved. No thanks. I'll trust the guy with 30 years of experience breeding shepherds long before I trust someone who paid off a animal welfare place to give them a certificate of approval.


It would just be a certificate of minimum standards and policy, that encompasses some basic conditions to deter puppy mills.. Some Education responsibilities etc....

It would not dictate your choice in breeder...

It would just make certain people breeding that have not met basic standards illegal, and punishable in the court of law.

You could also have a class 2 certificate for example... Say if all your parents puppies of GSD's have Acceptable OFFA ratings for example....
A complaint can, downgrade your rating...

i.e. some minimum requirements... That any decent breeder would undertake.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

There are laws that govern breeders and make certain practices illegal. Puppy Mills get shut down all the time. You are just unaware of the situation.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

David Winners said:


> There are laws that govern breeders and make certain practices illegal. Puppy Mills get shut down all the time. You are just unaware of the situation.


Good to hear 

I still think mass marketing attacks on all breeders should be more targeted to bad practises.

Since you know more about the topic I would love to know what the penal punishment specific to your state/country for running a puppy mill.

You can close all the puppy mills in the world. Without some form of punishment, its just as easy to start up again. 

Where are the barriers of entry to the market?

How do you create transparency to first time dog owner's/general public to be able to identify a good breeder, from one who is contravening?

Thanks for your time.


----------



## David Winners (Apr 30, 2012)

Google is your friend. 

I'm busy.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

David Winners said:


> There are laws that govern breeders and make certain practices illegal. Puppy Mills get shut down all the time. You are just unaware of the situation.


 Yep. It took almost 2 years but Shadows breeder was banned from owning any dogs for any purpose, from having them on his property, from working in any place where animals were under his control.
When people get off the computer and actually address issues with reason and intelligence, things happen.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

David Winners said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> I'm busy.


Thank you for engaging in the thread.

Google is indeed full of knowledge


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

“Minimum breeding requirements” have been discussed on this forum too many times to count. Usually it ends with this:

1) You will never make the requirements high enough to make a difference
2) You will never make the requirements high enough to make the majority happy
3) There is way too much ambiguity to producing dogs, that the law just can’t cover it all
4) Our government, should spend time discussing other things than breeding dogs
5) You can’t make a law that “forces” people to use a private entity in order to do something (a bit anticapitalistic and won’t fly)
6) We all have things we’re passionate about, fortunately, laws aren’t usually made because a small group is so passionate about something that they are able to affect how others live their lives (prohibition is one example of when this country learned its lesson)

America already throws enough people in jail for crimes that probably shouldn’t be punishable by jail time that it’s pointless to make other crimes that do the same. Fines…I’ve realized when you don’t really have money, a fine doesn’t scare you. If I don’t have $100 dollars to my name, you can tell me all you want that the fine for breaking a law is $5000 or $10000 or $100000, it won’t make any difference to me, I’ll still likely break the law if I know the chance of getting caught is small, and then the punishment won’t really have any effect on me anyways.


----------



## sourdough44 (Oct 26, 2013)

Next thing you know they'll be telling us you kill a cow when you buy a pack of hotdogs?

My job us to give the best life I can for the dog I own. A dog that would be born whether we ever met or not.

While we're at it, some seem to hate 'dirty oil' while at the same time enjoying a warm house.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

sourdough44 said:


> Next thing you know they'll be telling us you kill a cow when you buy a pack of hotdogs?
> 
> My job us to give the best life I can for the dog I own. A dog that would be born whether we ever met or not.
> 
> While we're at it, some seem to hate 'dirty oil' while at the same time enjoying a warm house.


Hit the nail on the head... 

I agree.

Although I would not compare it like that  When you eat a hotdog... A cow or whatever is in there is killed..

There is zero correlation between buying a dog and another dog actually dying.

As a dog buyer... I have as much social responsibility to adopt an abandoned dog as does the guy who choses to buy an iphone, or somebody who choses to have a child instead (which eats meat - talking about ridiculous correlations)

The two are not really related...

I have saved a dog.. And never put a dog in a shelter... 

So no.. when I buy a dog, I don't kill another dog.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

David Winners said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> I'm busy.


Great response to a newbie that may or may not live in this country where there are laws against puppy mills. Some other countries allow more or less cruelty to animals than we do. But good welcoming attitude there David. 

Lykoz, here in the states, animal welfare groups are not elected or appointed. They tend to be made up of people who have the most zeal, and are the most extreme. I agree with laws that set standards for animal welfare, for the most part but not animal rights. And yet, who is going to be placed in a position to give the seal of approval to breeders? Probably people who have never whelped a litter. They can fault you for not keeping the room at 90 degrees because may that is what Yorkie pups need, but GSD pups do not need. And we cannot have experts of each breed making up these guidelines, there are hundreds of breeds. 

So it falls under agriculture. And they use vets (who really aren't breeders), and they set the rules for large scale operations, which doesn't fit, pretty much can't fit good breeders. I am not sure what the answer is, but having animal welfare people (whoever they are) set the bar for breeders is as bad as having the US department of agriculture do it. 

What was this thread about, yeah PETA and the dead dog -- well PETA -- people for the ethical treatment of animals _would _demonize all breeders. This is not because shelter dogs die when people choose breeders instead, but because they do not believe it is ethical treatment for an animal to be subject to a human animal. So, they do not adopt pets out, really they don't try, because they truly believe that pet dogs should not exist. That dogs should live in feral packs and we should watch them through the window, like we do with deer. So no breeder would get any seal of approval from these yayhoos.

As for why import? Well because shelters run out of puppies. Some puppies are turned in with their dam and some are euthanized. But the demand is for puppies. So while there are dogs on death row, shelters are importing puppies, because puppies will get homes. Not all shelters. But some do. I think the idea is, if people cannot find cute puppies in the shelter, then they will go to breeders, and since that is worse than anything, we will import puppies so that potential adopters will not go to breeders instead. Sad.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

selzer said:


> Great response to a newbie that may or may not live in this country where there are laws against puppy mills. Some other countries allow more or less cruelty to animals than we do. But good welcoming attitude there David.
> 
> Lykoz, here in the states, animal welfare groups are not elected or appointed. They tend to be made up of people who have the most zeal, and are the most extreme. I agree with laws that set standards for animal welfare, for the most part but not animal rights. And yet, who is going to be placed in a position to give the seal of approval to breeders? Probably people who have never whelped a litter. They can fault you for not keeping the room at 90 degrees because may that is what Yorkie pups need, but GSD pups do not need. And we cannot have experts of each breed making up these guidelines, there are hundreds of breeds.
> 
> ...


Apart from the slight Personal Attack (PA). 

Thanks for the great post. And the time to address the discussion and present a good response. Others seem to just enter for PA.. And disappear when asked to present their views. I wonder... Why Troll and engage the topic at all? Google is available to us all  This is about discussion. And backing of your views. If you dont want to engage. Please go somewhere else.

It is a pitty that animal rights groups have it 'so wrong'... Their policies can and DO influence legislature in many countries... It often does.

But I get the point you are making. It is very valid.


----------



## Colie CVT (Nov 10, 2013)

Honestly, I think the best thing for the world of animals would be responsible pet ownership. People should know what they are looking for in a companion, know what size of animal they can have/handle. They should know if they are able to have animals within their budget, should have to be responsible for the needs of that animal. They should have to adhere to a set standard of manners to have the animal out in public. If their pet does something, they should be responsible and take responsibility for what consequences the actions caused. 

The issue is that everyone likes to place blame onto others. And I have noticed that some people see it as some kind of badge of honor, something to use as an excuse that they rescued a dog. These people don't really try to fix fears by building trust and confidence. They simply allow these fears to keep going and blame others for scaring Fluffy and making her snap at them. Things like this cause others to be less inclined to adopt an animal, having to see and deal with that from the other end of things. 

I've worked with a lot of different animals over the years, starting in rescue, moving into biomedical research, livestock, and landing in the world of veterinary medicine. The people in all cases are the ones who really are to blame. From their lies, their blind eyes, excuses. There are wonderful people in every situations. People who try their hardest to do right by the animals that they have, that they work with. The human-animal bond is a completely complex and vastly different thing for every person who is part of it. We should not shame one another for our choices or try to "educate" one another on why our choice is superior to another. 

It's the bottom line. Everyone has different needs and wants. Different situations. We should adhere to our situations, needs and wants. Go with what will fit within our situations. Be proud of that. But we also don't have to be guilted for our choice and told that we're killing something because of what fits within our lives. That is the message of this ad, and it is a hurtful message. We need to stop things like this because if we want to move forward, working together and understanding one another is a far better way of going about it. 

I have always been a full believer in experiencing something for yourself before making judgment on it. Most of these sentimental ads and campaigns use the ignorance of the average person to their advantage. They prey upon emotions. Because emotions invoke the most passionate responses. If everyone sat back and thought about it logically, asked what was happening and then saw it themselves, went to help with it themselves. I think we'd have a much different world if that was the case.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

Rei said:


> The whole "when you buy, shelter dogs die!" is such a load of junk. For one, if I did adopt it would be through private rescue and from a foster home, and the local ones here have a no kill policy. Soon PETA will be ripping on anyone who doesn't actually, literally save a life by either choosing a dog about to be pts that day, or by running into a burning building.
> 
> Secondly, choosing a dog doesn’t work like that. In _this _context, a dog is not a dog is not a dog. If I was not able to get the type of dog I wanted (working bred, from a breeder, etc.), I’m not going to shrug my shoulders and say “oh well, guess I’ll go adopt a Pekingnese from a high kill shelter now!”. Those are two different types of dogs that serve very, very different purposes, and one doesn’t just replace the other.
> 
> Essentially my decision to buy a dog from a breeder has nothing to do with me choosing not to adopt a dog about to be PTS. Those are two completely separate decisions. When I start looking for a dog, I’m not looking in general. When I decide to get a dog, I already have a very specific idea of what I want, and that includes where the dog comes from (whether it's a breeder or rescue/shelter dog).


I got this far and this pretty much sums it up.

The "when you buy, a shelter dog dies" is one of the dumbest guilt trips I've ever seen. And I'm done lending any credibility to people who play that card. When I hear it from someone, I simply cannot bring myself to take them seriously anymore.

On a more alarming level, some people in this camp would happily take away my right to buy the dog I want and my right to make veterinary decisions as I see fit. I certainly don't intend to capitulate to their agenda when it comes to decisions I make regarding the members of my household. I'll cop to a little bit of a reactionary attitude and admit that I have been so soured on rescue by some especially zealous and vocal individuals that I have lost any inspiration to ever adopt or even donate money. We are discontinuing our donations to rescue-related efforts and I'm looking for other ways to donate to animal-related causes that are pro-breeder or at least not anti-breeder.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> It would just make certain people breeding that have not met basic standards illegal, and punishable in the court of law.


 We already have that.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> We already have that.


Care to share an example/story of how somebody was significantly punished for undertaking such practises? Just one example in the whole world...?

Theory and application are two different things.

If there is no minimum requirements or regulation, how can you prove negligent behaviour in court?

After all in most countries/states a dog is classified as personal property...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> Good to hear
> 
> Since you know more about the topic I would love to know what the penal punishment specific to your state/country for running a puppy mill.


It's really easy to search. Just put in whatever state you want. 

https://www.animallaw.info/statute/nv-dog-consolidated-dog-laws


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> Care to share an example/story of how somebody was significantly punished for undertaking such practises?
> 
> Theory and application are two different things.
> 
> ...


Pahrump Puppy Mill Shut Down - 8 News NOW

68 counts of animal cruelty, evicted from her home, 2 grandchildren were removed by child protective services...

That's just Nevada. As David said google is your friend.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> Pahrump Puppy Mill Shut Down - 8 News NOW


My point exactly... 

The summary of your article:

"It is a miracle that this little Yorkie, or the 64 others now at the Southern Nye County Friends of Animals, are alive."

"$1,000 fine, 48 hours of community service and whatever else the judge finds necessary. Nass also faces welfare and check fraud charges."

Laws against abuse... And basically almost killing the dogs (64 of them)

And he gets 1000 fine.. and 48 hours community service... I am sure he made a **** of a lot more than just selling pure-bred dogs without good work practises... This is not what I was calling for...

Meanwhile he will likely be locked up for check fraud, if convicted...

Just saying.. Does not compute... Not good enough... 
(For the Pro-Americans: Need to always be sensitive here (people dont like non-american's commenting on american affairs for some reason)... Not critisizing America... Other countries are much worse.. America is a beacon of hope compared to other places).

PS the eviction had every little to do with sentencing... She was likely renting (You cant take someone's personal property away even if he killed another human being, unless he sold it to pay bail etc.)... And as for the children, they were deemed not fit to be parents by child protection services... This is reliance on completely other laws.
Do not misquote your article.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Google

FBI adds animal cruelty as 'crime against society' in uniform crime report


FBI adds animal cruelty as 'crime against society' in uniform crime report | NJ.com


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Jax08 said:


> Google
> 
> FBI adds animal cruelty as 'crime against society' in uniform crime report
> 
> ...


Thank you for that... Well done to America... I wish other countries would follow this example.

I am still following a case in my home country over a year ago about a guy who tied his Rotweiler behind his pickup truck and dragged it to death... 

In spite of it being overseen by a full political party (Who has some government votes).. Still nothing... This is one of those big publicity cases that could change things... Hoping for the best...

Animals over here go through far worse on a daily basis, every day...

Of the 3 major cases the party is overlooking... Over several years, they have not got a single conviction as of yet...

Another case involves seeing a homeless dog thrown in a hotel garbage disposal unit, until death... In broad daylight by hotel staff... With tourists and other onlookers having seen the whole thing... Still nothing...

Another case involved severe beating, broken hips etc... Many witnessess.. Also nothing...

Big money poured in just to get convictions... Its a publicity image thing for political party to get votes and stay in government...

Yet they are struggling to even get convicitions in any of these cases, in over a year of legal proceedings for each..

The other day, we saw a cat skinned alive and left to die on the top of a flag pole, at a stadium, likely by some kids... No convictions. (This time they didnt even have a suspect)
But it just shows the brutality and open visibility and severity of the situation..

Anyways my suggestion was somehow giving positive minimum requirements of breeding protocols, to get a license to breed legally.. Not so much just about animal cruelty.

I may be wrong in theory as, making anything black market some times makes matters worse...

But it shore would give some better breeders, some sort of competitive advantage.. Especially if heavy fines were imposed on people contravening....


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> PS the eviction had every little to do with sentencing... She was likely renting (You cant take someone's personal property away even if he killed another human being, unless he sold it to pay bail etc.)... And as for the children, they were deemed not fit to be parents by child protection services... This is reliance on completely other laws.
> Do not misquote your article.


You know what. Whatever. Believe whatever you want. I was trying to be nice and provide you with helpful links and you attack. So do your own darn google research. I am happy with the laws of my state. The last thing we need is more regulation and bull crap laws to add costs to everything. If you don't like your laws fix them where you live and leave us alone to worry about our own laws.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> You know what. Whatever. Believe whatever you want. I was trying to be nice and provide you with helpful links and you attack. So do your own darn google research. I am happy with the laws of my state. The last thing we need is more regulation and bull crap laws to add costs to everything. If you don't like your laws fix them where you live and leave us alone to worry about our own laws.


Thank you for being nice... Unfortunately you found an article just to prove me wrong, more than to present a good argument.

Just did not think it was a good example.

I said you can use any example in the whole world..

It is actually harder to find than one might think..

If you looked a bit longer you may have found a better situational example..

But generally people commit atrocious acts to dogs with no real consequence.

I hear assaulting a police canine in some countries is similar to attacking a human officer. Not sure how true this is.
But that sort of severity should stand in atrocious dog abuse cases.

I think if people did not try so hard to prove me wrong, they might read what I am saying, and maybe agree on many of the points I am making.

I am certainly agreeing with many others views as I comment on this thread.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> Thank you for being nice... Unfortunately you found an article just to prove me wrong, more than to present a good argument.
> 
> Just did not think it was a good example.
> 
> I said you can use any example in the whole world..


Obviously we are not communicating. I wasn't trying to prove you wrong I was trying to answer this. 



> penal punishment specific to your state/country for running a puppy mill.


I linked you to the laws in my state and then found a state specific example. 

One thing I would like to point out is I said the lady was evicted. Evicted means kicked out of a rental house. It doesn't mean her house was seized. 

Her grandkids were taken probably because of the filth in the house. Grandkids mean she was not the parent. I don't know if the parents lost custody all I know from the article was that the grandkids were removed from her care. 

Being kicked out of her home and losing the chance to spend time with her grandkids on top of the felony counts seems like pretty harsh punishment to me especially since she is obviously an older individual.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In bold. Exactly. Comes back to a point I've made a couple of times and get in all kinds of hot water for doing so, groups like PETA, rescues who glom onto the PETA message (unwittingly most of the time) and the pet suppliers pushing the message that dogs (pets in general) should be treated like humans. The intended and unintended consequences is and will be more laws and regulations.

Yet if someone dares push back on this meme and try to warn about it we get shouted down and accused of being abusive and evil and so on. This is not an exaggeration either. It has gotten that bad.

I think this is more prominent in urban/suburban areas so that may be why some of our rural friends aren't seeing or hearing this as much. 




shepherdmom said:


> You know what. Whatever. Believe whatever you want. I was trying to be nice and provide you with helpful links and you attack. So do your own darn google research. I am happy with the laws of my state.* The last thing we need is more regulation and bull crap laws to add costs to everything*. If you don't like your laws fix them where you live and leave us alone to worry about our own laws.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I've made a couple of times and get in all kinds of hot water for doing so, groups like PETA, rescues who glom onto the PETA message (unwittingly most of the time) *and the pet suppliers pushing the message that dogs (pets in general) should be treated like humans.* The intended and unintended consequences is and will be more laws and regulations.


I find it interesting that while following the thread, it seems like Lykoz has been trying to push the fact that dogs are still considered personal property and therefore the punishment for abusing that property isn't great enough in his opinion. But the only way to increase penalties, is to basically make a dog something other than personal property, which is what people are arguing against; giving dogs some sort of rights (which will never happen because it would cause way too many issues), but still, a funny argument all things considered.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

martemchik said:


> I find it interesting that while following the thread, it seems like Lykoz has been trying to push the fact that dogs are still considered personal property and therefore the punishment for abusing that property isn't great enough in his opinion. But the only way to increase penalties, is to basically make a dog something other than personal property, which is what people are arguing against; giving dogs some sort of rights (which will never happen because it would cause way too many issues), but still, a funny argument all things considered.


Isn't that PETA's argument as well? Now I'm really confused.


----------



## misslesleedavis1 (Dec 5, 2013)

The way I see it is,
If you have your heart set on a dog from a breeder for whatever reason,
-sport
-health
whatever,
Then chances are nothing will sway them, especially when they have educated themselves and know exactly what they are looking for. You could shut down all the breeders tomorrow and it's not like they would be running out to the pound or rescue to drop cash on something they don't want. Chances are the pounds and rescues would still be maxed out and the euthanasia rate would still be high. So, I don't buy into the whole buy a dog kill a dog sales pitch.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> I find it interesting that while following the thread, it seems like Lykoz has been trying to push the fact that dogs are still considered personal property and therefore the punishment for abusing that property isn't great enough in his opinion. But the only way to increase penalties, is to basically make a dog something other than personal property, which is what people are arguing against; giving dogs some sort of rights (which will never happen because it would cause way too many issues), but still, a funny argument all things considered.





shepherdmom said:


> Isn't that PETA's argument as well? Now I'm really confused.


Ref: Sheperdmom, Quoted martemchik for relevance.
PETA says many things...

Amongst the rubbish they say, they bring up valid points also...

You cant judge an argument negatively based solely on the fact that someone's ideology on separate matters is flawed..

Weather what I say has any agreements with PETA is completely irrelevant.. And a non issue.

Make any argument about anything.. and I can find common themes with people you would naturally disagree with on the whole...

I could find similarities with any statement you put out there if I cross reference, hitler, Stalin or any number of things... Especially if that statement was about the same theme...

Again.. I have been pretty clear on what I think with regards to that SPECIFIC PETA video...

PETA on their website for example have a SUPPORT POST for CHARLIE HEBDO...

As you are an American who supposedly believes in freedom of speech... I would assume that you share a similar view on Charlie Hebdo...

You are really nitpicking, and changing arguments to suit you in trying to vilify me with absolutely nothing to contribute.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I think this is more prominent in urban/suburban areas so that may be why some of our rural friends aren't seeing or hearing this as much.


We don't treat dogs as humans so much because well we really can't. Dog's have a job to do. Even if its just keeping coyotes out of the yard or chasing the rabbits out of the garden. (which my dogs suck at btw the rabbits have taken over  )

Our rescue resources are limited and our big concerns are trying to get people to have their animals spayed or neutered and to keep dogs out of the back of pick up trucks and to give them appropriate shelter and water when its hot or cold.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> Make any argument about anything.. and I can find common themes with people you would naturally disagree with on the whole...
> 
> I could find similarities with any statement you put out there if I cross reference, hitler, Stalin or any number of things... Especially if that statement was about the same theme...


So, is that your game here? You aren't really concerned with the topic at hand, you just enjoy the argument? Are you nothing more than a rocking chair blow hard with Cheeto stained fingers?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I am (and I think Lykoz is as well) seeking the middle path.


Aaauuuuummmm.

Anyhow, let's not allow good to become the enemy of perfect.


Seeking to push back against extremists who have largely taken over the conversation of late is not a black and white proposition.

Several times I've asked why do people get a dog and then dump a dog. Jax addressed this as did Lykoz, at a more sociological level.

IMO at an individual level many times dogs are dumped because they are simply "too much work" and dog owners are often being set up to fail because of the messaging propagated by PETA and those who follow in it's wake.

Well trained dogs are easy to live with. Dogs that are not overly energetic are easier to live with. 

How do you train and excercise a dog that is considered to be a "human child" when in fact they really don't move through the world understanding and learning the way we do? See people who buy into that philosophy are set up to fail more often then not.

I just got off the phone with a women who begged her husband to get rid of their dog because the dog pound dog they adopted was a young spaz of a black lab. She hung onto the dog in the end but it's been 4 years of a dysfunctional relationship. Many give up and dump the dog back in the pound or back to the rescue.

I went through the same rigamerole with Smitty. I didn't know how to train him, was PO dogs are people kind of person. Then Ilda came along and I had access to an IPO trainer who also taught group OB and learned how to use a prong correctly and the lights came on. 

I was lucky, because of that trainer and this site I was snapped out of the PETA vortex.

Many people aren't that lucky.

So I'm looking at how to break the cycle in my community. If it works and I'm not demonized to the point of giving up, I'll share how it works....or doesn't.



martemchik said:


> I find it interesting that while following the thread, it seems like Lykoz has been trying to push the fact that dogs are still considered personal property and therefore the punishment for abusing that property isn't great enough in his opinion. But the only way to increase penalties, is to basically make a dog something other than personal property, which is what people are arguing against; giving dogs some sort of rights (which will never happen because it would cause way too many issues), but still, a funny argument all things considered.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Hehehe, one for the bunnies. 

Yup, that's how it used to be, dogs earned their keep. Pre industrial revolution dogs for pets were very much a luxury.





shepherdmom said:


> We don't treat dogs as humans so much because well we really can't. Dog's have a job to do. Even if its just keeping coyotes out of the yard or chasing the rabbits out of the garden. (which my dogs suck at btw the rabbits have taken over  )
> 
> Our rescue resources are limited and our big concerns are trying to get people to have their animals spayed or neutered and to keep dogs out of the back of pick up trucks and to give them appropriate shelter and water when its hot or cold.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

And....I'll go out on a theoretical limb and say a person who takes time to really research the breed and breeder is less likely to dump the dog down the road.

A person who is committed to the process of finding the best dog for themselves and their family, it would follow, will be more committed to the dog for it's life time.

The dogs we tend to see dumped in our area and unwanted are mixes, BYBS pitties/Pitt mixes and other BYB dogs that have nerve, health, temperament problems.

Every once and while a dog crops up in a pound/shelter that is from a good breeder, but IME that's the exception not the rule.



misslesleedavis1 said:


> The way I see it is,
> If you have your heart set on a dog from a breeder for whatever reason,
> -sport
> -health
> ...


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> ..
> You are really nitpicking, and changing arguments to suit you in trying to vilify me with absolutely nothing to contribute.


Paranoid much? Why would I try to vilify you? I don't know you. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck you are saying. 

So far, what I think you are saying, is that PETA is bad, Shelters are bad, Rescues are bad.... Breeders are sort of good but should be regulated by the rescues? 

I find martemchik's theory that you are trying to say we should not define dogs as personal property interesting. Because I think that is Peta's message as well. 

Please enlighten me as to what the heck message you are trying to get across. 



> As you are an American who supposedly believes in freedom of speech... I would assume that you share a similar view on Charlie Hebdo...


and while your at it please explain what Charlie Hebdo has to do with dogs?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Hahaha....I got that backwards.

"Let's not allow perfect to become the enemy of good"

Posting tired, never a good idea.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

shepherdmom said:


> Paranoid much? Why would I try to vilify you? I don't know you. I'm just trying to figure out what the heck you are saying.
> 
> So far, what I think you are saying, is that PETA is bad, Shelters are bad, Rescues are bad.... Breeders are sort of good but should be regulated by the rescues?
> 
> ...


Ref: I am saying that NOT ALL SHELTER EFFORTS ARE BAD... I AM SAYING THEY ARE GOOD... SOME OF WHAT PETA IS DOING IS GREAT....

Sorry for CAPS. It is just to be completely clear. I am as Gwen said seeking a middle ground. I am not dealing absolute.

Nobody and nothing is absolutely right or wrong...
And everything needs to be broken down, and criticised for improvements.

Nobody is untouchable... Nothing is set in stone... Our opinions matter... And nothing should be beyond repraisal (More reference to Charlie Hebdo)
It is what defines Western Culture. The ability to express oneself, completely and free. "freedom of speech"..

Transferal of ideas and criticism opens up more logical thought. 

Ref: Hebdo
We share ideas and values with everyone in some form or way.. Peta has many insights and placement of ideas... 
The fact that I think holistically they are throwing too many bad messages, does not mean I will not believe in much of what they do say.
Similarly, If you read their articles and policy statements, you will also find an agreement in something they are saying.
Hebdo was my example of something they said, that is likely to resonate with you.. weather you agree with them or not on other issues.

*"God is dead" - Friedrich Nietzsche*
Good read for anybody interested: Related, but not directly.. Just some Extra on Critical thinking from a world renowned and game changing Philosopher.
Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I am (and I think Lykoz is as well) seeking the middle path.



Middle path never works. You can’t have a middle path when you’re talking about laws and the legal system. It has to be as close to black/white as possible. I get that many of you are really passionate about this subject, but the last thing we need are laws that start spelling out how we are supposed to own dogs. Probably the best part about America is that unless human safety is involved, the government tends to stay out of what you do with your property. The moment you give dogs or any animals some sort of rights…you’re going down a very slippery slope.

Think of this forum…I can easily vilify or negatively judge how pretty much anyone on this forum owns/raises their dogs. Does that mean my opinion needs to be made into law? There are just way too many varying opinions on what’s right and wrong when it comes to raising dogs that any law would fail miserably. Trust me, anything that the government might do, will be a negative. The best thing they can do is stay out of it. Do I feel bad about the puppy mills/byb’s/ect where dogs are being abused and not living a life like my dogs do…of course…but the moment the government is the one that steps in and makes much more stringent laws about how animals are to be treated, we’ll find something to complain about.

Think of what Europe has already done…banning certain collars due to not understanding of how they work, that’s exactly what would start happening. Sorry, but unfortunately when the “problem” is actually quite a small percentage of the total market, the last thing that is needed is more regulation.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

That's a major logical fallacy to start with:

"Middle path never works".

There are very few nevers in life. One being you will never escape death or live forever, at least in this physical form. 

That's how extreme the reasoning is....you have to cite something like death to prove it.

The reason the collars were banned in Europe is because extreme points of view were not challenged, early and diligently. It is due to a lack of balance that an extreme solution was adopted.





martemchik said:


> Middle path never works. You can’t have a middle path when you’re talking about laws and the legal system. It has to be as close to black/white as possible. I get that many of you are really passionate about this subject, but the last thing we need are laws that start spelling out how we are supposed to own dogs. Probably the best part about America is that unless human safety is involved, the government tends to stay out of what you do with your property. The moment you give dogs or any animals some sort of rights…you’re going down a very slippery slope.
> 
> Think of this forum…I can easily vilify or negatively judge how pretty much anyone on this forum owns/raises their dogs. Does that mean my opinion needs to be made into law? There are just way too many varying opinions on what’s right and wrong when it comes to raising dogs that any law would fail miserably. Trust me, anything that the government might do, will be a negative. The best thing they can do is stay out of it. Do I feel bad about the puppy mills/byb’s/ect where dogs are being abused and not living a life like my dogs do…of course…but the moment the government is the one that steps in and makes much more stringent laws about how animals are to be treated, we’ll find something to complain about.
> 
> Think of what Europe has already done…banning certain collars due to not understanding of how they work, that’s exactly what would start happening. Sorry, but unfortunately when the “problem” is actually quite a small percentage of the total market, the last thing that is needed is more regulation.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

misslesleedavis1 said:


> The way I see it is,
> If you have your heart set on a dog from a breeder for whatever reason,
> -sport
> -health
> ...


I think you are right on this; people who want to buy for whatever reason (sport, health, temperament, avoiding rescue) will probably do so rather than adopt. This resolve might be less robust among some subgroups than others, but it exists.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

WateryTart said:


> I think you are right on this; people who want to buy for whatever reason (sport, health, temperament, avoiding rescue) will probably do so rather than adopt. This resolve might be less robust among some subgroups than others, but it exists.


Disagree on the whatever statement... 

Subtle but important...
Most people buy pure bred dogs because they 'like' the breed or think it is 'cute'.

To an extent on self-reflection, my first puppy as a child was selected by me... Sure I read about each breed characteristics... But my major decision was also based on looks and cuteness...

Even today, I think Long-Haired GSD's are the most beautiful.

Some people select dogs entirely on physical appearance and size...


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

Lykoz said:


> Disagree on the whatever statement...
> 
> Subtle but important...
> Most people buy pure bred dogs because they 'like' the breed or think it is 'cute'.


Well, obviously. Did my list have to be exhaustive to pass muster with you?


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

WateryTart said:


> Well, obviously. Did my list have to be exhaustive to pass muster with you?


I am guilty of nitpicking now. I understand what you mean now 
Sorry. 

Just wanted to clear it up.
Was also kind of referring to the post you quoted in context with your post.
So some meaning was lost.

Bad quotation too by me.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> That's a major logical fallacy to start with:
> 
> "Middle path never works".


It's not though...

Because there is no such thing as a middle. I can think you're extreme in your opinion even though you believe you're in the middle. There is no middle. Depending on who's judging the opinion, it's always going to be somewhere on the left/right scale.

So that's why the middle doesn't work. You can push all you want for something YOU believe is in the middle, but I can believe that it's way too extreme. And we'll never come together. And that's why a law can't be made about something like dog ownership, or force breeders to do x, y, z.

For good regulation...people have to buy into the regulations. They almost have to be "self-regulated" which is kind of what the SV was originally meant to be. Sure...if AKC decided to make some stricter regulations like the SV does it would help, but they won't, and again you'll still have plenty of people doing it wrong and just not registering dogs.

I can tell you this, it's mostly this forum that shows me how far apart truly passionate dog people are on their ideals. The perfect example is always the "should I breed my dog" thread or "what to look for in a reputable breeder" thread. I can tell you this...I know for a fact that there are breeders that are constantly recommended on this forum (and some are part of this forum) that break the rules that people lay out in both of those threads. Yet those same people that laid out those "rules", and not others that didn't come up with those "rules"...will recommend those breeders.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> It's not though...
> 
> Because there is no such thing as a middle. I can think you're extreme in your opinion even though you believe you're in the middle. There is no middle. Depending on who's judging the opinion, it's always going to be somewhere on the left/right scale.
> 
> ...


She is not saying she is smack bam in the middle...
Somewhere in-between...

People will fall a bit right or left etc. on each specific issue...

Overall however your position should adapt and change with what is current and best evidence. It should never be absolute. That is where the danger lies.. Because your opinion can never be influenced... And everything can be proven at least slightly false.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> She is not saying she is smack bam in the middle...
> Somewhere in-between...
> 
> People will fall a bit right or left etc. on each specific issue...
> ...


Which leaves things way too open for interpretation and then nothing gets done and people still get angry. I know what she's saying...but you just can't do middle. You're then leaving other people to make the judgment. 

If you want to adapt and change with what's current...you can't have laws made about it. Because laws take way too long to change. Maybe where you live they don't, but in the United States, it takes way too long to get any sort of change done. So the last thing we should ever be campaigning for, is laws based on today's opinions when it comes to small things that affect the smallest minority of the population.

The way the system works...the more you leave open for interpretation, the more issues you're going to get. The job of a jury/judge is to interpret a law, and also interpret if who ever is on trial has broken that law. So when you want to create a law, that leaves anything up to question, or any kind of ambiguity, you're going to fail. That is why our laws tend to have very exact language, numbers, and levels, so that there is very little left open to the interpretation of the jury or the judge.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It's a matter of critical mass Max, not absolutes.

The push and pull isn't a sign that there is no way to achieve a majority in the middle, which Lykoz rightly defines as more of a broad area rather then a sharp narrow line.

There will always be extremes, the goal is to minimize their influence through various methods, one of which is diligently pushing back through discussion, demonstration and may be even a bit of reverse pyschology.

I have a theory, the theory is if we work to set up more dog owners to succeed and own that success we will see fewer dogs dumped in the pounds.

We talk a lot on this site about setting dogs up to succeed, not so much about the humans that own them.

If anything PETA and it's messaging has made owning a dog harder. People struggle with owning all the responsibility but aren't empowered to make that responsibility do-able.

True most aren't dog nerds like us, but most don't need precise OB either. They just need the dog to be easy to live with. 


(Re: the breeder example, that's because they don't want to start a fight or insult one another in a public forum, hence the no breeder bashing rule. You know that one on one in private that rule does not apply......)




martemchik said:


> It's not though...
> 
> Because there is no such thing as a middle. I can think you're extreme in your opinion even though you believe you're in the middle. There is no middle. Depending on who's judging the opinion, it's always going to be somewhere on the left/right scale.
> 
> ...


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

What people (even in here obviously) fail to realize is that to a point stricter legislation does NOT belong in dog breeding. Politicians need to stick to what they know best. They need to focus on abuse and stricter fines and penalties for that.

When you get down to regulating breeding on a nationwide level, puppy mill type scenarios WILL win. Why? Because everything has to become standardized. So then looking at legislation - sanitary conditions, etc... it's not the good breeder breeding in their kitchen that will be supported. Such laws already proposed include "sanitary whelping areas" ie something like concrete kennels with minimal bedding.

proposed legislation that would make anyone producing more than 25 dogs a year a commercially licensed breeder, and it would be interesting to know breeding requirements (such as housing requirements for new litters), I unfortunately could not find that information. Anyone producing 2 litters a year of german shepherds could potentially have large litters with 13 pups, and would need to be registered as a commercial breeder

http://m.isthmus.com/article.php?article=25568



new USDA legislation requiring licensing as a commercial retail breeder if you have more than 4 breeding females and sell sight unseen (I never met berlin before I purchased him he was shipped from Michigan). Breeding female also means ANY intact female of reproductive age, of any species.

https://www.akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=5211

This means breeders with animals that maintain largely free run of the house may not comply to AWA breeding standards!


----------



## Anubis_Star (Jul 25, 2012)

Two concerning parts of the regulation for the good breeder, concerning housing

Surfaces

"The interior of a facility must be substantially impervious to moisture and able to be easily cleaned and sanitized" .

Therefor is a carpeted bedroom no allowed?

Another regulation

"(2) puppies and kittens should be separated from adult animals other than their mothers"

I know many great breeders that allow contact with other animals and greater roaming as the pups age.


So again, laws really need to be scrutinized when it comes to regulating breeders, because they are NOT always the best. Every great breeder I can think of would likely violate some of these provisions


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

So I'm going to jump in the middle of this and hopefully not get torn apart. But I wanted to contribute because I work with general public almost every day. The people who are actually affected by this type of propaganda and groupthink. And then I am usually on the consequence end of this, the "problem" dogs, the abandonment, the frustration and miscommunication.

Even if we went to every breeder in America on a case by case basis and evaluated them individually, there would always be contention about who is actually a good breeder, who is a bad one, who is a backyard breeder, who is a puppy mill, etc. Plus, as others have said, regulation would just complicate and confuse the already simmering disagreement. 

I think the burden needs to fall on the owner. No matter where the dog comes from, it ideally should be cared for throughout its life by the owner (barring things such as death, extreme illness or injury, etc). But normal things such as training, grooming, feeding, should not be reasons to give a dog up. The main reason that I see dogs being given up is twofold: 1)lack of education AND 2) the pervasive humanization of dogs.

We will probably never not have shelters, but I do feel that if these two issues were solved it would be possible to minimize the occurrence of shelters and rehoming.

These things don't even really need a standardized method either. There are so many basics that people just generally don't know. Do you have any idea how many people I have to tell in a day that, yes their poodle/maltese/****zu/haired dog needs to be brushed? Or how many people I have to tell that yes a German Shepherd will always shed no matter what you do? Or how many people I have to educate that yes, a puppy needs basic vaccinations? I'm not talking about arguments over minimum vaccination schedules or home vs vet vaccinations. I mean just that it is legally required at this moment that dogs have at the very least rabies vaccinations. And people don't know.

Then humanization I put in its own category because this deals specifically with the growing idea that a pet is the same as a human child and should be treated as such. About 90% of training issues I come across when dealing with Joe Blow is because of this issue in particular. The idea that dogs are mini humans has become so pervasive that even what used to be common sense with dogs (they respond to attention, or dogs can't tear up what they can't get to) has become rocket science in this day and age. I joke about my dog doing human-like things (haha, look at how proud Kaiju is that he tore up my book) but I know he doesn't actually have those human feelings. I know that he's torn something up because it's fun and rewarding to him or he's bored and not because he is trying to show me who's boss or because he is trying to get me back for not giving him a bully stick the other night. But there are huge amounts of people that TRULY BELIEVE their dog has torn something up for payback or their dog sits for them because the dog loves them. The attribution of these human emotions and states is so damaging to dogs because people respond to them as they would another human and not like a human communicating with a dog. There is so much communication breakdown today it would be almost comical if it didn't result in dogs being dumped because they didn't learn to not get in the garbage after being told "No, that's bad" a few times.

So no, people buying from breeders does not kill a shelter dog. And this may be unpopular, but even if they buy from backyard breeders or puppy mills, they still don't kill a shelter dog. Because every dog, regardless of where it came from will still need a home and that responsibility will fall to the owner. The way to reduce the shelter population and the occurrence of backyard breeders and puppy mills at the same time is to educate the public on WHY it is important to get their dogs from reputable sources in the first place and how to keep whatever dog they have for the rest of its life. And this lends to a regulation derived from the education of the buyer. People learn to buy from reputable sources, the market for less reputable sources (puppy mills, backyard breeders) fades and they at the very least shrink in occurrence if not go out of business all together.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

That was a great post, Pax!


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Pax8 said:


> So I'm going to jump in the middle of this and hopefully not get torn apart. But I wanted to contribute because I work with general public almost every day. The people who are actually affected by this type of propaganda and groupthink. And then I am usually on the consequence end of this, the "problem" dogs, the abandonment, the frustration and miscommunication.
> 
> Even if we went to every breeder in America on a case by case basis and evaluated them individually, there would always be contention about who is actually a good breeder, who is a bad one, who is a backyard breeder, who is a puppy mill, etc. Plus, as others have said, regulation would just complicate and confuse the already simmering disagreement.
> 
> ...


Great logical coherent post. I can understand the point you are making against regulation. 

I guess many countries, do have some sort of regulation in the form of minimum requirements in issuing pedigree already...

These policies change over time and country I guess.

For example you need OFFA certefied parents for GSD's to get pedigree..

Some country specific GSD associations have a minimum requirement for BH Exams to be passed in order to breed...

Maybe I should give up on some sort of overall standardisation/regulation process.. I guess the 'pedigree' is kind of the minimum requirement for many breeds.

Should focus more on GSD and less on 'an every breed minimum'..

I guess that will have to do for now.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> Those regulations aren't passed by the countries. Like I stated earlier, they're basically "self regulatory agencies" that have been accepted by the people involved.
> 
> I don't believe there is a single country with minimal breeding requirement laws on the books. Mostly because you'd need different requirements for every breed of dog.


Dont know what happens in the states...

Over here in cyprus we have a GSD Association (A bit in shambles, but hey it exists...) 

And overlooking that and all breeds they have the Cyprus Kennel Club...

Which kind of overlooks all specific breeds.

Some have their own associations, some don't.

All things considered, I think its an OK system. Certainly better than nothing. 

I guess its mostly paper pushing anyways.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Lykoz said:


> Dont know what happens in the states...
> 
> Over here in cyprus we have a GSD Association (A bit in shambles, but hey it exists...)
> 
> ...


My point is...those aren't GOVERNMENT organizations. There isn't a law anywhere that says "AKC must exist and control pedigrees/breeding of dogs in the United States."

We have the GSDCA and USCA, which are just other organizations that claim to protect the breed, but at the end of the day has nothing to do with breeding dogs.

Like I said earlier, the SV is probably the closest/best organization that does that, but it's not a government agency. The SV controls the registering of GSD in Germany, and won't issue papers unless certain requirements are met, and even those are worked around many times. Basically, if you don't care about a pedigree for any reason, none of these organizations matter.

These types of organizations will also never have "fining" power. They're not the government, so they can't do anything if someone doesn't follow their "rules."

Like Pax said and I said earlier, people have to ACCEPT these regulations themselves, you can't push them on them, but they don't and they won't. The higher you make the requirements, the more people will find ways around them and you'll actually create a market for cheaper/lower quality dogs.

Here in the United States...we have a lot of breeders that claim to follow the SV breeding rules, but then when you look more into their programs, you'll see that when necessary, they don't worry about it at all. The AKC will issue a pedigree to two dogs that have full AKC registration no matter what, so what reason do these people have to follow the SV rules?

As a side note...for someone who screams so much about GSD and how they should be, and has actually attacked me over my knowledge of how things work, you seem to not know much about how things work. Many of the things I've just listed are pretty well known to the majority of people that are into the breed, and it's kind of funny how you don't know about these organizations and their contributions to the GSD breed over the decades. Maybe, before you go off making statements on how things SHOULD be, you should do a bit more research on how things are currently and what the bigger players in the GSD world are doing.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

martemchik said:


> My point is...those aren't GOVERNMENT organizations. There isn't a law anywhere that says "AKC must exist and control pedigrees/breeding of dogs in the United States."
> 
> We have the GSDCA and USCA, which are just other organizations that claim to protect the breed, but at the end of the day has nothing to do with breeding dogs.
> 
> ...


I am actually quite aware of the AKC and most american organisations... I just did not want to say risk saying something about the USA that may have been 'incorrect'.. And risk a a typical onslaught...
Also the AKC is hardly a world standard in anything.

Just another reminder... The world does not revolve just around the USA..

Do you think you would have as much knowledge about my country, as I obviously have of yours?

Yes Pax's points are very vaild. Most of your arguments however lack substance and arguments need to be explained to you very simplistically for you to understand.
Point in case: The fact that I needed to explain that "middle ground" is not the exact middle point of an argument.

I stopped replying to you for a while. I think I will do the same now.

Thank you.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

There are two main countries that are leading the way in breeding the German Shepherd and the direction of the breed. If you want to deny the fact that the United States is one of those countries, there's nothing much that needs to be said. I'm not being cocky about where I live (BTW I was actually born in Europe and go back quite often) but the fact remains, the United States is the largest market for dogs, and probably the GSD...so what happens in the United States will greatly affect the direction the breed is headed. There isn't a need for me to know about your country since it's more than likely not a place that has much to do with the direction the breed is going, and the facts you know about my country are extremely skewed and many times very incorrect. They're basically the Wikipedia articles about whatever topic you decide to have an opinion on.

I never claimed the AKC was a world standard in anything, that was actually a large part of my post. The AKC doesn't do nearly enough IMO, but they can't, people will just not use them if they do. The AKC also has to register millions of other dogs a year, keep track of all the breeds under its umbrella, it's pretty much pointless to expect them to make any kind of requirements for our breed.

And the part about "middle ground" I understood very clearly, I was just arguing a different point. Which you have come to accept and agree to. So I'm not sure why you think I didn't understand those posts, I did, I just didn't agree with them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Good post Pax8. 

I want to add, expound upon the idea that it is on the owners, that if all breeders were held to a high standard bar -- let's say some form of utopia exists, and all breeders satisfied everything around the flow chart with every litter produced, raised them properly, etc. The owners, could step through the door and drop their cash and walk out with a pup knowing that A, B, C and on through the alphabet has been met. 

There would be no need on the buyer's part to select a breeder carefully. Part of this selection process is good on both sides of the ball. The better buyers -- the ones that gain basic knowledge before contacting anyone, and then ask the right questions, well they find the better breeders (as it is), and the better breeders find the better buyers as well, because of the informal interviewing that goes on. 

I think that when buyers educate themselves, breeders feel more comfortable placing puppies with them. So I am not for dumbing down the process for buyers. 

As for the AKC, it is fine for what it is -- an all-breed registry and kennel club. They cannot be compared to the SV which is a German Shepherd registry and breed club. There is a huge difference. 

As for dogs being personal property. They are. I want for them to have that designation because property is protected under law. We have rights when it comes to our property. I think that living property should hold a different status than objects. I mean if someone beats up your coffee table with a hammer, they should be responsible for the replacement cost of the table. If they beat up on your dog or horse or cat with a hammer, than animal cruelty charges as well as restitution should happen. And, I think it does. In some situations, I think domestic violence charges should also be levied as abusers will target pets of their victims because of the pain they will inflict on the owner, and that should be in a special category. But overall, I want for animals to be owned, to be protected under property laws. Owners have rights and responsibilities as owners. I don't want the humanization of pets to blur the lines here, because I think that is a terrible Pandora's box of trouble just waiting to explode.

Every time you see a hoarding situation or a puppy mill situation exposed on TV with dogs seized and charges on the owners, what you need to understand is that the laws were already on the books. The people just weren't caught until it got really ugly. In fact, a lot of the puppy mills had been inspected, time and again, and deemed ok, or with minor findings. It is the enforcement of the laws that is the problem, not the lack of laws. Every one of those situations were criminal, else they could not seize the dogs and shut them down. Running a puppy mill is not against the law. You might not like it, but so long as you are providing basic care, you can have as many dogs as you want, and breed them. You can turn them into shelters when they get old and infirm -- not against the law. You can euthanize them (in some places yourself if not done cruelly) if they have a problem, or if you just have too many. The problem legally, is not in producing puppies, producing puppies with issues, producing puppies without papers, etc, the problem legally happens when through neglect or abuse you cause animals to suffer. 

The government should not force breeders to adhere to hip testing, cerf testing, dm testing, AKC registration, titles and the trip around the should I breed my dog flow chart. The government needs to focus on what is criminal behavior: abandoning dogs, abusing dogs, neglecting dogs to the point that they are physically damaged. It should be cut and dried, not "oh, he needs love, he needs attention, he needs two hours of play time with other dogs." He needs adequate nutrition, shelter, space, grooming, and vet care. These the government agencies have a chance and providing guidelines for and enforcing them.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

selzer said:


> Good post Pax8.
> 
> I want to add, expound upon the idea that it is on the owners, that if all breeders were held to a high standard bar -- let's say some form of utopia exists, and all breeders satisfied everything around the flow chart with every litter produced, raised them properly, etc. The owners, could step through the door and drop their cash and walk out with a pup knowing that A, B, C and on through the alphabet has been met.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this post. It added a lot of value for me. Good read.


----------



## shepherdmom (Dec 24, 2011)

Lykoz said:


> Nobody and nothing is absolutely right or wrong...
> And everything needs to be broken down, and criticised for improvements.
> 
> Nobody is untouchable... Nothing is set in stone... Our opinions matter... And nothing should be beyond repraisal (More reference to Charlie Hebdo)
> ...


Oh ugh Nietzsche. That explains a lot. No wonder I can't figure out what you are trying to say. I thought you had some kind of opinion you were trying to get across that just wasn't coming through clearly. I have no interest in an endless philosophical discussion of what might or might not be behind the "buy a dog kill a dog mentality". Now that I know the kind of discussions you are looking for I will avoid your threads in the future.


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

selzer said:


> Good post Pax8.
> 
> I want to add, expound upon the idea that it is on the owners, that if all breeders were held to a high standard bar -- let's say some form of utopia exists, and all breeders satisfied everything around the flow chart with every litter produced, raised them properly, etc. The owners, could step through the door and drop their cash and walk out with a pup knowing that A, B, C and on through the alphabet has been met.
> 
> ...


Yes! I agree with this one wholeheartedly. I was about to write a second post to this effect, but you nailed it selzer.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It is a good post, but I've said the same thing in bold below several times in this thread. The dogs are 'people' meme has basically disempowered dog owners.

Maybe I'm on a lot of ignore lists. ah well. :shrug: 

Thanks for getting that across so clearly Pax.

In the meantime I'm meeting with a trainer next week to see what we can do in our local community using social media and other outlets to combat this problem.

Two things I committed to, raising funds to help the American Cancer Society (done, made the first donation two weeks ago and it continues) and helping keep dogs out of shelters through prevention. I may only make a teeny tiny dent but if this message, the one Pax (and I) have considered to be a big part of the problem, gets spread around maybe it will have a ripple effect.

Over and out.






Pax8 said:


> So I'm going to jump in the middle of this and hopefully not get torn apart. But I wanted to contribute because I work with general public almost every day. The people who are actually affected by this type of propaganda and groupthink. And then I am usually on the consequence end of this, the "problem" dogs, the abandonment, the frustration and miscommunication.
> 
> Even if we went to every breeder in America on a case by case basis and evaluated them individually, there would always be contention about who is actually a good breeder, who is a bad one, who is a backyard breeder, who is a puppy mill, etc. Plus, as others have said, regulation would just complicate and confuse the already simmering disagreement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> It is a good post, but I've said the same thing in bold below several times in this thread. The dogs are 'people' meme has basically disempowered dog owners.
> 
> Maybe I'm on a lot of ignore lists. ah well. :shrug:
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, I think everything you comment on is amazing. Sometimes I forget to mention it. 

Yes you said a lot of that stuff first.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

..oh and Lykoz, *thank you* for being willing to take this on, take some of the heat and not just the PETA aspect but the other aspects as well. Too many times people back down because a 'sacred cow' gets gored, feelings get hurt, egos bruised, all over problems which just need to be solved.

And I like Nietzsche among others too, SunTzu, The Buddha, Shakespeare., Joseph Campbell. Much can be learned......

"Often, people become much more invested in being right then actually "getting" something right." ~ Gwenny.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The important thing is that the message gets across, because what Pax (and I ) have said I believe to be true and a core problem. So I am happy for that!

AAAaaaauuuummmmmm. 

 





Lykoz said:


> For what it's worth, I think everything you comment on is amazing. Sometimes I forget to mention it.
> 
> Yes you said a lot of that stuff first.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Great post. I see no solution. This general argument could be applied to every situation where there are now huge differences in the way we think about our planet and it's wildlife. There is a new mood and it's clashing like crazy with the old ways. The basis for most breed standards and regulations are "the old ways". Society dictates, times change, opinions and ways of doing things change accordingly. 

Will there ever be solutions through education? Change would require the majority. I see society becoming more fragmented over arguments such as these, not coming together. This goes right down into the core of our world leaders. 

Re: Humanization of pets - I know what my father would say, back in the 60's he called it "The Bambification of America" and he blamed Walt Disney for humanizing animals. lol


----------



## Pax8 (Apr 8, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The important thing is that the message gets across, because what Pax (and I
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, I didn't forget you Gwen! My post was based largely on previous ones you had made. I meant to mention you somewhere in there, but I got a little too into my rant and it slipped my mind. I hope your social media project works out! I think it would be a great way to spread education in small, easy to digest messages.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

ShowSight - The Dog Show Magazine.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

. Thank you! Very happy that this rings true to you as well!

The prototype of my idea is to gather local pet professionals, groomers, trainers, vet tech, pet sitters and others to write articles *and* offer real help offline too.

I'm thinking free intro classes, OB for the "everyday" dog, keeping dogs healthy affordably and so on.

Many people really do want to keep their dogs and they need some encouragement, they need positive reinforcement too. When people feel like they can't succeed with their dog they give up. Setting people up to feel successful with their dogs and (as frustrating as it may be) not putting them on the defensive. Gotta validate the good, ignore the bad until positive habits are formed. . It won't work all the time but making people feel bad or stupid will surely turn them off.

The only problem with this idea is many professionals are reluctant to help because the idea that pets are people is so entrenched that many will stoop to personal attacks and vilification of anyone who challenges the notion. This may hurt business reputations. That's how bad the problem is though, silence for fear of being publicly tarred and feathered. 






Pax8 said:


> Lol, I didn't forget you Gwen! My post was based largely on previous ones you had made. I meant to mention you somewhere in there, but I got a little too into my rant and it slipped my mind. I hope your social media project works out! I think it would be a great way to spread education in small, easy to digest messages.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Bam! Thank you for sharing this Jane.




> *Blaming me for the death of shelter Blaming me for the death of shelter dogs is like blaming a parent for the death of orphans in Uganda because she chose to have a baby through pregnancy, rather than adopt one. *I have never surrendered an animal in my life. I have never caused the death of a dog in all my life. So why don’t you focus your ire on the people who did– the people who dumped those dogs at the shelter. They are the ones who left those dogs to die. Not me.Stop bashing your allies. Stop the shaming. We ALL need to work together for the good of dogs. Because there are scary people out there who want your dog gone. Who want your cat gone. Who want the horse out of your paddock, the guide dog out of his harness, the chicken out of the coop and the cow out of the dairy. Keep shilling their slick propaganda and shaming your fellow animal lovers and you help Animal Rights militants erase your dog from your very own home.If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to unfriend me.ans in Uganda because she chose to have a baby through pregnancy, rather than adopt one. I have never surrendered an animal in my life. I have never caused the death of a dog in all my life. So why don’t you focus your ire on the people who did– the people who dumped those dogs at the shelter. They are the ones who left those dogs to die. Not me.Stop bashing your allies. Stop the shaming. We ALL need to work together for the good of dogs. Because there are scary people out there who want your dog gone. Who want your cat gone. Who want the horse out of your paddock, the guide dog out of his harness, the chicken out of the coop and the cow out of the dairy. Keep shilling their slick propaganda and shaming your fellow animal lovers and you help Animal Rights militants erase your dog from your very own home.If anyone has a problem with that, feel free to unfriend me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## misslesleedavis1 (Dec 5, 2013)

It's all very misplaced
It's the owners fault if the dog turns out wrong, I've seen it many times before, blame the owner if the dog has issues, 
But it's never the owners fault when they are spinning that whole adopt don't shop mantra. It's always the buyers fault.


----------



## Lykoz (Dec 6, 2014)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> . Thank you! Very happy that this rings true to you as well!
> 
> The prototype of my idea is to gather local pet professionals, groomers, trainers, vet tech, pet sitters and others to write articles *and* offer real help offline too.
> 
> ...


Wow.. You are amazing Gwen.

Wish you all the best. Well done.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Thank you. 

We'll see it goes! I'll report back here on the forum.


----------



## Splendid (Aug 1, 2014)

I wonder if the US's "pet population problem" is due to their heavy restrictions on pets in rentals? 
In Canada I couldn't adopt a dog because there were always people ahead of me who had better "qualifications" (fenced yard, didn't work, not single, etc.)... I went through rejections for different dogs for about a year but when I thought about getting one from the US, I had a dog *that weekend*... from 3,000 miles away.... and still have her, she's a great dog, not someone's problem that they just wanted to dump but they couldn't keep her because they were moving (a concept which Canadians don't quite understand, why couldn't you keep a dog if you're moving??). It's unenforceable here to put a no pets restriction in a lease so people don't have as much of a reason to re-home their dogs. Even dogs with crazy behavior issues usually go with their owners, they just become shut-ins but aren't given away.
I've had my dog for almost 6 years and haven't had any problems with her, she's probably less work than owning a cat so unless her owners lost their home and had to move to a rental that didn't accept big dogs, I doubt they would have given her up (and shipped her to another country for a better life).


----------



## WirelessG (Jan 22, 2013)

I like Turtles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMNry4PE93Y


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

Splendid said:


> I wonder if the US's "pet population problem" is due to their heavy restrictions on pets in rentals?
> In Canada I couldn't adopt a dog because there were always people ahead of me who had better "qualifications" (fenced yard, didn't work, not single, etc.)... I went through rejections for different dogs for about a year but when I thought about getting one from the US, I had a dog *that weekend*... from 3,000 miles away.... and still have her, she's a great dog, not someone's problem that they just wanted to dump but they couldn't keep her because they were moving (a concept which Canadians don't quite understand, why couldn't you keep a dog if you're moving??). It's unenforceable here to put a no pets restriction in a lease so people don't have as much of a reason to re-home their dogs. Even dogs with crazy behavior issues usually go with their owners, they just become shut-ins but aren't given away.


Just to avoid confusion and generalizations, I believe Ontario is the only Province in Canada that has it legislated that landlords cannot discriminate against renters with pets, so in the rest of the country, it may still be very hard to find rentals where pets (especially dogs) are allowed.


----------



## Splendid (Aug 1, 2014)

Castlemaid said:


> Just to avoid confusion and generalizations, I believe Ontario is the only Province in Canada that has it legislated that landlords cannot discriminate against renters with pets, so in the rest of the country, it may still be very hard to find rentals where pets (especially dogs) are allowed.


Wow, I didn't know that... I thought Ontario was the "least developed" province in the entire country and assumed if that was the case here, all other provinces would have started it long before. 
How is the adoption situation in BC?


----------



## huntergreen (Jun 28, 2012)

onyx'girl said:


> the people that are killing the dogs are the ones who are dumping them in a shelter or allowing it to happen.


agree, dont hold others responsible for other folks mistakes.


----------

