Training from day one has nothing to do with it. A dog can be trained at any age; it depends on the individual training the dog. It's people who expect perfect and obedient dogs all the time who are the problem.
Training has everything to do with it. The vast majority of dogs are turned into shelters between the ages of 6 months and 1 year. In their adolescent stage, dogs will test their owners. A foundation in training from day one will make the test that much more bearable and the understanding of the owner that much more tolerant. According to Nathan Winogard, owner retention is actually the number one reason that there are so many animals in shelters, not overpopulation.
Is pet overpopulation a myth? Inside Nathan Winograd's "Redemption"
It is not about expecting a dog to be perfect. It's about being educated enough to know how to handle when your dog isn't being perfect. This is something, more than breeding, that most people have trouble understanding. Read that article- it's a good one.
Responsible breeding does contribute to shelter populations, unless you're implying that every responsible breeder takes in any puppies they sell, if their customer does not want them any more after a few years. It's either that or they get put down, which we can both agree is inhumane.
By definition, a responsible breeder is one who takes back any puppies that cannot be kept at any stage of life. So no, responsible breeders do not contribute to overpopulation. As a rescue, I had adopters fill out a contract stating that they would return the dog to me if they were unable to keep it. I have kept in contact with all of my adopters and helped them when they had any problems. If I were breeding, I would be a responsible breeder. I choose to rescue because that is my passion. But when I look to buy a dog from a breeder, I look for a breeder who breeds with the same ethics that I would.
That's like saying, "Oh very sick people are already very sick - let's just wait for them to die out and keep treating only the ones who will get better fast until there are only healthy people in the world."
Um. No. That's like saying that certain people are too dangerous to keep in society and we should kill them to keep them away from others. IE: the death penalty. If you reject euthanizing aggressive animals, you reject the death penalty. I'm personally split on concept of the death penalty but fully support euthanizing dogs for aggression. Mostly because you can explain to a human why they are locked in a cage for the rest of their life. Animals don't understand this concept and suffer as a result. I have seen the suffering that comes from a no-kill environment in multiple shelters. The one I posted about earlier was not an isolated incident. I would rather be dead than live where these dogs lived.
Aggressive dogs, dogs who have suffered abuse, dogs who have never known a good life - these are the dogs that need help all the more. A place like Best Friends is not the norm. So one place does not handle the way it rehomes dogs very well - this does not mean that all shelters helping aggressive dogs are abysmal. And as for 'An aggressive dog is not a happy dog', well neither is a dead one. Personally, I would focus on trying to make their life better rather than jumping to conclusions like 'they'd be happier off dead' without any knowledge of what really happens after death.
The level of aggression of which I speak represents a dog that is either extremely frustrated or extremely unhappy. According to Temple Grandin, frustration in animals is aggravated by being locked in a cage. So you are supporting the further aggravation of an already aggravated animal by locking them up for the rest of their lives. If my own dogs, whom I love very dearly, had serious aggression problems, I would always opt to euthanize because I personally believe it is far more humane to put an animal out of their misery than to sit and watch them suffer for years on end in a place where they have zero human interaction because they cannot be trusted outside of a controlled environment.
I have tamed several feral cats, who are just as loving as any other cats. I agree that it takes a different approach from the usual training, but it can be done. One of them even follows me around to accompany me and comes when I call, even when I do not have food just because he enjoys being a 'loving companion'. I've even known of many pet cats who were way more vicious than some of the feral ones I've met. There, you've been proved wrong.
I put too much of a blanket statement on the last thing I said, admittedly, so yes, I'm sure it can be done. I would never euthanize an animal that was feral but not aggressive. I hope you did not misunderstand me. My argument was that a feral animal will always communicate differently with people than one who is not feral. They cannot be placed into just any environment because there are many people who do not understand how to care for a feral animal. I would, however, be very selective about adopting them out.
Jumping to conclusions about personality or behaviour just based on 'where it came from' is a very narrow-minded way of looking at things. Lots of animals suffer horrible abuse in my country just because they are thought to be wild, and even more because they are not pure-bred.
I agree. I am not jumping to any conclusions. Being feral means the animal acts feral, ergo I am judging the personality, not the animal's origins.