Really? Make your case.
You know what? Bite me. You’re ignorant if that’s what you think it’s about. So now who’s comparing dogs to inanimate objects? Fucking hypocrite.
Daniel wrote this to Hajiro:
So, tell me, where should dogs come from? If I read you correctly, you’d ban all breeders, if you had a chance.
BTW, I checked pet finder for my breed (boxer) and it was a sorry lot. Most are mixes and the idea of mixing a boxer with a pit bull or amstaff is just… crazy.
I’ve read so many dog threads on this board, and I’m sorry to say, but I come around with the general impression that there is something very wrong with American pet owners: Invisible fences, electric collars, neutering the dogs, de-clawing cats… jeez. Let the animal be an animal and if that doesn’t fit with your lifestyle - then don’t fucking buy a pet, get a fish tank
To start with: I fully understand the knocks against no-kill shelters. Neither method is perfect; so don’t take this as a blind defending of no-kill shelters. Ultimately, your end goal in working with rescue dogs is to find as many of them good homes as possible. Having said that, in my experience in working with rescue groups, there is not enough of a balance kept. Dogs need enough time “on the market” whether that is a month, or 3 months, or whatever else. Many of the places I know of that are not no-kill will put down a dog between a week and 4 weeks after it enters their doors. Most of these are good, we’ll behaved, even-tempered dogs that could easily excel and make a family happy in the right environment.
Now, I know that, as much as it sucks, we are all resigned to the fact that a lot of dogs can just not be placed. And, I know that it is cruel to watch these animals degenerate mentally as the days and months and years tick away and all they ever see is the inside of a 2’ x 4’ x 4’ cage. The problem there is deciding when their “market time” is up. Also, keep in mind there are big differences between no-kill shelters, and no-kill animal control centers. I don’t see how the latter is possible If you are forced to take whatever mean, ill-tempered, crazy dog someone can drop off, then it’s a sad fact that many of them will have to be put down. However, for places that are independently run and can choose who they will and will not accept – these places know what kind of dogs can be placed and they can, when well managed, have a tremendous success ratio. If they need to keep a dog for 3 months to ultimately get him a good home, then so be it. Your comeback to this may be that if they had a shorter “market time”, that three months could be spent for turnover for more dogs. Well, it could also mean more dogs come in and get put down. You don’t know these things ahead of time, you do what you can and hope for the best in finding a good match.
So, ultimately, I know that due to temperament and other issues, some abandoned dogs MUST be put down. I agree that in these cases it is cruel to let them mentally rot away in a cage for 5 or 8 more years or more – the humane thing is to put them down. If this was all you were referring to, then I’ll retract, apologize, and concede the point – But that’s not how your post read. My point is this: Running an no-kill shelter can be a very good thing, I have first hand experience volunteering with one. If you’re trying to say as a blanket statement that no-kill shelters are inherently evil (which is how I read your post), then I stand by my “stupid” comment. It’s a complex issue with strong points and emotions on both sides. It’s silly to dismiss one side (or the other, for that matter) as being simply ‘evil’ when both sides have legimate points to support their ideology.
On second thought, you are obviously too close to your work to have an objective view about anything. You say:
No one else is allowed to have a different opinion. I liked meeting 3 generations of my dog’s relatives so I could see if they had temperment issues. I liked seeing the health records that read OFA excellent and CERF clear so I knew the chances of getting a dog with a major disease were lessened. I felt confident that I did my homework and the dog I got would only grow a certain size and have somewhat predictable behaviors. I like showing because it helps my friend “the evil breeder” improve the quality of her breeding stock and uphold the standard of the breed. I have a champion dog that finished in 10 shows with 2 Best of Breed wins and 3 majors. I’m damn proud of him and he knows when he wins. At the end of the day, he’s just a pet that chews on my windowsills, sleeps on my bed, and sticks his cold nose in my eye when he wants me to get up in the morning. To you I’m still a terrible, immoral, cretin because I love him and take care of him better than I do myself. The fact that I have adopted shelter animals before appears to mean nothing. I really don’t see the need for further discussion since we’re just going around in circles.
Just chiming in with a link to a great no kill shelter in the Philadelphia area:
- note - they only accept animals they feel have a good chance of adoption, and they have a veterinary clinic on site.
Please also note, that as good as a breeder is, there will always be a point in a dog’s life (barring catastrphic incidents) when it will cost you money to look after. Some breeding makes this far MORE likely (bulldogs have so many problems it’s not even true, large breeds will die sooner than most almost always due to a cancer due in part to their selective breeding for bone size , boxers are known as “tumour factories”). These are problems caused by breeding, not eliminated by good breeding. There is no such thing as a guaranteed healthy dog. (Although Pennsylvania does have a puppy lemon law).
Your points are well argued, however you haven’t really made a case for “no-kill”, you have made an excellent case I strongly support for “delayed kill”.
I think it is stupid and wrong to have a hard and fast “no kill, no matter what” policy. What if, in spite of best predictions, the dog lingers in the little cage for 6 months? 9? 18? 2 years? Just how long do you think it takes for a dog to become a miserable husk of what it once was? How long do you think it takes to break its spirit into a million pieces? 6 months in a dog’s life is the same as 3 years in ours. Would you want to rot in jail for 3 years, not comprehending anything except your loneliness and confusion and stress?
I’m all for trying really, really hard to place the placeable. But there MUST be a cutoff point * because it is less cruel. *
In theory, I don’t disagree. Of course, this begs the question…Obviously there is a point at which it is cruel. What is it? I don’t know that there’s a hardline answer that can be a one-size-fits all for dogs.
I can think of several dogs that have success stories that were placed after being tried to adopt out for 6 months or so. Of course, at the 4 month period, and the 5 month period for these dogs, it seems bleak and horrible.
But considering these success stories…the next time a dog gets to 6 months, and 7 months…How can you put it down when it may be that next saturday adoption where a match is found?
I don’t know what the right answer is. All you do is hope – what time do you think crosses the line into cruel?
Once again, I contribute to my half of gooti’s 90-some posts. The above post was mine, I didn’t realize she’d logged in here at home.
One thing I need to add before bed … maybe there are different setups with shelters where you are, but in my experience when shelters are not no-kill (There has to be a better term for this, but kill-shelters sounds awful) they rarely give a dog more than a month to find a home, maybe six weeks in rare cases.
I can’t tell you how many dogs we have seen placed by the no-kill shelter after a six week time frame. So being that those are the only two options I’ve seen in practice, I think you can understand why I come down on the no-kill side of the fence.
As stated, from my perspective both camps have to make some very hard decisions. Switching from one ideology to the other just opens up a new set of problems for you to deal with. The whole fucking thing is really depressing.
You’re not reading me correctly.
As for people with criteria too fussy to allow for a shelter dog: the problem in this case is not with the shelter dog, but rather with inappropriate criteria for a companion animal.
I’m not calling you an amoral cretin if you purchase a dog, although if you’d prefer to see the matter in such absolutist terms you’re welcome to do so. I’m simply saying that I find the act of purchasing a dog from a breeder, when there’s already many dogs that need homes, unethical.
Daniel
I agree with this. Limited-access shelters can do great work, and we have several limited-access groups in our community that we work closely with. If you only have one shelter in a town, of course, it’s gotta be open-access, or else the area will be overrun with all the animals the limited facility couldn’t take in; but if you have two groups focusing on adoptions in a community, it makes perfect sense for the second group to be limited-access, as long as they make absolutely sure to take in only as many animals as they can provide humane care for.
You ask, however, how one can justify euthanizing a dog when it may get adopted the next Saturday. Three justifications spring to mind:
- After six months of being in a cage, the dog may have gone cage-crazy, making it almost impossible to adopt out.
- After six months in a cage, the dog has pretty well demonstrated it’s going to take a very long time to adopt out; by keeping it there, you may be condemning it to many more months or even years of an unnatural, miserable life. If you rate quality of life above length of life, euthanasia may well be the kindest solution.
- That cage, occupied for six months by one dog, could instead have been occupied by twelve dogs that were adopted after an average of two weeks each. By ensuring an adoption for the one dog, a limited-access facility had to turn away twelve other dogs, increasing the likelihood that they were euthanized, or dumped on the side of the road.
But as I said, a limited-access facility can, if run well, supplement the work of the major shelter in a community; I’ve got no beef with the ones that are run professionally and work to take the pressure off the main shelter.
Daniel
Nope. It’s inappropriate criteria for a shelter dog. My show dog makes a fine companion animal thank you very much. Maybe you should rethink the way you deliver your message. If anything, it makes me want to avoid shelters and people like you who are likely going to preach at me and judge me as morally corrupt because I bought a dog. What a narrowminded stance.
And who are you to judge what is inappropriate criteria?? Your criteria seems to be much looser than most people I’ve met in that “furry” is probably all you need. How about if I needed a police dog, a guide dog, a bird dog, or a dog to protect my herd of widgets? What if I said I wanted to take my Shiba back to Japan and flush pheasants with him and chase down a few wild boar? After all, that is what he was bred to do and he can still perform those tasks along with being a conformation dog. All of those require specific traits that may or may not be found in a shelter dog. I suspect that you just hate show people though. You’ve mocked and disdained me even though I’d be happy to show you that showing conformation is nothing like “collecting stamps”. And if it weren’t for good breeders there wouldn’t be as many healthy dogs at all. Where so you think they come from? They don’t come from puppymills, pet stores, backyard breeders or people breeding the latest fad mixed breed. I suppose if eveyone tossed their dogs out into the streets and left them alone to interbreed for a few generations then you’d see Darwin at work and and only the strong would survive. They’d also be nasty, unsocialized and feral. Nope, if you want dogs at all someone has to breed them and when people are in the mix someone is always going to want to screw around with nature. So who would you rather have? Bad breeders in it for the $$$$$ or people like my friend who loves her breed, campaigns her dogs against the best of the best, does all the health checks she can, is a member on the breed health commitee, only breeds a litter or two a year of which there is a waiting list for, and spays and neuters any animals that are pet quality as well as any ex-show dogs that leave her house. By the time you add up all the registration fees, health exams, show fees, and travel expenses she doesn’t make a dime off them. I think your biggest complaint is with commercial and backyard breeders who churn out animals without a second thought, but you paint everyone the same with that big ol’ brush of yours.
- Maybe. But, I’ve seen dogs that stayed pretty healthy mentally and have been successful placements at around the 6 months window. If a dog is starting to show mental deterioration, then even I agree he should be put down. However, some dogs are really strong.
- Also, see # 1. There are very few dogs (once they past behavioral and temperment and health tests) that can’t be placed. I’ve seen them go that late.
- That could be, or it could be that you brought in 12 more dogs and all of them were put down becuase they don’t have enough time on the market.
I’m not saying you don’t have well thought and reasoned points. I understand your stance but because of the exceptions and late adoption cases I am willing to hold out hope.
I defiantly agree that the dog rescue operation can work at it’s best when you have open-access and no-kill shelters working symbiotically within a community.
Definitely, not defiantly, right? I have this image of you shaking your fists at the heavens, shouting, “Curses! We can work together!” 
When I offered reasons for not holding the dog, I understand that a limited-access facility may not have the same reasons; I agree that it’s best not to view it as an either-or, oppositional relationship.
Daniel
heheh, yeah – “definately”.
I only shake my fists at the heavens for important things like close football games and running out of beer and things of the like.
Daniel -
Maybe I didn’t make myself clear since you jumped on the issue of legality, so I’ll re-phrase myself:
If all shelter dogs were adopted tomorrow, where should the next generation of dogs come from? I ask, because many serious breeders want to get some money for their effort, and bringing puppies to the world in a good way costs money.
You constantly claim that it’s unethical to buy a dog, while there are animals in shelters, and I can get your point, but wilol disagree shortly. I felt so sad when I checked the doggies at petfinder.com. There was one boxer mix that had been in the shelter since 19-fucking-98. Since my own dog is a boxer, my heart hurt even more for this little miserable fella.
But I think you’re wrong in saying that the problem is with the breeders. I maintain it’s with the buyers. As long as people can get away with getting a dog for little money from puppy mills, pet stores ASF, because, you know, a bargain’s a bargain, then this will continue to be a problem in the US, no matter how many people adopt dogs from shelters.
In turn, let me tell you how it works here:
I wanted a boxer. The Swedish Boxer club has been holding back on breeding for the past ten years, due to health issues. Only about 350 new puppies are registred every year, which is a smallish amount compared to labs, which are around 3000 new puppies every year.
So I had to register with about 10 kennels in order to have the slightest chance of getting a dog. I tyook a year of waiting to even come in question of buying a puppy. After I finally got the OK from a kennel, I had to go there to be interviewed. They would not even agree to me sending them a down payment before meeting me in person. All in all, I went three times after that and before I picked up my puppy at eight weeks. The breeder picked the puppy for me, based on their experience, my needs and abilities and what they knew about the dogs. They picked the one that suited me, and boy, were they right.
Note that there’s no government regulation about this, it’s just about how every breeder works, no matter what breed. Another factor is that if my dog would turn out to be genetically unhealthy in any way, I’m supposed to report this to the health committee and then that breeder won’t be able to sell more puppies from that female. This because the club will actively inform potential buyers about what puppies/kennels get their approval. Of course, the breeder can try to do it ‘off record’ but would have a hard time selling the dogs.
Legally, all dogs must be marked with an ID #, either a tatoo in the ear or a chip in the neck. They must also be registered, and the goverment has put the Swedish Kennel Club in charge of the register.
There’s a law that prevents dogs from being sold in pet shops.
There are some people who sell mixes through ads in the paper, but nowhere near as many as purebred. The kennels who sell purebreds never need to advertise, the demand is higher than the supply.
In short, high prizes, low supplies, responsible breeders, all make checkpoints, make it difficult, to pick up a dog on the spur of the moment. I’m sure that there are many who’d be as stupid here, as there are in the US, given the chance. But they rarely get the chance.
Those who do provide a source of ads in the paper: “Selling nice lab male, 10 mos, friendly with kids, housebroken, due to allergy”. Yeah right. Didn’t know what you got into, didya? To cut down on this, most kennels have a clause in the contract, saying that the owner can’t re-sell the dog without approval from the kennel, in effect taking back the dog and re-selling it from the source.
We have very few shelters in Sweden. Those that exist are mainly for dogs taken by the police: The owner died, the dog was in a fight and got reported by the police, and aggressive behaviour. or those that want to do good, there are agencies that will let you adopt stray dogs from Spain, Italy and Greece. However, the transport, quaranteen (4 months), and vet costs add up to these dogs costing around $700 and I think it’s wrong that those countries can’t get their acts together and that the problem gets exported here.
Finally, almost no one neuters /spays (sp?) their dogs in Sweden. And yet, we have no feral dogs.
In short, I think it’s an attitude problem, not a problem with breeders. And unfortunately, I don’t think PETA is the right organization to raise consciousness about this.
Last things first, Gaspode: who mentioned PETA?
As for Sweden’s experiences, they are fascinating to me, and frankly a little hard for me to believe. There’s something missing from the basic equation here: how do you have a country of fertile dogs and few shelters have no feral dogs? Do you have some website I could look at that has some numbers for Sweden? Biology seems to suggest the situation would be different.
As for what would happen if all shelter dogs were adopted tomorrow? Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe then the dog fairies would come down and make new doggies out of marzipan and rose petals. Once that happens – once you don’t have literally millions of dogs and cats being euthanized every year in the United States due to overpopulation – I’ll change my stance joyfully and without regret.
But that’s not going to happen for awhile, and it’s going to require major, major changes in this country before it can happen.
Even if Sweden’s reality is as amazingly rosy as you describe it (and it may well be, but I’d want to see some numbers before I’m convinced), it’s not a useful model for the United States at this point.
Daniel
It’s really a vicious cycle here. Someone breeds a bunch of dogs for profit. They sell them to a middleman who adds more to the price and sells them to a pet store. Said pet store puts an extravagent price on the puppy be it mutt or purebred - check out the current craze of “poo” and “doodle” dogs. (People will spend $4,000 on a Labradoodle, but list them as Poodle crosses and you can’t give them away.)
So, in walks Joe Shmoe who hasn’t done a bit of research on what he wants, but he wants a dog and he wants it now. Now either 4 things tend to happen:
- everything works out hunky dory and Joe gets lucky
- dog is a genetic mess and ends up costing Joe a ton in vet bills or is put down
- dog becomes inconvenient after it grows beyond cute puppy stage and gets dumped at the shelter to become Daniel’s problem. In one case I know of a woman dumped her older dog only to turn right around and ask the staff if any puppies were available.
- Joe decides to recoup some of his monetary losses by breeding his dog to the neighbor’s down the street. Puppy buyers are not screened and the pups are purchased by Joe Shmoe II.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
As long as people are not educated about the responsiblities of pet ownership, these kind of things will continue to happen.
Left hand spoke for me.
But how do you feel about pushing a dog’s misery for so long that they begin to fall apart? Does that really make you feel better than watching them die? They don’t * experience * the death, but you know they experienced every minute of every hour that has been so miserable and lonely and awful that they are beginning to fall apart mentally. And that makes you feel better why? Why are you placing so much energy on life? The dogs don’t. They have no conscious awareness of anything except the moment they are in.
I think well-intentioned people like yourselves are projecting your own sentient awareness of mortality on to the dogs, and as a result there is suffering where there doesn’t have to be. When you think you are putting yourself in the dog’s shoes, you are actually putting him in yours.