Blind and abandoned double merle Lily and her seeing eye guide dog Maddison.

There are very few homes equipped to adopt one Great Dane, let alone two. Add in advanced age and congenital blindness, and it’s not surprising that the former owners just couldn’t handle the onus any more and ditched blind Lily and her seeing-eye-dog Maddison at the shelter.

When illness forced vets to remove Great Dane Lily’s eyes, the prospects of a fulfilling life didn’t look good. But then no one had reckoned on her pal Maddison stepping in to turn guide dog. The pair have been inseparable for years but now find themselves looking for a new home because their owner could no longer cope. The catch for anyone interested is that the Great Danes come as a package. They have been waiting at the Dogs Trust re-homing centre in Shrewsbury since July.

Lily, six, was barely a puppy when she was struck down by a condition that caused her eyelashes to grown into her eyeballs, damaging them beyond repair. It was after this traumatic event that her relationship with seven-year-old Maddison developed as she took her under her wing. The best buddies lived together until their owners decided they couldn’t look after them any more. Miss Campbell said: ‘With her lack of sight, Lily’s other senses have heightened so although we don’t split them up often she can tell if Maddison is nearby.

“They curl up together to go to sleep and they are very vocal with each other. We haven’t analysed their different barks but if Lily wants to go forward and Maddison is in her way, the bark will have a different pitch. They are very close to one another and enjoy each other’s company.”

This is the burden created by breeders who mate merle to merle, merle to harlequin, and harlequin to harlequin.  They afflict their puppies and the big hearted owners who adopt them with a lifetime concern.  Dealing with a blind puppy might pull at the heart strings enough, but compassion fatigue and mounting veterinary bills can quickly make the prospect of caring for two middle aged or geriatric dogs more burden than bliss.

Before you start judging the owners, realize that up 80% of parents with special needs children divorce due to the stress.  It takes extraordinary people to care for a special needs child or pet, but it only takes one uninformed or callous breeder to create them and flood the local community’s ability to cope.

In my recent correspondence with a pet rescuer who has yet to embrace No-Kill, I saw firsthand the phenomenon that Nathan Winograd discusses in Redemption: that we hear so much about pet overpopulation, but has anyone seen it?

The e-mailer wrote:

[Shelters] only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?

Why yes, I’ve heard of it quite a lot. I’ve also heard extensively about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If the modus operandi of the shelters in this country were to throw dogs off cliffs because the Easter Bunny commanded it, there’d be an uproar. If you had to trade Santa Claus a euthanized shelter dog for each present, the tragedy of “Christmas Puppies” would have a much darker and more sinister outcome.

I’ve heard a lot about “pet overpopulation,” but I’ve never seen a feral dog colony or a single dog starving in the street. I’ve never seen a dog abandoned at the dog park. Every loose and stray dog that I’ve picked up has always had a tag and an owner. I’ve never seen a pet store going out of business. The breeders I got my dogs from two decades ago are both still in the breed with occasional litters. Every breeder I met in the last few years who are active in some aspect of the dog world are actually “growing” their business. They are all expanding their activities and having more frequent litters. The only breeder I know who is “getting out of the business” was paralyzed in an accident.

Last October I became a dog breeder and just a few weeks ago I became a dog seller. I certainly didn’t get any hint that there was a Border Collie overpopulation problem. I had to go out of state for both of my last two dogs, and I sold two of the four puppies out of state. If I were just out for money I could have sold my litter five times over in one week. That’s all it took to find really good homes. One week. And I’m only catering to a very small fraction of the dog owning and buying world. People who are interested in purebred Border Collies who have had the breed before, who have a good sized yard, who won’t have to leave the animal at home for long periods of time, who are active and healthy themselves, who are willing and able to offer vet care to a high standard to the pup, who are willing to sign a contract, who agree to spay and neuter their pets or who pay a premium to keep them intact, who are willing to pay a premium for pedigreed dogs, who are willing to pay a premium for extensively health tested dogs, who are willing to put up with my interviewing them, who are interested in dog sport, etc.

I found four really excellent homes for four really excellent puppies and a handful of other A+ to A- homes that I’d gladly sell a dog to, and by that I mean make a contractual and emotional commitment to for the lifetime of that dog. Around 10 homes that would probably make excellent homes for a Border Collie but who just didn’t outshine the best homes, or excellent homes who just weren’t ready for a Border Collie now (new baby or too many very young children which would mean little time to train the dog during the crucial early months, their current dog is old and infirm and probably wouldn’t appreciate a new puppy, excellent experience with other breeds but brand new to Border Collies, too many Border Collies already, etc.). And then a slew of people who may or may not be great homes but who were either too far away, too inexperienced with dogs or Border Collies, or who were uninterested in training for dog sports for me to take a chance and who would be better served by a breeder in their area or a different breed of dog. And that doesn’t count the legions of callers who just wanted a price quote on a puppy.

In other words, if an aspiring Breeder like myself, first time breeding, who is an elitist, ultra picky about where my puppies go, selling puppies in the $450-600 price range (unregistered BCs go for $100, average price for a papered dog off of a Ranch is probably $250-300, show quality pups being sold to show homes sell for $600 and up, and rare colors like Merles go for about twice the market price for each of those classes), selling dogs in a relatively unpopulated area of the country, can find homes and put people on a waiting list in only a week, I have no evidence of a pet overpopulation problem.

The very existence of all these new designer dogs speaks volumes against a pet overpopulation problem. If there are mutts overflowing our shelters, filling the streets, and bringing about their own destruction, why are people paying $1200 for “designer” mutts? Perhaps it’s a shelter advertising problem, not a pet overpopulation problem. If shelters have too many dogs coming in, why are they importing them from overseas, and across our borders?

If I had to go out of state for my last two dogs, and so did two of my puppy buyers and many of the potentials, that speaks to a greater demand than supply, not an overpopulation problem.

I’ve licked my finger and placed it in the wind, and every indicator tells me that dogs are getting more popular, more homes are opening up their doors to them every day, and as we grow as a society our animals are becoming even more significant and being given higher status at every turn.

If we wouldn’t throw dogs off cliffs for the Easter Bunny or sacrifice puppies for Santa Claus, why are we so accepting of killing dogs for another myth that there is little evidence for: the “pet overpopulation” problem?

The Myth of Pet Overpopulation

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”

— William Shakespeare (circa 1600)

Sometimes the obvious eludes us. We are told something so often that we accept it a priori. We ignore evidence to the contrary, even overwhelming evidence. It is so because we believe it is so. And we believe it is so because we have been told it is so for as long as we can remember. Each time we say, read, or write it, we reconfirm it. It is so. It is so. It is so. But pet overpopulation is not so.

There is little reason why most people, your average animal lovers in the United States, would know pet overpopulation is a myth. The one fact that would dispel the myth is something they almost never see consistently because they do not go to shelters everyday. But animal rescuers see it. Animal activists see it. And others in sheltering do also. They see it daily, but still believe in pet overpopulation. What do they see every time they go into animal she
lters? They see empty cages. Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages.

The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department kills every day despite empty cages. A veterinarian who tried to keep more animals alive by keeping the cages full was fired in 2005, in part, due to staff complaints of “too much work.” In September 2006, the Department killed twenty-five kittens because they had a cold, despite empty cages. In Eugene, Oregon, activists noted a high percentage of empty cages at their local shelter in the summer of 2006 due to killing that shelter management blamed on pet overpopulation and lack of a cat licensing law. The Lane County Animal Regulation Authority kept all but a half dozen cat cages empty at the height of the busy season, even though it killed approximately 70 percent of cats during the last year, many of them ostensibly for “lack of space.” According to local activists, doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia before a new leadership team took over later that year, I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005 on a day they were killing “for space.” These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic–and endemic–to animal control.

Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others–such as Tompkins County before my arrival–require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day–animals who might or might not come, animals who might come after those animals killed could have been adopted, lost animals who might be reclaimed, thereby opening up space without the need to kill, animals who instead could have been transferred to rescue groups or placed into foster care.

There are many reasons why shelters kill animals at this point in time, but pet overpopulation is not one of them. In the case of a small percentage of animals, the animals may be hopelessly sick or injured, or the dogs are so vicious that placing them would put adoptive families at risk. (This killing is also being challenged by sanctuaries and hospice care groups, a movement that is also growing in scale and scope and which all compassionate people must embrace). Aside from this relatively small number of cases (only seven percent of the animals in Tompkins County), shelters also kill for less merciful reasons.

They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.

Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.

What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation. It is as faulty a syllogism and as untrue a proposition as exists in sheltering today. But people believe it, and because they do, local governments under-fund their shelters, appoint and retain incompetent employees in animal control, and give shelter directors the carte blanche they need to kill because the problem is portrayed as insurmountable.

This also begs the question of why pet stores and commercial breeding operations (sometimes referred to as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills”) are still in business. Hobby breed enthusiasts notwithstanding (since these groups often support No Kill and assist in animal rescue), pet stores and puppy/kitten mills are motivated by profit, and they would not go into the business if homes weren’t available. In addition, the more animals dying in a given community) which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which show homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals as this is usually accompanied with under-performing staff, poor customer servie, and dirty and unwelcoming facilities.

- Excerpt from Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd

First, let’s look at the breeder’s website:

Well, someone has spent some time with photoshop and made a nice logo. And it has a quaint name with rural charm and a photo to match. The grammar is poor, and perhaps that’s our first tip, and the page is hosted at www.pets4you.com, another clue.

Turns out that this breeder has puppies available right now! Possibly another clue given the time of year. While you can’t force a bitch into heat to deliver puppies just for Christmas, I wouldn’t be surprised if a high volume operation made sure not to miss an opportunity to have a litter on the ground for the Christmas puppy rush.

Incoming traffic to this blog with the search “Christmas puppy” has skyrocketed this month, and I don’t think they’re coming looking for an ear full of philosophy. This time of year is probably the bread and butter period of easy sales for a high volume breeder.

What we learn from her available puppies is that she has two litters on the ground at the same time (the ages are 10 weeks and 12 weeks) and that all of the puppies are a little old to still be on the market. The sweet spot is 8 weeks, after all, and keeping a puppy at the breeder after that isn’t really beneficial to anyone. It’s also suspicious that it says “Registered/Registrable AKC” given that the AKC does not recognize the English Shepherd breed.

So what does the Google oracle tell us about this breeder?
- She deceived other breeders to acquire her breeding stock. Hints at past problems with a local humane society.
- She also breeds Pugs and stole someone’s deposit on two dogs.
- She estimates her yearly sales in dogs to be $35,000.
- Her property is in such decay the local government passed an ordinance just to step in and clean it up. She sued for due process violations and won.

All of this information is easily available on the internet and has been for several years. It’s a wonder this breeder is still in business. But it just gets worse.

The department and Kapsa have a history going back to 1993, when Kapsa was ticketed for cruelty to animals, Bell said. Officers removed 120 dogs from the property at that time, and 20 dogs were returned, he said.

“Since 1993, our animal-control division has had numerous contacts with Miss Kapsa,” Bell said. Kapsa has been ticketed for rabies violations, dogs at large and other misdemeanor animal violations, he said.

Last week, the police served a search and seizure warrant on the sole address of this breeder which was brought about by complaints from a potential puppy buyer. Upon the search, the authorities removed 10 dead English Shepherd dogs, 3 dead Pugs, and several sick and injured dogs that needed immediate medical attention.

They left behind 270 to 300 dogs, plus some goats, horses, and cockatiels.

And of course, the breeder’s first thoughts are not about the cesspool she and her disturbingly large circus of animals wallow in, it’s in exacting some revenge on the government for daring to step in and rain on her abuse parade.

Linda Kapsa isn’t sure why Yellowstone County Sheriff’s deputies seized 12 of her dogs and cats Thursday afternoon.

But she knows one thing.

“Yellowstone is in for one hell of a lawsuit again,” she said Friday.

Video, and a Gallery of the search show just how bad things have gotten on the trailer home and trash filled compound. This isn’t how you raise dogs, save a rare breed, or share your life with animals. There’s clearly a mental disorder at work here and sadly hundreds of dogs and other animals have to suffer for it.

Hat tip to Smartdogs.

Here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, over fifty million household dogs live in the United States. Europe houses an estimated thirty-five million. … If I add Canadian dogs to these populations, I get one hundred million household dogs in the industrial West.

In the United States each year, households produce 3,700,000 puppies. Hobby breeders produce another two million, and half a million are produced by commercial breeders for department store and other retail sales. That is a turnover of 6,200,000 dogs a year. If the population is not going up or down, then 6,200,000 dogs die every year. That is a 12 percent annual mortality rate, which for a species with a life span of a little over ten years is a low mortality rate in the wild.

In the United states, four million of these dogs spend part of a year in animal shelters. For 2,400,000 of them it is the last stop. Almost 5 percent of our companion animals are dogs nobody wants, and they get “put to sleep.” Culled. Again, disaster for the individual dog. Some of this culling may be related to competition between people and dogs for food resources. People soon decide they can’t afford the dog, and turn them over to humane societies

- Dogs, Lorna Coppinger

Is a five percent disposal rate really that much of a concern? The bleeding heart loud mouths would have us believe that there is an “overpopulation” problem and that it is an epidemic. So much so that they demand for (near)universal sterilization laws, moral outrage at hobby breeders, misplaced hatred of purebreds and the people who buy them.

Nathan Winograd has shown again and again that many dogs that are killed don’t need to be, but the onus is on shitty shelters that don’t get the job done, mostly because they are defeatist from the outset. Huge strides have already been made in sterilizing pets and in lowering the percent of pets that are abandoned. But this number will never be zero.

Will the bleeding heart loud mouths not be satisfied until it is, as in never? Will they be like the Christians and the Jews waiting for the next coming of their prophet/savior? And will they, in their growing frustration as their dogma fails to deliver success year after year, become even more preachy and unreasonable?

Evidence suggests that they will. Here’s a comment posted recently that is filled with references to PeTA’s veritable Book of Revelations (which documents the Pet Overpopulation Armageddon we are now living in according to their dogma):

Of course Joe Biden killed a dog [by buying a puppy instead of rescuing from a shelter]. Are you all delusional? Can you not count? Joe could have adopted a dog at a shelter or from a rescuer and opened up another spot for one of the millions of dogs dumped at shelters by people, and saved a dog from being euthanized due to over crowding. There is NO justification for breeding a dog when millions of adoptable dogs are put to death. All 3 of my rescue dogs were well behaved and lived to 15 + years old, so don’t tell me about damaged, sick dogs. Most of the people I know with “pure breeds” encounter health problems at age 7 or 8 and behavioral problems earlier due to inbreeding. The whole notion of breeding a specific type of dog is archaic.

- Comment by Janice — December 12, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

Janice is a perfect example of a bleeding heart loud mouth with a savior complex. Since feeding her ego with 3 rescue dogs wasn’t sufficient (and how could it be, rescuing a dog does nothing except save that dog) to even influence the dog abandonment issue, she’s now grasping at totalitarian measures to bring about her “my bleeding heart is more important than your freedom, so I’m going to force my uniformed blather down your throat even though what I demand you do has never been effective at accomplishing the goals I want” religion.

I’ve already debunked the “buy a dog, kill a dog” fallacy. (Myth of Christmas Puppies, Parroting PeTA, Buy From a Breeder, and Adopt a PeTA pet and kill 248 more). This is a displacement tactic used by PeTA to blame someone else because they don’t want to take responsibility for killing 97% of the animals they take in. Have no doubt, it’s the shelters who kill the dogs, and in almost all cases, it’s not because they have to. It’s because they want to. Thinking you’re opening up a spot by capitulating to the kill shelters is like appeasing a terrorist. You think you’re saving lives but you’re really just making a deal with evil. You are allowing them to operate and continue their extortion.

Would you buy drugs from your neighborhood street dealer simply to take that small amount of product off the market?

As I’ve shown (Garbage In, Garbage Out), the major causes of abandoned dogs are HUMAN problems, not problems with the dogs themselves and not problems with purchased dogs or purebred dogs or even pet store dogs, or dogs given as pets.

So given that humans are imperfect and will always be such, what do we expect the natural rate of culling should be?

In economics, there is a concept called the “natural rate of unemployment.”

The natural rate of unemployment is the healthy unemployment rate that will always occur in an economy, unless it is severely overheated. Some level of unemployment results from:

1. Frictional unemployment that comes from job turnover,
2. Structural unemployment that is caused by a mis-match between job skills and job availability,
3. Unemployment caused by minimum wages laws and unions.

In short, it’s economist speak for “the unemployed will always be with us” and observationally, economists place the rate at between 4% and 6%.

Given that, do you really think that the bleeding heart loud mouths are justified in breathing their fire and spitting their venom on the rest of us? I think their outrage is entirely disproportionate to the size of the problem. I think the targets of their rage are also inappropriate and thus their rage is ineffectual. They aren’t going to change the kill rate by even one dog by putting breeders out of business, ending the concept of purebred dogs or even reaching saturation levels of desexing dogs.

The first way to cut the rate is to tackle the issues that actually cause people to relinquish dogs: Moving, landlord issues, cost of pet maintenance, no time for pets, inadequate facilities, too many pets at home, pet illness, personal problems, biting, no homes for litter mates.

The second way to cut the rate is to improve the ef
ficiency of shelter placement programs: adopt the entire no-kill paradigm.

Stella on Snow

There’s plenty of elitism in the dog world and where you get your dog is as much of a potential status symbol as the breed you’ve chosen or any titles that might appear on a pedigree.

Much of the cachet built in to where you get your pets has to do with the implications the source has about the quality of the pet and/or the quality of you the owner. One of element of that cachet is what your pet source says about the likelihood your pet will end up in a shelter, and for people who pride themselves on shelter adoptions, what wrongs you are righting by adopting.

This is one one of the most surprising pieces of information I’ve found concerning petdom in America. For one, it puts to rest most of the arguments against breeders being the source of the over-hyped pet overpopulation problem. Not one of the reasons on that list has to do with a big B Breeder, and only the last (no homes for litter mates) has to do with someone who breeds.

Those two things are not the same, any more than you’d call anyone who runs a Runner, anyone who swims a Swimmer, or anyone who paints a Painter. The big T Title implies a level of training, skill, and success not common in people who blindly attempt an activity. This isn’t a simple matter of existentialism, it’s a matter of professionalism.

But in the world of breeding dogs, whoever, there’s an image problem. To call one’s self a “professional breeder” risks negative associations with puppy mills. After all, puppy milling is a profession which turns dog breeding profitable by treating dogs like livestock. Making the leap from “professional” to “commercial” isn’t hard, nor is the leap from “commercial” to puppy mill.

So yes, puppy millers and their slightly less problematic brethren commercial breeders would have to be called Breeders, they breed a lot and they make money at it. But they don’t deal with the public, so their image isn’t as big of a factor. That’s what pet stores are for, putting a friendly face on assembly line produced dogs.

“Professional” is out. So we try “Hobby” breeders. That keeps some semblance of being serious, but does away with the negative associations with commercialism. Many hobby breeders spend a lot of their time talking about how much it costs to raise good dogs, how much they don’t breed, and how very distinct they are from a commercial breeder or puppy mill.

But sadly, “Hobby” doesn’t embody enough seriousness. Some people are good at their hobby, but many are piss poor. How many “hobby” photographers do you know (there’s at least one in every family) that haven’t produced one picture that could be sold for more than the frame it would end up in? Since photography is an expensive hobby, many of these hobbyists become quasi-professionals, trying to recoup a little of the cost and maybe save up enough for that new lens. Results vary.

You hear a lot about dog breeders who are supposedly like said photographers. They’re really into the “art” or perhaps the science, and results vary. Just like there are emotionally and ethically charged border wars in the photography world (digital versus film, 35mm versus medium format, Canon vs. Nikon) there are also border wars in the hobby breeder world.

A lot of hot air and verbal bullets are shot back and forth between the different camps of hobby breeders and even within the same camp. Much of that content deals with who is a good breeder and who is a poor breeder and who breeds too much and who breeds for the wrong reasons or breeds the wrong dogs.

What you don’t hear enough of is breeders defending themselves against the erroneous claims that the pet overpopulation problem falls square in their laps, nor do you hear a lot of talk about how good breeders can play a role in limiting the number of pets that end up in shelters.

Looking at the above chart, the answer seems pretty clear to me. Good breeders are ones who find good homes for their dogs. New owners that are not at risk of being evicted or moving; who have interior and exterior space appropriate for the breed; owners who have the time and money to do right by the puppy, even in an unforeseen emergency.

Although most people don’t get their dogs from a breeder, and although dogs that are bought for a fair price from a breeder are much less likely to end up in a shelter in the first place, good breeders can learn from the list of reasons that pets are relinquished and see that the clear means to solve many of those issues is to not sell pets to homes that are inappropriate and under prepared for a pet.

If we bring garbage owners into the fold, we should not be surprised when they return garbage by poorly socializing their animals and ditching them in shelters at the first instance of inconvenience. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Caveat does a nice recap of several other dog blogs covering the issue with some advice thrown in. Raised By Wolves chimes in with an excellent bit of psychoanalysis of the people who buy dogs from store windows in malls. It’s well worth the long read. SmartDogs notices the trend and repeats the rules (no gift pets, no pet stores). Everyone’s favorite No Kill advocate, Nathan Winograd, exposes a few more myths about Christmas Pets. No Christmas Puppies is such a staple over at Pet Connection that they leave the category link up all year round.

And why not? The advice isn’t any different than the slew of posts last year:

The most popular Christmas meme was “Don’t buy Christmas Puppies!” Pet Connection ran a slew of posts on the topic: Holiday shopping season begins, and the puppy-millers are ready!, A pet is not a toy. A pet is not a toy. Rinse. Repeat., As another storm moves in, remember the puppy-mill dogs …, Christmas puppies: Testing my own advice, How to ‘save’ puppy-mill dogs: Don’t buy them, Christmas adoption bans; followed closely by Lassie Get Help: A dog is not a toy. Also: puppy mills suck.; Champlain Valley Pug Rescue tells us Why puppies should not be given as Christmas presents.; Lexiann at Favorite Pets questioned Puppies as Christmas Presents; The Bark Magazine blog agreed: Santa says: Adopt, Don’t Buy; and Johann the Dog kicked the trend off early: How much is that doggie in the window? And who could forget PeTA and their “Adopt, Never Buy” campaign.

That’s a lot of attention given to Christmas Puppies. Keeping that in mind, take a stab at the following questions:

• There are more {Dogs or Cats} as pets in America
• More households have {Dogs or Cats} as pets
• Pets given as gifts are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs purchased at pet stores are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs born in the owner’s home are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs adopted from a shelter are {More or Less} likely to end up back in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for under $30 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for over $100 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter

Rank the following sources of pets from where you believe most pets come from to the fewest number of pets come from:

Animal Shelter
Breeder
Friend/Family
Gift
Newspaper/Private Party
Pet Store
Puppy/Kitten from Own Pet
Stray
Veterinarian
Other

Now what do you suppose the facts on the ground would be to justify the “No Christmas Puppies,” “Adopt, Don’t Buy,” and “Don’t give an animal as a gift” messages?

It would be logical to assume that (1) Puppies are a larger problem than Kittens (both in numbers and in propensity to buy on a whim), as you don’t hear much at all about “No Christmas Kittens.” It would be logical to assume that (2) Giving a pet as a gift makes that pet more likely to be relinquished to a shelter. It would be logical to assume that (3) Pet store puppies are more likely to end up in shelters. It would be logical to assume that (4) a large percentage of people buy pets at Pet Stores. It would be logical to assume that (5) people who buy pets for money do more harm than good. It would be logical to assume that (6) people who buy pets from breeders or private parties are more likely to relinquish their pets than people who adopted them from shelters.

It would also be logical to assume that Gifts and Pet Stores are popular means of acquiring puppies.

All those assumptions are wrong. Just like you were once duped into thinking that there were flying reindeer–at least one with a radioactive glowing nose, an immortal fat old philanthropist, and the birthday of Jesus, if you believed any one of those assumptions above, you’ve been just as duped.

There are more Cats as pets in America. In 2001 there were an estimated 68.9 million cats and 61.6 million dogs as pets. Cats are also more likely to be acquired on a whim than dogs (more on that later).

Although, more households have Dogs as pets. In the same survey, 36.1% of US households had at least one dog (1.6 average) and 31.6% of housholds had at least one cat (2.1 average); another survey found that in 2000, 39% of homes had dogs and 34% had cats. AVMA Survey, 1997, 2002; APPMA Survey 2002.

Pets given as gifts are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs purchased at pet stores are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs born in the owner’s home are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs adopted from a shelter are More likely to end up back in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for under $30 are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for over $100 are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Pets given as Gifts account for only 7% of acquired dogs and only 8% of dogs are bought at Pet Stores. The most common source of dogs is from Friends and Family at 34%.

onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_-GbegCZNlt8/R4QYQL4d7nI/AAAAAAAAAVc/oVGxLcPcl-M/s1600-h/10a_risk.factors.dog.relinquishment.gif">

As Table 10a shows, the data collected by Patronek et al (1996a) refute at least one cherished belief (that dogs received as gifts or from pet stores are more likely to be given up) and confirm a number of others (that age is an important factor in relinquishment of dogs).

The shelter community needs to be concerned that dogs acquired from their facilities are more likely to be relinquished and should emphasize the importance of pet care-givers establishing strong relationships with a veterinarian (their “other family doctor”).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

As much as these bloggers mean well and their posts do shed critical light on the abomination that is the puppy mill industry, they’re barking up the wrong tree and smearing breeders right along with puppy mills. The message about puppy mills has obviously gotten through, and there’s only 8% more of the market that needs to be taken away from them before they’ll be a memory. But it’s apparently true that puppy mills do a better job of producing pets people keep than breeders of all merit and shelters when those are lumped together.

It also is pretty damning that equal numbers of people adopt from shelters and take in strays; yet, the dogs adopted at shelters are twice as likely to end up back in the shelter than the dogs taken in as strays. And shelter dogs fare worse than any other source, even free dogs.

The slandering against the puppy mills has splashed on to all breeders. And not one of those bloggers who railed against pet stores and gift puppies acknowledged that both of those factors actually keep pets in homes MORE than any other source. It’s confusing, it’s mind blowing, but it turns out that gift pets and pet store pets are the MOST likely to stay in homes and pets adopted by people who care so much that they “rescue” from shelters end up going back to shelters more than any other source.

And how about this for mind blowing, if you visit a vet with your dog AT LEAST ONCE, you decrease your chance of abandoning your pet by 86%. Take your pet to the vet at least once per year and halve your remaining chance. Twice or more per year, halve that chance again!

The relinquishment rate being so high for newborn puppies speaks again to the need for expanding the spay/neuter message even though 70% of dogs are already desexed. What else than ooops! pregnancies can account for all of those relinquished puppies and kittens and the largest source of dogs being what I can only imagine are ooops! litters from friends and family.

If you are a breeder, the most important benchmark of the ethics of you being one is your ability to sell the puppies you create. If you can’t sell puppies you are not a breeder, or at best a failed one. If you have to give puppies away to free or dump them in shelters, you are a failure.

The above chart is interesting. Very interesting. Most dogs and cats are acquired for little money from friends and family. The acquisition of dogs is also more likely to be planned than on a whim, which is not true for Cats. More cats are acquired on a whim than planned:

Pet care-givers acquire dogs and cats from a variety of sources. These sources are believed to play an integral role in pet population problems. According to the APPMA National Pet Owners Survey, pets in 1998 were acquired as indicated in Table 7 (APPMA 2000, 2002). Use of those sources marked with an asterisk indicates that some forethought and planning usually went into the acquisition of the pet.

The total percentage of dogs acquired from such sources is 74 (or about 48 percent of the identified sources); the total percentage of cats acquired from these sources is 38 (or about 29 percent of the identified sources). This indicates that cats are more likely to be acquired on a whim.

Other surveys have shown similar differences between the sources of dogs and cats. Nassar, Mosier, and Williams (1984) found that in Las Vegas cats (24.5 percent) were much more likely to be acquired from the stray population than dogs (8 percent), but only 9 percent of cats were purchased compared with 26 percent of dogs. In Massachusetts 71 percent of pet care-givers had planned to acquire their dogs, going to such sources as breeders (33 percent), shelters (16 percent), and pet stores (7 percent) (MSPCA 1996).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

So there you go. Data found on the HSUS website speaks volumes to myths that people believe: That shelters do a good job at keeping pets in homes with their careful selection programs and temperament tests. Turns out that random loose dogs taken in off the street are twice as likely to stay in that home. That buying dogs is less ethical than adopting them, turns out that buying dogs even at pet stores is more successful than adopting them or getting them free from friends and family. That puppy mill and gift pets are the most likely to be abandoned. Turns out that they’re not.

Go figure.

The e-mailer wrote:

[Shelters] only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?

Why yes, I’ve heard of it quite a lot. I’ve also heard extensively about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If the modus operandi of the shelters in this country were to throw dogs off cliffs because the Easter Bunny commanded it, there’d be an uproar. If you had to trade Santa Claus a euthanized shelter dog for each present, the tragedy of “Christmas Puppies” would have a much darker and more sinister outcome.

I’ve heard a lot about “pet overpopulation,” but I’ve never seen a feral dog colony or a single dog starving in the street. I’ve never seen a dog abandoned at the dog park. Every loose and stray dog that I’ve picked up has always had a tag and an owner. I’ve never seen a pet store going out of business. The breeders I got my dogs from two decades ago are both still in the breed with occasional litters. Every breeder I met in the last few years who are active in some aspect of the dog world are actually “growing” their business. They are all expanding their activities and having more frequent litters. The only breeder I know who is “getting out of the business” was paralyzed in an accident.

Last October I became a dog breeder and just a few weeks ago I became a dog seller. I certainly didn’t get any hint that there was a Border Collie overpopulation problem. I had to go out of state for both of my last two dogs, and I sold two of the four puppies out of state. If I were just out for money I could have sold my litter five times over in one week. That’s all it took to find really good homes. One week. And I’m only catering to a very small fraction of the dog owning and buying world. People who are interested in purebred Border Collies who have had the breed before, who have a good sized yard, who won’t have to leave the animal at home for long periods of time, who are active and healthy themselves, who are willing and able to offer vet care to a high standard to the pup, who are willing to sign a contract, who agree to spay and neuter their pets or who pay a premium to keep them intact, who are willing to pay a premium for pedigreed dogs, who are willing to pay a premium for extensively health tested dogs, who are willing to put up with my interviewing them, who are interested in dog sport, etc.

I found four really excellent homes for four really excellent puppies and a handful of other A+ to A- homes that I’d gladly sell a dog to, and by that I mean make a contractual and emotional commitment to for the lifetime of that dog. Around 10 homes that would probably make excellent homes for a Border Collie but who just didn’t outshine the best homes, or excellent homes who just weren’t ready for a Border Collie now (new baby or too many very young children which would mean little time to train the dog during the crucial early months, their current dog is old and infirm and probably wouldn’t appreciate a new puppy, excellent experience with other breeds but brand new to Border Collies, too many Border Collies already, etc.). And then a slew of people who may or may not be great homes but who were either too far away, too inexperienced with dogs or Border Collies, or who were uninterested in training for dog sports for me to take a chance and who would be better served by a breeder in their area or a different breed of dog. And that doesn’t count the legions of callers who just wanted a price quote on a puppy.

In other words, if an aspiring Breeder like myself, first time breeding, who is an elitist, ultra picky about where my puppies go, selling puppies in the $450-600 price range (unregistered BCs go for $100, average price for a papered dog off of a Ranch is probably $250-300, show quality pups being sold to show homes sell for $600 and up, and rare colors like Merles go for about twice the market price for each of those classes), selling dogs in a relatively unpopulated area of the country, can find homes and put people on a waiting list in only a week, I have no evidence of a pet overpopulation problem.

The very existence of all these new designer dogs speaks volumes against a pet overpopulation problem. If there are mutts overflowing our shelters, filling the streets, and bringing about their own destruction, why are people paying $1200 for “designer” mutts? Perhaps it’s a shelter advertising problem, not a pet overpopulation problem. If shelters have too many dogs coming in, why are they importing them from overseas, and across our borders?

If I had to go out of state for my last two dogs, and so did two of my puppy buyers and many of the potentials, that speaks to a greater demand than supply, not an overpopulation problem.

I’ve licked my finger and placed it in the wind, and every indicator tells me that dogs are getting more popular, more homes are opening up their doors to them every day, and as we grow as a society our animals are becoming even more significant and being given higher status at every turn.

If we wouldn’t throw dogs off cliffs for the Easter Bunny or sacrifice puppies for Santa Claus, why are we so accepting of killing dogs for another myth that there is little evidence for: the “pet overpopulation” problem?

The Myth of Pet Overpopulation

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”

— William Shakespeare (circa 1600)

Sometimes the obvious eludes us. We are told something so often that we accept it a priori. We ignore evidence to the contrary, even overwhelming evidence. It is so because we believe it is so. And we believe it is so because we have been told it is so for as long as we can remember. Each time we say, read, or write it, we reconfirm it. It is so. It is so. It is so. But pet overpopulation is not so.

There is little reason why most people, your average animal lovers in the United States, would know pet overpopulation is a myth. The one fact that would dispel the myth is something they almost never see consistently because they do not go to shelters everyday. But animal rescuers see it. Animal activists see it. And others in sheltering do also. They see it daily, but still believe in pet overpopulation. What do they see every time they go into animal shelters? They see empty cages. Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages.

The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department kills every day despite empty cages. A veterinarian who tried to keep more animals alive by keeping the cages full was fired in 2005, in part, due to staff complaints of “too much work.” In September 2006, the Department killed twenty-five kittens because they had a cold, despite empty cages. In Eugene, Oregon, activists noted a high percentage of empty cages at their local shelter in the summer of 2006 due to killing that shelter management blamed on pet overpopulation and lack of a cat licensing law. The Lane County Animal Regulation Authority kept all but a half dozen cat cages empty at the height of the busy season, even though it killed approximately 70 percent of cats during the last year, many of them ostensibly for “lack of space.” According to local activists, doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia before a new leadership team took over later that year, I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005 on a day they were killing “for space.” These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic–and endemic–to animal control.

Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others–such as Tompkins County before my arrival–require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day–animals who might or might not come, animals who might come after those animals killed could have been adopted, lost animals who might be reclaimed, thereby opening up space without the need to kill, animals who instead could have been transferred to rescue groups or placed into foster care.

There are many reasons why shelters kill animals at this point in time, but pet overpopulation is not one of them. In the case of a small percentage of animals, the animals may be hopelessly sick or injured, or the dogs are so vicious that placing them would put adoptive families at risk. (This killing is also being challenged by sanctuaries and hospice care groups, a movement that is also growing in scale and scope and which all compassionate people must embrace). Aside from this relatively small number of cases (only seven percent of the animals in Tompkins County), shelters also kill for less merciful reasons.

They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.

Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.

What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation. It is as faulty a syllogism and as untrue a proposition as exists in sheltering today. But people believe it, and because they do, local governments under-fund their shelters, appoint and retain incompetent employees in animal control, and give shelter directors the carte blanche they need to kill because the problem is portrayed as insurmountable.

This also begs the question of why pet stores and commercial breeding operations (sometimes referred to as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills”) are still in business. Hobby breed enthusiasts notwithstanding (since these groups often support No Kill and assist in animal rescue), pet stores and puppy/kitten mills are motivated by profit, and they would not go into the business if homes weren’t available. In addition, the more animals dying in a given community) which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which show homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals as this is usually accompanied with under-performing staff, poor customer servie, and dirty and unwelcoming facilities.

- Excerpt from Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd

The sad thing about Parrots is that they sound like they are rational and intelligent, but they have no idea what they’re really saying since they don’t have to think about it. They just mimic. That’s the beauty of mantras and why they are so popular by groups that control and influence the masses (religions, political parties, governments, advertisers, schools, social clubs, militias, guilds, unions, etc.): they are easy to repeat and require little or no thought.

I haven’t been to a church service in years, but I can still recite almost the entire mass. And really, when you’re saying the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, or saying a prayer, are you really thinking about the words? When was the last time you analyzed the words of your favorite song on the radio, if ever?

Since this affords me a golden opportunity to rebut an actual argument instead of summarizing my perception of an opponent’s argument, my responses are interspersed with the Rescuer’s letter:

Hello. I have a few comments about your post: Buy From a Breeder, Never Adopt

That was sick and horrible and disgusting! You can’t just put all shelters and rescues in one category and label it “DISGRACEFUL”. Do you know how many dogs and cats are rescued?

I am not a victim of employing the some-all fallacy where the qualities of a subset of a group are applied to every member of that group. I don’t believe that ALL rescues are poorly run by incompetent boobs, nor do I believe that ALL shelters are disgraceful. If a shelter does the stupid and irresponsible things that I am criticizing, then my venom applies to them. If they do not, then it does not. It’s rather simple, really.

I think you are failing to realize that my post is mocking the tone and rhetoric of PeTA’s advertisement. I believe everything I say in my post, but it’s not the “whole truth” it is simply my observations that tip PeTA’s absolutist message on its head. I answered absolutism with absolutism. Between the two, my absolutism is better.

And yes, every time you buy from a breeder a shelter dog/cat DOES die. YOU could’ve saved that dog/cat from being euthanized, but you DIDN’T, so now that dog/cat must suffer.

This is an example of the zero-sum fallacy and the fallacy of a false dilemma. You are mistaken if you think that the market for animals is so fixed that to buy an animal leads to another one’s death. It is not a zero-sum game and to suggest such is banal, asinine, and jejune.

Since you live in a zero-sum world, let me inform you of what an evil and vile person you are in hopes that you will kill yourself so that someone better can be born.

The clothes you are hoarding now in your closets and chest-of-drawers could be used to clothe the needy. Your vanity and greed is keeping hundreds of people cold and naked. Every shoe you wear means someone is without protection for their feet. You torture people with your greed.

Every breath you take is a breath that is stolen from someone else who deserves it more, especially new born babies struggling for their first bit of air. Every breath you take kills a newborn baby who is denied that oxygen. That makes you a baby killer.

There are starving children in Africa. Every mouthful of food you eat is nutrition that you are denying them. Every time you swallow, you kill a child in Africa. You sicko.

Drought and famine killed thousands of people today due to lack of drinkable water for people, livestock, and crops. When you brushed your teeth, you wasted water that could have saved a cow. That cow is now dead because you wasted its water. When you flushed the toilet, you polluted enough water to meet the needs of an adult man. He’s dead now and his wife and children will soon follow. You killed him. The shower you took sealed the rest of the family’s fate. The water you wasted could have given them sustenance, but they won’t survive the night for lack of that water. You are a serial killer now.

The reality of your zero-sum world really sucks for you, doesn’t it. Do the right thing, die so that others more deserving may live. Your wardrobe could clothe hundreds, your wasted breath could allow thousands to live, the food and water you consume is directly leading to a genocide of starving and parched people the world over. The scales of justice has you one one side and hundreds of thousands of people on the other. How do you sleep at night knowing that your very existence is a modern holocaust?

If you are so concerned about the shelter conditions, maybe YOU should rescue. Obviously you know nothing about animals and you want the animals to die. They only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?

You are now applying an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. The pitiful situation kill shelters find themselves in now has no bearing on my participation or lack thereof. Just like you shift the blame for killing from the shelters who do it (they are not forced!) to nameless “bad owners, breeders, and pet stores” you are now trying to shift the burden of your failures on to me.

My primary concern does not lie in shelter conditions but in the condition of the dogs themselves. The failure of the shelter system is not my concern, not supporting the further failures is. Trying to shift the burden of proof on to me is ridiculous. So is your thought that if I went and saved an animal right now that it would make the shelter system any better. It would not.

I don’t want animals to die. Rather the opposite, I just bred my dogs. This strongly suggests that I want animals to live. I also found all the puppies I didn’t keep excellent homes and I have a contract that demands that I will take back the animals at any time for any reason if the new owners’ situations change. My dogs will never end up in a shelter for any lack of effort on my part.

There are not too many animals. There is no overpopulation problem. Every single animal in a shelter could be adopted tomorrow and they wouldn’t even fill HALF of the demand for pets. Haven’t you heard of the MYTH of the overpopulation problem?

The only people who want animals to die are shelter workers. They are the only ones killing the animals, they are the only ones demanding their deaths. Who else is demanding and rationalizing killing those animals? NO ONE.

If you don’t want them dead, just stop killing them. No one has to kill them. If you don’t kill them, no one else has to. If your cages in your shelter are full, do a better job at finding homes. If more pets come in than you’re capable of finding homes for, turn those people away, it’s better than killing animals to make room.

Why don’t you tell everyone dropping an animal off that you only have a 40% chance of finding a home, so 3 out of 5 times their pet is just going to be killed. Maybe that will get them to be better owners and keep their pet instead of leaving it in your killing hands.

And you are supporting the people who are making the shelters kill their animals.

No one is “making” shelters kill their animals. No one. There’s no law that says that shelters have to kill their animals to make room for new ones, and hardly any shelters are full anyway. If shelters are full despite really effective efforts to find homes, then there need to be more shelters built, not more animals killed. I doubt, though, that if there are full shelters, that it’s because of too many animals coming in, it’s most likely too few going out.

If breeders didn’t exist, then there would be a good amount of domesticated animals in this world, then MAYBE we wouldn’t have to kill them all.

Your hypothetical is really stupid. Shelters don’t create dogs, they recycle them. If there are no dogs made in the first place, there would be none to recycle.

If breeders didn’t exist there would be no domesticated animals in this world at all. Dogs as we know them would last one more doggy generation (10-15 years) and then all of the current breeding stock would be dead and all the animals from shelters would be incapable of breeding (as they are spayed and neutered). Then what?

Sure, in the very short term all the shelters would be empty, but so would most of the homes who want a pet. No more dogs, no more cats, no more horses.

Shelters and rescue play NO PART at all in the preservation of breeds. They play NO PART at all in creating healthy, well adjusted pets. Shelters and rescues don’t create, they just recycle. You are the used car salesmen of the dog world. You don’t appreciate the engineering or the art that goes into making the car, you don’t innovate, you don’t perfect, you don’t preserve, you simply want to get as many of them off your lot as possible.

Used cars are great, but buying used doesn’t reward the car maker for building a better, safer, cleaner, faster, quieter, more stylish, harder working machine. Buying new does. Buying used saves that great machine from going to waste, so it is virtue to buy used, but it’s also a virtue to buy new.

Breeders, and only breeders, are the caring people who work to create better, safer, cleaner, faster, quieter, more stylish, and harder working dogs. That is a virtue.

How dare you say that shelters and rescues have poor animals. You don’t know anything about shelters or rescues. The animals there aren’t disgusting and they aren’t unwanted, simply unlucky and dumped at shelters by uneducated or desperate people that have no other place to put their animals.

You should not confuse my words with the words of Nathan Winograd. He is an expert on shelters and rescue. Neither he nor I said anything about the shelters and rescues having “poor (quality)” or “disgusting” animals. If the animals are poor, it’s because they’ve ended up in the hands of incompetent killers. And the animals aren’t disgusting (although I’ve read enough about dirty shelters to argue otherwise) the PEOPLE who run kill shelters are disgusting. Their defeatism is disgusting. Their ineptitude is disgusting. Their philosophy is disgusting. Their mass slaughter of animals is disgusting.

But let me make some new statements that are sure to piss you off.

Shelters and rescues do have poor animals. Many are damaged goods, ruined by poor breeding and poor training by inconsiderate people. Shelters claim that such animals were “abused” but mostly it’s just poor training and lack of socialization. Those kinds of animals are not appropriate for all owners, and some people don’t care to make the additional investment in fixing those problems. Bless the people who do, but being dishonest about the POTENTIAL problems associated with used animals is dangerous.

Shelters will claim that their animals are just as good as animals you can buy from a breeder. Perhaps some are. There are perfectly good animals in shelters and there are horrible animals from breeders, the quality offered by all shelters and all breeders certainly overlaps. But you are a fool if you think that the new market and the used market are exactly or substantially the same. There ARE trade offs and there ARE concerns for buying new and buying used.

Denying so is irresponsible.

Go volunteer at a shelter, go see those wonderful faces that must perish due to the irresponsible and responsible breeders in this world. Go volunteer at a rescue, go see the amazing animals that were actually given a second chance. Breeders don’t care about the overpopulation problem- if they did they wouldn’t be breeding more.

Your first bit is an appeal to emotion fallacy. It makes no difference how wonderful or cute or lovey the animals in a shelter are. That in no way justifies or excuses the killing that inept shelters carry out.

Shelters and Rescues give animals a second change. Great. Breeders give them their FIRST chance. Great. I appreciate the good work of No Kill shelters and Breed Rescues. Your inability to appreciate the good work of breeders makes you petty and unreasonable.

You don’t know anything about shelter or rescue animals. Honestly, your post was just as bad as saying “Don’t rescue a horse from an auction, because then you are supporting slaughterhouses.” Are you even aware of how they kill animals in slaughterhouses? If not, watch this video and see.

How animals are killed has no relation to my post. Your observation about horses is a non sequitur fallacy and an appeal to pity fallacy. I have no problem with animals being killed for a good purpose. A nice cut of prime rib, a leather sofa, Elmer’s glue, medical research, scrambled eggs, McNuggets, safer shampoo, a nice pair of shoes, a warm coat are all good purposes, in my opinion. Inept shelter management is not a good purpose.

If you are at a shelter awaiting death, wouldn’t YOU want someone to come and rescue you? Or would you rather die for no good reason? GOOD people save animals from these situations. And by supporting your rescue, or shelter you are giving them donations so that they can HELP more animals.

This is again an appeal to emotion, pity, ad hominem tu quoque and a hand full of other fallacies. You’re displacing the needs and innocence of the animals in shelters with the ethics of the shelter itself. If I were a dog in a shelter I wouldn’t want the stupid shelter people to kill me just to “make room” even though there were plenty of empty cages. I wouldn’t want them to kill me because they failed to do enough to get me adopted. I wouldn’t want them to kill me because they have the misguided notion that dogs of a certain color don’t get adopted fast enough to justify keeping them alive for a little bit longer.

GOOD people run No-Kill shelters. I support No Kill shelters. I made a donation to my local No-Kill shelter for each of the dogs I sold in the name of their new owners and I donated a brand new printer to a local breed rescue to assist in their self promotion efforts (they do a photos with Santa fund raiser–brilliant idea–so I gave them a brand new color photo printer because they needed one) on behalf of the two puppies I kept.

Don’t blame the shelters, they have too many animals because of your breeders. They don’t have room in lots of shelters. They are overcrowded.

If shelters have too many animals they should build more shelters (god knows HSUS, PeTA, and the ASPCA have plenty of money to do so!) or turn animals away. If they don’t turn animals away they are not allowing for the demand for new shelters to be met.

Breeders are not the reason for too many animals. The vast majority of animals are turned in because their owners are stupid and have human problems like moving, landlord issues, and lack of funds. Breeders aren’t filling shelters. If that were the case, the majority of shelter dogs would be purebred, puppies, and all those “breeders” would quickly go out of business because it’s very expensive to breed dogs the right way and you don’t make any money if you simply abandon your puppies in a shelter.

If you’re a good Breeder people are willing to pay you good money for your good puppies because they’re worth it. Good Breeders also find good homes for their dogs, and avoid selling to people who are likely to fall into the human failings that lead to the vast majority of dogs in shelters. And the best Breeders will take their dogs back. I screened all my buyers heavily, turned away four and five buyers per puppy that didn’t fit my ideal home, and I will always take my dogs back for any reason at any time and guarantee and demand such in my contract.

The puppies that do end up in shelter are not the product of breeders, they are the product of stupid people who have OOOPS! litters between dogs that should not have ever been bred and who are likely not the same breed, with no health testing, no training, and no demonstrated merit, born to owners who are so inept that they can’t cull the unwanted puppies or find homes for them themselves.

Your post was really unreasonable and it shows me that you are uneducated about the whole breeding topic. You don’t know anything about animals, and your post surely shows it.

Next time, try to stay away from breeding posts, because you don’t know enough about it to have an opinion on the subject. I hope you do your research next time.

Julie
Help A Horse
Love an Animal. Make a Friend.

http://www.helpahorsenow.org

Between the two of us, it is you who are clearly uninformed. You obviously haven’t read Nathan Winograd’s book, Redemption, and since it’s all about your supposed area of expertise, I’d say that makes you look rather foolish and poorly read.

You clearly don’t know that shelters don’t have to kill. For any reason. Yet they do.

You clearly haven’t heard about the No-Kill movement that is revolutionizing the way people treat animals.

You clearly haven’t taken any time to appreciate where all those wonderful dogs and cats and horses came from and continue to come from. Kill shelters did not create the Arabian or the Paint Horse, kill shelters did not make the Labrador Retriever or the Siamese. Breeders did.

You are like the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, all heart and no brain. At least that character strived to find a brain… but you, well, you’re just a straw man, much like your arguments for why you find the need to kill animals and lash out against those who say you should stop.

Mind you, this message is coming from people who kill 97% of the dogs they get their hands on, so scolding you for “buy one, kill one” when their own kill rate is adopt one out, kill two hundred and fifty is just slightly disingenuous.

I actually find their KKK comparison rather hilarious and will comment on that new ad in a future post.

But now is as good of a time as any to remind you that you’re committing no sin by buying your dog from a breeder.

That’s right. I said it. Don’t “rescue” your next pet, buy one from a responsible breeder. The “shelter” establishment in this country is a disgrace, filled with wack-job people who kill animals to “save” them. Animals that are only killed because the shelter industry is inept and has betrayed its founding mission to save and re-home animals.

They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.

Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.

What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation.

- Nathan Winograd, Redemption p. 157-58

Don’t support these people with your donations. Even if you take one of those poor dogs home, you’re just allowing them to continue to kill thousands upon thousands of other dogs with the money they gain from your “adoption fee.” Rescuing a dog from such a situation is just as bad as “rescuing” a dog from a puppy mill by buying your dog at the mall. You might be removing one dog from a bad situation, but your actions are just enabling many many more to meet a worse fate.

Don’t support killing, buy a puppy from someone who has hand raised that dog in their home. Someone who has a name, a face, and a home that you can visit. Someone who loves the sire and dam and who has trained them to display their abilities and documented their physical and genetic health with x-ray exams and DNA analysis and by researching the pedigrees to discover other warning signs for diseases that don’t have tests.

Reward that person for being a resource to you before and after your puppy purchase. Reward that person for having a phone number that you can call with all of your seemingly stupid, but vital, questions. Reward that person for preserving the health and abilities of your breed for one more generation so that your children and their children can enjoy that breed’s companionship. Reward that person for their puppy contract that allows you and them to clearly express what is expected of both parties, and what needs to be done if you need to relinquish your animal.

Reward that person for socializing the parents and the puppies, mitigating the chances that small behavioral problems lead to animal abandonment. Reward that person for allowing you to see the dam and possibly the sire so you can judge what your puppy might grow up to be like. Reward that person for raising an animal in a home, just like the one where it will spend the rest of its happy life with you.

This is the propaganda put out by eco-terrorist radical groups like PeTA who at their core are against all animal companions:

The most popular Christmas meme was “Don’t buy Christmas Puppies!” Pet Connection ran a slew of posts on the topic: Holiday shopping season begins, and the puppy-millers are ready!, A pet is not a toy. A pet is not a toy. Rinse. Repeat., As another storm moves in, remember the puppy-mill dogs …, Christmas puppies: Testing my own advice, How to ‘save’ puppy-mill dogs: Don’t buy them, Christmas adoption bans; followed closely by Lassie Get Help: A dog is not a toy. Also: puppy mills suck.; Champlain Valley Pug Rescue tells us Why puppies should not be given as Christmas presents.; Lexiann at Favorite Pets questioned Puppies as Christmas Presents; The Bark Magazine blog agreed: Santa says: Adopt, Don’t Buy; and Johann the Dog kicked the trend off early: How much is that doggie in the window? And who could forget PeTA and their “Adopt, Never Buy” campaign.

That’s a lot of attention given to Christmas Puppies. Keeping that in mind, take a stab at the following questions:

• There are more {Dogs or Cats} as pets in America
• More households have {Dogs or Cats} as pets
• Pets given as gifts are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs purchased at pet stores are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs born in the owner’s home are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs adopted from a shelter are {More or Less} likely to end up back in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for under $30 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter
• Dogs acquired for over $100 are {More or Less} likely to end up in a shelter

Rank the following sources of pets from where you believe most pets come from to the fewest number of pets come from:

Animal Shelter
Breeder
Friend/Family
Gift
Newspaper/Private Party
Pet Store
Puppy/Kitten from Own Pet
Stray
Veterinarian
Other

Now what do you suppose the facts on the ground would be to justify the “No Christmas Puppies,” “Adopt, Don’t Buy,” and “Don’t give an animal as a gift” messages?

It would be logical to assume that (1) Puppies are a larger problem than Kittens (both in numbers and in propensity to buy on a whim), as you don’t hear much at all about “No Christmas Kittens.” It would be logical to assume that (2) Giving a pet as a gift makes that pet more likely to be relinquished to a shelter. It would be logical to assume that (3) Pet store puppies are more likely to end up in shelters. It would be logical to assume that (4) a large percentage of people buy pets at Pet Stores. It would be logical to assume that (5) people who buy pets for money do more harm than good. It would be logical to assume that (6) people who buy pets from breeders or private parties are more likely to relinquish their pets than people who adopted them from shelters.

It would also be logical to assume that Gifts and Pet Stores are popular means of acquiring puppies.

All those assumptions are wrong. Just like you were once duped into thinking that there were flying reindeer–at least one with a radioactive glowing nose, an immortal fat old philanthropist, and the birthday of Jesus, if you believed any one of those assumptions above, you’ve been just as duped.

There are more Cats as pets in America. In 2001 there were an estimated 68.9 million cats and 61.6 million dogs as pets. Cats are also more likely to be acquired on a whim than dogs (more on that later).

Although, more households have Dogs as pets. In the same survey, 36.1% of US households had at least one dog (1.6 average) and 31.6% of housholds had at least one cat (2.1 average); another survey found that in 2000, 39% of homes had dogs and 34% had cats. AVMA Survey, 1997, 2002; APPMA Survey 2002.

Pets given as gifts are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs purchased at pet stores are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs born in the owner’s home are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs adopted from a shelter are More likely to end up back in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for under $30 are More likely to end up in a shelter.

Dogs acquired for over $100 are Less likely to end up in a shelter.

Pets given as Gifts account for only 7% of acquired dogs and only 8% of dogs are bought at Pet Stores. The most common source of dogs is from Friends and Family at 34%.

As Table 10a shows, the data collected by Patronek et al (1996a) refute at least one cherished belief (that dogs received as gifts or from pet stores are more likely to be given up) and confirm a number of others (that age is an important factor in relinquishment of dogs).

The shelter community needs to be concerned that dogs acquired from their facilities are more likely to be relinquished and should emphasize the importance of pet care-givers establishing strong relationships with a veterinarian (their “other family doctor”).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

As much as these bloggers mean well and their posts do shed critical light on the abomination that is the puppy mill industry, they’re barking up the wrong tree and smearing breeders right along with puppy mills. The message about puppy mills has obviously gotten through, and there’s only 8% more of the market that needs to be taken away from them before they’ll be a memory. But it’s apparently true that puppy mills do a better job of producing pets people keep than breeders of all merit and shelters when those are lumped together.

It also is pretty damning that equal numbers of people adopt from shelters and take in strays; yet, the dogs adopted at shelters are twice as likely to end up back in the shelter than the dogs taken in as strays. And shelter dogs fare worse than any other source, even free dogs.

The slandering against the puppy mills has splashed on to all breeders. And not one of those bloggers who railed against pet stores and gift puppies acknowledged that both of those factors actually keep pets in homes MORE than any other source. It’s confusing, it’s mind blowing, but it turns out that gift pets and pet store pets are the MOST likely to stay in homes and pets adopted by people who care so much that the buy used from shelters end up going back to shelters more than any other source.

And how about this for mind blowing, if you visit a vet with your dog AT LEAST ONCE, you decrease your chance of abandoning your pet by 86%. Take your pet to the vet at least once per year and halve your remaining chance. Twice or more per year, halve that chance again!

The relinquishment rate being so high for newborn puppies speaks again to the need for expanding the spay/neuter message even though 70% of dogs are already desexed. What else than ooops! pregnancies can account for all of those relinquished puppies and kittens and the largest source of dogs being what I can only imagine are ooops! litters from friends and family.

If you are a breeder, the most important benchmark of the ethics of you being one is your ability to sell the puppies you create. If you can’t sell puppies you are not a breeder, or at best a failed one. If you have to give puppies away to free or dump them in shelters, you are a failure.

The above chart is interesting. Very interesting. Most dogs and cats are acquired for little money from friends and family. The acquisition of dogs is also more likely to be planned than on a whim, which is not true for Cats. More cats are acquired on a whim than planned:

Pet care-givers acquire dogs and cats from a variety of sources. These sources are believed to play an integral role in pet population problems. According to the APPMA National Pet Owners Survey, pets in 1998 were acquired as indicated in Table 7 (APPMA 2000, 2002). Use of those sources marked with an asterisk indicates that some forethought and planning usually went into the acquisition of the pet.

The total percentage of dogs acquired from such sources is 74 (or about 48 percent of the identified sources); the total percentage of cats acquired from these sources is 38 (or about 29 percent of the identified sources). This indicates that cats are more likely to be acquired on a whim.

Other surveys have shown similar differences between the sources of dogs and cats. Nassar, Mosier, and Williams (1984) found that in Las Vegas cats (24.5 percent) were much more likely to be acquired from the stray population than dogs (8 percent), but only 9 percent of cats were purchased compared with 26 percent of dogs. In Massachusetts 71 percent of pet care-givers had planned to acquire their dogs, going to such sources as breeders (33 percent), shelters (16 percent), and pet stores (7 percent) (MSPCA 1996).

- Acquisition of Pets, The State of the Animals II: 2003

So there you go. Data found on the HSUS website speaks volumes to myths that people believe: That shelters do a good job at keeping pets in homes with their careful selection programs and temperament tests. Turns out that random loose dogs taken in off the street are twice as likely to stay there. That buying dogs is less ethical than adopting them, turns out that buying dogs even at pet stores is more successful than adopting them or getting them free from friends and family. That puppy mill and gift pets are the most likely to be abandoned. Turns out that they’re not.

Go figure.