# Annoying judge-y pro-adoption people and double standards



## LuzRdgz (Apr 7, 2016)

First of, I want to say that I think adoption is great and I would definitely consider it for a future dog in my life. I do not attempt to be disrespectful towards anyone in any shape or form.

However, just the other day I was talking to a friend from college who "adopted" a Husky puppy a couple of months ago (there is a reason for the quotation marks). We were talking about him and Laika having a playdate and whatnot, when I asked where she had bought it without thinking much about my wording, to which she turned to me in disbelief and said in a very snob tone "I would NEVER buy a dog", as if disgusted even, knowing I had gotten Laika from a breeder. 

Honestly, I wouldn't really mind that she said that or said in a tone that seemed like judgement, if there wasn't such a huge double standard about how she actually got her dog. Turns out her aunt had a friend who backyard-bred their Husky and the aunt gave the puppy to my friend as a gift. So, not precisely a rescue puppy, but rather a dog bred for no other particular reason than "I want to breed puppies just because". I don't know, I guess I just find it annoying that there are people who support this kind of breeding and justify it just because they didn't actually pay for their dog, but judge others who actually look for ethical breeders that seek to improve a breed in some way. 

I don't know, at the end of the day everyone can decide where they get a dog or not. But I do find a kind of double standard of supporting the profit made by backyard breeders but not the breeding of actually thought-out healthy and well-rounded puppies.

Also she got a highly-demanding breed when she's out from 7 am to 7 pm for work daily, has her dog without a crate or anything that could protect him from doing something harmful, and can't come at lunch for even a potty break. She actually tells you while laughing that he pees everywhere and has eaten all of her couch and even pieces of her clothing. :doh: She made zero research at all, got the puppy at about 5 weeks of age D: which is what I probably find more disturbing and just in general has zero knowledge about the dog's needs. 

But anyway, sorry about my nonsense rant. I just really don't like double standards and got annoyed by her utter lack of knowledge and research before "adopting" her dog.


----------



## Affirmed (Jul 6, 2016)

I feel ya. i found a FB page called "I hate dog breeders" and all they do is bash breeders and breeder-bought dogs. They believe that breeders are why shelter dogs die. Yeah because my dog is the problem, not the hundreds of oops litters of pits and teacup dogs that end up flooding shelters.
When I volunteered I saw the same mixes over and over again, not once did I see anything like a breeder/purebred dog.
They don't realize the dogs we buy we buy because there are certain things we want out of a dog and by getting a purebred you can get what fits your lifestyle. Nothing against shelter dogs, I have and have had them all my life and they were great, but like you said the whole double standard is just ignorant.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Backyard breeders and irresponsible breeders are why shelters are full and shelter dogs die. They both produce dogs who are put into shelters as well as produce dogs and give them away for free to people who would otherwise be adopting a shelter dog.

So, in fact, the person your friend took a puppy from is a direct contributor to the shelter dog population. Not that informing her of that would do any good.

Ethically bred dogs rarely (if ever) make it into shelters because they're purchased with return clauses in their contracts that state that the breeder will take the dog back if it needs to be rehomed for any reason.


----------



## LuzRdgz (Apr 7, 2016)

Definitely, but yeah, of course telling her wouldn't really make a difference so I just kept quiet. 

It's kinda annoying to feel like you sort of have to "defend" your decision to get a purebred these days though. She's not the only friend I have encountered this from.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

IF shelters are full it's because owners feel dogs are disposable and expendable there is a higher turn around and return on shelter dogs.... Backyard and unethical breeders strive because people don't fully understand the difference or don't want to pay a higher price or wait on a list for a breeder who is.... don't want to do training, don't want to supply the right safe secure environment... on and on and on......


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

I think people who adopt run into a fair bit of bias from purebred people, as well, sadly. The whole "all shelter dogs are damaged goods" thing is pretty prolific in a lot of purebred groups.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> I think people who adopt run into a fair bit of bias from purebred people, as well, sadly. The whole "all shelter dogs are damaged goods" thing is pretty prolific in a lot of purebred groups.


That is where I feel you are wrong... it's adoptive dog owners who feel adoptive dogs are damage goods... it's like the ultimate catch all excuse to discard instead of making the commitment. make the real commitment and sacrifice for life that an adoptive dogs should have. that all animals should be guaranteed.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

Just looked in to that "I hate dog breeders". So very, very ignorant and blind. Showing puppy mills and calling them breeders? How can you even put those two together? I don't know any breeder who would just turn it's breeding dog in to shelter after they are done having puppies. No responsible breeder does that! Again, byb and puppy mills giving bad name to the good breeders.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

There's definitely a prevalent bias against shelter dogs in a lot of purebred circles. That's not an opinion, that's a statement of fact.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

I have an issue for taking advantage of people when it comes to designer dogs.... lots of those breed pairings are training nightmares ... people don't understand what they up against in designer dogs. Bashing long standing individual breeds as a marketing stragedy has only confused people as if specific strong traits are not important in the dogs.. Ethical breeders pull dogs of their breed knowledge specialty from shelters and take in mixes and oops litters they especially good in taking in dogs of their own breed that are deemed adoptable due to said aggression. For me that is how specific breed rescues got started... Use to be easy that the pound would contact the local breeders in the area for a breed specific trait but now privacy laws are much different that the flow of information is not as it once was. I haven't encountered mixbreed, shelter/rescue dog bashing.... I can't remember a time that people aren't happy to see a dog adopted and in a good home and family to have a future going to training classes and weekend matches or 4H programs where all dogs are welcomed and excell to be special individuals.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hiraeth said:


> There's definitely a prevalent bias against shelter dogs in a lot of purebred circles. That's not an opinion, that's a statement of fact.


Yeah, I was going to say that too. Probably more common in some areas. Probably mostly conservative areas where animal welfare concerns in general are seen as a liberal commie plot of some type . 

No matter what you do or where you go, you'll find annoying judgey people.


----------



## LuzRdgz (Apr 7, 2016)

I don't think it's bashing per se as much as believing that they're lesser value dogs? I don't know, but I do see where Hiraeth is coming from. 

As for backyard breeders or people who just breed their pets for no particular reason, it's maybe a cultural and educational thing. I don't know how it is in the States, but in Mexico you constantly encounter people who really want to breed their pets and do so. I belong to a Mexican Westie group on Facebook and aside from being a good community to contact other lovers of the breed, there are constantly posts from people looking for a "boyfriend" or a "girlfriend" for their pet (yeah, that's literally the words they use). There's just not enough knowledge about how important it is to consider health testing and truly knowing the breed inside and out before even thinking about breeding puppies. 

Recently some very close family friends decided they wanted to breed their female dog (which is also coincidentally a Westie). The dog in question is 9 years old, so much too old for having puppies, I don't even know to which vet they go to that even advised this wouldn't be a terrible idea. Actually they found the male dog through the vet. Fastforward to the actual birth and both puppies were stillborn. So now the female dog is depressed, the owners are depressed, everyone's depressed. And this without even taking into account the health risks of a dog being pregnant at that age. It's kind of infuriating that people don't do their homework and research.


----------



## Pasarella (May 30, 2013)

As for cultural things. People in Latvia also are looking for boyfriends and girlfriends on Internet, very often the dogs are ether very poorly bred or mixes ( but people here make it easy, if the dog doesn't have a pedigree, it is a mutt no mater how he looks, you can't prove his ancestors, so it is a mutt). We even have a law that person who sells or gives away fro free, puppies, kittens and ferrets has to have a certificate. Still no use, we have a lot of mixes of mixes, poorly bred purebreds, mixed dogs. What annoys me most - I am the bad one. Because I am a breeder and I ask hundreds for my puppies, therefor I'm profiting from them, I'm a business man, heartless beast who doesn't love dogs and are keeping them only for money. While the dudes who breed their females every 6 months for years and years, give the puppies away at 4 weeks, full of worms, no vaccines, fed with pasta and sausages are the good ones, because they don't profit, because they are asking so little. Obviously my dogs are the ones who are in the shelters later in life or bred uncontrollably and adding to the shelter population. 
Latvia is a small place on Earth and it is very easy to say that we have no actual purebred in our shelters. They are flooded with GSD type mutts, mostly big and very big dogs, the little ones, especially puppies, go to new home very fast and purebreds don't stay there for long ether. If somebody would actually do something to stop the uncontrolled breeding of dogs without pedigrees we would need only one shelter here and it wouldn't have to go at full capacity.


----------



## trainingjunkie (Feb 10, 2010)

I have a shelter dog, a purchased-from-breeder dog, and an adult rehomed dog. I have never had anyone look down on my shelter dog or be less than supportive about him. However, I did get kicked out of a rescue group that I had been fostering for (for years) because I purchased a well-bred pup.

Get the dog you want. Love it til it dies. Ignore all of the insanity. Stay positive. The world has too much "crazy" everywhere.


----------



## JeJo (Jul 29, 2013)

trainingjunkie said:


> Get the dog you want. Love it til it dies. Ignore all of the insanity. Stay positive. The world has too much "crazy" everywhere.


Amen.
(Too short, but not)


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Hiraeth said:


> I think people who adopt run into a fair bit of bias from purebred people, as well, sadly. The whole "all shelter dogs are damaged goods" thing is pretty prolific in a lot of purebred groups.


This is very much true. I have seen posts that say "Not EVERYONE wants a dog with a lot of behavior problems." I've had a lot of that at agility classes with my first dog. She had very little confidence. She was slow and hesitant. And I got "Why does she do that? Oh she's a RESCUE...well, my dogs come from breeders and they would NEVER have that little confidence."

Ironically, her perfectly bred dog later got out of the crate and tried to attack my dog when we were coming back from a run. 

Really, I think both sides should be working together to eliminate the puppy mills and the awful backyard breeders. But there's so much animosity on both sides that it makes things ugly. And then you get the people like the OP referenced -- who seem to think that getting a dog from a BBY is some sort of "rescue." I knew one person who got her dog from a BYB who basically kept them locked up in a muddy disgusting barn, living in their own feces. She told me she "rescued" the dog. By which she meant she paid the BYB the asking price of the dog and got him out of a bad situation. Um...that is not "rescuing" the dog. That's BUYING the dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

When I took Penny to obedience classes, the instructor asked how many dogs in the class were AKC registered, because he was trying to convince us to do competition-level stuff (this was before mutts and unregistered purebreds could enter AKC events). Only one guy raised his hand (huge Dane, very nice, big and handsome, but had a really bad crop). He said "oh well, maybe someday the rest of you guys will get a real dog, haha!" :/. So that was fun. 

In the OP it sounds like that girl's pup was from a semi-oops litter, maybe given away free. I can see how you could convince yourself that's not the same as supporting a bad breeder. But if they don't spay the mother it kind of is encouraging them. Hard to know where to draw the line.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

If it's the best world over purebred or a shelter mutt of mutts, it's as simple as the person getting the dog putting in the time and going in with realistic goals, for what they want of that dog.

Sadly most do not.
Dogs are not something for children to crawl on.
Bully breed are not the ultra dog.
Mastiff breeds are not a status symbol.
Even toy breeds should has acceptable social behavior if your goes to take them into the public.

Dogs are not your phone to be disposed of as soon as the new thing comes out, but sadly that is the state of the world today.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> sadly that is the state of the world today.


I kinda feel like this is just "kids these days" grumbling and isn't true. I think people used to take their dogs to "the pound" much more frequently and casually in the past. I know a lot of dogs when I was a kid either went to the pound or "disappeared", and it seems like people now are at least slightly more committed to their pets. I mean, in the '70s and '80s over 20 million animals a year were being killed in shelters. That didn't happen because everyone was super responsible :/. I think we're on the right track; things are improving. Of course now there's some kind of hipster and/or ******* backlash against "political correctness" that could undo all the improvements. . .but so far the kill numbers haven't shot up dramatically. Yet.


----------



## sydneynicole (Apr 2, 2015)

Upon reading this thread I realize I may be a part of the rescue dog stigma. Oliver is fearful of children and my trainer and I have put together that it's likely due to his time in a pet store where he was probably handled roughly and inappropriately handled by many inexperienced/impolite children. Often when a child asks to pet him or a parent asks for a child I respond "Sorry, he's a rescue and he's a bit skittish around kids." I hear this type of thing a lot, whenever a dog is from a rescue and it has a behavior issue, it's "Well he's a rescue so that's why ...." I can see how that would instill to some people that rescue dogs are unstable/inferior. 

Responsible breeders breed for stable temperaments to yes, dogs from these breeders have a good chance at being sound and stable with good nerve. So a lot of the times you won't have to face issues like reactivity, fear, aggression, lack of confidence, etc, from a well bred dog like you might with a shelter dog who has unknown breeding from unproven dogs. Then again, there are plenty of perfectly stable shelter mutts and plenty of dogs with issues even from responsible breeders. 

I used to be a big advocate of 'adopt, don't shop' and I still am to a certain extent. Some people would be perfectly happy with a mixed breed puppy. Lots of people look for an adult in the shelter so they can get an idea of what the dog's personality is without gambling on it like with a puppy. But now that I have ventured into the world of dog sports/showing, I certainly see the advantages of a well bred dog. I have a rescue dog now, and my next dog will be from a breeder, as I'm after a very specific type of dog.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Hmm, there's a thought. I don't think I've ever uttered the words "he's/she's a rescue", as a reason for a dog's issues. I might say "she was abused" or "we think he had a bad experience with a bearded man" or "she doesn't like kids" or some such. I guess to me that would be like saying about your kid "well, she's adopted so she has emotional issues" instead of saying "she has Attachment Disorder" (and only to those who have any business knowing such things). Otherwise, hey, we all (dog and human) have various issues based on past experiences and our own temperment. Being "well-bred" doesn't stop that from happening.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

And honestly?

The reverse of this is 'oh, you're dog's not a rescue - they should be fine'. But the thing is? Responsibly bred dogs with good owners have negative experiences, *and* things like weird temperament issues sometimes appear as a result of a breeding that the breeders don't always anticipate. 

So, 'he's a rescue so s/he is _____' also turns it around to 'your dog isn't a rescue he should be fine'. But the not a rescue dog could have been trounced at the dog park, hit by a bike, spooked or grabbed by a kid, or had genetics in a breeding interact in such a way as to make them more sharp, reactive, fearful, or whatever than anticipated. 

Best just to describe the issue, protect your dog and move along. Often people attribute to abuse/mishandling what is simply lack of socialization or confidence, ANYWAY. Add it all together and you get the idea that dogs only have issues with, say, kids because they've been hurt by a kid, or men because they were abused by men, or whatever, and then it leads to both the belief that rescue dogs are all abused/damaged AND the belief that not rescue dogs are going to be just perfectly fine no matter what (which will bite new owners in the butt because, lol, no) OR have been abused by their current owners. 

It's just. That isn't how any of it works.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

^^ That's true too. Suri's former owner insists she must have been abused when she was a pup. I'm pretty sure she wasn't. Or, ya know, maybe she was but I don't think that's what caused her weird behavior. I think she's just weird .


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

We have, and have had dogs that are rescues / from shelters / found and dogs that have been from breeders, and I have to say that the dogs from breeders always "turned out" better than the ones that were shelter or from rescued. Now, that might be just my rotten luck, but they were all (except for one) we for as puppies and neither one was treated better than the other. It just seems that IME dogs from good breeders seem to have better temperaments than rescue or shelter dogs.

That might not be everyone's experience, just mine.


----------



## CiElBie (Mar 5, 2016)

I honestly do think the stigma against dogs from breeders CAN be worse than against dogs from shelters. No one is going to look down on you because you adopted a dog. They might have the idea the dog isn't "worth as much" or something like that though. But, there are some rescue advocates which do treat it as though breeders are killing millions of dogs a year.

I myself have no stigma against rescue dogs. I have met dogs from both that have been equally good/bad, and tbh you should not expect a strange dog you have never met to be friendly anyway. For me, where the dog came from quickly meant nothing since I find it was more linked to breed than to where the dog came from, from my experiences. Even then, breed doesn't mean too much either as a dog from any breed can be reactive, you just don't know. All dogs should be given space unless the owner of the dog seems open to letting the dogs greet. 
Thats just common courtesy.

My next dog will be from a breeder, and so will my dog after that, because simply the breeds I wish to get will be extremely difficult to find in a shelter in my country.
If I wanted a terrier, bc, or something like that, I would look into shelters around the country first.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

when I think about designer dogs taking off as they had.... has to be because people love the unique individual creations that mixed pound dogs are.. I've seen some incredible beautiful mixed breeds... so I get the attraction to market designer dogs successfully,, it bothers me when people don't understand what living and training with a terrior really is like , less putting terrier into a docile breed and expecting to get the docile breed to live and train with.. then you get all the byb breeder, poor breeder, or abuse labeling when the dog is actually being normal and not getting the consideration for what they are and the training that goes with working with it to bring out the best to have the traits work with you. Even with a pure breed you have a full spectrum of behavior of strong, or weak in any given trait that you have to work and develop to get a balanced adult in full maturity. That all dogs need help developing no matter where they come from.. or who they are... I've seen dogs not acting responding right and it's been due to medical issues.


----------



## BeeKay (Jul 11, 2015)

CiElBie said:


> I honestly do think the stigma against dogs from breeders CAN be worse than against dogs from shelters. No one is going to look down on you because you adopted a dog. They might have the idea the dog isn't "worth as much" or something like that though. But, there are some rescue advocates which do treat it as though breeders are killing millions of dogs a year.


I agree! My SO adopted a dog from a shelter and people are always saying how amazing he is for saving the poor dog and hes such a good person. In the past, when I've talked to anyone about purchasing my future pup from a breeder I always get this look and then the "Well have you checked out your local animal shelter? So many dogs in there that need a home. Adopt don't shop." I feel like in the real world you will come across more people that think adopting is the way to go and will judge you for buying a purebred dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There really is no winning here. I think the primary difference is if you get your dog from a shelter, people judge the dog. If you buy from a breeder, people tend to just *your morality*. You get plenty of both (I have dogs from breeders, rescued dogs, and a BYB dog, so I get it all), but how personal the judgement is varies.

That said I've never taken 'have you checked your local shelter' from someone on the street as a judgement. It's not. It's a question. It's a valid question, in fact, since most people can find what they want there, since what most people want is a nice pet, and aren't terribly concerned with the trade off of getting a health guarantee, rare or even particular breed, or known lineage. They just want A Dog. If someone doesn't know you, they don't now what you want, much less why you want it.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

CptJack said:


> That said I've never taken 'have you checked your local shelter' from someone on the street as a judgement. It's not. It's a question. It's a valid question, in fact, since most people can find what they want there, since what most people want is a nice pet.


Yep. 

There are so many threads on here where people are like, "I've always dreamed of having a dog friend! I want to take it on walkies and cuddle with it while watching Netflix. I have read a lot about the Saarloos Wolfdog and I think it's just the perfect dog for me; can you help me figure out how to import one from Europe?" The inevitable "have you considered going to the shelter and spending $80 pick out a friendly, pretty mutt instead" doesn't indicate disapproval of purebreds, or at least doesn't necessarily do so.


----------



## parus (Apr 10, 2014)

Hiraeth said:


> I think people who adopt run into a fair bit of bias from purebred people, as well, sadly. The whole "all shelter dogs are damaged goods" thing is pretty prolific in a lot of purebred groups.


Yeah. Just as a general mindset or attitude, too. My Cassius and I have gone to a number of dog shows now and there are consistently people who are just baffled by the idea that he's a) mixed breed, unknown contributors and b) a rescue. But he's such a good-looking dog! But he's so well-behaved! But he's so friendly! And this surprise somehow persists despite the fact that it's been more common than not for "Canine Partners" dogs to win the performance events at the things I've attended (probably because many of the purebreds' owners'/handlers' attentions are divided between showing and performance, while the unregistered dogs' owners can focus just on performance), so there's obvious evidence that plenty of mutts and rescues and whatnot are capable dogs. 

Not that there aren't "damaged goods" dogs in rescue and shelters, and bless the people who take them in and care for them, but it'd be good for everyone if that stigma was shaken off. I think it causes lots of nice, ready dogs to miss out on getting homes, and lots of people to miss out on nice, ready dogs.


----------



## Galathiel (Apr 11, 2012)

I think it might be something that shows up regionally as well. I don't really notice it around here. People get their dogs from shelters ... good. You bought your dog from a breeder? Good. I've never really had someone say 'why did you buy from a breeder? You're the reason a dog died today!' or conversely .. ' you're taking a risk getting a dog from a shelter. Who knows what has happened to it in the past!' Frankly, I have no problem telling someone to buzz off either way. 'grin'

I have specific wants and aesthetics and limited resources (time mostly). I'm not getting a dog 'just cause' so that any one will do. I want something specific and since I don't have a 6 ft fence which a lot of rescues seem to require - Breeder. I have a 3 year old German Shepherd with a 7 lb cat. I wanted a pup to make sure that I raised it to be safe around my cat (it is). For me, personally, I don't like the look of GSD mixes so would not ever chance getting a pup on the chance it would look GSD when grown.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

BeeKay said:


> I agree! My SO adopted a dog from a shelter and people are always saying how amazing he is for saving the poor dog and hes such a good person. In the past, when I've talked to anyone about purchasing my future pup from a breeder I always get this look and then the "Well have you checked out your local animal shelter? So many dogs in there that need a home. Adopt don't shop." I feel like in the real world you will come across more people that think adopting is the way to go and will judge you for buying a purebred dog.


There is a certain level of judgement to adopting a dog when you are a parent. I don't know where it comes from but certain people will insist that it is not safe to adopt a dog (some claim just an adult dog, others claim any dog) if you have children in your home. 

Though I agree with CptJack, there really is no winning, you are going to get judged no matter what. I don't find someone saying "have you looked at the shelter" to be judgement. When some one just says "I want a dog, what breed is right for me" the first thing I suggest is usually checking the shelter because for the average first time dog owner that is the best place to look. In the real world I find I don't really get much judgement on my dogs at all. I rarely get asked where they came from, just what they are. When I had Duke I got some judgement about having a "pit bull" around my children (he was an American Bulldog) but now that he is gone I don't even hear that.


----------



## BeeKay (Jul 11, 2015)

Remaru said:


> There is a certain level of judgement to adopting a dog when you are a parent. I don't know where it comes from but certain people will insist that it is not safe to adopt a dog (some claim just an adult dog, others claim any dog) if you have children in your home.
> 
> Though I agree with CptJack, there really is no winning, you are going to get judged no matter what. I don't find someone saying "have you looked at the shelter" to be judgement. When some one just says "I want a dog, what breed is right for me" the first thing I suggest is usually checking the shelter because for the average first time dog owner that is the best place to look. In the real world I find I don't really get much judgement on my dogs at all. I rarely get asked where they came from, just what they are. When I had Duke I got some judgement about having a "pit bull" around my children (he was an American Bulldog) but now that he is gone I don't even hear that.


Its not the comment so much as it is the look, the tone, and the time a person will spend trying to convince me to adopt a dog instead. 

But I agree, at the end of the day people will always talk.


----------



## Galathiel (Apr 11, 2012)

Just walk away .. let them talk to air. *shrug*


----------



## chimunga (Aug 29, 2014)

If it's on the internet, I usually share this blog post. I find it's really effective at getting the point across: Neither of My Dogs Killed a Shelter Dog. 

We even have a forum thread on it here: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/270386-neither-my-dogs-killed.html


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

chimunga said:


> If it's on the internet, I usually share this blog post. I find it's really effective at getting the point across: Neither of My Dogs Killed a Shelter Dog.
> 
> We even have a forum thread on it here: http://www.dogforums.com/general-dog-forum/270386-neither-my-dogs-killed.html


That's an interesting post, but this bit: "I was interviewed more intensely to buy my two responsibly bred dogs than I ever interviewed a rescue candidate. I had supervised visitation… Multiple times. I don’t even own them outright, they are on co-ownership. . ."

Well, that's what a lot of people say rescues shouldn't do. That's what drives people to buy from puppymills, blah blah. 

So. Haha, I guess I don't even know what my point is, other than "can't please everyone".


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I really have yet to deal with anyone who looks down on rescue dogs other than your typical "adult rescues can have issues so I want a puppy" kind of thing.. and I deal with a heck of a lot of dog people. It must be something to do with location and maybe some kind of older purebred anti-mixed breeds competing snob crowd?

I have dealt with very very many breeder haters and people who will judge the crap out of you for buying a dog instead of rescuing. I very rarely see this attitude in people that participate in dog sports though, whether they buy or rescue. 

I don't agree with everything in the article above. It isn't THAT hard usually to get a dog from even a good breeder. People who really want a dog will still get a dog whether or not they have access to purebreds. Don't read the comment section though. If you buy a purebred dog.. the blood of shelter dogs is on your hands. -_-


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> That's an interesting post, but this bit: "I was interviewed more intensely to buy my two responsibly bred dogs than I ever interviewed a rescue candidate. I had supervised visitation… Multiple times. I don’t even own them outright, they are on co-ownership. . ."
> 
> Well, that's what a lot of people say rescues shouldn't do. That's what drives people to buy from puppymills, blah blah.
> 
> So. Haha, I guess I don't even know what my point is, other than "can't please everyone".


Funnily enough when what they're offering me is a dog who comes from known parents, with ancestors whose health and temperaments are known, who are evaluated doing things that matter to me (ie: sports, work, conformation, even therapy work, whatever I'm buying for), with a health guarantee, and lifetime safety net for the dog and support, I'm a lot more willing to jump through a few hoops. I know it isn't a guarantee of perfection but they're giving me SOMETHING for those hoops, and for that money. (That said, my well bred from a good breeder dog came with very little of that, except continued contact, so meh).

When what I get is an unknown dog, of an unknown background, of unknown health, of unknown BREED or age in many cases, with unknown temperament, and unknown drives, from either a rescue or an accidental mutt puppy litter, no, I'm not really going to jump through hoops. What I get isn't WORTH those hoops to me. And I'm saying that as someone who adores her mutt puppies, but just like I'm not going to spend 2 grand on an accidental pup, I'm not going to jump through hoops to get a rescue dog. There is no shortage of ways to get that random bred dog without jumping through a rescue's hoops. That isn't hte case of the breeder dog.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I work in a shelter with a pretty progressive position statement on breeders (basically, in support of good breeders) yet even then some (not all) of my direct coworkers give me a hard time when I mention being on the waitlist for a purebred puppy. They don't quite get it, I think. Yes, I think I can get exactly what I am looking for from a shelter puppy but the chances are higher if I go through a breeder. That breeder is breeding for exactly what I'm looking for. I feel like it's this all or none thing for a lot of people, like I'm going to a breeder because 'a rescue mutt isn't good enough'? No, I'm just trying to stack the odds in my favor. That's all anyone can ever do.

The thing is, if I go through with a bred dog the dog better turn out to be spectacular because if there is any hint of a medical concern, reactivity, etc... I know those same coworkers are going to use that against breeder dogs in general. If I do this I am going to do it for myself. But as long as I work in the shelter there is this pressure to prove that I am at least not dead wrong and irresponsible.


----------



## Galathiel (Apr 11, 2012)

Really unless because you work at a shelter you are REQUIRED to rescue from there, it's none of their business. I would just never tell them anything, good or bad. They apparently don't understand that dogs are individual (and yes that means dogs from breeders, too) and NO ONE can guarantee perfect health, not the shelter, not the breeder, no one. The breeder does do health testing and evaluates her pups and dogs on an ongoing basis giving him/her more information than a stray (e.g.) that was picked up and then was evaluated afterwards. All the past history for that dog is non-existent. Doesn't mean a person might not have bad luck and end up with a puppy with an issue. They happen to the best of lines and the best of breeders.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> When what I get is an unknown dog, of an unknown background, of unknown health, of unknown BREED or age in many cases, with unknown temperament, and unknown drives, from either a rescue or an accidental mutt puppy litter, no, I'm not really going to jump through hoops. What I get isn't WORTH those hoops to me. And I'm saying that as someone who adores her mutt puppies, but just like I'm not going to spend 2 grand on an accidental pup, I'm not going to jump through hoops to get a rescue dog. There is no shortage of ways to get that random bred dog without jumping through a rescue's hoops. That isn't hte case of the breeder dog.


I agree 100% with this. I was recently in the market for an "older" (6 months - 2.5 year old) Dane. And I thought to myself "huh, it would be super cool if I could adopt one!" So I looked. And looked. For weeks. I was willing to drive to TEXAS to get one. But rescues wouldn't adopt to me for two reasons - no fenced in yard, and I have an intact dog in my home. 

It's ridiculous. I was willing to drive anywhere and to spend any amount of money I needed to rescue a dog, and I couldn't find one to rescue. So I went out and bought one that was being privately rehomed because it wasn't getting along with another dog in the house. 

It's not breeders killing shelter dogs. Part of it is rescues expecting adopters to meet many over the top requirements and not being willing to change their rules and therefore forcing people who want a particular type of dog who have a non-ideal home to go down other paths. And those "other paths" are backyard breeders and people who have had accidental litters. The incredibly strict requirements of many shelters and organizations directly contribute to backyard breeders making profit and continuing to produce dogs, which in turn directly contributes to shelter overpopulation.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

But, the shelters/rescues that have stricter rules say "but we get fewer returns and fewer "oops our new shelter dog bred with our intact dog" litters when we have these rules, so really we find MORE permanent homes this way". And of course I don't have any numbers to crunch for that, kinda have to take their word for it. 

But meh. My newest dog is a private re-home (and I paid money) so I'm not one to talk I guess. Maybe he would have ended up in a shelter if I didn't get him, or not. I could probably tell myself that .


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

That's another thing. Are "backyard breeders" really the cause of all the dogs in shelters either? I mean obviously they don't help the issue at all.. but it really depends on what breed specifically they are breeding. "Backyard breeders" of Doodles sure aren't causing too much ruckus in the shelters. If a single one pops up around here it is gone in an instant. Most purebred anythings go quickly as long as they are not special needs, aggressive or a senior. The only reason breed specific rescues hold on to so many of their dogs nearly as long is because of how much MORE strict they are than even regular rescues. I even have a fenced in yard and I still wouldn't be able to adopt from some of those rescues. I also plan on owning an intact dog for show in the next year.. so that ruined me from all rescues anyway..

What I do see causing a lot of issues?

- Pittie type breeders.. which at least around here is in a whole different level than "backyard breeder". I mean you will find piles of litters of them for sale for only $75-100 on craigslist. Some of them oopsies.. lots of them obviously just in it for a quick buck. Just about all of them from the low income and low educated inner city areas. They are handed out like freaking candy. There is so much fighting and breeding of these dogs. 

- Pet stores (puppy mill dogs) promote on the spot puppy buying, which ups the odds of ending up in a irresponsible home. They also add more special needs types dogs to the shelter system due to both their terrible breeding practices and care of the dogs. 

- Random hounds. I don't know where these dogs are coming from.. but they are so prone to wander that they are the most common dog in shelters after pitties here. I'm not sure if they are dumped off failed hunting dogs or what..

- Random "oopsie" litters of pet dogs.

If all of these things went away.. we would barely have a shelter problem. In fact.. if pitties were not being so overbred we'd barely have that huge of a problem at all. So.. supply and demand?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> But, the shelters/rescues that have stricter rules say "but we get fewer returns and fewer "oops our new shelter dog bred with our intact dog" litters when we have these rules, so really we find MORE permanent homes this way". And of course I don't have any numbers to crunch for that, kinda have to take their word for it.
> 
> But meh. My newest dog is a private re-home (and I paid money) so I'm not one to talk I guess. Maybe he would have ended up in a shelter if I didn't get him, or not. I could probably tell myself that .


I don't think rescues with very strict requirements place MORE dogs. I think they have a lower return rate on the dogs they place. So if they place 20 dogs and only 1 is given back, that's a really low rate of return. But a shelter with less strict guidelines that places 50 dogs, and then 20 come back, has still placed more dogs in permanent homes. 

The "our new shelter dog bred with our intact dog" isn't viable. I don't know a single rescue that will release an intact dog to a new home.

I've definitely been on the receiving end of some judgement for buying a rehome instead of adopting. "Why didn't you rescue?" has come up a few times. "Well, I tried, but I couldn't because my non-fenced in yard apparently trumps the fact that I provide adequate exercise, feed good food, buy more treats and toys than my dogs know what to do with, and insure my dogs for health issues that may crop up." Is usually my response. 



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> That's another thing. Are "backyard breeders" really the cause of all the dogs in shelters either? I mean obviously they don't help the issue at all.. but it really depends on what breed specifically they are breeding. "Backyard breeders" of Doodles sure aren't causing too much ruckus in the shelters. If a single one pops up around here it is gone in an instant. Most purebred anythings go quickly as long as they are not special needs, aggressive or a senior. The only reason breed specific rescues hold on to so many of their dogs nearly as long is because of how much MORE strict they are than even regular rescues. I even have a fenced in yard and I still wouldn't be able to adopt from some of those rescues. I also plan on owning an intact dog for show in the next year.. so that ruined me from all rescues anyway..
> 
> What I do see causing a lot of issues?
> 
> ...


I definitely think it depends on what the backyard breeder is producing. A backyard bred Golden Retriever is still probably going to be a manageable dog. Or a Doodle. 

You asked if bybs are the cause of dogs in shelters - yes. Even in your situation where a Doodle comes up for adoption and then gets adopted instantly - the dog still ended up in the shelter. It still took up shelter resources, and time, and money. It took the spot another dog could have had there, even if for just a few days.

We don't have hounds in shelters in this area - it's nearly all Pits and Pit mixes. I definitely agree that they're a large part of the shelter population and problem.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Meh! There are a lot of judgemental people out there. The judgyness score is especially high when it comes to dogs. Not worth worrying about and not worth gratifying with a reply. IGNORE!

Part of evaluating a dog is knowing where it came from. We all do this in our own ways.


----------



## Prozax (Aug 26, 2014)

There isn't really any judging around here. People are touched and happy for the dog if they find out it's rescued from the streets or a shelter. They find purebred dogs to be really cool and are very interested when you tell them your dog is papered. I'm not sure of the show people scene, I'm not in touch with that.
But just regular people that I meet around the neighborhood don't randomly judge me for my dog and definitely don't blame me for the stray/shelter dog overpopulation. Your situation in the US sounds waaay different.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> The "our new shelter dog bred with our intact dog" isn't viable. I don't know a single rescue that will release an intact dog to a new home.


The Humane Society in Sioux Falls doesn't alter before adoption (except a few that they send to the vet school who does it for free so the students get experience). They have a policy not to adopt to homes with intact animals. That's what I was thinking of. I don't know how common that is nationwide.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Willowy said:


> The Humane Society in Sioux Falls doesn't alter before adoption (except a few that they send to the vet school who does it for free so the students get experience). They have a policy not to adopt to homes with intact animals. That's what I was thinking of. I don't know how common that is nationwide.


I'm sure it is 100% policy now that nolegit funded animal agency releases animals unaltered. Our local pounds all have surgical rooms built into the new $1M facilities not sure if they have a resident vet, or still using local vets that schedule coming to the facility. Way back in the early days (lol) I received a voucher to vet check , vaccinations, and alter at the adoption fee of $65.00 for a large breed young adult. 

they will not adopt out if you have intact dogs at home... even though the dogs in the pound are all altered... your considered a bad and high risk owner if you have intact animals.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

PatriciafromCO said:


> I'm sure it is 100% policy now that nolegit funded animal agency releases animals unaltered. Our local pounds all have surgical rooms built into the new $1M facilities not sure if they have a resident vet, or still using local vets that schedule coming to the facility. Way back in the early days (lol) I received a voucher to vet check , vaccinations, and alter at the adoption fee of $65.00 for a large breed young adult.
> 
> they will not adopt out if you have intact dogs at home... even though the dogs in the pound are all altered... your considered a bad and high risk owner if you have intact animals.


It isn't, actually. We still have county shelters that send animals home on 'thirty day contract' or did recently, but they are few and far between and those exceptions are not an excuse for rescues and shelters who do alter before releasing the animal to refuse to adopt to a home with an intact animal. Which they still do.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Some places (especially ones that are halfway decent and understand growth issues) will adopt out puppies with a contract that says it HAS to be altered, but will not alter beforehand. Frankly, no 2 month old puppy should be altered, period. One of the dogs we contemplated adopting was 6 months old and had been altered when he was 4 months old. He had the wonkiest back end and moved horribly. He was already way too tall for his age. We passed on him for a number of reasons but his structure was definitely one of them.

I do love my shelter dogs but there are some major issues with some rescues and shelters. I once wrote a post (http://teamunruly.com/?p=867) about that very thing. I think rescues need to take people at a case by case basis and it really bugs me that so many don't. I guess if you have a huge amount of people looking to adopt (like where we got our second dog) it could make sense. You're allowed to be pickier. The rescue we got Ben from adopts out a LOT of dogs. Almost every week I go on their page and see new dogs coming in and other dogs being adopted. So they have the ability to really be picky about who they adopt to. But I see others where their dogs are there for AGES waiting and sometimes take years to get adopted because they can't find people who have every little detail they want.


----------



## Remaru (Mar 16, 2014)

Willowy said:


> But, the shelters/rescues that have stricter rules say "but we get fewer returns and fewer "oops our new shelter dog bred with our intact dog" litters when we have these rules, so really we find MORE permanent homes this way". And of course I don't have any numbers to crunch for that, kinda have to take their word for it.
> 
> But meh. My newest dog is a private re-home (and I paid money) so I'm not one to talk I guess. Maybe he would have ended up in a shelter if I didn't get him, or not. I could probably tell myself that .


All of our local shelters only adopt out altered dogs. They don't leave the shelter until they are altered, if the dog has not been altered yet you can sign your adoption contract and pick the dog up the next day (or in a few days) after the dog has seen the vet to be altered. As far as I know none of the local shelters release unaltered dogs or cats. They do not require anything other than an ID, payment, and in some cases that you pay for a city license. They don't care if I have intact dogs at home. It is really just the rescues and then I may not be eligible because I have children, have other dogs, have a cat, ect ect. As CptJack said, I'm willing to jump through the hoops for a an ethical breeder that I agree with, I just don't feel the same about a rescue. Maybe that isn't fair but I can go to one of a dozen shelters within 50miles and adopt a dog any day of the week without having to jump through those hoops. There is no shortage of dogs that need homes in my area. 

I know the breed availability is regional. There are definitely an over abundance of "bully breed mutts" here but also hound mixes, shepherd mixes are a dime a dozen, herders, huskies, and yes doodles are highly available particularly the tiny mixes. Pretty much any small poodle, terrier, or chihuahua mix you can think of is probably sitting in a local shelter right now waiting for a home. They are popular and over bred. What I see a lot of are the really wild labradoodles, 9-18months, and the ones with wiry coats instead of poodly coats. What is really popular right now are Pyrenees mixes. There are tons of them that pop up in shelters. They are adopted quickly but they are over represented in shelters, also anatolian x pyrs. If I go to CL right now that is what people are breeding and offering for sale, lots of small mixes (chihuahua mixes, anything with a toy poodle, and terrier mixes), lots and lots of huskies, bullies, herders, and Pyrs. Some of it is "oops" but a lot of it is BYBs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> I'm sure it is 100% policy now that nolegit funded animal agency releases animals unaltered


Varies from state to state maybe? They're "legit funded" because they have the city animal control contract. So they're the city shelter and the Humane Society. They do make you sign a contract saying you'll do it within a certain time frame but they only send a strongly worded letter if you don't. 

I feel like if a breeder had super strict rules about who got a dog, everyone would fall all over themselves defending that breeder's right to do so. But sure, let's whine about shelters/rescues doing the same thing.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

I support both breeders exercising limited registration and alter contracts at breed age specific. Have known several breeders who will refund a portion of the puppy money paid once alter is proven. And I support the rescues and pounds who alter. I would think, there is more people who whine and cry about breeder pet puppy contracts


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Willowy said:


> I feel like if a breeder had super strict rules about who got a dog, everyone would fall all over themselves defending that breeder's right to do so. But sure, let's whine about shelters/rescues doing the same thing.


I don't know a reputable breeder who wouldn't sell a dog to me. Not to toot my own horn, but I take care of my dogs, they're trained, exercised, well fed, insured and they're my world. I go to great lengths to make sure they're healthy, I drive home on my lunch hours (30 minutes each way)... I mean, honestly, I think mine is a pretty decent dog home.

And I couldn't find a rescue who WOULD adopt to me. There are "strict rules" and then there's just insanity. And insanity is turning away good owners when there's an overpopulation issue and space is running short because of strict regulations that cannot be bent or broken in case-by-case bases.

ETA: And, honestly, I don't know any reputable breeders without waiting lists. When there's low supply of quality puppies and high demand from people who want them, breeders can be picky about who they sell to. 

With rescues, there's a relatively high supply and a relatively low demand. It makes no sense to be incredibly choose-y about adopters. One of the dogs I was interested in had been a foster at the rescue for almost a year. I was willing to pay their extremely high adoption fee ($800), give them a virtual tour of my home, provide them with my insurance policy number AND give them two vet references (my regular vet and my specialist clinic). Still a no go because I have an intact male dog in my house, even though I was looking to adopt a male.


----------



## mrsserena (Nov 9, 2015)

I like adopting from the shelter, because I love seeing the transformation of a previously unsocialized, possibly abused, timid dog, to what mine turn into. But it takes years, and I don't think most people have the time and patience for it. 

That all said, I'm seriously considering the breeder route for my next dog, I would love to have some reassurance that they've been health tested and from parents with good temperaments. 

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Is there a double standard between what good breeders can get away with and have accepted by public and what rescues can? 

You bet, and for good reason. They're not selling the same 'product' or offering the same service. 

Rescues exist for the purpose of putting dogs into homes so they don't die and breeders exist to further the breed, and putting puppies they don't want to keep/breed themselves allows to continue to do so. Breeders placing dogs is something they need to do and do without contributing to the shelter problem (we're not talking crappy breeders here, though for me that includes more than confo breeders of purebreds), but it is not their primary 'mission'. 

Mostly though when you have more people who want your dogs than dogs I feel like you can ethically do whatever the heck you want, but when you have more dogs than people who want them and people have more options to find what they do want AND your purpose is 'stop dogs dying' you might want to sit down and have a good long think about wtf is wrong with what you're doing and you.

Then there's that whole thing about how willing I am to pay 2 grand OR jump through hoops of other sorts when I'm being provided with something specific I *really* want and have a reasonably stacked deck for versus someone who is offering me 'a dog', which I can get anywhere without the hoops'. 

HOWEVER, I have never, not once, had a breeder tell me that having/not having a fence was a deal breaker. I have not once, talking to a breeder, had them tell me I must neuter a puppy. I have, not once, had a breeder who said 'you have kids, so no'. Or 'you work full time, so nope'. Their restrictions tend to be things serious dog breeders want and that align with their philosophy, anyway. And you know what? When something does crop up (like the breeder who didn't want her puppies in a sports setting), you know what people do? Go along and find *someone else* who is providing a similar thing (puppies) with restrictions they can deal with. Exactly what people do when rescues have restrictions they don't like. It's a lot more rare for that to happen, though, from my experiences.

In the final analysis, though, rescue dogs are property of the rescue. That means they can decide where they want to go. Provided they aren't stealing other people's dogs, foregoing a stray hold, and actually are in legal possession of the dog to start with, anyway. 

And people can look at them, snort, say 'your business model is crap and you're offering a product the market is saturated by at exclusive prices' and go get what they want from one of those other places that is saturating the market OR decide if they are going to pay out the nose and jump through hoops they'll do it in a way that makes it more worth it to them.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Or put another way:

What I want is *a* dog. I want a nice family dog that likes to go on walks, is decently medium energy and can hike with me and play ball. 

I can get that dog from craigslist for free-100.00 with only a few questions. No vetting already done, no contract, and no wait. I can get a decent idea of the dog if the owners are honest, but they might not be so kind of a crap shoot. I have no protection in regard to health/temperament , except of course what I gather my own by observing and meeting the dog. 

I can get that dog from a *rescue* for 200-500.00. I have to have the rescue arrange a home visit, I have to provide a bunch of references, and sign a contract agreeing to the fact that they can repossess the dog if they don't like the care it is givn. Since vetting has been done I have some knowledge/assurance about the dog's health status, and probably health/temperament since they want the dog to stay in a home it is adopted into. But whoops - I have no fenced yard, have kids or work full time. They are no longer an option. 

I can get that dog from a crappy breeder/mill for 300-500.00. I get no vetting, no assurances or guarantee about anything but also no contract, no home visits, minimal questioning. All I will know is what i can figure out from observing the dog/puppy. 

I can get that dog straight from a county pound for < 100.00. Minimal questions, minimal information about the dog, minimal money.

I can get the dog from a responsible breeder for 800-2000.00. I get a contract about when I'll spay, fill out a bunch of questions and sign a contract including things like what I'll feed, breeding restrictions, maybe some training requirements or restrictions, and when I'll alter. I get a guarantee about the dog's health for at least some things for a couple of years, as well as a good idea about the dog's suitability for various jobs/sports and any temperament issues that tend to crop up. There may be surprises but if so it's something that is an aberration not a total 'pig in a poke'. 

WHY IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS HOLY would ANYONE choose to go with the option that combines aspects that make it difficult to get the dog *and* provides the least for the new pet owner? Why on earth would anyone be surprised that people eyeball rescues and go "you know what? never mind, I'm going elsewhere."

And yes, I know not all rescues are so restrictive and if you can find one that doesn't do that awesome and people go to them happily. And if you're happy to move fewer dogs that's also cool. But when you combine 'hard to get the dog from' and 'provides nothing' you lost the right to complain that people pursue other options, much less blame people for your dogs not moving and bemoan how evil breeders are and how people just don't think rescue dogs are good enough for them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I don't think that particular Humane Society is hard to adopt from. Their requirements are: must be over 18, be a homeowner or have a note from the landlord saying you can have a pet and what kind, what size, etc., no unneutered pets at home, and if you have existing pets they need to have seen a vet at some point and be current on rabies vaccines. They don't require a fenced yard or have any rules about full-time work or kids (unless that pet is labeled "no kids"). 

I think most people would agree with most of those; it seems like the one some people object to is the "no unneutered pets at home". I don't know their reasoning on the tradeoffs. But they must somehow have found it to be a worthwhile policy.


----------



## notgaga (Oct 25, 2014)

Willowy said:


> I don't think that particular Humane Society is hard to adopt from. Their requirements are: must be over 18, be a homeowner or have a note from the landlord saying you can have a pet and what kind, what size, etc., no unneutered pets at home, and if you have existing pets they need to have seen a vet at some point and be current on rabies vaccines. They don't require a fenced yard or have any rules about full-time work or kids (unless that pet is labeled "no kids").
> 
> I think most people would agree with most of those; it seems like the one some people object to is the "no unneutered pets at home". I don't know their reasoning on the tradeoffs. But they must somehow have found it to be a worthwhile policy.


I didn't even have to do that at my Humane Society. What happened with Laika was: I saw a puppy, the only puppy they had at the time -> she wasn't already spoken for, so I decided I wanted her -> I filled out a questionnaire about things I like to do and what I'm looking for in a puppy and if there were animals in my home and what my end goal was for her (which I said to provide her with a safe and good life or something) -> I paid $150+ a donation and signed papers saying that I was now responsible for her and that I'd take her to a vet within a week. They didn't ask about employment or a fence or whether I owned a home or had my landlady's permission. They called me 3 days later to check up and make sure I'd gotten a vet but that's the last I heard from them, over two and a half years ago.

Maybe they were in depth and I forgot, but I do remember being very surprised they just let me walk away with a living baby animal without interviewing me very hard.


----------



## mrsserena (Nov 9, 2015)

Just for a view on the other side of the coin, the rescue I go to for my border collies is awesome. What I pay for there, is that they took in a dog that was penned up outside, they socialized it, house trained it, and kept it long enough that it was past the puppy stage (I love puppies, but don't really want to live with one again ☺).

So I think I got a GREAT deal from a rescue. That said, a lot of people did not qualify for my particular dog, because she is very definitely not suitable for a first time border collie owner. And we're a sport home, which she needs, and loves. 

The first time we went to them, they matched us up with a great "starter" border collie, not quite the high energy and quirkiness of this one. Which was exactly what we wanted at the time, because we weren't sure we wanted the full border collie experience! So IMO, I think they're very good at getting the right dog to the right family. 

That probably applies more to dogs like border collies, I can't see needing the same vetting to place say, a golden ?.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Shelters and rescues vary. There are some that actually operate for profit . . . cherry picking dogs from the pound and Craigslist . . . on-selling at high prices. These may be very rare in some places and fairly common elsewhere. 
Point being, you can't talk about breeders as a class . . . there are good and bad and what's good to one person is bad to another. Same is true of shelters. Judgement is a good thing if it's based on investigation of the facts in an individual case. Broad scale judgements are simply prejudice.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

I can't even adopt a rabbit from the local shelters because my dog is intact. Obviously that's not about the potential for oops litters, it's just that these shelters immediately equate intact with irresponsible. I've gotten lectures from people at the doggy day care place we used to go to and I've had several people at the park tell me that I'm a murderer for getting dogs from a breeder. It used to get under my skin a bit and I'd argue, but now I just laugh and walk away. Which seems to just piss them off even more lol.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

sandgrubber said:


> Shelters and rescues vary. There are some that actually operate for profit . . . cherry picking dogs from the pound and Craigslist . . . on-selling at high prices. These may be very rare in some places and fairly common elsewhere.
> Point being, you can't talk about breeders as a class . . . there are good and bad and what's good to one person is bad to another. Same is true of shelters. Judgement is a good thing if it's based on investigation of the facts in an individual case. Broad scale judgements are simply prejudice.


For myself, and my situation, which is all I was commenting on, the rules and restrictions shelters put on the adoption process are simply ridiculous. 

Broad scale judgments here are generalized, but hardly prejudiced. Everyone commenting and "judging" shelters for their strictness and poor placement strategies on this thread has, or has had, a shelter dog. We're clearly not prejudiced, as the definition of prejudice is "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." I have lots of reason and actual experiences, both recent and past, to judge shelters for their restrictiveness.


----------



## delcrossv (Jul 15, 2016)

> Also she got a highly-demanding breed when she's out from 7 am to 7 pm for work daily, has her dog without a crate or anything that could protect him from doing something harmful, and can't come at lunch for even a potty break. She actually tells you while laughing that he pees everywhere and has eaten all of her couch and even pieces of her clothing. She made zero research at all, got the puppy at about 5 weeks of age D: which is what I probably find more disturbing and just in general has zero knowledge about the dog's needs.


I'm more ticked off about this than that she seems to have an 'attitude' about whether the dog came from rescue or a breeder. She really shoudn't have any dog at all regardless of origin.

That poor dog will probably wind up in shelter somewhere.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

mrsserena said:


> Just for a view on the other side of the coin, the rescue I go to for my border collies is awesome. What I pay for there, is that they took in a dog that was penned up outside, they socialized it, house trained it, and kept it long enough that it was past the puppy stage (I love puppies, but don't really want to live with one again ☺).
> 
> So I think I got a GREAT deal from a rescue. That said, a lot of people did not qualify for my particular dog, because she is very definitely not suitable for a first time border collie owner. And we're a sport home, which she needs, and loves.
> 
> ...


Now I'm wondering what rescue you got your dog from! We adopted from a great BC rescue. And I really think BC rescues NEED to be specific. A lot of dogs end up in rescue just for being BCs and no other reason. Because they're intense and need a job and don't do well home alone all day. The one we adopted from (Glen Highland Farm) has some specific guidelines, some for good reason. But they do bend on some of them for different dogs. They seem to have VERY few returns and seem to adopt out dogs frequently. Yes, there are some dogs that have been there a long time but some of those have come from some really awful hoarding situations and have needed a lot of help or just the right family because they are so fearful. 

We do have the fenced in yard and no kids at all, so we were an easy family to adopt to. And they matched us up with the PERFECT dog for us, who happened to be a mix. Plenty of energy, but also able to settle in the house. Athletic but silly and easy going. And knowing he was vetted and checked out and essentially picked out for our family made it all work really well.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I am going to be a terrible person, and go off on a peeve of mine - don't take it personally because I know you guys more or less agree. 

"Border Collies Need a Job" is one of my number one pet peeves and annoyances. Not because in a sense it isn't true but because about half the people who hear it - including some BC people and rescue folk - seem to think this crap means that BC need to be doing some dog sport and/or working sheep. They think it means the dog's energy level is insane, the dog can't be a pet and what it takes to own one is being willing to exercise the dog 93 hours a day. Also no full time working owners because how can you exercise enough then?!?!

No. That is absolute CRAP. Do some need that? Sure. Probably. At least some would probably do better in a sport's setting but then you get nimrods -in rescue and otherwise - who think that hyperactive dogs with no off switches or focus are what typifies a sports dog.

'A job' is shorthand for an owner who is actively engaged with their dog doing SOMETHING. Someone who wants their dog to really be there and be their partner in anything and frankly the dog doesn't care if it's working a sheep farm or helping you fold the laundry as long as they get to help you. They do not need endless amounts of exercise and training. They need people who are REALLY there with them and let them be involved in life.

You want to accurately warn people off things related to BC, OCD, fear issues, and dog aggression would probably be more fair and accurate for getting them into appropriate homes prepared to deal with them. A lot of the times the translation down to 'sports homes and lots of exercise' doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what it actually 'takes' to own and like owning a BC.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

I don't know anyone who says that that thinks it must be XY or Z. The problem is that without a lot of engagement (because most of them need a lot of time with their person doing SOMTEHING to work their minds and bodies) you're going to get hyperactive messes who end up in shelters or dumped on CL because "This dog is crazy/I just don't have time for him." I saw that firsthand when I was a kid. My mother ended up bringing home a BC puppy (God love her, she had no idea what she had brought home). Bandit needed tons of engagement and probably some sort of job that was not attempting to herd the kids or figuring out how to sneak out of the house so she could tear off around the neighborhood. My parents just did NOT have the time to really work her mind and so she was bored and super destructive and just plain awful in our home. She ended up being given to a friend with a farm and goats and apparently lived to 17 super happy to herd her goats and work with the woman who owned the farm.

No one says the job has to be working sheep or agility, but they need SOMETHING more than just mindlessly bumming around your house. Because that's what leads to a lot of OCD and out of control behavior that gets them dumped off. The place we adopted our dog from doesn't require sport homes for their dogs, though they're thrilled when one comes up (seriously, they could not throw dogs at me fast enough!). But they recognize that some dogs would really benefit from a home that is focused on working them like that. And recognize that all of their dogs need a lot of engagement, no matter what they do with the dogs. Plenty have gone to homes that do a lot of hiking and swimming and other things, but don't do sports.

I think by "job" most places mean "SOMETHING to do besides sitting around."

That being said, shelters that label hyperactive out of control dogs as "sport prospects" or "would be great at agility!" drive me batty. Like...do they actually know what would make a good agility dog? Maybe the dog would be awesome. Or maybe they would be a mess.

And I do think the amount of engagement and their need to do SOMETHING is something that is pretty common to the vast majority of BCs, so warning people that this dog is NOT going to be a couch potato who is content to snooze all day, half a 20 minute walk around the block, and snooze some more, is a good thing. In a rescue situation, they can warn people of specific things to each dog (and I have seen plenty of things on dogs about having fear issues of various sorts, some with dog aggression issues, and OCD issues, etc.). Since they mostly deal with adults they know what they have and each description is pretty honest about the dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh, I don't disagree they need activity and engagement. 

But there is no shortage of people telling people that what that means is a sports home, a home where the owners are home all day, and/or a crap ton of physical exercise without touching the rest. Take a look around some non-breed specific rescues and some of the breed info pages (there are a lot of errors in all of those - like bostons making great low energy apartment pets who are very gentle with everyone). 

Or heck, just talk to a non-bc person and ask them what they think the dog needs. 

I know a ton of BCs. For pure EXERCISE, most need less movement than your average lab or terrier. They need more training and mental work and crave connection of a different, non-physical sort, but they're not particularly special in what they need above and beyond your average sporting or working dog, to be honest. Not when it comes to energy level. 

To prevelance of ear issues - genetic ones, go find out how many BCs are on owned by trainers, involved in sports, and on medication at the BC board someday, or just the number with fear, reactivity, or OCD issues. It's pretty eye opening. It is COMMON. And not amongst the 'sit at home and do nothing with the dog and it becomes a wreck sorts. The working dogs, the high level sporting dogs, the ones owned by trainers - dog savvy, bc people. It's a major, major, problem within the breed, of all the working/sporting/show divisions.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

I'm not sure judging the entire breed by people who visit a board is totally appropriate, tbh. A lot of folks who frequent boards start there because they have an issues dog and they want some sort of answers or help. I see it across the board when I visit dog boards, no matter what the breed. There's definitely an issue with reactivity in the breed (which was why I ended up on boards in the first place -- my super mellow BC mix was horribly reactive on leash and I had never experienced it before and didn't know how to handle it). And OCD and fear behaviors are not UNcommon but I also don't think they're as common as they probably seem on that board. I belong to a FB group for people who own BCs and I only see that kind of stuff crop up on occasion. Mostly I see a lot of happy BCs there. But one thing that is in common is that the people do things with their dogs. Sports, yes. But most of the people there don't do any sports. They do a lot of walking, hiking, and just playing with their dogs. I don't honestly see a lot of neurotic behaviors there.

In a weird twist, the dogs I know who are the most neurotic tend to be the ones owned by high level trainers who purchased them from people who breed "sport dogs." One has to wonder what the breeders are doing. The folks I know who got them from Joe Schmoe down the road or from a rescue seem to have more well-balanced dogs. Are breeders who are looking at breeding performance dogs creating a problem within the breed? Or does the problem lie with intense training when they're just puppies instead of allowing them to be puppies, socializing them well, and then getting into intense training when they're older?


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

CptJack said:


> I am going to be a terrible person, and go off on a peeve of mine - don't take it personally because I know you guys more or less agree.
> 
> "Border Collies Need a Job" is one of my number one pet peeves and annoyances. Not because in a sense it isn't true but because about half the people who hear it - including some BC people and rescue folk - seem to think this crap means that BC need to be doing some dog sport and/or working sheep. They think it means the dog's energy level is insane, the dog can't be a pet and what it takes to own one is being willing to exercise the dog 93 hours a day. Also no full time working owners because how can you exercise enough then?!?!
> 
> ...


Ralphie follows me around the house and "supervises" while I do laundry, and occasionally he even helps me so so much by sniffing every article of clothing I put in the laundry basket, pawing at it, and then assures me it is indeed dirty. He is obviously essential to the daily chores. But for some reason following me around the house all day gets him more tired than a walk...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

crysania said:


> I'm not sure judging the entire breed by people who visit a board is totally appropriate, tbh. A lot of folks who frequent boards start there because they have an issues dog and they want some sort of answers or help. I see it across the board when I visit dog boards, no matter what the breed. There's definitely an issue with reactivity in the breed (which was why I ended up on boards in the first place -- my super mellow BC mix was horribly reactive on leash and I had never experienced it before and didn't know how to handle it). And OCD and fear behaviors are not UNcommon but I also don't think they're as common as they probably seem on that board. I belong to a FB group for people who own BCs and I only see that kind of stuff crop up on occasion. Mostly I see a lot of happy BCs there. But one thing that is in common is that the people do things with their dogs. Sports, yes. But most of the people there don't do any sports. They do a lot of walking, hiking, and just playing with their dogs. I don't honestly see a lot of neurotic behaviors there.
> 
> In a weird twist, the dogs I know who are the most neurotic tend to be the ones owned by high level trainers who purchased them from people who breed "sport dogs." One has to wonder what the breeders are doing. The folks I know who got them from Joe Schmoe down the road or from a rescue seem to have more well-balanced dogs. Are breeders who are looking at breeding performance dogs creating a problem within the breed? Or does the problem lie with intense training when they're just puppies instead of allowing them to be puppies, socializing them well, and then getting into intense training when they're older?


Well, no, you can judge an entire breed by what you see and what regularly occurs in the breed, though. The board/forum was an example for something that didn't rely on me talking only about the dogs I persppnally know - some of whom are owned by 'big names', a lot of casual competitors across a few sports, some just pet people, in real life - or dogs you just happen to know and bringing things like 'confirmation' bias into the picture. IMO, me saying 'BC tend to have 'mental' problems, like OCD and fear issues is no different than saying 'Shelties are loud and prone to fear issues' or even 'goldens are cancer prone'. It doesn't mean every golden is going to have cancer, or every sheltie is going to be yappy. It's pretty objectively a thing that genetically exists within the breed, though. It's not a negative judgement of the breed, it's a thing that is real and really exists within the breed. It's there. It's in the genetics. It's not a 'They're horrible awful dogs'. I own a BC. I will own more. I love the breed. 

But I'm not going to stuff my head in the sand and pretend that there aren't issues within it. They're also prone to epilepsy and exercise induced collapse. I will be avoiding all of those when I search for a dog because i know it can be an issue - and I will be prepared going in for the possibility of it. Because it's a problem, across the board. Not a product of bad handling, bad socialization, inadequate exercise or training - sometimes, sure, but a lot of the time it's just a product of what's present in the gene pool.



Lillith said:


> Ralphie follows me around the house and "supervises" while I do laundry, and occasionally he even helps me so so much by sniffing every article of clothing I put in the laundry basket, pawing at it, and then assures me it is indeed dirty. He is obviously essential to the daily chores. But for some reason following me around the house all day gets him more tired than a walk...


Yeah, ditto. Okay, MOlly's biggest exhaustion is high activity locations with lots of dogs but other than than pulling laundry out of the dryer for me to fold and generally poking into everything I do is basically about 95% of her day and definitely does more to keep her content than, say, a high energy game of ball.


----------



## mrsserena (Nov 9, 2015)

CptJack said:


> I am going to be a terrible person, and go off on a peeve of mine - don't take it personally because I know you guys more or less agree.
> 
> "Border Collies Need a Job" is one of my number one pet peeves and annoyances. Not because in a sense it isn't true but because about half the people who hear it - including some BC people and rescue folk - seem to think this crap means that BC need to be doing some dog sport and/or working sheep. They think it means the dog's energy level is insane, the dog can't be a pet and what it takes to own one is being willing to exercise the dog 93 hours a day. Also no full time working owners because how can you exercise enough then?!?!
> 
> ...


I completely agree with you. But it's hard to explain a BC to "normal" dog people.. Ours doesn't need a job necessarily, but she needs some serious interaction at least an hour a day. 

When I say we got one that would be good at sports, her traits are she's fast, loves learning and training, and is practically fearless about the obstacles. Our first one was far too skittish, we had to quit when we got to the teeter, she completely freaked out at the noise. And she hated to do anything wrong, would completely shut down and quit. But as a pet, she was perfect! 

We got ours from MoKan BC rescue - great people! 

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

mrsserena said:


> I completely agree with you. But it's hard to explain a BC to "normal" dog people.. Ours doesn't need a job necessarily, but she needs some serious interaction at least an hour a day.
> 
> When I say we got one that would be good at sports, her traits are she's fast, loves learning and training, and is practically fearless about the obstacles. Our first one was far too skittish, we had to quit when we got to the teeter, she completely freaked out at the noise. And she hated to do anything wrong, would completely shut down and quit. But as a pet, she was perfect!
> 
> ...


There are some absolutely incredible BC rescues out there - and for the record when I say 'rescue people trying to place hyperactive dogs without focus or off switches in sports homes' I mostly mean all breed rescues there, because it's just not an intuitive thing. High energy is good, right? Ditto that people radically over-simplifying BC. Though in fairness you are right. "THEY ARE JUST REALLY WEIRD" is pretty hard to convey. 

But man. They are WEIRD.


----------



## mrsserena (Nov 9, 2015)

CptJack said:


> There are some absolutely incredible BC rescues out there - and for the record when I say 'rescue people trying to place hyperactive dogs without focus or off switches in sports homes' I mostly mean all breed rescues there, because it's just not an intuitive thing. High energy is good, right? Ditto that people radically over-simplifying BC. Though in fairness you are right. "THEY ARE JUST REALLY WEIRD" is pretty hard to convey.
> 
> But man. They are WEIRD.


Yup! Ours have always had great off switches, but when the oven timer goes off, she bolts over, not because of the food, but because in case it's pizza, she LOVES to watch the reflection of the pizza cutter on the ceiling. Goofball. 

Sent from my SM-P600 using Tapatalk


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

I've been involved in a few animal-related activities, including rehab; and i have known a few people who were involved in dog and some other animal rescue.
And having heard and witnessed various situations, I would actually applaud the rescues with strict rules:
1) adopting a bunny or any small animal while you have an intact dog is a huge risk. Don't understand why some ppl take it so personally - it has little to do with you and everything to do with dangers that an intact dog may pose to a little bunny. I have personally witnessed tragic situations when small animals were killed by family "pooches" even with fairly responsible owners. 
Even the best dog is still a dog with predator instincts and unless a puppy and a bunny grew up together, no one can guarantee how they will get along and how the dog is going to react to the little animal.
2) there are lots of psychos out there - and, unfortunately, that's the fate of most "free-to-"good"-home" and/or nominally priced animals on craigslist. So, it is only wonderful that rescues won't give their dogs to pretty much just anyone
3) as for the return rate and stuff... in one of the above posts (sorry, don't remember which one) there was a comparison:
a) adopted out 20 dogs, got 1 returned;
b) adopted out 50 dogs, got 20 returned;
So, because it looks like option b) adopted out more dogs it is better. But what got lost in this "statistics" is the actual live 20 dogs that got returned. Being intelligent and sensitive beings, dogs understand very well rejection. Just like many children who bounce from one foster home to another and as a result often become emotionally affected to various degrees, so returned/rejected dogs. That's one of the reasons why shelter dogs are considered "damaged goods" and often develop all sorts of neuroses and attachment issues. So, for these 20 returned dogs from option b) this experience may only compound their emotional problems, which may make their next adoption and adjustment even more difficult.
So, honestly, I'd rather go with option a) than b). 
In the worst case scenario with these shelters and rescues, it will still be better for the dog to stay there than being repeatedly rejected and returned. 

So, the fact that some rescues/shelters set rather high standards for potential adopters is a good thing. Their requirements may not always be perfect, but at least their are trying to ensure that the dog won't get rejected, and/or won't end up with an abuser looking for an easy way to get another victim, and won't end up in many other undesirable situations. Again, nothing is perfect, but if such standards can help spare at least one dog - that will be great. 
And same goes for those shelters who are strict with adoption of bunnies and other small animals to dog owners - they know what they are talking about . Some people may not be aware of all the risks, but they are very real and can be very tragic (again, witnessed personally)

As for the judgemental nonsense regarding rescued vs. from a breeder, and that crud about "real" dogs vs... what "unreal"? -- there are way too many small-minded people. I just do not understand how someone who is engaged in training dogs can divide them into "real" and eh... "unreal."


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

belka said:


> 1) adopting a bunny or any small animal while you have an intact dog is a huge risk. Don't understand why some ppl take it so personally - it has little to do with you and everything to do with dangers that an intact dog may pose to a little bunny. I have personally witnessed tragic situations when small animals were killed by family "pooches" even with fairly responsible owners.
> Even the best dog is still a dog with predator instincts and unless a puppy and a bunny grew up together, no one can guarantee how they will get along and how the dog is going to react to the little animal.


Except this doesn't actually make sense. The risk to the bunny in that scenario is a dog with high prey drive, not an intact dog. My dog has ZERO prey drive, but he's more of a risk than a greyhound or a beagle or any kind of terrier just because he's not desexed? Beyond that, the policies are not to adopt any animal into a home with another intact animal, regardless of species, so you also wouldn't be able to adopt a dog with an intact bunny. Or cats or whatever.

It's less to do with the safety of animals (as evidenced by adopting small fluffy animals into homes with high prey drive dogs) and more to do with shelters and rescues pushing a spay/neuter agenda and from that perspective, viewing people with intact animals as irresponsible and potentially contributing to animal overpopulation.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Effisia said:


> belka said:
> 
> 
> > 1) adopting a bunny or any small animal while you have an intact dog is a huge risk. Don't understand why some ppl take it so personally - it has little to do with you and everything to do with dangers that an intact dog may pose to a little bunny. I have personally witnessed tragic situations when small animals were killed by family "pooches" even with fairly responsible owners.
> ...


Of course not all dogs have high prey drive, but the rescues don't know that and they cannot go just by what the owner says. Besides sometimes even owners cannot guarantee their dog's reaction. So would you take a chance with a bunny's life or would you rather err on a side of caution?

As for intact bunnies or other small animals - actually as sad as it may be, for better health bunnies do need spaying/neutering. When an animal, especially what is essentially a wild animal (despite "domestic" breeds and such - they are not truly "domesticated" the way dogs and cats are), cannot live his/her physiological functions fully in a domestic environment, they are at a higher risk for health and behavioural problems. 
So unfortunately for the best life possible in unnatural environment these "unnatural" measures are needed. 
And when owners do not bother with that and keep intact animals that may indeed indicate how responsible or irresponsible they are. Same for cats.
So if said rescues/shelters try to assess potential level of responsibility of an owner based in "intactness" of an already existing animal in either direction - that does make sense.

Dogs (and cats, or bunnies etc. etc.) with their hormones fully working can be unpredictable especially when faced with another animal especially of different species. So it is safer to err on the side of caution than take chances.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> Dogs (and cats, or bunnies etc. etc.) with their hormones fully working can be unpredictable especially when faced with another animal especially of different species. So it is safer to err on the side of caution than take chances.


Unless you have scientific evidence to back this up, I'd ask that you stop making anecdotal claims that are faulty and misleading. People who keep intact animals face enough discrimination that we don't need people rumor mongering and coming up with more untrue statements that "intact dogs are unpredictable" to further that discrimination.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> Unless you have scientific evidence to back this up, I'd ask that you stop making anecdotal claims that are faulty and misleading. People who keep intact animals face enough discrimination that we don't need people rumor mongering and coming up with more untrue statements that "intact dogs are unpredictable" to further that discrimination.


 actually, these claims aren't "anecdotal," but come from years of hands-on experience in animal rehab.
However, to be fair, you are welcome to provide "scientific back-up" for your opinion that my claims are not true.
Until then - I have as much right to participate in discussions and share my opinions just like anyone else. There is no need to get rude just because someone shares information that you disagree with. It is possible to agree to disagree and remain civil.
As for "discrimination" - there is absolutely no "discrimination" unless one begins to take everything personally and chooses to get "offended" just because someone disagrees with you.
Besides - read carefully: there is *a huge difference *between when someone says "intact dogs are unpredictable"-what you said I had written, and "*can* be unpredictable" - what I've actually posted. No need to read into and misinterpret something you disagree with.

Peace.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

What does being intact have to do with prey drive?? I have known neutered dogs that kill any little critter that ventures into their yard, and intact males who are sweet and gentle with cats and bunnies. And not sure where unpredictability comes into it either. The intact animals I know are as predictable as the neutered ones and it has no effect on their prey drive.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

So... based on your observations, your hypothesis is that intact dogs pose more of a risk than high prey drive dogs? Because owners with high prey drive dogs aren't turned down with these policies, just intact. Or that prey drive and being intact are the same thing? I would love to see actual evidence that shows that intact dogs are more likely to be aggressive towards other species than dogs who were actually bred to hunt or kill small fluffy critters. Because that's a huge broad brush to paint with there.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

elrohwen said:


> What does being intact have to do with prey drive?? I have known neutered dogs that kill any little critter that ventures into their yard, and intact males who are sweet and gentle with cats and bunnies. And not sure where unpredictability comes into it either. The intact animals I know are as predictable as the neutered ones and it has no effect on their prey drive.


hormones affect animals' mood and temperament - even in people. That's the basics of human physiology. 
As for some intact animals being calm and some neutered animals being "not calm" - again, read what i've actually posted and not what you think I've posted: '*can* be unpredictable" means exactly "possible situations" and NOT "categorical conclusions" as you and Hiraeth think.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Effisia said:


> So... based on your observations, your hypothesis is that intact dogs pose more of a risk than high prey drive dogs? Because owners with high prey drive dogs aren't turned down with these policies, just intact. Or that prey drive and being intact are the same thing? I would love to see actual evidence that shows that intact dogs are more likely to be aggressive towards other species than dogs who were actually bred to hunt or kill small fluffy critters. Because that's a huge broad brush to paint with there.


 Please read what i've already posted and what I've replied to the two previous posts


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> hormones affect animals' mood and temperament - even in people. That's the basics of human physiology.
> As for some intact animals being calm and some neutered animals being "not calm" - again, read what i've actually posted and not what you think I've posted: '*can* be unpredictable" means exactly "possible situations" and NOT "categorical conclusions" as you and Hiraeth think.


So it's just as accurate to say that altered animals CAN be unpredictable and that households should never contain more than one species.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> So it's just as accurate to say that altered animals CAN be unpredictable and that households should never contain more than one species.


Right. So in this particular scenario we have some intact dogs that can be unpredictable. Some altered dogs that can be unpredictable. Some terriers that can have high prey drive. Some labs that can be high prey drive. My point is that designating INTACT as the category refused to adopt any other animals is not really based on safety (because if THAT was the case, at the very least all owners of high drive dogs would be barred, too). It's based on the notion that these shelters/rescues have that people with intact animals are irresponsible. Just because they haven't desexed their animals.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Effisia said:


> Right. So in this particular scenario we have some intact dogs that can be unpredictable. Some altered dogs that can be unpredictable. Some terriers that can have high prey drive. Some labs that can be high prey drive. My point is that designating INTACT as the category refused to adopt any other animals is not really based on safety (because if THAT was the case, at the very least all owners of high drive dogs would be barred, too). It's based on the notion that these shelters/rescues have that people with intact animals are irresponsible. Just because they haven't desexed their animals.


If there was a "like" button, I'd be clicking it


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Effisia said:


> Right. So in this particular scenario we have some intact dogs that can be unpredictable. Some altered dogs that can be unpredictable. Some terriers that can have high prey drive. Some labs that can be high prey drive. My point is that designating INTACT as the category refused to adopt any other animals is not really based on safety (because if THAT was the case, at the very least all owners of high drive dogs would be barred, too). It's based on the notion that these shelters/rescues have that people with intact animals are irresponsible. Just because they haven't desexed their animals.


Right. If someone is going to turn me down for bunny adoption it should be because my dogs are high prey drive and a hunting breed, and at least one of them would kill them if she got the chance. It has nothing to do with them being intact and she would act the same way if spayed. 

belka, I'm just really not seeing the link between intact animals being more unpredictable than neutered. And I'm also not seeing the link between predictability and interactions with other species. I can see dogs being more unpredictable with other dogs or with people or something, but generally dogs have pretty predictable reactions to prey species depending on their prey drive.


----------



## Joao M (May 30, 2016)

Coming from another country and culture I fail to understand the "neutering debate" I often read in US foruns.
It seems to me that there is a dogma in the US associating intact to dangerous dogs and neutered to mellow ones.
From my limited experience (I am not a breeder nor a trainer; only a dog keeper that have kept dogs for around 30 years) this is comparing apples to oranges. 

Neutering a male will - of course- have 100% effect on his sexual drive, but thats it. 
Naturally it will prevent sexual driven aggressiveness but will have a 0 effect on all the other types of possible aggression and of course, zero effect on prey drive.

I totally understand that shelters release their animals already neutered to control the dog population, of course. But this has nothing to do with aggression.

Perhaps you (generally speaking) are not used to being with intact dogs because most of the dogs you see and deal with are neutered and that may create this "dogma".

But believe me, living in a country were most of the dogs (M and F) are intact and are walked unleashed at the parks (not dog parks, I mean "normal" parks) around people, children and of course other dogs with no issues, this is just a dogma.

Curiously enough at the park I usually go to the 3 most DA dogs (1 lab mix; 1 GSD mix; and 1 "100% mongrel") are neutered. But they came from shelters (that is why they are neutered) so the reasoning for the DA has - most likely - nothing to do with castration.
Another curious thing is that the ocasional scuffles I have seen are usually between intact-intact or neutered-neutered (regardless of who starts). And the few scuflles I have seen between neutered-intact dogs were initiative by the neutered ones.

Just a different experience I wanted to share


----------



## TSTrainer (Aug 6, 2015)

belka said:


> actually, these claims aren't "anecdotal," but come from years of hands-on experience in animal rehab.
> However, to be fair, you are welcome to provide "scientific back-up" for your opinion that my claims are not true.
> Until then - I have as much right to participate in discussions and share my opinions just like anyone else. There is no need to get rude just because someone shares information that you disagree with. It is possible to agree to disagree and remain civil.
> As for "discrimination" - there is absolutely no "discrimination" unless one begins to take everything personally and chooses to get "offended" just because someone disagrees with you.
> ...


In order for your hands on experience to be considered scientifically factual, especially to this community where accurate information is highly regarded and where we prioritize making sure the public gets properly educated on controversial topics like spay/neuter, there needs to be studies to back it up. And yes, people with intact animals ARE discriminated against. Go to any rabbit forum where someone mentioned having an intact bunny, the backlash is INCREDIBLE. Also, check local dog license fees, some places charge exorbitant prices for people with intact dogs vs people with altered dogs.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> So it's just as accurate to say that altered animals CAN be unpredictable and that households should never contain more than one species.


if that how you interpret it - so be it. But that's not what I said.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> if that how you interpret it - so be it. But that's not what I said.


I'm beginning to think you don't understand dogs or science. 

A dog being intact and prey drive and predictability have nothing to do with one another. Literally. Nothing.

That's the kind of mindset that we've been arguing against this entire thread.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You started talking about why not adopting a rabbit to a household with intact dogs made sense - because some can be unpredictable. I left the can in for you, but that implies you and/or rescue assumes greater risk to the rabbit from the animal being intact than not.

I have only altered animals now, so I could adopt that bunny. 

But.

My Rat Terrier would really love to eat that metaphorical bunny. So would my GSD mutt. And my Boston Terrier. And my BC. 

How about you check check for secure cages, sane plans, and DOORS? Or even flatly not adopt to anyone with dogs. That would make more sense. 

Except, well.







- Also a thing.

(PS: Rabbit came from a breeder, LOL).


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

TSTrainer said:


> In order for your hands on experience to be considered scientifically factual, especially to this community where accurate information is highly regarded and where we prioritize making sure the public gets properly educated on controversial topics like spay/neuter, there needs to be studies to back it up. And yes, people with intact animals ARE discriminated against. Go to any rabbit forum where someone mentioned having an intact bunny, the backlash is INCREDIBLE. Also, check local dog license fees, some places charge exorbitant prices for people with intact dogs vs people with altered dogs.


 Actually, I don't need to go to any forum, because I do participate in several, including wild life rehab.
So, while people who keep intact animals do get to hear disapproval, the animals themselves are NOT discriminated. And if there are people who discriminate such animals (just like those who look down on mutts vs purebred) - there are plenty of ignorant people everywhere. 
But all the experienced and respectable rehabbers (not even breeders) of bunnies and wild mammals whom I personally know do NOT discriminate intact vs. neutered animals. 
What said "backlash" sometimes expresses is disapproval of irresponsible ownership. E.g., I've seen too many situations when people try to keep an intact cat and a neutered one, only to cause stress and all sorts of psychological problems to both, not to mention the fights and aggression (just one minor example).

On the other hand, one forum on small wild mammals that I belong to is actually against neutering because of the species-specific issues (and I am against it, too, in fact). But those who choose to neuter are not discriminated against at all.
So, no, not all forums discriminate and not all forums are the same. Some communities are more nuanced than others.


As for "scientific" back up - like I said, I am all for scientific information and education, but so far what's been shared in this particular discussion on this topic, including the "backlash" on the rescues/shelters with strict standards - is all no more "scientific" than what I've shared. The only difference - you disagree with what I've shared. 
There are certain areas of knowledge, in this case canine health and so on, that have sufficient scientific studies and support.
Other areas are more or less hands-on experience with occasional scientific back up.
Therefore, discussions about animal issues will always entail both purely scientific information and what comes from experience.
By the same token, as I suggested before - I will be happy to read scientific studies that prove that hormones do not affect animal temperament/health and that there is no difference between an intact animal and a neutered one. I am quite serious - I would love to read up on this and share it with my rehabbers - friends, so please share. Until then - like I said and what everyone seems to be missing in what I've actually said: there is a possibility for unpredictable outcomes when combining intact and neutered animals of the same and/or different species. Again, if you could provide scientific studies that prove that there is absolutely no unpredictability in such situations - again, very seriously I would love to learn that myself.

I am as serious about correct information as this community. That is why I openly shared what I learned from my own experience and that of some rehabbers I know openly qualifying myself that this comes from my hands-on experience . Therefore, any reasoning thinking "public" reading my comments can see that it comes from my experience and can form their own opinion. If I posted what I posted claiming that it was a "sure fact" and it was "proven scientifically" without actually providing scientific sources - then that would be a problem. But right now - my comments are not misleading anyone, especially, since I said that there is a possibility, not that it is a certainty. So, no need to worry that somehow I am going to lead the public astray. 
If some of you have had different experiences - all the better. It may be better for said public to be aware of all possibilities and various experiences.
By the way, so far what's been shared in this discussion especially with the "backlash" on all these shelters and rescues with strict standards has not been "scientifically" backed up, but instead - is just all sorts of personal opinions and experiences shared.
E.g., in the very beginning of this discussion regarding rescues/shelters with strict standards Hiraeth expressed his/her (sorry, I don't know you well enough yet) opinion about such shelters without necessarily providing any statistical information to support his/her opinion, simply stating that this how s/he feels based on personal experience. But no one seems to be having a problem with that. 


But that's ok. 
Like I said, I am always open to learn new/different information, so if you could share scientific studies (not just personal experiences that everyone has shared so far) that state that hormones do not and cannot affect "unpredictability" in animals' behavior, that would be great. Honestly!

Peace!

PS btw, all dog owners (and cat owners and other animal owners) can swear that dogs (and other animals) are intelligent and sensitive beings. BUT you will not find conclusive scientific backing of it. Scientific community is very divided on the topic of animal intelligence despite the many studies for it. So, like I said above - discussions about animals will always involve purely scientific stuff (like nutrition) and what is more of personal experience and/or some scientific studies (like animal psychology and emotional lives). 
And since "unpredictability" is a combination of the dog's breed, level of prey-drive, personality, individual "quirks" and many other environmental factors (e.g., training, stress, past experiences etc.) + hormones (or lack of them) - there will hardly be any conclusive scientific studies on this particular topic because there are just way too many variables that cannot be replicated and accounted for in a scientific experiment. So, unfortunately, at least for now we have to go primarily by our personal experiences and what is known about hormones so far, which can vary and on which we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

belka said:


> So, while people who keep intact animals do get to hear disapproval (and rightly so),


And why should we be "rightly" disapproved of? I realize there are irresponsible owners of intact dogs, but there are also irresponsible owners of altered dogs. Why is it right to go after all owners of intact animals?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> And why should we be "rightly" disapproved of? I realize there are irresponsible owners of intact dogs, but there are also irresponsible owners of altered dogs. Why is it right to go after all owners of intact animals?


Probably because a subset of those people are involved in breeding - responsible breeding, with showing and health testing, but breeding, and that's bad. Alternatively just because. 

One of the hardest things I have ever had to wrap my mind around is that rescue people are not dog people. They are rescue people. They aren't "into" dogs, and behavior, and health, and training, and understanding them. They're into saving them and rehoming them, full stop. Sometimes, there's overlap. Sometimes, there isn't. Sometimes, they're good people doing good. Sometimes, it's people who desperately need to feel important and will do anything to justify the importance of rescue - not that rescue *isn't* important, but of specific dogs and requirements and themselves as gatekeepers.

But being a rescue person != being a dog person, and that often puts them at odds with a large subset of people who ARE dog people. People who train, people who compete, people who, yeah, breed. Even if you remove the breeding. They'll send 2 puppies to the same home, advise compulsion training, have weird idea about food and exercise and other pets - and completely miss or dismiss reasons why a non-breeding person would want to have an intact animal. 

It's frustrating.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> So, while people who keep intact animals do get to hear disapproval (and rightly so)...


Excuse me? Why do I get to hear disapproval? What's wrong me owning intact animals?



belka said:


> E.g., in the very beginning of this discussion regarding rescues/shelters with strict standards Hiraeth expressed his/her (sorry, I don't know you well enough yet) opinion about such shelters without necessarily providing any statistical information to support his/her opinion, simply stating that this how s/he feels based on personal experience. But no one seems to be having a problem with that.


My opinion is a dog being intact has absolutely no effect on prey drive or predictability. No one disagreed with me because we all have the same opinion. And most of us own both intact and neutered animals, or have in the past. So right now you're arguing against decades of experience and dog ownership of both intact/altered pets. And NO ONE agrees with you. You may want to take pause and reconsider why that is. 

And you're right, you don't know me very well. But if you're about to start lambasting owners of intact pets, you're about to get to know me, probably far more than you'd like to.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Probably because a subset of those people are involved in breeding - responsible breeding, with showing and health testing, but breeding, and that's bad. Alternatively just because.


But Beckett could make sure cute puppies! And might. (After health testing and at least a few more titles, of course. Plus confirmation on his structure from the experts in Germany and extensive pedigree research AND dependent on any compatible females.) I'm so irresponsible.


----------



## Joao M (May 30, 2016)

In the US people that keep intact animals are discriminated/"rightly disapproved"? really? 
How bizarre...


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> But Beckett could make sure cute puppies! And might. (After health testing and at least a few more titles, of course. Plus confirmation on his structure from the experts in Germany and extensive pedigree research AND dependent on any compatible females.) I'm so irresponsible.


There are enough dogs in the world!!! We don't need anymore!!! Anyone who gets one of your puppies isn't taking one of my rescue dogs!!! (That they don't want, because they want a eurasier, how dare they/they are so shallow!). That I wouldn't let have one anyway, probably, because they don't have a fence!!!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Joao M said:


> In the US people that keep intact animals are discriminated/"rightly disapproved"? really?
> How bizarre...


Yes, absolutely. By most people in the rescue world, by many veterinarians, by the general public. I pay more for licensing and registration, I would pay more to any of the private dog parks in my area, apartment complexes charge more if renter's dogs are intact.

And by people who like to think they know anything about keeping intact animals, but actually have no idea what they're talking about, like belka here.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

For the record while my females were mostly spayed young (for my convenience, literally I make no qualms about that) my boys were altered at 8 and 3. Because it was easier to keep weight on them and I got sick of the stupid high license fees. The 8 year old had some litters, since, well, he IS a retired breed/show/sport/working dog. The other dog never had so much as a single encounter with a bitch in heat. Because I'm not an idiot. 

And I sort of wish someone was still intact just out of sheer 'Don't tell me what to do with my pets' stubbornness.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> There are enough dogs in the world!!! We don't need anymore!!! Anyone who gets one of your puppies isn't taking one of my rescue dogs!!! (That they don't want, because they want a eurasier, how dare they/they are so shallow!). That I wouldn't let have one anyway, probably, because they don't have a fence!!!


And that's absolutely the thing. I've had people tell me both when we got Annabel and again with Beckett that I was killing (murdering!) a shelter dog because I was having a purebred breeder dog "take their place". But that's not the case! There is almost no chance that I would have gotten a shelter dog even if I hadn't gotten these guys. So they weren't taking anyone's place.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Effisia said:


> And that's absolutely the thing. I've had people tell me both when we got Annabel and again with Beckett that I was killing (murdering!) a shelter dog because I was having a purebred breeder dog "take their place". But that's not the case! There is almost no chance that I would have gotten a shelter dog even if I hadn't gotten these guys. So they weren't taking anyone's place.


Zephyr DID take a rescue dog's "place" in my home - because I couldn't find a rescue who would adopt to me, not because I actively chose to not get a rescue. Pretty sad.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> And that's absolutely the thing. I've had people tell me both when we got Annabel and again with Beckett that I was killing (murdering!) a shelter dog because I was having a purebred breeder dog "take their place". But that's not the case! There is almost no chance that I would have gotten a shelter dog even if I hadn't gotten these guys. So they weren't taking anyone's place.


Exactly. A lot (not all) of rescue people who do this are completely unable to understand that a dog is not a dog is not a dog. All they see are superficial changes like size or appearance. If you're willing to have a large, hairy, dog like a newf you should be able to have a large, hairy, rescue. Take a pyr. Or some kind of shaggy lab mix. Never mind all the differences that make a dog a dog and benefits of known lineage and health. 

And wanting a dog FOR something? like wanting something specific out of the dog for purpose? Greek. 

Because not dog people.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> I'm beginning to think you don't understand dogs or science.
> 
> A dog being intact and prey drive and predictability have nothing to do with one another. Literally. Nothing.
> 
> That's the kind of mindset that we've been arguing against this entire thread.


no, Hiraeth, actually I do. IN fact, I wrote a grad. thesis dealing with animals, including dogs (and I keep studying the topic). And in addition to my academic background, I've been involved in wild animal rehab.
So, I do have at least some experience to speak from. 
And yes, a combination of hormones, prey drive and some other factors does affect behavior.
But like I said - by all means if you can prove me wrong with solid scientific evidence - I will be happy to stand corrected.
But so far - it's your personal experience against mine (even though the scientific fact that hormones affect a being's (human or non-human) mood and behavior is not my experience, but a scientific fact)


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> Zephyr DID take a rescue dog's "place" in my home - because I couldn't find a rescue who would adopt to me, not because I actively chose to not get a rescue. Pretty sad.


Right. That, too. If I do end up wanting to add a bunny to our household, I'll now be going on Craigslist and getting a baby bun that I want for a fraction of the cost of a rescue with no hoops to jump through. So the shelter has now missed out on not only the opportunity to find an animal a home, AND the adoption fee, but the opportunity to educate, develop a loyal client/adopter, and any word-of-mouth/SM advertising by that new adopter.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> Right. That, too. If I do end up wanting to add a bunny to our household, I'll now be going on Craigslist and getting a baby bun that I want for a fraction of the cost of a rescue with no hoops to jump through. So the shelter has now missed out on not only the opportunity to find an animal a home, AND the adoption fee, but the opportunity to educate, develop a loyal client/adopter, and any word-of-mouth/SM advertising by that new adopter.


For the record you may be able to find a decent rabbit breeder. I know your area is House Rabbit Society heaven but I suspect there are some decent breeders there and as with dogs they're worth their weight in gold (and still cost less than rescue, and without hoops - at least more than one or two). Not that a rehome is bad at all just another option.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> no, Hiraeth, actually I do. IN fact, I wrote a grad. thesis dealing with animals, including dogs (and I keep studying the topic). And in addition to my academic background, I've been involved in wild animal rehab.
> So, I do have at least some experience to speak from.
> And yes, a combination of hormones, prey drive and some other factors does affect behavior.
> But like I said - by all means if you can prove me wrong with solid scientific evidence - I will be happy to stand corrected.
> But so far - it's your personal experience against mine (even though the scientific fact that hormones affect a being's (human or non-human) mood and behavior is not my experience, but a scientific fact)


I hope you had someone else punctuate your graduate thesis for you. Otherwise it would have been barely legible. 

And it's your personal experience against all of ours, since no one agrees with you. If anyone should be providing science that supports their theory, it's the self-proclaimed scientist here (that's you).


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

CptJack said:


> a dog is not a dog is not a dog


actually, that's exactly what I implied. And that's exactly why one cannot always predict behavior with 100% surety. 
If people actually read what I've posted instead of reading into it, there would not be any of this back-and-forth exchange.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> I hope you had someone else punctuate your graduate thesis for you. Otherwise it would have been barely legible.
> 
> And it's your personal experience against all of ours, since no one agrees with you. If anyone should be providing science that supports their theory, it's the self-proclaimed scientist here (that's you).


 don't worry about my punctuation - i am on the phone moving.
But to get backatcha - perhaps, you could work on clarity in your writing, this way it would be easier to understand what you mean exactly sometimes.
Good day!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

There ARE studies that show most dogs come from intact dogs - intact male dogs who are chained. 

Remove the chain and that goes away funnily enough.

The problem with the rest is that, yeah, a dog who is hormonal is going to maybe be more confident and assertive. Sure. I'll buy that. I also know danged well bitches in heat have some mood swings. 

But neither of those things makes a big difference in their actual temperament, neither one is associated with prey drive, specifically, and it sure as heck doesn't make them a bite risk walking around or really at all since training and socialization are still things and altering affects neither of those.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> For the record you may be able to find a decent rabbit breeder. I know your area is House Rabbit Society heaven but I suspect there are some decent breeders there and as with dogs they're worth their weight in gold (and still cost less than rescue, and without hoops - at least more than one or two). Not that a rehome is bad at all just another option.


I've actually found several breeders near me who I really like. And one or two breeders that are a few hours away, but I think worth it. Beautiful buns. I'm really just trying to narrow down what breed I want now. But I THINK I'm leaning towards the standard or mini Rex. Love the fur. But... I do have a particular fondness for Lionheads, too. I mean... so darn adorable! I've been volunteering with the rabbits at one of the local shelters first, though, to get better at reading rabbit body language and just get as much knowledge on care as possible.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth said:


> I If anyone should be providing science that supports their theory, it's the self-proclaimed scientist here (that's you).


actually, since you requested it - the burden is on you.
Besides, you again put words in my mouth - never have I made any claim to "science" - again, it was you who started it.

And once again - when people run out of logic arguments, they resort to personal attacks - way to go (not) ! But once you get to this level, I am not going to follow you. So, good day!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> I've actually found several breeders near me who I really like. And one or two breeders that are a few hours away, but I think worth it. Beautiful buns. I'm really just trying to narrow down what breed I want now. But I THINK I'm leaning towards the standard or mini Rex. Love the fur. But... I do have a particular fondness for Lionheads, too. I mean... so darn adorable! I've been volunteering with the rabbits at one of the local shelters first, though, to get better at reading rabbit body language and just get as much knowledge on care as possible.


My suggestion is actually going mini if you go rex, but that's an off the cuff thing based largely on the fact that most standard are bred to be meat or fur. That's fine with me ethically but it can hide some temperament stuff that doesn't tend to crop up amongst the minis since they're more often pets and bred to be pets. But what people are breeding FOR matters there, as with everything, and you're smart and savvy.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Effisia said:


> And why should we be "rightly" disapproved of? I realize there are irresponsible owners of intact dogs, but there are also irresponsible owners of altered dogs. Why is it right to go after all owners of intact animals?


sorry, guys, but you just seem to keep not reading carefully because your prejudice against what i've posted must be blinding you.
"Rightly" because in some species neutering/spaying is absolutely necessary for health reasons. Not all species are the same.
Please read what *I* posted, not what *you think *I've posted.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

But since you insist, here's what a quick search turned up:

"Intact male dogs were twice as likely to have bitten as intact female dogs. Biting was reported at a similar level for intact male and neutered female dogs. Neutered male dogs were the most likely to be reported as having bitten, with the odds of a report of bite in a neutered male dog being more than three times higher than that for an intact female dog."

From this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159101001538

"Aggressive behavior of castrate males was indistinguishable from that of intact males during development."

From this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0018506X7090005X

"In dogs with any history of dominant or possessive aggression, their owners considered the worst bite incident to be of greater importance on a ranking scale of 1–10 when compared with the responses of the owners of all other biting dogs (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between male and female biting dogs in either: (1) their mean fear score; (2) their mean ‘dominance’ score; or (3) any history of dominant or possessive type aggression. Neutered and intact dogs were also not significantly different when compared for these same factors, and neither were differences detected between purebred and mixed breed dogs."

From this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159101001551

I can pull more. I can also pull quite a full studies on the negative effects that altering, especially pre-adolescence altering, has on dogs.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Honestly, kind of disappointing.

People who share their lives with one of the most amazing species on earth can be so ... hhmmm... unable to see past their own personal views... 
And keep misreading what they disagree with. 

But I have no more time to keep repeating and explaining what I've written since no one really reads what I've written, but keeps seeing what they want to see.

So, keep bashing rescues/shelters with strict standards if that's what you want.

I have no more time for this (quite literally at that).

Peace!


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

belka said:


> sorry, guys, but you just seem to keep not reading carefully because your prejudice against what i've posted must be blinding you.
> "Rightly" because in some species neutering/spaying is absolutely necessary for health reasons. Not all species are the same.
> Please read what *I* posted, not what *you think *I've posted.


I literally quoted you. Just because you go back and edit out the "(and rightly so)" doesn't mean you didn't say it. It's... still quoted.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> actually, since you requested it - the burden is on you.


Studies are posted above. 



belka said:


> Besides, you again put words in my mouth - never have I made any claim to "science" - again, it was you who started it.


This isn't a claim to science?:



> IN fact, I wrote a grad. thesis dealing with animals, including dogs (and I keep studying the topic). And in addition to my academic background, I've been involved in wild animal rehab.
> So, I do have at least some experience to speak from.





belka said:


> And once again - when people run out of logic arguments, they resort to personal attacks - way to go (not) ! But once you get to this level, I am not going to follow you. So, good day!


I find it hard to believe that a graduate researcher who wrote a thesis would write in the style, either linguistically or grammatically, that you do. And I should know, because I WORK with graduate students in the sciences, and I've published several theses of my own. 

If you want to convince us that you know what you're talking about, and you've studied what you're talking about, and that you have legitimate things to say... Well, the way you're communicating now, and the childish "you started it, you provide links! (wah wah)" isn't doing you any favors or lending you any credibility.

ETA: And going back to edit and change the wording in your post AFTER we have quoted you and taken exception to what you said is dishonest. You said it. Stand by it.


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

Hiraeth,

Just for once read what I wrote, because what I wrote does not contradict what says in these quotations.
"Likely" means the same as "can." 

But like i said - I have no time for the meaningless exchange - just a waste of time.

You can stand by your opinion.
And I will stand by what I know.

Buh-bye!


Hiraeth said:


> But since you insist, here's what a quick search turned up:
> 
> "Intact male dogs were twice as likely to have bitten as intact female dogs. Biting was reported at a similar level for intact male and neutered female dogs. Neutered male dogs were the most likely to be reported as having bitten, with the odds of a report of bite in a neutered male dog being more than three times higher than that for an intact female dog."
> 
> ...


----------



## belka (Aug 3, 2016)

someone just posted something regarding my editing my previous post. I think it was CptJck, but Ican't find it and don't have any more time.

So, here is my response (my last response, honestly) to whoever posted it:

_actually, it just happened that you quoted AS I was editing it, so there is nothing "dishonest" about it. I removed it because I added a different clause that made "rightly so" unnecessary.
Please DO read and try to understand what's written, not what you want to see._


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

belka said:


> Hiraeth,
> 
> Just for once read what I wrote, because what I wrote does not contradict what says in these quotations.
> "Likely" means the same as "can."
> ...


Now I'm not just doubting your graduate student status, I'm also doubting your ability to read.

I love it when people keep crying "read my posts, read my posts!" while simultaneously not reading other people's posts.

Oh, and I love it even more when someone says "I'm leaving, goodbye", and then continues to argue. Please, if you're going to threaten to leave, just leave. And if you're not, stop whining like a child and pony up some proof that intact/altered status has anything to do with aggression, prey drive or predictability.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

belka said:


> someone just posted something regarding my editing my previous post. I think it was CptJck, but Ican't find it and don't have any more time.
> 
> So, here is my response (my last response, honestly) to whoever posted it:
> 
> ...


That was me. And... seriously? At least two people quoted it. And, from what I see, it says that you last edited that post almost 15 minutes after I quoted you. REGARDLESS, you can't just say "read what I wrote! Don't just make things up!" When we DID read what you wrote. You just went back and changed it. I read exactly what you wrote. And quoted it. Quoted YOUR EXACT WORDS. That I read. It's not "what I want to see" - it's what you actually wrote. Yourself. You.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

CptJack isn't quoting anything said by you, because CptJack is liberal with the ignore feature and has already decided she doesn't believe you contribute anything meaningful to the conversation and aren't worth engaging directly. Sorry. (I noticed because you were quoted and I saw my name, that's it).


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> CptJack isn't quoting anything said by you, because CptJack is liberal with the ignore feature and has already decided she doesn't believe you contribute anything meaningful to the conversation and aren't worth engaging directly. Sorry. (I noticed because you were quoted and I saw my name, that's it).


There's an ignore feature?! Also, I do eventually want the standard rexes for meat/fur - but that's in my ten year plan for when I have a homestead with chickens and goats and mini cows and ducks. And turkey and pigs. And a horse. So I will probably stick with a mini rex for now. They seem to be much easier to find, anyway.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> There's an ignore feature?! Also, I do eventually want the standard rexes for meat/fur - but that's in my ten year plan for when I have a homestead with chickens and goats and mini cows and ducks. And turkey and pigs. And a horse. So I will probably stick with a mini rex for now. They seem to be much easier to find, anyway.


There is! If you click on the name and go to their profile third option down is 'ignore'. It's really good for my blood pressure. 

Also: I FULLY support this ten year plan. That sounds like a dream come true.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


> There is! If you click on the name and go to their profile third option down is 'ignore'. It's really good for my blood pressure.
> 
> Also: I FULLY support this ten year plan. That sounds like a dream come true.


This is life-altering information! And would have saved my blood pressure several times over. lol.

And you would always be welcome to visit. As long as you brought the dogs. Especially Kylie. And Thud. Who I might steal...


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

I adopted Ralphie from a rescue, and they were actually fairly non-restrictive. However, they would have denied us if we had an intact animal, I am sure. We did not have a fence at the time, no kids, no other animals. I didn't feel like they were being overly invasive.

That being said, I don't know if I would do it again. So many unknowns. I have no idea how he's been socialized, who his parents are, or how he might turn out as an adult dog. It's a little nerve wracking sometimes. And it would be awesome to be able to talk to a breeder that knows his/her lines and can perfectly match me to a puppy. Luckily, Ralphie is nearly a perfect fit, but I don't count on that every happening again! I searched for a looooonnnngggg time!

What's with the speutering thing, holy!? Yeah, at the farm we owned both an intact and a neutered male dog. Both of them were sweethearts. The neutered one killed everything that was wildlife in sight, and the intact one just liked to chase cows, but that was his job, lol! When I decided not to neuter the one, I did a lot of research, and I never found anything that indicated neutering/not neutering changed prey drive or aggression. Haven't found anything now. Unpredictable? Um, no. I can predict that an intact male will get excited with a female in heat around, but so does my neutered dog! Being intact does not mean that a normally healthy dog with a stable temperament will just bite out of nowhere! 

If Hiraeth can provide 3 resources by a quick internet search, I would like to see the sources cited in that graduate paper. Typically, there are about 100. I would be very interested to read them.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

If altered dogs have lower prey drive, I'd hate to see what Penny would be like if she were intact . Or maybe it's because she's a Husky mix . 

I admit I think people who want to keep their cat intact should be thoroughly grilled to make sure they know what they're signing up for. But dogs aren't cats.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Even when I was anti-breeder, pro rescue only, and S/N only.. never did I believe that intact dogs were somehow more unpredictable or harder to deal with/more aggressive. Maybe it is because I actually had intact animals growing up since my family couldn't afford to spay until later on in their lives. I guess some rescue people be drilling some crazy ideas into people's heads.

I want to mention something I recently learned that I found interesting. There is a breed specific rescue around here. That breed rescue had recently imported dumped shelter dogs of that breed from another country. There were about 100+ of them. They had over 700 applicants. You won't find those applicants at the local shelter adopting pitties or hound mixes. There is clearly not a shortage of potential adopters.. they are just waiting for the type of dog they want.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Hiraeth said:


> There's definitely a prevalent bias against shelter dogs in a lot of purebred circles. That's not an opinion, that's a statement of fact.


There is some.... But the level of bias and hate speech some the shelter and rescue crowd is at least ten fold of the worst of anything I have seen come from the purebred side...... 

Even the breed specific rescues that are funded by the national breed clubs bash the breeders...... The breeder members of the national breed clubs are funding the rescues, donating time, fostering and NONE of the dogs they bred become part of rescue system get crap from the people in the rescues that exist because of them.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Generally when one person comes in and makes a claim that no one else agrees with, it's on that person to convince the masses, not the other way around. If something is true enough to base a rescue or shelter policy around, there should be ample scientific evidence to back it up, no?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

belka said:


> I've been involved in a few animal-related activities, including rehab; and i have known a few people who were involved in dog and some other animal rescue.
> And having heard and witnessed various situations, I would actually applaud the rescues with strict rules:
> 1) adopting a bunny or any small animal while you have an intact dog is a huge risk. Don't understand why some ppl take it so personally - it has little to do with you and everything to do with dangers that an intact dog may pose to a little bunny. I have personally witnessed tragic situations when small animals were killed by family "pooches" even with fairly responsible owners.
> Even the best dog is still a dog with predator instincts and unless a puppy and a bunny grew up together, no one can guarantee how they will get along and how the dog is going to react to the little animal.
> ...


Belka..... I read EVERY one of your comments on this thread..... And every Response..... TWICE.... I wanted to point out clearly and in no uncertain terms that I READ WHAT YOU SAID..... TWICE.... Before you accuse me like you have with others of not reading what you said.... 

1)


> adopting a bunny or any small animal while you have an intact dog is a huge risk. Don't understand why some ppl take it so personally - it has little to do with you and everything to do with dangers that an intact dog may pose to a little bunny. I have personally witnessed tragic situations when small animals were killed by family "pooches" even with fairly responsible owners.
> Even the best dog is still a dog with predator instincts and unless a puppy and a bunny grew up together, no one can guarantee how they will get along and how the dog is going to react to the little animal.


 Small animals face risks living with dogs.... Intact or altered, it makes NO difference... None... Because prey drive and sexual drive has NOTHING to do with each other..... Unless the rabbit is going to come into heat complete with canine estrogen, progesterone and LH, it matters not if a dog is intact or not... And if the rabbit by divine intervention does begin producing canine hormones, then the dog is going to want to breed her, not eat her. 

You either do not know or have bought into the rhetoric and myth on altering dogs..... Altering does not change prey drive, working drives, territorial drives, etc. etc etc. And UNLESS you have a bitch in heat in close proximity to two or more intact male dogs, altering does not change dog aggression. The caveat to that is the tendency for some altered males to decide it is a good idea to start going after intact males. 


2)


> Dogs (and cats, or bunnies etc. etc.) with their hormones fully working can be unpredictable especially when faced with another animal especially of different species. So it is safer to err on the side of caution than take chances.


Animals are typically not unpredictable.... In fact in majority of cases, animals are QUITE predictable. People just do not pay attention. 

A deer is going to act like a deer, a hog is going to act like a hog, squirrels are going to act like squirrels, etc etc etc etc..... Which is why the majority of hunters tromp around the woods and never see much less shoot any game. While a small number of hunters seem to always be successful in taking game. (there are some variations but it is typical accepted based on game tags and surveys that about 10-15 percent of hunters take about 70-80 percent of game animals.) The difference between the woods stompers and the successful hunters is the successful hunters PAY ATTENTION.... The animals are predictable.... Their habits and behaviors are going to predictable. When the acorns are dropping the deer are going to be in the oak hammocks. When the woods dry out, they are going to be feeding on the green vegetation close to the swamps. When there is a lot of hunting pressure( woods stompers) they go nocturnal, when it gets close to the full moon they are going to feed much of the night and rest in the mornings, get up and feed a little around midday, and then rest again in late afternoon. When the rut is on, the bucks are going to be chasing the does... The does are still going to be feeding.... So if you want the bucks all you have to know is what the does are eating. Go there and the bucks will be in the area. With deer.... And you are running dogs.... You can tell if your dogs are running a buck or a doe/does based on how the dogs are running. Erratic and back and forth... The dogs are on does... If the deer heads straight into the wind and run HARD in a straight line... You better get in front of him fast or he is going to take your dogs out of ear shot... There is a caveat to that as well. If your dogs get on a buck and he is close to where the does in the area are laid up. (Mature Bucks tend to lay up alone, does lay up most often in groups) He is very likely going to head right where those does are laid up and hopefully throw the dogs off on the does. Then he will circle back behind the dogs and slink out of the area..... And people used to wonder why I always liked to walk in behind my dogs.... Because I loved to catch that buck sneaking in behind my dogs. 

I used deer for an example but it works with every animal. IF you live in Florida and it is opening day for ducks but it is still in the 70's in the mid Atlantic states, you might as well watch football. The ducks are not going to be here. But if there is an arctic blast pushing down hard, you need to get your butt in the duck blind. 

If it is a cold morning the squirrels are going to sleep late. No need being in the woods at first light. Wait until about 10 am and the sun gets high... And if it is cold and overcast... Stay home and in bed because that is exactly what the squirrels are going to do. 

There is more variation with dogs... Because they are bred for different purposes and different reasons. 

IF I take a working bred rat terrier to a city park full of squirrels he is going to go nuts after those squirrels (pun intended.) IF I take one of the young ACD bitches I co own and put them out in a pasture with some cattle, goats, sheep whatever... They are going to herd them. It is not going to be pretty because they are green as all get out. But they are going to move the stock, bunch them up, chase them, etc. 

Dogs are going to act like the kind of dogs they are. Purebred or mixed breed, it does not matter. A dog may be such a nondescript mixed breed you can tell little about him. But if you spend just a little bit of time with him, you can easily tell what makes him tick. 

The dog is ALWAYS going to act like a dog.... The only thing that makes a behavior unpredictable is the owner was foolish enough to not expect it. So a dog and a rabbit live together for two years... Then one day the dog goes after the rabbit. That is not unpredictable. Maybe a little surprising he waited two years. Maybe he was biding his time... Waited until he thought you were not paying attention. But a dog is always going to be a dog... He did dog stuff. I have a 39 year old African Grey. He has lived with dogs for 35 years. Hunting dogs, bird dogs, hog catch dogs, herding dogs... Almost every dog he has lived with has had GONZO prey drive. He is still here... Still happy (actually he always seems grumpy to me) heathy and has not had so much as a ruffled feather.... Because of one simple fact.... I know the dogs are going to act like dogs... So I protect the bird.... 

I have cats in my house since 2005. When my wife moved in here with her cats, I had a dog here that was here because she was a confirmed cat killer. Every dog has been in this house since 2005 has been very high prey drive. Not a single issue. Rules protect that cats. When the dogs and cats are out together were have rules... No staring at the cats, no obsessing over the cats, no predatory behavior at all. Because is all cute when sparky the dog is happily chasing fluffy the cat and both are bouncing around, until prey drive kicks in and you have a blood bath.... If the dog is roughhouse playing with the cat and all of a sudden it gets real.... That is not unpredictable......

3) Since your assumptions about intact dogs, prey drive, etc are all so far off and incorrect.... It is fair to say, your other assumptions and observations about animals are likely to be incorrect as well. 


4)


> I've been involved in a few animal-related activities, including rehab; and i have known a few people who were involved in dog and some other animal rescue.





> actually, these claims aren't "anecdotal," but come from years of hands-on experience in animal rehab.





> That is why I openly shared what I learned from my own experience and that of some rehabbers I know openly qualifying myself that this comes from my hands-on experience . Therefore, any reasoning thinking "public" reading my comments can see that it comes from my experience and can form their own opinion. If I posted what I posted claiming that it was a "sure fact" and it was "proven scientifically" without actually providing scientific sources - then that would be a problem. But right now - my comments are not misleading anyone, especially, since I said that there is a possibility, not that it is a certainty. So, no need to worry that somehow I am going to lead the public astray.





> actually I do. IN fact, I wrote a grad. thesis dealing with animals, including dogs (and I keep studying the topic). And in addition to my academic background, I've been involved in wild animal rehab.


When someone comes on a forum, internet discussion, etc. And opens their first post with a vague set of over stated credentials. They are usually attempting to bolster a weak point of view. 

And..... When those vague credentials are expanded further with equally vague additional credentials with each and every new post.... They are trying to use vague and usually non existent credentials to argue a point that multiple people proven incorrect.(People that know enough and are confident enough to not feel the need to state and expand their credentials with every post) 

I really do not get why people try to do this.... Because it never works out for them and with each post their non existent credibility is reduced further....

5)


> actually I do. IN fact, I wrote a grad. thesis dealing with animals, including dogs (and I keep studying the topic). And in addition to my academic background, I've been involved in wild animal rehab.


You wrote a thesis? Great!!! If it was written in the last 20 years it is around somewhere in electronic form. We would LOVE to read it... Post that baby up......


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

it does include the consequences of marketing dog shaming..... for the purpose of the thread always open for discussion 

https://www.dogbreedinginformation.com/dog-supply-crisis/


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

Effisia said:


> And that's absolutely the thing. I've had people tell me both when we got Annabel and again with Beckett that I was killing (murdering!) a shelter dog because I was having a purebred breeder dog "take their place". But that's not the case! There is almost no chance that I would have gotten a shelter dog even if I hadn't gotten these guys. So they weren't taking anyone's place.


I have JUST had this argument with people on a post on FB. The idea that buying a purebred dog from a reputable breeders = killing a shelter dog is just wrong on every level. For one, it means these people think that dogs are just a commodity and any one will do just as well as another. Like "Oh I can't have the Honda Civic. I guess that Toyota Corolla will do just fine." But dogs are NOT interchangeable. Breed traits are different and sometimes knowing their background is important. And in this case, it was a collie (not BCs, Lassie collies) and I remember contemplating collies and rescues and found it hard to find a dog who was not a senior or an older dog with medical issues. Puppies? Almost impossible to find in a shelter or rescue situation.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

crysania said:


> I have JUST had this argument with people on a post on FB. The idea that buying a purebred dog from a reputable breeders = killing a shelter dog is just wrong on every level. For one, it means these people think that dogs are just a commodity and any one will do just as well as another. Like "Oh I can't have the Honda Civic. I guess that Toyota Corolla will do just fine." But dogs are NOT interchangeable. Breed traits are different and sometimes knowing their background is important. And in this case, it was a collie (not BCs, Lassie collies) and I remember contemplating collies and rescues and found it hard to find a dog who was not a senior or an older dog with medical issues. Puppies? Almost impossible to find in a shelter or rescue situation.


This is one of the major problem with the lack of overlap between dog people and rescue people. There are lots of problems with it in practice actually, but this is one that results in the most... hurt, in various directions and the conflict/tension between the two groups. It would ease a lot if people could just understand that a dog is not a dog is not a dog. A cat may more or less be a cat, but dogs vary ENORMOUSLY.


----------



## BradyHound (Aug 5, 2016)

This type of dog owner annoys the snot out of me! 

I've met more than a few of them, but the one that bothered me the most didn't even have to do with my own dogs. I remember an uppity woman at our church, of all places, who used to go off the rails about dog breeding - according to her, just the act of a female dog giving birth constituted cruelty to animals :doh: If your dog wasn't neutered you were automatically irresponsible, and the only place people should get animals was rescues or shelters, and purebred dogs should not exist and were walking health issues. She never addressed the issue that dogs would no longer exist if they were all neutered rescues and breeding was outlawed. 

She also had an adopted niece who got involved in dog showing, then a few years later, bred a litter of show champion, health tested, Jack Russels. The niece really knew her stuff, and was responsible and meticulous about her dogs. Really, an ideal breeder anyone would be hard pressed to find fault with.

We were at a church function about 10 years back, on Christmas Eve, when this woman and her husband started picking the niece apart over her showing/breeding. They basically even resorted to calling her a liar (not in so many words, but strongly insinuated she wasn't telling the truth...) over her doing the initial puppy shots and de-wormings herself, because according to them, you couldn't buy vaccine syringes over the counter. They really eviscerated her over every detail of dog breeding, or just having a purebred in general. She was perpetuating pet "overpopulation", etc. The niece ended up leaving early, and I didn't see her back at church for months.

About two years later, I was talking to the niece, and the topic of dogs came up. She asked me if I remembered the Christmas disaster, then told me the aunt had not only bought some mixed breed "poo" dog from a pet store, it had all sorts of digestive issues, hair loss and was even missing toes. But the aunt, who probably paid top dollar for it, was going around telling everyone she "rescued" this dog. Un.beliveable.


----------



## SnarkHunter66 (Apr 30, 2016)

I must have gone to a 'defective' rescue...  I have an intact dog and a neutered dog, plus cats and horses. We have a couple of acres fenced around the house for the dogs, and they have access to the basement via a dog door since they are out while we're at work. No problem adopting Michaela after we brought the boys to the rescue event (the location also had a couple of fenced areas) to make sure everyone got along.


----------



## crysania (Oct 1, 2010)

SnarkHunter66 said:


> I must have gone to a 'defective' rescue...  I have an intact dog and a neutered dog, plus cats and horses. We have a couple of acres fenced around the house for the dogs, and they have access to the basement via a dog door since they are out while we're at work. No problem adopting Michaela after we brought the boys to the rescue event (the location also had a couple of fenced areas) to make sure everyone got along.


Interesting...I just noticed that the rescue we adopted from does not specify that dogs need to be spayed/neutered. They do ASK if they are but under their list of requirements that is not one of them. They do require fences for most of their dogs (Border Collies, so they need some room to run and work and the like) and they don't allow children under a certain age after having some bad experiences with kids getting nipped and dogs returned early on. But I see nothing about intact dogs.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Reminder that not only is it COMPLETELY off topic, but discussing religion is expressly forbidden by forum rules. I just had to delete a bunch of posts that violated this rule, and I'll be most unhappy if I have to do it again, especially by long-term members who should know better.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Crantastic said:


> Generally when one person comes in and makes a claim that no one else agrees with, it's on that person to convince the masses, not the other way around. If something is true enough to base a rescue or shelter policy around, there should be ample scientific evidence to back it up, no?


Yup, exactly. To be quite honest, it's really disheartening that someone in a (scientific?) graduate program does not understand the concept of burden of proof. To be clear, burden of proof is: if you make a statement, the burden is on YOU to back it up with concrete evidence, not on the people you are debating against to prove your point for you.


----------

