Would you buy from a breeder if there were no rescues?

[daftscotslass]

Originally Posted by Percy's Mom

It sounds to me like you're more worried about your own possible failure. I completely think that even if you don't think the animal has been socialized, he would still have felt loved and lived out the end of his life in a caring environment instead of the abusive one he started in. Even if he was never able to live with another animal and only minimally responded to you, it would still be very worth it for the animal.

Couldn't agree more with this. My last hamster hated humans (apart from me, funnily enough) but was loved regardless.

[pigsforlife]

Why does it matter how much an animal is abused prior to coming to the shelter? Why does it matter how old the animal is? Why does it matter how tame an animal becomes, or how much it likes you?

It doesnt matter how abused or sick the animal is, you work through it. My grandparents had a dog, who lived to the age of 16. She was horribly abused as a puppy, she had scars that snaked all across her head and her tail had a noticeable kink in it indicating that it was severely broken. She suffered from seizures, and was on medication that was increased in strength and doseage has her seizures worsened. She was a darling dog, would come running to you, and would cry to be petted. She hated men, children and balls (perhaps something to do with her past), but the more that she was handled and properly cared for the better she became. To the point where you could bounce a ball near her, to the point that men and children alike could pet her. This didnt happen overnight, it took alot of time. I see it as selfish to not adopt an animal purely because he/she was abused prior to coming to the shelter, or is sick at the moment. It tells me that you cant be bothered in putting the time in to getting this animal better.

It doesnt matter how old the animal is. This dog my grandparents owned was about 9 or so (wasnt 100% sure of her age) when they got her. All animals, regardless of their age deserve a second chance in life. How would you like it if you were put up for adoption, at the age of the 13, because you didnt have any family? And if that wasnt bad enough, you were stuck in an orphanage where all the kids that got adopted out where toddlers or babies. Is that fair? No of course not, so why is it fair that animals are not adopted because they are "too" old?

I see it as selfish when people adopt a baby animal based on the fact that it is more likely to become tame, or more likely to like you as an owner. I dont see how a young animal is more likely to become tame than an older animal. And why does it matter than an animal becomes tame? Why does it matter? Surely all that matters is that it is happy and well?

[wickedrodent]

First of all, I would like to say: ALL of my current and past animals that I have gotten have been rescues. I have NEVER bought from a petstore or a breeder.

I see it as selfish to not adopt an animal purely because he/she was abused prior to coming to the shelter, or is sick at the moment. It tells me that you cant be bothered in putting the time in to getting this animal better.

I already said that I would LOVE to adopt an older rat at some point. The only reason I adopted babies is because I AM a novice at owning them. It would be like someone going and adopting a priorly abused dog (who had never owned any sort of dog before).. Besides the fact that I am in college and work and don't have the time to spend hours and hours and hours a day socializing a very non-socialable rat. Im my situation were different I would just at the chance. Right now its not possible.

It doesnt matter how old the animal is. This dog my grandparents owned was about 9 or so (wasnt 100% sure of her age) when they got her. All animals, regardless of their age deserve a second chance in life. How would you like it if you were put up for adoption, at the age of the 13, because you didnt have any family? And if that wasnt bad enough, you were stuck in an orphanage where all the kids that got adopted out where toddlers or babies. Is that fair? No of course not, so why is it fair that animals are not adopted because they are "too" old?

Your absolutely correct, all sheltered animals need homes regardless of age. I adopted 2 rats from a shelter. I did not go out and buy one. Besides that these 2 (plus their 2 foster brothers) were the only 2 avaliable in my area.

I see it as selfish when people adopt a baby animal based on the fact that it is more likely to become tame, or more likely to like you as an owner. I dont see how a young animal is more likely to become tame than an older animal. And why does it matter than an animal becomes tame? Why does it matter? Surely all that matters is that it is happy and well?

I didn't say an older animal couldn't become tame. I said that if an animal had been abused and was now an older age that it would be harder to tame him/her.

[wickedrodent]

I would have edited but I ran out of time..

This is a thread from the rats site I go to that had everyone post their rats ages when they passed away--

Goosemoose Pet Portal - Rat Life Expectancy Survey

I took 250 random samples of ages from this thread and came up with an average lifespan of 20 months. I also excluded any rats who died before the age of 1 month.

MOST rats die from tumors. Its very common. Spaying does reduce the chances in females but its still very very common for rats to get them and pass away from them. Even if tumors can be removed they can, and have, died from the operation.

[pigsforlife]

My post was not aimed at you WR, it was aimed at everyone.

[Alusdra]

It's a sad testimant to their short lives that the thread is in months, not years. Why I would never have a pet rat is due to how quickly they die. It's depressing how prone they are to tumors.

Oh- and as to older/abused animals deserve as much chance as younger/healthier/etc. animals- I agree up to a point. If there are no animals being euthanized, this is true. But in a kill shelter situation where animals have to be euthanized and all options (fostering, breed rescues, etc.) have been utilized, in that situation, I think the happy, healthy animals deserve more of a chance. I can't put my moral finger on why, but it ticks me off when people try to adopt the lunging, aggressive dog and let the happy, healthy, social one die even more than when people pass over the animal that has been sitting in a rescue for a long time for the puppy that came in 10 minutes prior.

[Jennicat]

Originally Posted by daftscotslass

I don't particularly understand the distinction here between breeding rats for "healthy lines" and doing the same for cavies. What about the ones in between? What about the ones that are discarded in favour of the "healthy" ones? Nobody on here would hesitate not to condone breeding to improve the species in cavies while discarding the rejects. Why are rats so different?

Bear in mind that there are breeders out there who may be breeding for a healthy line. There are also as many (if not more) out there breeding for the sake of mutated novelty pets like dumbos, double rexes and hairless rats.

For me, one big difference is the difference in setups I've seen between the two species. While cavy breeders tend to talk out of their behinds about improving the health of their stock, while producing 10-15 litters a year (or more) without impunity, and keeping all their pigs outside in some shack, in tiny cages; the rat breeders that I would class as "responsible" breed seldomly, take in rescues, alter animals being placed (or place them in same sex only homes), and screen applications as thoroughly as a rescue would. They also don't breed their rescues. Their rats are kept inside in ideal conditions, treated as loved pets first, and baby producers second.

Would I buy a rat from such a breeder? Not as long as there were rescue animals.

[daftscotslass]

Originally Posted by Jennicat

For me, one big difference is the difference in setups I've seen between the two species. While cavy breeders tend to talk out of their behinds about improving the health of their stock, while producing 10-15 litters a year (or more) without impunity, and keeping all their pigs outside in some shack, in tiny cages; the rat breeders that I would class as "responsible" breed seldomly, take in rescues, alter animals being placed (or place them in same sex only homes), and screen applications as thoroughly as a rescue would. They also don't breed their rescues. Their rats are kept inside in ideal conditions, treated as loved pets first, and baby producers second.

Would I buy a rat from such a breeder? Not as long as there were rescue animals.

I've seen guinea pig breeders who do the same with their animals and do their utmost to produce perhaps one or two litters a year of the highest standard. They keep their pigs indoors and lavish them with the best of care, love and kindness. I've actually met more of these breeders than I have the "bad" ones. I've also seen more rat breeders who don't give a hoot than ones that care (in fact, I haven't met any like the ones you describe). So what is the norm? What you've seen or what I've seen. Who knows? All I do know is that there is a heck of a lot out there we don't see so either opinion is hardly a representative sample of the global problem.

You are right about the bottom line - the problem of the homeless animals, regardless of species, is still there. Why breed at all? Why encourage it?

[pigsforlife]

Another thing that I dont understand is why people will buy from a breeder if there are no animals in rescues.

Surely if you buy from a breeder, the breeder will get the hint that they are in demand and will breed more, as will other breeders. In turn, animals will re-appear in rescues, and we will be back at square 1.

[thalestral]

I would never go to a breeder for any kind of animal. If there were none in rescues I would rejoice.

I do not believe humans have the right to force other animals to breed for our own selfish pleasures, i.e. to "own" them. I do not believe humans have the right to create life for fun with another species.

I enjoy having furry friends in my family but I adopt them primarily for their good and happiness. The fact I get joy from their company is secondary.

If you would ever go to a breeder for a pet you are not anti-breeding. It's as simple as that!

[crazywiggy]

Under certain circumstances, yes I would consider buying an animal from a breeder.

Now please let me explain before anyone goes nuts.....

I have two problems with breeders:

1) Overpopulation - where every new animal bred causes another to die for want of a home.
2) Irresponsible breeders (my idea of a "responsible" and "caring" breeder is incrediably strict)

Currently, almost every species of pet animal is overpopulated in my country (UK). Therefore, whatever type of pet I wanted I could -and WOULD - get one from a rescue.

I also believe that some species are very similar, in terms of their needs, the relationship you have with them etc. As someone said earlier, I think it is better to make some sacrifice in terms of what you want if doing so would save a life. So if I wanted pet mice, and there were none at all in rescue, I would consider getting a hamster or gerbils instead. The same goes for dog breeds. If I couldn't get the breed I wanted from rescue I would get a different, although equally suitable one instead.

In my lifetime I doubt I will ever see a time where there are no similar animals in need of homes, therefore I will always rescue.

The next issue is purely hypothetical, because it isn't going to happen any time soon.

Lets say we overcame the problem of overpopulation of all "small" pets (i.e. rabbits, guinea pigs and rodents). This would need to be to the point where there are more homes available than animals to fill them. The ONLY animals ever to end up homeless would be those from genuine "change in circumstances" cases, and being so few and far between would find homes very quickly.

If we ever got to this point (for all similar species) I would consider buying from a breeder - but ONLY a truly caring and responsible one.

Poor early care and hereditary disease cause a huge amount of suffering. Good breeders can therefore do a lot for animal welfare by breeding out health issues and taking excellent care of their animals.
In my opinion a responsible breeder wants to better the breed or species. They would not increase their breeding to meet increased demand. These are the only breeders I would buy from, as I would not want to encourage overpopulation to start over again. Even now, the best dog breeders have long waiting lists for their pups because they only breed a few of the very best.

To conclude:
I love keeping pets and I do not see that this is an ethical problem in itself. If animals were underpopulated rather than overpopulated, I would have no problem buying one from only the very best breeder.
I will never support overpopulation and I will never support irresponsible breeding. Because the situation is unlikely to change in my lifetime, I will always rescue.

[pigsforlife]

It doesnt matter how "responsible" or good the breeder is. Once the breeder works out that a certain animal is in demand, the breeder will most probably breed more. Others will get the idea and contribute. And then we will be back where we are now in terms of overpopulation.

[MCR_Rox]

When I grow up, I will adopt the animals who are going to be euthanized first. Also, even if I have to go out of state to adopt out of a species that isn't near me, and I want to take care of one, I will.

[Biscuit]

With regards to not rescuing an animal because of its health, age, or temperment I have to say I can go both ways.

I've read so many stories of people thinking they are "rescuing" an animal and they really cannot handle the gravity of the behavioral or health issues. Not everyone is totally equipped to handle the pet, and I would just rather they didn't adopt if they aren't prepared for the highest vet bills and the worst behavior.

It takes heart to responsibly take on certain rescues, but it also takes resources.

I see animals every week that I want to save, we all do. It can seem for all the world like the only decent thing to do is take the animal and do the best you can for it with whatever you have. It can feel like you must save it. It usually comes from good intentions and real sympathy for an animal who is suffering. However...if you lack the resources to rescue, you may not really be doing the critter any big favors, particularly with animals with health issues.

My first guinea pig was a senior guinea pig that was going to be put to sleep due to no one adopting her. It was my first real rescue. I had always gotten cats and such at shelters, but it's not quite the same. Anyway, the pig was missing fur and showing signs of some illness. She had checked out as "healthy" by the shelter but I knew she was going to cost me $$ just by looking at her.

If I had adopted her without financial resources...she may have had a bigger cage, proper food, tons of love and affection. Maybe I even would have taken her to the vet and had her looked at when her appetite dipped a tiny amount and she sneezed a few times. The vet would have said she had did have something wrong, but to just keep her comfortable. Lets say I couldn't afford the xrays the vet felt were not totally necessary to confirm her illness. Lets say I took her home and she ate. Lets say I didn't think to take her back to the vet, because they said she was fine for the time being. Lets say I couldn't afford to take her to a vet and pet her nose like she loved while they put her to sleep...and because I couldn't afford xrays, I wouldn't even have known that was the right thing to do.

I would have taken in little mangled, sad looking, most affectionate guinea pig ever with the best heart and intentions, and inadvertantly caused her to spend her last weeks suffering and slowly starving due to the huge amount of ascites fluid filling her abdomen and pushing into her lungs, causing her organs to fail, filing her with toxicity.

Fortunately, I did get the xray, I did have her put to sleep the next day, and none of that suffering occured.

My point is, I think there are people who have the resources to handle a pet, but a sickly rescue with health and/or behavior problems might not be the best choice for them.