Where People & Piggies Thrive

Newbie or Guinea Guru? Popcorn in!

Register for free to enjoy the full benefits.
Find out more about the NEW, drastically improved site and forum!

Register

Breeding Convincing against buying from a breeder

sassyfirechick

Active Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 8, 2012
Posts
24
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
24
So you've volunteered at shelters and you've seen first hand, the animals in need of homes. You've probably seen animals turned away or euthanized for lack of space. After seeing that, the homeless animals caused by overpopulation, how can you possibly be in favor of breeding that creates even MORE animals rather than providing homes for those in need of them?

For one, I need my dogs to be 'predictable'. Working as a dog trainer I use my dogs for demos, I use them to evaluate behavior in other dogs, I even use them to evalute people. I am highly selective of the breeders I purchase from. I have to know that these puppies are socialized in such a way that I could essentially take any puppy from the litter and have a predictable training course. I train my dogs to the equivalent level of most service dogs. Because they are in the public eye, and because I take them into schools around young children, I can't take the risk of not knowing. I can't worry that a child might walk up carrying, oh let's say for this sake, a ruler, and suddenly the dog has a flashback of being chased once with one and he bolts and knocks someone over. That would be a mild reaction yet still highly undesirable. You have no idea the things people will perceive as aggression if they are unfamiliar with dog behavior.

Secondly, I work with problem dogs. I see the issues. Why should I have to live with that? I've often been told that because I'm an "animal professional" and because I have the ability and knowledge to work with problem behaviors, that I should automatically seek out those dogs and take them to live with me. Don't get me wrong, I love what I do, I'm fascinated by behavior, but I don't want to live with it nor should I have to.

The shelters I've worked/volunteered at did not euthanize for space or time constraints. I understand that happens, and while it is sad that not all of those dogs will get homes, I don't feel I should be obligated to provide a home for them when I did not directly cause the problem. My breeder has maybe 2 litters a year, sometimes, one, sometimes none, never more and never with the same dog in back-to-back cycles. She has a waiting list. Before she plans a breeding, she goes above and beyond on health checks on her dogs and then finding the best possible mate. She will not breed if there are not more prospective families than puppies. This way of breeding (which should be followed by every breeder but there are unfortunately a lot of unethical people in this world ) does NOT promote or contribute to overpouplation. Everyone continues to lump "breeding" as a one size fits all category and it isn't.

While spaying and neutering is the appropriate, responsible and ethical decision, you realize it isn't natural. Nature intended for dogs to breed. So wether they do so because an intact male wanders into the yard of a female in heat or because a breeder presents the opportunity to do so by selecting a mate and providing the opportunity, it's going to happen. You could let nature run it's course and by the power of natural selection unwanted genes would eventually be eliminated (provided those dogs were left to die and no one intervened and allowed these traits to remain in the gene pool) OR you can intervene by responsibly chosing not to breed dogs with known issues, or a familial history of issues and pair not just healthy dogs, but choose to breed based on genetic diverstiy, i.e no line breeding or inbreeding. Humans breed for "love" regardless of health. And look at what we have created! We are overflowing with horrendous diseases and genetic defects. Cancer, heart defects, blindness, dwarfism, albinoism...there are more genetic diseases, defects, and deformities than we even know about. Yet no one goes around saying "hey, you're pretty ugly, I don't think you should pass that on by having babies" or "you know, we'd like to eliminate breast cancer so because youre grandmother had it and you are at a higher risk, we're banning you from procreating". No, that's been done in the past and didn't go over so well...Hitler ring a bell? We also don't tell people to adopt kids. There are thousands of dying, starving, suffering children in the world. But no one is stopping new ones from being 'bred'. How is that any different? I have a child. Is it selfish of me to contribute to the overpopulation of the world because I didn't adopt one that was already in need? Call it what you will, I call it love and a little bit of self preservation - we all have an innate desire to pass along our genetics as do dogs.
 

sassyfirechick

Active Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 8, 2012
Posts
24
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
24
Indeed they have, which I do not have a problem with. When people who work with service dogs breed a small, controlled amount of animals only to satisfy the need that they have and nothing more, then it is not for profit. It is to help a person that needs the dog to have a more productive, safer, better life..

Are you familiar with organizations like Fidelco or Guiding Eyes for the Blind? They and other groups are essentially commercial producers based on the sheer volume of puppies to pass through their facilities. They are state of the art, spend upwards of $30,000 PER PUPPY that remains in their program until the age of about 2 when they are trained and able to work as service dogs. They invest a huge amount of time and money in these dogs knowing that a large percentage will still 'fail out'. Some will be recycled to other programs for protection or detection work with local law enforecement groups or may be picked up for serach and rescue, and others adopted out to pet homes. According to Guiding Eyes for the Blind's website "Approximately half of the 500 puppies bred each year will become working guide dogs." 500 puppies, not all of which will "serve a purpose". So approximately 250 puppies, multiplied by a vast number of groups, all with the same goal....that's a lot of "unnecessary" dogs. There's no such thing as a "small, controlled amount of animals only to satisfy the need that they have and nothing more"...that's russain roulette and wishful thinking to assume all the dogs in a litter will be of service quality.
 

Silverwind

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Posts
79
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
79
This thread stinks. I cant believe that the same people who keep saying “dont breedor buy while shelter animals die“ if the discussion is about cavies, are defending the same acts, when its dogs. breeding and buying when there are millions of homeless, abused, abandoned creatures either dying in kill shelters or languishing in overcrowded rescues is wrong, regardess of species. saying its fine to go to a “reputable. breeder “ to get the dog you want, but going to a breeder to get the cavy you want isnt, is hypocritical.
 

kananaka

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Posts
902
Joined
Feb 18, 2012
Messages
902
This thread stinks. I cant believe that the same people who keep saying “dont breedor buy while shelter animals die“ if the discussion is about cavies, are defending the same acts, when its dogs. breeding and buying when there are millions of homeless, abused, abandoned creatures either dying in kill shelters or languishing in overcrowded rescues is wrong, regardess of species. saying its fine to go to a “reputable. breeder “ to get the dog you want, but going to a breeder to get the cavy you want isnt, is hypocritical.

IMHO there is a huge difference between a reputable breeder of ANY animal than a breeding mill. A breeder breeds to better the species and does it out of love for the animals, no matter the expense to themselves. They are not in it for the money. A mill has horrific conditions, improper/cruel care, does not breed responsibly (litter after litter), is 100% in it to make a profit, etc...

Most cavies are bred in mills, not a reputable breeder. I can guarantee that 99.9% of cavies in pet stores are mill cavies . I may not agree with buying any animal from a reputable breeder but there is a world of difference between a breeder and a breeding mill. I do not know of anyone who breeds cavies for love of the breed, I am sure they are out there but lets get real, most of the people breeding cavies are mill breeders. That is the difference most people make between reputable dog breeders and cavy breeders (mill).
 

doganddisc

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Posts
212
Joined
Mar 13, 2012
Messages
212
This thread stinks. I cant believe that the same people who keep saying “dont breedor buy while shelter animals die“ if the discussion is about cavies, are defending the same acts, when its dogs. breeding and buying when there are millions of homeless, abused, abandoned creatures either dying in kill shelters or languishing in overcrowded rescues is wrong, regardess of species. saying its fine to go to a “reputable. breeder “ to get the dog you want, but going to a breeder to get the cavy you want isnt, is hypocritical.

I haven't seen anybody say that going to a breeder to get a cavy is any different than going to a breeder to get a dog. I support cavy and dog breeders alike provided they are breeding for a specific purpose that improves the life and overall wellbeing of the species. I personally breed mice.

If we wish to perpetuate pet ownership, we must selectively breed healthy, friendly pets. That is just the reality of the situation. However, I and everyone else on this forum should be aware of the motive of animal rights organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, both of whom are firm believers in getting rid of pet ownership altogether. This is not something I personally believe in. For those that do hold eliminating pet ownership as an ideal, I respect your opinion and understand why you are against breeders. But for those who are for pet ownership but against breeders: do a little research. Find out how many animals from reputable breeders actually end up in shelters.

Once again I ask this: If all of the reputable breeders stop breeding and only the greedy breeders are left, are you aware that all of the animals we have will be those who are randomly thrown together, a potentially dangerous mix of genetic health and behavioral issues?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Reputable breeders who breed specifically to better the health and temperament of their chosen breed are essential to a close human interaction with animals.
 

Wildcavy

Well-known Member
Cavy Gazer
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Posts
1,008
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
1,008
However, I and everyone else on this forum should be aware of the motive of animal rights organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, both of whom are firm believers in getting rid of pet ownership altogether.

I can't say whether your assertions are true or not, particularly for the Humane Society (I do not support PETA personally, for other reasons). So I cannot say I trust this assertion at all.

However, miraculously, I do agree with you (I think) on one thing: domesticated animals cannot be set free. Truly domesticated animals like dogs, cats, cavies and the like. Not exotics that people have stolen out of the wild. Dogs, cats and the like have zero capacity to survive in the wild and in fact are detrimental to wildlife. My position on feral cat colonies would no doubt be as unpopular as your position on breeding is. I was a wildlife rehabber / transporter first, still do capture and transport and release for injured wildlife.

I am firmly anti-breeding and it's not really sensible for me to keep beating this drum. We aren't going to see eye to eye on it.

But I would like, sincerely, some proof that the Humane Society wants to eliminate companion animals. Because they would literally have to be destroyed as a species.
 

Squint96

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Posts
534
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
534
Well...this topic has certainly become popular. I didn't post this to start any fights or arguments over whether breeding was good or bad. I was just looking for some points I could make to sway this person in the direction of adoption, which is what I support. I hope no one walks away with any hard feelings :)
 

CavyMama

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Posts
5,025
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
5,025
However, I and everyone else on this forum should be aware of the motive of animal rights organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, both of whom are firm believers in getting rid of pet ownership altogether.

PETA, yes I have seen on their site where they are against pet ownership for this or that reason but I guarantee you that the Humane Society of the US is definitely NOT in favor of getting rid of pet ownership. Finding homes for homeless animals is their MAIN goal. There is no reason for them to be against pet ownership.

Direct quote from the Humane Society of the US website:
We celebrate pets, as well as wildlife and habitat protection. We are the nation's most important advocate for local humane societies, providing shelter standards and evaluations, training programs, a national advertising campaign to promote pet adoption, direct support, and national conferences.
 

Silverwind

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Posts
79
Joined
Apr 23, 2012
Messages
79
There are more puppy mills and and backyard breeders than reputable breeders. and plenty of purebred dogs suffer diseases and other ailments due to breeding for particular traits. Dalmations are often deaf, bulldogs and pugs have breathing issues, shar pei are prone to nasty skin diseases, German Shepherds get hip displasia. More and more Golden retrievers have severe personality problems. If breeders really were doing it for the love of dogs, there would be mor cross breeds because they would be fouaing less on appearance and more on the health and happiness of the animals they “love“. This is not the case. Perhaps dogs are rarely retuned to their original breeder because it is cheaper and easier to dump them at a rescue center or just abandon them altogether. There is no shortage of purebred dogs in rescues either.
 

salana

Lethal Guru
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Posts
1,859
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,859
You seem to be under the impression that somehow breeders can create better genes in their chosen strain of inbred animal. This is simply not true. Every gene responsible for any prized trait in any purebred dog is available somewhere in the the genetic diversity of dogs as a species. So nothing of value will be lost if, say, dachshunds are no longer bred to the standard.
 

littledinobug

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Posts
362
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
362
Silverwind: You are sort of mistaken about Shar-Pei. They aren't prone to "nasty skin diseases" They are prone to eye disorders, (Entropian is the biggie) and a %100 fatal kidney disorder called Amyloidosis. I know this stuff because my mom USED to breed...and stopped because she kept getting Amyloid dogs. The main reason why there's such a massive genetic problem with the breed is, The seed stock, was only 9 dogs. They were the only 9 left in the ENTIRE WORLD in 1979. The Chinese Peasants actually used them to guard their farms. Their name means "Sand Skin" Their loose skin was a trait developed by the Chinese peasants to allow them to turn and bite predatory animals and/or thieves that grabbed them.During the reign of Communist China...the Chinese farmers were forced to slaughter their beloved guard dogs..leaving only 9 left in the world. Some dog lovers from America came and stepped in and rescued the breed from complete extinction. Now because of such a small seed...they have some bad genetic issues. They're getting better though. They are absolutely wonderful dogs if socialized correctly (Like any dog)If you can, I highly suggest rescuing a shar-pei. Our first, (and what got mom into breeding) was a rescue, that had all her "papers" from the CKC. She was abused by men and had a serious distrust of men when we got her, but they are intelligent enough to understand after a bit, that THIS person is different, and she warmed up to my dad in no time.Just trying to shine a light on this misunderstood breed. They're about as misunderstood as Pitbulls...and just as sweet. (childhood friends)
 

Aertyn

Moderator
Cavy Gazer
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Posts
1,013
Joined
Mar 3, 2006
Messages
1,013
littledinobug, that's interesting about the Shar Pei. I knew they came from limited stock but 9 is quite low.

Another breed that affected heavily by inbreeding is the Cavalier King Charles. The foundation of that breed came from 6 dogs. And they are now one of the sickest breed of dogs in the world. Heart problems, brain problems, eye issues, hip + knee problems. It's tragic. Look at the pug as well. Breathing problems, eye issues, spinal issues, knees as well. These 'purebred' dogs are tragically ill. And dying early because of it. All because breeders are breeding for a 'look' to win a trophy, rather than for the health of the animals concerned.
 

littledinobug

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Posts
362
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
362
Well Artyn, one of our "Best" (as in "conformation") dogs (But he was just a really awesome dog anyway and I miss him so much. Was a male we called B.J He was so awesome, such a sweet loving tempered dog. His mom was the rescue we first got. And you know what, I wish he were still with us today. He died at the ripe old age of 21. Yup. 21 years old. I was so mad at mom when she rehomed him. SO MAD, he was MY dog...I loved him so much.. :( That's why I'm not for breeding. You get attached to an animal then blammo rehomed because he/she is no longer "Good enough" or "We need some other blood in the line" It's been over 10 years and it still stings. :(
 

Roo99

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Posts
245
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
245
While spaying and neutering is the appropriate, responsible and ethical decision, you realize it isn't natural. Nature intended for dogs to breed. So wether they do so because an intact male wanders into the yard of a female in heat or because a breeder presents the opportunity to do so by selecting a mate and providing the opportunity, it's going to happen.

An animal is euthanized every 8 seconds because there is no home for them. So while most animals are born with the ability to reproduce, it isn't always natural. While you say that nature intended for animals to breed, you need to also realize that nature cuts down the population as well. There is drought, famine, disease, and a food chain in the wild. Since our domesticated pets are not effected by these things, they would breed like crazy if none of them were spayed or neutered.
 

sassyfirechick

Active Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
May 8, 2012
Posts
24
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
24
I'm not suggesting anyone allow their dogs to breed randomly. My point was that if not for breeders out there consciously selecting for the best genetics and temperament, dogs as we all know them would be non-exsistant. The arguement everyone on here has is that all dogs should be rescued and breeders shouldn't exsist. How will the species survive in that paradigm? And how wll it be even remotely healthy if left up to those irresponsible enough that they don't care to test for health and don't know the genetic history of a lineage....they just allow thier dog to remain intact and breed because they "like thier dog, therefore other people will too".
 

Roo99

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Posts
245
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
245
Here is my final word.

There are animals. All sorts of animals. Dogs, cats, guinea pigs, potbellied pigs, frogs, fish, iguanas, and all sorts of others. As long as there is overpopulation, there is no need to intentionally bring more animals into this world. Whenever dogs are close to extinction, sassyfirechick, you let me know. Then I'll get back to you on intentional breeding.

In the mean time, enjoy life with a rescued dog that needs a home.
 

pinky

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Posts
10,837
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
10,837
So I got here through some late night random browsing, and I have to say doganddisc is dead on with the argument for going to a breeder for something specific like a stock dog. I myself have Aussies, from a versatility breeder, so not hardcore stock lines. In fact my older Aussie was afraid of sheep the first time I took her into a pen, so just because a dog belongs to a group, it doesn't mean they will excell in that given area. And having "drive" isn't the same as having a deep-seeded lineage of known working heritage. Same arguement could be made for hunting dogs. You can't just walk into a shleter, pick out any Lab and assume they will retrieve water fowl.

I own purebreds because I want predictability - right from the moment they are born. Not all puppies in shleters will grow up to be sound adults regardless of the time you put into them. Case in point: I worked for and fostered dogs for a large shelter. Because my background was in animal behavior, I was often given "tough cases". I took home a 12week old Irish Wolfhound to evaluate a potential food aggression issue. Well, it went beyond potential issue. He nearly sent my father to the hospital for walking past him when he spoted a crumb on the ground. If not for the tether I had holding him to my banister he would have severed my father's jugular. At 12weeks old, he was already a large puppy, about 25lbs, and underweight at that. He had been taken from his mother and siblings too young, and was tied to a radiator and teased by the children in the house with food being withheld. I worked with him for nearly 2mos using positive reinforcement (clicker training) so as not to incite any further aggression. As he got bigger, his outbursts got worse and his size made them dangerous. I made the decision to have him euthanized at 5mos old bc his potential to do harm was so great it would have been an injustice to place him in any home. Aggression like this begins the moment they are born. Indiscriminate breeding doesn't take temperament into account. Behaviors are influenced by experiences, but there is also some degree if innate behavior, behavior that they are born with and prone to, dependant upon situations they encounter in life that will trigger them to surface.

To say that all shelter dogs are bad would obviously be false. But to say that you can get a "perfect" dog from a shelter is far less likely than if you were to purchase one from a REPUTABLE breeder. If you consider that reputable breeders will ALWAYS take back any dog,for any reason, without question, and they heavily scrutinize the homes in which they sell their dogs to, then it's easy to see that not many top quality dogs will end up in shelters. Dogs who end up in shelters often come from pet stores, puppy mills, backyard breeders, and other such diplorable sources where screening doesn't happen. Any nit-wit off the street with a wad of cash or line of credit can walk in and walk out with a new furry friend. And 2 months later when it's no longer the cute puppy it once was having torn up the linoleum, eaten the arm off the couch, and terrorized the mailman, the puppy ends up in a shelter. At this point they missed the key social windows which would have taught them bite inhibition, noise desensitizaton, and introduced them to a wide variety of people and places, and you now have a severely fearful dog or one who is out of control and becoming dog aggressive or any other number of behavioral cocktails of "badness".

I have a group of friends who subscribe to the "don't shop, adopt" mantra, and they include breeders with pet stores as if they were equals. The point they miss is that those mutts they love had to come from somewhere and it all began with a purebred. Here's some crazy talk - how about we focus less on bashing breeders and focus more on regulating the puppy mills and making it harder for people to be scumbags for the sake of turning a profit? Newsflash good breeders barely break even. And those dogs at the big conformation shows with health issues? Well just look at who sponsors them (Purina, Eukanuba, Iams, Science Diet...) and that should tell you something right there. And if you have no idea why these sponsors are bad news, you need to rethink what you feed your own animals.

Some people want to sweep in and save the day, great. If that's your thing, all the power to you. But rescue really isn't for everyone, in fact it's not for most people. Breeders are an entire support network, and rescue often lacks that. What help are a bunch of well meaning but ill-informed 'dog people' if you happen to adopt a dog with serious issues, behavioral or medical? It's a very personal choice, and unless you can stand there with your friend or family member and say you will support them in every way if something goes wrong, then it's not your place to 'sway' them one way or the other.

Are you perfect? Then why is necessary to own a perfect dog? I believe that anyone can find a dog that meets their expectations at a rescue or shelter as long as they look hard enough and are patient.
 

pinky

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Posts
10,837
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Messages
10,837
PETA, yes I have seen on their site where they are against pet ownership for this or that reason but I guarantee you that the Humane Society of the US is definitely NOT in favor of getting rid of pet ownership. Finding homes for homeless animals is their MAIN goal. There is no reason for them to be against pet ownership.

Direct quote from the Humane Society of the US website:

You're better off supporting your local rescues and shelters where you can see where your donations are spent. I steer clear of the big 3 (HSUS, PETA and ASPCA) that raise tons of money, with little of it going to rescues and shelters. HSUS wanted to euthanize all the Michael Vick's dogs. They are not about pet ownership like their commercials try to convince you. They'd rather euthanize animals than find them homes. Don't confuse the HSUS with your local humane society. They're two very different things.
 

Cavylier

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Posts
195
Joined
Apr 24, 2012
Messages
195
Here's my two cents:

Coming from a country where animal welfare is still overlooked most of the time, I am against most breeding. In India, we have a lot of street dogs and they are not of any breed at all. They have evolved and adapted to their circumstances over the years - most of them have short hair, slender bodies and small paws. They can curl up into a really tiny space and sleep like cats and they have very few to none genetic diseases because their heritage is so varied.

However, most pet owners like to have pure breed dogs because it is so much 'cooler' and they 'look nice'. I have known so many dogs who have ended up with awful genetic diseases. Most of them (German Shepherds, Spaniels, etc.) are not even suited to the climate. I see them lethargically sitting in one place and panting in the heat. It's not good for these dogs that they have to suffer from illnesses and it's even worse for those in shelters who will never have a home. Also, not only are the Indian breed dogs denied a home, they are usually the subject of really awful animal abuse. And more often than not, if there is a dog who is hurt, it is always one that is not a pure breed. I have heard horrible stories of people lighting firecrackers after tying them to street dogs' mouths, running over puppies, etc. And all this because they are just 'street' dogs and they don't 'look cool'.

For every person who goes to a 'responsible breeder' there are a handful who will think that it's cool to get a puppy from a breeder, never mind what kind the breeder is. For every 'responsible' breeder there will be ten breeders who are neglectful of their dogs, trying to cash in on the popularity of breeding generated by the 'responsible' breeder.

And as for personality traits, that's all nonsense, as far as I can tell. A dog's personality is based on how people treat him. When people look at a Labrador they think "Oh look, what a friendly dog!" and he is approached and petted by many people and children so to him it is the norm. When people look at a guard dog, say a Doberman, they feel he is fierce so they don't approach him much and he grows up believing that most humans are not friendly. Dogs who have been abused are very frightened and have lost their belief in human love so they will always be aggressive until they are taught to believe otherwise.

I can understand that instincts are passed down, for example in stock dogs and Golden Retrievers, but there is a huge difference between breeds when it comes to the importance of such traits. People depend on stock dogs for their occupation and income; however, a dog who won't retrieve a ball for you or who won't be 'lively' enough is hardly going to spell doom for your lifestyle.

Adopting dogs gives you the chance to get a dog with a history, a dog with a past. I'm sure a lot of us here don't have the perfect histories and we all have some behavioural flaws related to past experiences. Why should we judge a dog for his? Because he is 'just' a dog?

If your teenaged kid gets aggressive, you don't euthanize him or give him away. You take him to a counsellor and get him help because you can't handle it. Why should a dog be denied the same privilege? To the person above who had an aggressive dog put down, I think you should let someone else handle the more aggressive dogs from now on if they pose a risk to your family and are going to be put down as a result. That sort of arrangement not good for the people in your house or for the dog.

I understand that most people want fun, cute, happy dogs for their families but you need to realize that this is a DOG. He isn't a toy or some form of amusement. He has feelings, he has memories, he has flaws. He is a living creature. When you decide to get a dog you are accepting that you will be able to handle all of the above. Dogs are not just for you to feed and take for walks and laugh at when they do something cute or funny. Wanting a 'perfect' dog is just some twisted way to amuse yourself.

When there are so many homeless animals dying in shelters, why do you want to create a dog? Just because he should look a certain way and behave a certain way? Every person should know that even if they are going to a responsible breeder, they are denying a shelter animal of a home and they are promoting the fact that animal breeding is a good thing. Not all the people who see you walking your fun, cute, happy dog on the street will know that you checked up on your breeder before getting him, not all will realize that there are other types of dogs who can be just as fun and cute and happy.

You may not be hurting that one dog but you are still harming a big group of animals by promoting such a message. It is understandable to get a stock dog from a breeder because your life and livelihood depends on it but family pets can easily be got from a shelter. Dogs for the handicapped can be shelter dogs who are trained; not every shelter dog is a ferocious beast of death. If you do not spend your time looking for a gentle shelter dog then you have no right to be responsible for any dog or its training. Dogs are not just ice cream flavours that you can pick from a glass counter in a couple of minutes.

I've heard a lot of people say that their dogs are a 'part of their family'. If you got a dog from a breeder so that you could get a certain personality and behaviour out of him, then it's a lie. He is not a part of your family because you accept your family for what they are and deal with their little flaws. Your dog is something that you just got to amuse yourself, not to accept his personality and give him a happy life regardless.

Breeding should be done only with dogs like stock dogs whose instincts are very important to the occupation of a person and even then it should be strictly monitored and regulated. There is no other need to breed dogs in a world where hundreds of homeless dogs die every day and thousands more are abused because people wanted a 'perfect' dog and got a regular dog instead.

A dog only asks to be fed and loved. I think it's sad that someone would want to impose conditions on how a dog should look and behave, just to provide something so simple.

EDIT: To the OP, I would suggest the same thing someone above me suggested - look through shelters for puppies that your family member might like. My family wanted to get a 'bred' dog too and I go through the shelter dogs almost every couple of days.
Other than that, you could also take all the arguments on this thread in favour of adopting and try to convince them. However, it might be better to do it gently as most people shut down if you're too forceful and go to a breeder. No one likes to feel controlled so make it look like you're helping them. e.g. "Hey I was thinking, if you got a shelter dog, it might already be vaccinated and that might be better for you!" and so on.

Sorry for the long post, everyone. :eek:hmy: Didn't realize it got so humongous until after I posted it.
 
Last edited:

CavyMama

Well-known Member
Cavy Slave
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Posts
5,025
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
5,025
The shelters I've worked/volunteered at did not euthanize for space or time constraints. I understand that happens, and while it is sad that not all of those dogs will get homes, I don't feel I should be obligated to provide a home for them when I did not directly cause the problem.

I didn't suggest that you adopt from the shelter you volunteered at. I merely wondered how you could continue to breed when you have seen, in that shelter, all those dogs in need of homes. With the knowledge of how many dogs are in need of homes, how can you go ahead and create MORE dogs rather than working to try to find homes for those in need that you saw every time you volunteered.

Nature intended for dogs to breed

Nature intended for wild dogs to breed in order to maintain the species and ensure the survival of the fittest. Now that they are in captivity, it is our responsibility to make sure they DON'T breed. There is already an overpopulation problem, as you saw at the shelter, and spaying/neutering helps control that overpopulation problem so it doesn't get any worse.

It also helps calm them down and level out their personalities.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.

Similar threads

4boipigs
Replies
2
Views
1K
CavySpirit
CavySpirit
Guinea_Pigs_Are_A_lifest
  • Locked
Replies
1
Views
333
Guinea Pig Papa
Guinea Pig Papa
terpfan99
Replies
0
Views
52K
terpfan99
terpfan99
Top