# Would you ever consider becoming a breeder?



## dcl (Oct 10, 2016)

Hi guys:wave:

I found this on another forum and thought it would be interesting to hear your opinions 

Two questions:
1. Would you ever consider becoming a breeder? Why or why not?
2. (Just for fun) If your answer to #1 is yes, what breed? Why?


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I bred a NICE litter of Catahoulas around 1990. I have Co bred three litters of ACDs in the last couple of years.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

I can't say whether I want to now without sounding like an idiot, but HERE I GO FOR FUN

1. Yes, if somewhere in the future I happen to raise and own a great dog and personally want a puppy from her/him, I'd want to have a litter or two. It's a ton of work and knowledge about genetics that goes into it though, how the sire and dam will most likely balance each other out, so we'll see how much I learn and how smart I am in 10 years. LOL

2. let's just say working line GSD: clear of health issues, all-around balanced temperament and versatile working dog, environmental and social stability and clear-headed. Moderate structure and size, strong work ethic and hunt drive, knowing when to work and also comfortable chilling in the house. Preferably working mainly in prey/play in bitework. I prefer dogs more on the social side, less suspicious (not perceiving every other thing as dangerous, but still having some sense on what is actually a threat), so at least being SAFE in public. Happy to work for me and happy to try anything in itself too. This is all super ideal though LOL :s In fact, this is what I'm hoping for in my next dog this year ahaha


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

As much as I love Mastiffs never would do it.

Between showing, working and health testing, then the cost of giant breed litters, then finding the correct homes, would not be a task I personally would want to do.

Anyone breed dog a to dog b, takes a special person to breed to better the breed.


----------



## Wet Beards (Jan 25, 2015)

I could never become a breeder for the same reason I can't foster.
I wouldn't be able to part with the puppies. Seriously. 

About 20 years ago, I took in a collie to foster. (Charlie)
lol After about a week, no way was I giving him up.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

Nope. I don't want that responsibility of finding the perfect dogs, doing the health testing, taking back dogs if people can't keep them...you know, all the things responsible breeders do.


----------



## Kyllobernese (Feb 5, 2008)

In the 1960-70+, we bred and showed Scottish Terriers and Greyhounds so I know all the ups and downs of it and would not do it again but really enjoyed doing it and glad to have had the opportunity.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Yup. Maybe not become a breeder as in have a kennel and lines, but breed a litter under the guidance of a mentor in the breed? Yeah, I could see it. Nextdog will almost definitely be a rare breed, and assuming we have the means - by which I mostly mean a car - to attend shows and trials by then, and a supportive relationship with the breeder? I'd like to see how they do in the ring and/or field and would consider breeding if we get through all the titling and health tests without a hitch. I'll never breed poodles because I can't handle keeping up with all that hair on show cuts, haha. But Lagotto? It's a possibility.

That being said, I'd never want to go into my first litter blind. I'd want someone with some years' experience in the breed backing me up, helping me with lines and type and selecting the most complementary mate for my dog.

Granted, the showing/breeding culture seems more... relaxed? over here, compared to the US. Most dogs are left intact their whole lives, but there's little to no issue with strays (well, dogs. Cats are another story) or overpopulation. In fact, most rescues that I've met are imports from Eastern Europe. People still care about titles and health tests, though, as they should. I'm not sure it's better or worse, exactly (well, fewer dogs in shelters is always good), but it's definitely different.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

1. My male has been bred a couple times, but I didn't raise the litters so I don't consider myself a breeder. I've considered it, but I honestly don't know how I would have time to raise puppies with a full time job. So maybe as a retirement project or something.

2. Welsh springer spaniels are my breed.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

1. If I ever end up with a titled and health tested bitch from nice lines, and I think her offspring would better the breed (both structurally and health-wise), I'd consider breeding under the guidance of a mentor who would help me through the entire process.

I would absolutely NOT be breeding a dog just because I liked the dog's personality and wanted a puppy or two. That's what backyard breeders do, and I do not support backyard breeding.

2. Great Danes.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I would, but I doubt I will. Been there, done that... I know how hard it is, and how time consuming, and how messy, and expensive, and stressful it is... That said, I did buy my girl with the intent to breed her if she proved worthy, and have (had) a breeding contract option. However, the more I delved into the breed (Alapaha Blue Blood Bulldog) and the various registries and all of that, I decided it wasn't for me. Also, I didn't feel that I was in a place in life where I could put forth the effort needed, travel to shows, and I didn't have a really good location for a whelping box and for all the puppies while they grew (this breed has large litters usually) - once I made that decision, I had her spayed just before she turned 2. I knew that none of those issues would resolve themselves within the time frame of her prime breeding age, and we are far too social and active to deal with heat cycles - it's really a PIA.

Technically, she would have been perfect for a breeding program as a foundation for my own kennel - her conformation, temperament, intelligence... it's all there, and very much within breed standard guidelines. I even had a stud in mind, and together I think it could have been a beautiful thing. BUT. There is so much drama and uncertainty in the history and development of this breed, and despite my desire TO IMPROVE THE BREED and to become involved in its standardization and achieving consistency, I really don't want anything to do with that group of people as a whole, until and unless things settle down and there is some cohesion. It's almost a joke right now, which just makes me sad. Because it's a fantastic breed that really deserves to be known and preserved, and I'd love to play a part in it. And there are great breeders with outstanding dogs, but it's simply too divisive and scattered at this point. I still get "Alapa-what?" more often than not, so it's on the line of being considered a "designer" breed though I don't consider it as such, personally (depending on the lines). 

Who knows, maybe in ten or fifteen years things will be different (aside from me just being old, haha). There is a part of me that wants to breed again but mostly I think not. I don't think, at this point anyway, I'd consider a breed other than ABBB.


----------



## jade5280 (Feb 20, 2013)

1. I would breed a dog, but would not want to be the one to find homes for puppies or raise them.

2. I don't have only one breed, but Beira will be bred after her IPO titles (GSD) and sent off to her breeder to raise the puppies when that happens. Panzer (Beauceron) will not be bred unless I get more herding titles on him and if that happens I may consider it if he ends up having really stellar instinct.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I would consider breeding a litter only if I am keeping back a puppy and the female had good health, drive, and structure. I would only breed in the spring/summer and very, very rarely. I just don't have the time to be breeding without intent to keep a puppy.. it is a lot of work and money. I would love to raise a puppy culture litter though. It would be so nice to socialize the way I want from the very start. I also love my breed and would enjoy being part of the preservation of it.

My next planned pup is a show/performance Australian Shepherd. We'll see how that goes.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Only if I could breed for the breed and not for the public......... Don't think in this life time I have the personal niche to achieve that level of knowledge.....


----------



## Jen2010 (Feb 12, 2013)

I wouldn't. For one, I would assume it's pretty much a full-time job and I just don't have the time for that. Second, I don't have the knowledge that it would require. Third, there are so many dogs out there already, why would I want to add to that?


----------



## Sprocket2016 (Feb 14, 2017)

I wouldn't want to either 
I work full time and have 3 dogs I love having 3 of them but they fill my day I can't imagine having a while litter too lol 
Way too much work for me 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Super_Nova (Dec 23, 2016)

I wouldn't want to have a huge breeding kennel. But maybe a litter every couple years. I have considered finding a stud for Nova(for when she is older, of course). She is amazing, good health, great temperament, good drive. Everything I look for in a dog, I 100% believe she would better the breed and my mother agrees(she showed and bred for multiple years).

Eta: If I chose to breed nova I would want to keep a puppy for myself, vs. buying a puppy


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Nope. I have several good breeder friends who do everything right, and some of the stuff that's happened with their pups is heartbreaking. I couldn't handle it... or rather, I _could_, but I really, really do not want to.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Would I ever consider breeding? Yes. I would consider it. But I would need to be in the right position financially, have the time (i.e., be not working), and have a proper support network in place. It's not something that I'd take on lightly, but I have a strong interest in genetics.

My breed of choice would be American Eskimo Dogs. Mainly because I think too many breeders have ignored their temperament. They should be happy, silly dogs who are aloof with strangers but not fearful or aggressive, which unfortunately is not the case right now.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I want to raise a litter someday. Not orphans, preferably! But I would foster a pregnant dog not breed. And probably not while I work full time.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I would consider breeding if I had the proper finances, time, and location. I do not have those, but were I to, yes. Even with the potential for heartbreak.

What would I breed? Smaller sports mixes. (Probably border-rats or border paps, but I'd not be opposed to MAS or shelties crossed with small terriers, poodles, or paps.) With, of course, proper health testing and performance proofing of breeding stock.

If you're making me pick a purebred, uh. Shelties, probably, because it would be a way for me to create what I like.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

You couldn't pay me to be a breeder. The time, energy, research, titling, and money involved... I would rather be training and hiking and stuff 
But I'm glad other people do it with worthy interests in mind! (Next dog is due to come home with me end of March from a stellar breeder, so I am in no way anti-breeder!)


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Canyx said:


> You couldn't pay me to be a breeder. The time, energy, research, titling, and money involved... I would rather be training and hiking and stuff
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still super excited for you about this, you have to update photos and training videos!! I'll watch them all!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm getting regular updates - eyes are open and the little squeakers are toddling around! Fat pink bellies abound <3


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

I see a lot of folks citing all the physical work, time etc associated with raising a litter.... That is the EASY part.... 

The hard part is losing puppies..... IT happens... MORE than most folks think.... Not uncommon for one to be still born.... But that too is easy.... It is the puppies that linger for days... fail to thrive, no matter what steps you take....

That is the HARD part of breeding...


----------



## LennyandRogue (Jun 25, 2016)

My current pipe dream is somehow scrounging up enough money to open a doggy day camp and run it the way I like to see doggy day camps run (well-maintained rotational schedule, pay my staff actual money so we're not drowning in people who have never looked at a dog before). But I kind of have terrible social skills and would probably suck at business. I imagine I'd have a similar problem if I decided to breed dogs. Also I have the opposite of a breed preference. I have a mutt preference. And I know how we all feel about people breeding mixes around here but in this hypothetical situation I'd recreate my Alice dog. Lab/spaniel mix. Lived to be 18. Great with kids, the elderly, escaped hamsters, other dogs, birds, etc..

In reality, I'm probably gonna be an accountant and do neither of those things.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I see a lot of folks citing all the physical work, time etc associated with raising a litter.... That is the EASY part....
> 
> The hard part is losing puppies..... IT happens... MORE than most folks think.... Not uncommon for one to be still born.... But that too is easy.... It is the puppies that linger for days... fail to thrive, no matter what steps you take....
> 
> That is the HARD part of breeding...


that was my job for my mentor was raising the litters to be ready for their new homes at 11-12 wks. most rewarding time ever spent with the GSD's.. I would say the hardest part of breeding is choosing the breeding,, knowing what you want to accomplish not only in the one generation but where the new generation will set you up for the future. So many people get two great dogs developed by other breeders and produce that great first generation.. but they will never be able to draw from the past generations or produce the same quality in future generations beyond what others have done. you really have to be passionate of knowing who they are and what made them and being passionate of where you want your dogs to be in 10 15 years...


----------



## Sandakat (Mar 7, 2015)

Part of Mesa's contract stipulates that if I wanted to breed her I would have to do it in conjunction with the breeder I got her from. So I have a built in mentor. But I really don't want to breed. I saw how much work it was and how much time and effort she put into it. I am not up to doing that.

My breed: Mesa is a Beauceron, my other breed is collies.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I have to agree... losing pups is the worst.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

JohnnyBandit said:


> I see a lot of folks citing all the physical work, time etc associated with raising a litter.... That is the EASY part....
> 
> The hard part is losing puppies..... IT happens... MORE than most folks think.... Not uncommon for one to be still born.... But that too is easy.... It is the puppies that linger for days... fail to thrive, no matter what steps you take....
> 
> That is the HARD part of breeding...


My even bigger worry than losing pups is breeding pups that end up with an awful genetic issue (like epilepsy in Aussies becoming a bigger issue) or accidentally selling to a neglectful home. Working in a vet has helped me deal with a lot of sad things and emergency situations. I would be so much more sad if a puppy lived but could only live half of a life.. whether that be because of abuse or genetic issues.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> or accidentally selling to a neglectful home.


That's a big one, especially if you aren't in a working/sport breed. :s There's just no way to know, unless you constantly ask for follow-ups?

Like king charles spaniels or pekingese, for example. I actually know a family who bought a king charles spaniel from a great-looking breeder, and everything on their application must look amazing. They live in a mansion, they have four kids, they are very wealthy, the mom is at home all day... It ended up that the dog lived 99% of her life in a crate in the garage. She peed/pooped inside the crate and they would just clean it up, no potty training. Because that's what they excused "crate training" as, just living in the crate, and "everyone crate trains, so it's okay" LOL. She only came out to play when the kids wanted to play with her, that was for maybe 20 minutes a day or so. I'd almost consider it animal abuse, and she died at 9 years old.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

It is SO HARD to fathom that people can actually think that way!!! Shameful.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Dogsignalfire said:


> That's a big one, especially if you aren't in a working/sport breed. :s There's just no way to know, unless you constantly ask for follow-ups?


That IS what really good breeders do - ask for regular updates. After all, how do you know what type of dogs your program is producing unless you communicate with your puppy's owners about the dog's temperament and health as an adult?


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Hiraeth said:


> That IS what really good breeders do - ask for regular updates. After all, how do you know what type of dogs your program is producing unless you communicate with your puppy's owners about the dog's temperament and health as an adult?


Oh yeah, I'm aware. I always phrase things off, but for example, there's no way to know how the dog is doing even if you ask for a "normal" follow up on a pet breed. They can just bring the dog outside and take a photo and pretend they're having fun. Unless something happens to make you suspicious and you keep pressing the owners.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

Dogsignalfire said:


> Oh yeah, I'm aware. I always phrase things off, but for example, there's no way to know how the dog is doing even if you ask for a "normal" follow up on a pet breed. They can just bring the dog outside and take a photo and pretend they're having fun. Unless something happens to make you suspicious and you keep pressing the owners.


I suppose. The really good breeders I know require health testing on all dogs sold, so that's a way to know for sure.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> I suppose. The really good breeders I know require health testing on all dogs sold, so that's a way to know for sure.


It's a way to know if the dog is healthy - at the point of testing, maybe. It is not a way to assure that the dog has what they consider a good life. That's just... the reality of it any time you place any animal in another home. You'll know if they do things required - take a class, do certain vet care, post pictures sometimes - but any time the animal leaves your care you have lost control of it. This applies to breeders, rescues, and private rehomes. There is nothing that removes that element, and it's something you're going to have to mentally be okay with if you're going to breed (or work in rescue).


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

A good breeder told me about one of her pups that she sold to a known SHOW home but ended up taking the dog back due to neglect and abuse. The dog was kept in a kennel all day and had serious bruises from being beaten. The poor thing was a mess when she got it back. Xeph on here also had a case where she had to take the dog back due to neglect. Even the best breeders who screen and check up thoroughly run into these situations every once in a rare while.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> It's a way to know if the dog is healthy - at the point of testing, maybe. It is not a way to assure that the dog has what they consider a good life. That's just... the reality of it any time you place any animal in another home. You'll know if they do things required - take a class, do certain vet care, post pictures sometimes - but any time the animal leaves your care you have lost control of it. This applies to breeders, rescues, and private rehomes. There is nothing that removes that element, and it's something you're going to have to mentally be okay with if you're going to breed (or work in rescue).


Oh, most definitely. I guess my initial point was in response to this question: "There's just no way to know, unless you constantly ask for follow-ups?" And the answer is that that's what they (ethical breeders) do - constantly ask for follow-ups and hope people are honest.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> A good breeder told me about one of her pups that she sold to a known SHOW home but ended up taking the dog back due to neglect and abuse. The dog was kept in a kennel all day and had serious bruises from being beaten. The poor thing was a mess when she got it back. Xeph on here also had a case where she had to take the dog back due to neglect. Even the best breeders who screen and check up thoroughly run into these situations every once in a rare while.


My gosh, that sucks!  I can't imagine someone would even go through all the effort of buying from a good breeder and doing the whole screening process, and then neglect/abuse their dog? Even stating the least of reasons.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Honestly, it's not really *hard* to buy from a breeder. In fact, in some ways it's easier than getting a dog from rescue. It's more expensive, but the screening isn't more intensive and even if it were... There is no way to screen what people do in the privacy of their home or to really know how they'll handle situations in life - like a dog who is hard to housebreak, or family stress or... 

And sometimes the answer there, that you can't screen for, is 'take it out on the dog' or 'ignore the dog entirely', unfortunately.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Honestly, it's not really *hard* to buy from a breeder. In fact, in some ways it's easier than getting a dog from rescue. It's more expensive, but the screening isn't more intensive and even if it were...


Omg yeah, definitely nothing easier compared to adopting from certain rescue groups... been there, tried that LOL. :I 

I'd say the only thing hard(??? maybe not right word) about planning a breeder puppy is that you may be in dialogue with the breeder for months, only to have them do a backflip on you and suddenly not want to give you a puppy for whatever reason of their own, or even just that you wanted a female puppy, waited half a year, and there are not enough females, for example. It's just more of a problem with waiting (sometimes for a very long time), and not necessarily making it. That's been my experience so far with a couple.


----------



## 3GSD4IPO (Jun 8, 2016)

1.) YES. If the dog proves itself both physically and temperametally AND passes health tests

2.) German Shepherd (working lines). I would breed if I had a bitch with proper, balanced drives and confidence and was titled. I would breed aale if her were likewise strong enough and the right bitch was available. 

I would breed for police K9, SAR etc. as a way to give back to this working breed what it has given me. 

I have a very good dog now. Spayed her at 3.5 years and continue to work her. She passed all her health tests. She IS good.. but... I spayed.


----------



## AsherLove (Jun 27, 2016)

dcl said:


> Hi guys:wave:
> 
> I found this on another forum and thought it would be interesting to hear your opinions
> 
> ...


My answers in bold


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Hiraeth said:


> 1. If I ever end up with a titled and health tested bitch from nice lines, and I think her offspring would better the breed (both structurally and health-wise), I'd consider breeding under the guidance of a mentor who would help me through the entire process.
> 
> I would absolutely NOT be breeding a dog just because I liked the dog's personality and wanted a puppy or two. That's what backyard breeders do, and I do not support backyard breeding.
> 
> 2. Great Danes.


But that is what many good breeders do, along with titling and showing their dogs, they also breed because they like the dog's temperaments and usually breed to keep at least one pup back.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Dogsignalfire said:


> Omg yeah, definitely nothing easier compared to adopting from certain rescue groups... been there, tried that LOL. :I
> 
> I'd say the only thing hard(??? maybe not right word) about planning a breeder puppy is that you may be in dialogue with the breeder for months, only to have them do a backflip on you and suddenly not want to give you a puppy for whatever reason of their own, or even just that you wanted a female puppy, waited half a year, and there are not enough females, for example. It's just more of a problem with waiting (sometimes for a very long time), and not necessarily making it. That's been my experience so far with a couple.


Yes, so much yes! I had more luck with RARE breed breeders than any rescue I tried to work with, most had INSANE stipulations!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Yes, so much yes! I had more luck with RARE breed breeders than any rescue I tried to work with, most had INSANE stipulations!


Rare breeders are kind of amusing me right now because there is a very 'oh, you're a performance home. YOU WANT THIS DOG/BREED A LOT LET ME GET YOU ONE'. I'm not even close to ready but it's kind of wild.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Yes, so much yes! I had more luck with RARE breed breeders than any rescue I tried to work with, most had INSANE stipulations!


I had a friend who wanted to adopt an adult retired racer greyhound at one point, I helped him apply to multiple rescues, and they had a crazy long adoption process down to judging your family member's personalities LOL. The worst was that I mentioned that he would be getting a doctor's note for an ESA (emotional support dog) on the greyhound, which is actually beneficial to the dog... and he did really need one. We were specifically looking for a calm, easy dog. The rescue person flips out and goes "the dog can't give YOU emotional support!!! THE DOG needs YOU to give them emotional support!!!" and thus he was rejected that way. 

dude bruh I think you totally missed the point of what ESA entails lol


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> But that is what many good breeders do, along with titling and showing their dogs, they also breed because they like the dog's temperaments and usually breed to keep at least one pup back.


Believe what Hiraeth is talking about is having all 3, proven through title/working, sound health testing, and sound temper.

Just looking at one area and using it as a reason to breed is a mistake with giant breeds.
Vet bills can be huge for giant breeds.
Bad temper with giant breeds is also a big issue as they can cause a lot more damage to a human, also controlling one that is reactive is much harder to control.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Rare breeders are kind of amusing me right now because there is a very 'oh, you're a performance home. YOU WANT THIS DOG/BREED A LOT LET ME GET YOU ONE'. I'm not even close to ready but it's kind of wild.


That's what the pumi people did when I reached out to them, and they found out I was a working / performance home, they were like "dude you NEED one!". I talked with the breeder that I got Dio from on the phone, flew to NY to get him and the rest is history! 

It's like that because rare breed breeders and owners are eager to get their dogs out there in the spotlight and noticed and whatnot.

BTW you need a pumi, like ... totally 



Dogsignalfire said:


> I had a friend who wanted to adopt an adult retired racer greyhound at one point, I helped him apply to multiple rescues, and they had a crazy long adoption process down to judging your family member's personalities LOL. The worst was that I mentioned that he would be getting a doctor's note for an ESA (emotional support dog) on the greyhound, which is actually beneficial to the dog... and he did really need one. We were specifically looking for a calm, easy dog. The rescue person flips out and goes "the dog can't give YOU emotional support!!! THE DOG needs YOU to give them emotional support!!!" and thus he was rejected that way.
> 
> dude bruh I think you totally missed the point of what ESA entails lol


OMG right??? I looked at OTT grey rescue and was treated the same way  I also was rejected by collie rescue because according to them, I "didnt have enough vet history" like ... okay??? so my dogs are TOO healthy??? LOL.



MastiffGuy said:


> Believe what Hiraeth is talking about is having all 3, proven through title/working, sound health testing, and sound temper.
> 
> Just looking at one area and using it as a reason to breed is a mistake with giant breeds.
> Vet bills can be huge for giant breeds.
> Bad temper with giant breeds is also a big issue as they can cause a lot more damage to a human, also controlling one that is reactive is much harder to control.


Ahhh okay ... I forget with giant breeds it's often a little different.


----------



## SnarkHunter66 (Apr 30, 2016)

Don't have the time, money or knowledge to do it right, so, no.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I waited 14 years to do it. I am on litter three (first in 20 months). This litter, while nothing like some of my friends who have had true disasters, has been exceptionally hard for me.
I lost a puppy at a day old. Suspected internal issue. She was in respiratory distress and I rushed her into my bedroom and tipped her over a towel. Fluid poured out of her mouth and nose. Smelled like sewage. I sucked some of that crap into my mouth trying to clear her airway. 

I worked on her for thirty or forty minutes, but I couldn't save her. A day old puppy died in my hands. It was my first loss of a live puppy. Stillborns are immaterial to me emotionally, though they do still get names. But losing a live puppy? An attachment has already formed. That's hard. 

After I lost Izumi, her sister Winry started fading. She was nursing, but was unsuccessful (weight before and after nursing was the same). I ended up running all over town getting ingredients for a special formula as well as grabbing syringes and needles and lactated ringers. We ended up taking a trip to the vet because she needed to be tube fed and I didn't know how (I do now). Lucky okay, after about a day and a half worth of intervention, Winry righted herself. She is still small, but she nursed aggressively and slides all over the box without issue. If I pick her up she gets mad and starts looking for food.

So Winry is doing well, which means another puppy must present with an issue. Olivier has something going on with her eye. There's naught but a pin point of her eye open yet, so I'm having to use warm cotton ball compresses to draw out the gross while I wait for the vet to open. 

Sleep is not a thing that has been happening. 

This kind of thing makes me not want to breed again. But I can't imagine not having any more squeakers.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

I felt your pain reading FB, Xeph and now all over again, here.
I hope things get better.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ONLY working line dogs with well known histories/family trees. Never pets, I volunteer at two shelters and it would kill me if I had to look at a dog and think "this dog could have been adopted by that family, had I not sold them a puppy".


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> it would kill me if I had to look at a dog and think "this dog could have been adopted by that family, had I not sold them a puppy".


Faulty logic. This assumes such a family would even be interested in a shelter/rescue dog


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Yeah. Not to turn this into a breeder vs. rescue debate, but when I got my papillon, a dog around that size (which I needed) was absolutely not available anywhere near my area (small dogs of any breed get snapped up here immediately). When I got my second dog, I wanted a very specific breed, and if I hadn't been able to get one I wouldn't have added a second dog at all. Absolutely zero shelter or rescue dogs died or lost out on a good home because I went with reputable breeders.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Xeph said:


> Faulty logic. This assumes such a family would even be interested in a shelter/rescue dog


Several times over.

I promise you, when I'm looking into breeders, it's because I'm getting a dog from a breeder, period and the end. I am not going to rescue a dog in that scenario. There is no dog in a rescue not going home with me because I am going to a breeder. Because if I am going to a breeder I DO NOT WANT A SHELTER DOG and WILL NOT get one.

I can give you reasons for that and spend time justifying but honestly? Naaaah. Because the reasons might make you think I'm a better or worse person but the fact remains: I want what I want and I'm getting what I want and I'm not taking a dog I don't.


----------



## AsherLove (Jun 27, 2016)

Xeph said:


> Faulty logic. This assumes such a family would even be interested in a shelter/rescue dog


Ya I don't think I will ever get a rescue dog. I know what I'm looking for when I get a dog and getting from a reputable breeder that breeds for what I want is how I get what I want. Nothing wrong with people that choose rescues, but it's not where I choose to get my dogs.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Even if someone was just looking for a pet: if knowing genetics (health, breed, and temperament) is important to them, they may want and need a breeder dog. There is nothing at all wrong with that.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I mean, honestly, 60% of my dogs right now are rescues, to 2 breeder dogs and. 

I don't love the rescues less; my 'heart dog' is a rescue. My biggest pain in the ass was one of the breeder dogs, and it took me 2 years to bond with her. 

I don't think rescue dogs are temperamental wrecks or breeder dogs are a sure thing. One of my breeder dogs is on prozac thanks to crippling fear issues. One of the rescues is the most stable dog I have EVER met, without so much as a quirk beyond 'doesn't like other large males in his house'. None of the rescues has serious issues (neither does the other breeder dog, mind). 

I don't think rescues necessarily come with a ton of health issues while responsibly bred dogs have none. I spent north of 2K on one of the breeder dogs in the past month (and spent most of it within 3 weeks). We will have at least one more appointment. OTOH, one of my rescue dogs has also had a metric ton of health issues and money dumped into him over time. 

The simple fact of the matter is, I own them for different reasons. I own the rescues - yeah, even the light of my life Kylie - because they needed a home and I could give them one. I own the intentionally bred dogs because I wanted that breed of dog, at that time and the people who had that were breeders. If I am going to a breeder I either way health testing and titles on both end, or a really cheap price tag that doesn't put money in the breeders pocket to encourage practices I don't support. 

Next Dog is coming from a breeder. Why? Because I will have ONE spot in my house for a dog, and I want what I want and while I'm not sure of particular breed yet, I do know that I want an 8 week old puppy, between 12 and 20" tall, with known parents, with medium high to high energy, good handler focus, and biddability. That comes from an indoor home, raised by someone who has given all appropriate vet care to the puppy, and exposed it to a wide variety of things - and I want it late spring/summer of 2020. 

Do I *need* that? No. Does anyone need a dog? Service and working dogs aside, no. But it's what I WANT and since it's my money and life it's what I'm going to get. If that comes up in a foster home at the right time (and it's possible, I know, but unlikely) we'll talk. - Odds are that particular puppy isn't in any danger of being put down and I'm sure my autistic son is going to create issues for rescues adopting to me, but we'll talk. 

IF, once I have what I want in a dog and I have time and space and money to add another, one comes along who needs a home I'll give it. 

But right now I know what I want, very precisely, and I'm not taking a dog I don't want!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Same CptJack, I was open to the idea of adoption till the day I put my deposit in for my purebred pup. But the right pool of timing plus traits did not align. And, assuming everything I've read and heard about my breeder is true, I will be getting exactly what I want.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

There are certainly pros/cons either way. I completely expected to get a shelter dog on this last one, but... fell in love with a breed and went for it. Not sorry. I'm sure there will be other times in my life where a shelter/rescue dog will find its way to my heart though.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Xeph said:


> Faulty logic. This assumes such a family would even be interested in a shelter/rescue dog


It's supply and demand, less supply of pets from breeders more people go to shelters. Adding to that supply only works against finding shelter dogs homes.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> It's supply and demand, less supply of pets from breeders more people go to shelters. Adding to that supply only works against finding shelter dogs homes.


Nah. Breeders having waiting lists. People willingly sign up and wait 1, 2, 5 or more years to get the dog they want because the demand for their puppies (those particular ones) outstrips the supply - by a lot - even in common breeds. In rare ones it's even more tilted toward more demand than supply. People who are waiting 3 years to get a dog from a specific breeder, line, or even breed with the less common ones are not going to hike down tot he shelter because they're impatient. Backyard breeders, sure, are sometimes impulses, but the good ones? Not even close. 

And let me repeat for me and lots and lots of other people it is not 'I want A dog, I'll take what's in supply' it's "I want THIS KIND OF DOG or I don't want a dog at all". And that applies to probably 80% of people seeking out breeders. Seeking out as opposed to 'litter posted on craigslist'.

And seriously, you know how long I would have to wait to find the precise dog I would take home in a shelter? A long, long time. Crazy long. Because supply of the specific dog I want, especially in rescue, is much lower than demand. Do you know how likely that is to make me take home a lab, pit, or large hound mix (of which there are many available all the time)? 

It's not. It's not happening. Not now, not ever. I do not want those dogs. They are easy to acquire, but I would sincerely own NO dog before I owned one. I'd stick with cats and reptiles because I would find life with such a dog unpleasant. Which does the dog no favors, either.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I suppose I don't understand why, with a pet, it would have to look a certain way. My last shelter dog was a therapy dog, he wasn't beautiful but he, like most shelter dogs, had a wonderful temperament. I'm just not vain when it comes to animals. Not to mention most breeds I am interested in are working breeds, and I simply do not agree with deluding a dogs heritage to produce a beautiful pet. Besides that, most breeders have no idea what the OFA is, if those breeders did not exist then actual reputable breeders would be the only option for a purebred puppy, and many people aren't willing to pay 2k for a puppy, despite it being worth it due to the quality of the puppy (as far as health, anyway.)-


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You're assuming looks is down to pretty - and I never said a thing about pretty. I said I need a dog of X size. That's a consideration for practical reasons, like physical control, transportation, insurance or rental agreements. There's also considerations with not being able to be mistaken for banned breeds in areas with breed bans, travel, moving, and insurance and rental agreements (again). The ability to physically groom a dog based on, again size, and also coat type. Allergies or being able to handle more or less shedding - there's a lot of stuff in there that goes under appearance that isn't vanity - though frankly wanting to have a dog you consider pretty (or at least don't consider ugly) isn't something I have an issue with.

And no one here is talking about breeding two untested dogs for the sake of making puppies.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

op2:op2:op2:op2: * I'm just not vain when it comes to animals*op2:op2:op2:

so what does that mean to the OP question ? lol


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

PatriciafromCO said:


> op2:op2:op2:op2: * I'm just not vain when it comes to animals*op2:op2:op2:
> 
> so what does that mean to the OP question ? lol


My original comment was a response to the OP, if you read, things kind of turned a different way when people opposed adoption.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...And the reason I said no to lab, large hound, and pit mixes has nothing to do with not liking the way they *look*. I am not a good fit for the *dogs themselves*. I don't like independence, baying irritates me, pits are problematic with travel and areas we travel to and a tendency toward DA (and I am a multi-dog home), and I don't do well with exuberant/extroverted dog personalities. I have a SIZE cut off because I need to downgrade the size of my vehicle, I'm aging so physical control is an issue, and my back + grooming a large dog at home is not a good combination. I COULD (and do with current large guy) pay to have it done, but I can also AVOID that entirely by, you guessed it, having size requirements.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> It's supply and demand, less supply of pets from breeders more people go to shelters. Adding to that supply only works against finding shelter dogs homes.


This is untrue. And sounds an awful lot like 'adopt, don't shop' propaganda. 

I will echo what Cpt Jack said - backyard breeders might sometimes actively work against shelter dogs finding homes. But ethical breeders with massive waiting lists? No way would someone way 'well, I can't get a puppy from this multi-titled purebred dog who is descended from generations of tested and healthy dogs, so I'm going to go to the shelter to get one instead!'

I've owned rescue dogs (and troubled dogs at that) for a decade and a half. And when my heart dog passed, I decided that I didn't want my next dog to be a nearly unknown quantity. I wanted a dog from lines with solid temperaments who were health tested. I didn't want to have to work through massive behavioral issues (not all rescue dogs have behavioral issues, I've just had bad luck). I wanted to minimize the risk of surprises. And so I got a breeder dog. And he's exactly what I bargained for - bomb proof, healthy (so far), wonderfully tempered, well-socialized and has never been abused.

It all depends on what people want and what risks they are and aren't willing to accept. Shelter puppies are a HUGE risk. It's hard to identify breed, eventual size, personality, exercise requirements, etc. in a puppy with unknown parentage. Breeder puppies are less of a risk. Known parents, estimated eventual size, probable temperament, likely exercise requirements, etc.

So if someone wants a particular dog for a particular task, most likely a shelter dog isn't going to meet their timeline, or their requirements. If someone wants a dog for sport, or obedience, or conformation showing, a shelter dog is far less likely to fit the mold. Or if someone wants a particular breed of dog - how long should they wait for an adult to become available in a shelter? Particularly if someone wants a giant breed dog - many of them are there because they grew too large for their family, or are too expensive, or the family had to move, etc. But a giant dog with behavioral issues is a safety risk, both for the owner and for the general public. I *always* point "average dog owning" people who want giant breeds towards ethical breeders, or breeder rehomes. Homes that are equipped to handle a 120+ lb animal with a troubled past and little training are few and far between, which is why I don't suggest people buy from backyard breeders (obviously) or rescues/shelters.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> You're assuming looks is down to pretty - and I never said a thing about pretty. I said I need a dog of X size. That's a consideration for practical reasons, like physical control, transportation, insurance or rental agreements. There's also considerations with not being able to be mistaken for banned breeds in areas with breed bans, travel, moving, and insurance and rental agreements (again). The ability to physically groom a dog based on, again size, and also coat type. Allergies or being able to handle more or less shedding - there's a lot of stuff in there that goes under appearance that isn't vanity - though frankly wanting to have a dog you consider pretty (or at least don't consider ugly) isn't something I have an issue with.
> 
> And no one here is talking about breeding two untested dogs for the sake of making puppies.


Don't forget food and medical costs which can vary HUGELY due to size.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> ...And the reason I said no to lab, large hound, and pit mixes has nothing to do with not liking the way they *look*. I am not a good fit for the *dogs themselves*. I don't like independence, baying irritates me, pits are problematic with travel and areas we travel to and a tendency toward DA (and I am a multi-dog home), and I don't do well with exuberant/extroverted dog personalities.


Breed does not depict personality, especially in shelter dogs. My dog's personality is very far from the stereotypical GSD. I know people who raise hounds who have never had one that bays, some do some don't. The last 2 Pits/pit mixes I had were very laid back, and due to the APBT medium compact size they were great for travel. With how deluded breeds are, especially in the world of pets, breed doesn't depict anything other than appearance/physical traits. I foster until I find the perfect fit, I can help dogs and in the process find my own perfect dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Don't forget food and medical costs which can vary HUGELY due to size.


Yeah, also that. Medication is usually charged on size. Under 25lbs is as cheap as it gets. Also food costs. And toy cost. And equipment costs (crates, collars, etc) go up with size. 

...also is someone here opposed to adoption as opposed to saying that people going to breeders for a puppy does not mean a rescue puppy died?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, also that. Medication is usually charged on size. Under 25lbs is as cheap as it gets. Also food costs. And toy cost. And equipment costs (crates, collars, etc) go up with size.
> 
> ...also is someone here opposed to adoption as opposed to saying that people going to breeders for a puppy does not mean a rescue puppy died?


We don't even have kill shelters in our area so... no, shelter dogs don't die because people decided a purebred from a responsible breeder was a better fit for them/their situation.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Breed does not depict personality, especially in shelter dogs. My dog's personality is very far from the stereotypical GSD. I know people who raise hounds who have never had one that bays, some do some don't. The last 2 Pits/pit mixes I had were very laid back, and due to the APBT medium compact size they were great for travel. With how deluded breeds are, especially in the world of pets, breed doesn't depict anything other than appearance/physical traits. I foster until I find the perfect fit, I can help dogs and in the process find my own perfect dog.


Yeah, I did rescue for a decade. Board of directors and everything. I am aware. 

However, when dealing with a puppy or young dog or dog ina shelter, you've got to go on apparent breed because the dogs are shut down, stressed out, and/or young and have yet to develop their personalities. Dog in a foster home < 6 weeks or a private rehome are more accurate. 

But breed traits are still breed traits for a reason, and I'm still confident in saying 'most labs, pits and the larger hounds are not dogs I want to own'. Because they're not. In fact I can think of maybe 1 of all 3 combined I'd want to live with. Out of all those years in rescue and all the dogs I know through dog sports. ONE.

Being unable to foster (and just plain being disinterested in it) for various reasons at the moment, that's not a gamble I'm taking with a dog I'm going to have to live with for the rest of it's life.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Look, the reality is this:

Dogs are ultimately luxuries. No one has to have them. Some people want them. Some people have the flexibility to own any dog, barring major, major issues and enjoy it. Some have specific wants. 

Someone who has specific wants going to a breeder to get a puppy isn't somehow morally objectionable, whether they want it for sports, meaningful work, or a family companion. Someone going to a rescue and taking the next dog to be euthed isn't, either. The caveat in the first is you don't pay someone for breeding practices you don't condone, and the caveat to the second is you actually be able to give the dog the home it *needs*, rather than _a_ home where the fit might be crap. 

End of day, it's a situation where the best outcome possible is that the person and dog be happy and that means a decent fit and the person having what they want. 

And quite aside from everything else, there are ultimately very personal decisions that no one else really gets a vote in, and 'what kind of dog and whether you rescued or not' is is. The offense here isn't to the idea of rescue it's to the idea that people who breed puppies are taking homes away from shelter and rescue animals. Ie: There's something wrong with people who want a dog from a breeder instead of a rescue, and they're doing a Bad Thing. 

Short of puppy mills and actively bad breeders - no, no they are not. And the 'bad thing' there is fiscally supporting a terrible industry, not taking a home away from a rescue.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> Breed does not depict personality, especially in shelter dogs. My dog's personality is very far from the stereotypical GSD. I know people who raise hounds who have never had one that bays, some do some don't. The last 2 Pits/pit mixes I had were very laid back, and due to the APBT medium compact size they were great for travel. With how deluded breeds are, especially in the world of pets, breed doesn't depict anything other than appearance/physical traits. I foster until I find the perfect fit, I can help dogs and in the process find my own perfect dog.


Which is great for you. It fits your needs. And it is part of why I personally wouldn't be a breeder because my chosen type of dog is pit bull type and in that case, there ARE so many and if I wanted to raise a litter, I could have a pregnant momma dog pulled from a shelter within hours of making a couple calls. 

I'm not looking to devote the time and money it takes to breed well and I'm certainly not willing to breed if I wasn't going about it carefully.

However, breed DOES goes hand in hand with a huge number of traits including personality when it is a carefully bred litter from a breeder who tracks the physical and personality traits for multiple generations, tracks the half-siblings, the grandparents, etc. 

A breeder producing working dogs is going to have dogs that are more suited to "pet" homes and there are "pet" homes that are more suited to "working" dogs. A litter doesn't mean ONLY one or the other (work vs pet). Pet homes can do competition sports, search and rescue volunteer, hunting sports etc. Even just intensive exercise like long distance running may mean someone prefers to wait for a carefully bred dog with a low risk of joint problems that they can neuter after maturity for example. 

And by the way, I really don't think ANY breeds of dogs are deluded....


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I can be supportive of adoption without spewing propaganda. Sue me, I disagree. I'm speaking from my own experience and I answered the thread. I simply wouldn't scoff at a shelter dog simply because it might not be pretty. As I said, I disagree with deluding breeds to the point of being pets, and most breeds had a utility purpose. If I want a pet I will go to a shelter, if I want a working dog I will go to a breeder.

Most breeders have no idea what the OFA, TTS or any sort of certs even are, though. Many people buying from breeders will pay a petty $800 for a puppy they have no idea the history even to the great grandparents are, much less having good OFA scores 3 generations back.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Did anyone actually say they wouldn't get a shelter dog because they weren't pretty?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Oh my god, I missed the diluted (deluded) part. 

So. Okay. We're now assuming that aside from appearances my BC and my Boston are basically the same dog? They just look different.

This is HYSTERICAL. 

No. 

You're wrong.

That isn't how it works.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> Did anyone actually say they wouldn't get a shelter dog because they weren't pretty?


Oh, no. They just said appearance is basically the only difference in dogs not bred for work specifically. Which means I can go get a byb walker hound and it'll act exactly the same as a byb border collie. 

That's totally how it works!


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

I'm getting a shepherd from working lines to be an active pet from, it seems, one of the most reputable and highly regarded breeders in this country.
I also currently have a shelter dog who is phenomenal. I also work full time in a shelter. 

The world is not as black and white as you see it.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> I can be supportive of adoption without spewing propaganda. Sue me, I disagree. I'm speaking from my own experience and I answered the thread. I simply wouldn't scoff at a shelter dog simply because it might not be pretty. As I said, I disagree with *deluding* breeds to the point of being pets, and most breeds had a utility purpose. If I want a pet I will go to a shelter, if I want a working dog I will go to a breeder.
> 
> Most breeders have no idea what the OFA, TTS or any sort of certs even are, though. Many people buying from breeders will pay a petty $800 for a puppy they have no idea the history even to the great grandparents are, much less having good OFA scores 3 generations back.


Sorry, I HAVE to say this: 
de·lude
dəˈlo͞od/
verb
past tense: deluded; past participle: deluded
impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool.
"too many theorists have deluded the public"
synonyms:	mislead, deceive, fool, take in, trick, dupe, hoodwink, gull, lead on

Ok, that said....
Where in the world are you thinking anyone here is scoffing at shelter dogs in general and particularly, scoffing at them because they might not be "pretty"??

I love my pitties but they are a royal pain in the butt to travel with, insure, rent homes and more due to BSL. I own my house and I don't travel much with the dogs so pit bull suits me well. Hypothetically though, lets say that I frequently moved and I rented in different cities along the way. I wanted an energy level and personality like a pit bull but I would need a dog that is proven NOT to be a pittie in any way and does not look like one. I might seek out a breeder in order to match some very specific traits.

NO ONE here is arguing for picking a breeder who doesn't know what orthopedic tests should be done is a good idea. Only that GOOD breeders serve a purpose and people buying from GOOD breeders are not the problem for shelter overpopulation.



CptJack said:


> Oh, no. They just said appearance is basically the only difference in dogs not bred for work specifically. Which means I can go get a byb walker hound and it'll act exactly the same as a byb border collie.
> 
> That's totally how it works!


Genetics, how about that?


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I responded with MY opinion, to the OP. I get a pet for one reason, companionship. Shelter dogs come in all shapes and sizes and temperaments, fully vet checked and when getting an adult dog you're never guessing on the personality, you get what you see. They suit me, I don't see the issue with encouraging adoption over buying from breeders. When you volunteer for a few years and know that 90% of the dogs you meet in 'rescues' will be killed in the next 3 weeks it changes your perspective on things. I realize dogs have to die to accommodate for the over population, doesn't make it easier.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> I love my pitties but they are a royal pain in the butt to travel with, insure, rent homes and more due to BSL.



Can I take this opportunity and go on the record as saying that I love Pits/Pit-mixes, and that not wanting to own one doesn't mean I think they're ugly and hate them?

And that I think my two breeder dogs are the ugliest dogs in the house but I got them anyway because they were the right breed and right individuals for me? And I love them a lot?


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I made a spelling error, I am sure most of you are familiar with auto correct. Perhaps more familiar with it than the term diluted.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> Can I take this opportunity and go on the record as saying that I love Pits/Pit-mixes, and that not wanting to own one doesn't mean I think they're ugly and hate them?
> 
> And that I think my two breeder dogs are the ugliest dogs in the house but I got them anyway because they were the right breed and right individuals for me?


Duly noted for the record 

I mean, I happen to think Eva and Chester are very good looking dogs that check the boxes of both appearance and personality; but I also think Weimaraners for example are great looking dogs who would drive me insane.



DracoGSD said:


> I responded with MY opinion, to the OP. I get a pet for one reason, companionship. Shelter dogs come in all shapes and sizes and temperaments, fully vet checked and when getting an adult dog you're never guessing on the personality, you get what you see. They suit me, I don't see the issue with encouraging adoption over buying from breeders. When you volunteer for a few years and know that 90% of the dogs you meet in 'rescues' will be killed in the next 3 weeks it changes your perspective on things. I realize dogs have to die to accommodate for the over population, doesn't make it easier.


And that being your opinion is a perfectly good reason for you not to become a breeder.

But it doesn't mean that your opinion is universally true about shelters, about the needs of "pet" homes, nor even about how the overpopulation comes about (and, I might say, it can be less overpopulation per se and rather an imbalance in the types of dogs being produced and the desires of the public in what they want in a dog).

Fully vet checked just means the dog doesn't have any contagious disease or obvious injury at the moment it is checked by the shelter vet. Which works just fine for most people (including me) but if for example, you want a dog to do serious distance running with then a dog that has unknown hips and knees from parents with unknown joints who has had a pediatric spay/neuter like many shelter dogs, you _might_ prefer to hedge your bets and seek out a dog with multiple generations of healthy lines and from a breed with lower risks of problems and wait till maturity to neuter to decrease your risks of your running buddy going lame at 5 years old.


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

DracoGSD said:


> I don't see the issue with encouraging adoption over buying from breeders. When you volunteer for a few years and know that 90% of the dogs you meet in 'rescues' will be killed in the next 3 weeks it changes your perspective on things. I realize dogs have to die to accommodate for the over population, doesn't make it easier.


No one is arguing with any of this. Your opinion is your opinion. What we are disagreeing with are false statements such as these:



DracoGSD said:


> ... it would kill me if I had to look at a dog and think "this dog could have been adopted by that family, had I not sold them a puppy".





DracoGSD said:


> It's supply and demand, less supply of pets from breeders more people go to shelters. Adding to that supply only works against finding shelter dogs homes.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> I responded with MY opinion, to the OP. I get a pet for one reason, companionship. Shelter dogs come in all shapes and sizes and temperaments, fully vet checked and when getting an adult dog you're never guessing on the personality, you get what you see. They suit me, I don't see the issue with encouraging adoption over buying from breeders. When you volunteer for a few years and know that 90% of the dogs you meet in 'rescues' will be killed in the next 3 weeks it changes your perspective on things. I realize dogs have to die to accommodate for the over population, doesn't make it easier.


Hey, sup. I've been volunteering in a shelter for several years now, and I disagree with you. Shell and Canyx and Cpt Jack also have extensive experience in the shelter/rescue end of things and still disagree with you.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> Duly noted for the record
> 
> I mean, I happen to think Eva and Chester are very good looking dogs that check the boxes of both appearance and personality; but I also think Weimaraners for example are great looking dogs who would drive me insane.


My next door neighbors have this tiny little girl pit that I would kidnap in a heartbeat. she is the. sweetest. thing. She's happy and effusive and wiggly and maybe 15" tall (but probably more like 13) and she likes to play and -

I'd still give her back when I was done playing because she's, you know, pretty dog selective and I don't want to risk crate and rotate, and because my home owners insurance would hate it and travel would be hard and also because she's the biggest bubbly extrovert ever and that's great short term but makes me tired long term. 

BUT I LOVE THAT DOG.



ireth0 said:


> Hey, sup. I've been volunteering in a shelter for several years now, and I disagree with you. Shell and Canyx and Cpt Jack also have extensive experience in the shelter/rescue end of things and still disagree with you.


Yeah, literally every person disagreeing is someone who is actively or has previously done rescue. That should be telling.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Wow.... Why search for things to be offended about and fabricating stories to imply I said you all think Pit Bulls/shelter dogs are hideous and you hate them? Never said that and don't think that.

I adopted because there were no breeders in my area for the breed I was looking for. I'm against BYBs, and my take on reputable breeders is ones that breed as closely to the original working form as possible and within breed standard. jmo. Running does not stimulate the mental capacity of most working breeds.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

If you read my original comment again you will realize it was referring to my thoughts, and it is what I will think, therefor not false. Tell me more about how I should think, though.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

It does change perspective, mine changed from "i only want purebreds" to "I want to adopt", yours went the other way. Changed.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Even pet bred versions of breeds still have many traits of the "original" working breed. Many reasons herding breeds are surrendered? They are quirky, weird, snippy, barky, and.. well.. herdy. You can water a Border Collie down but at the end of the day even the most show bred versions of Border Collies still have Border Collie quirks. I mean.. I worked in rescue too.. I still work in DOGS and I disagree that breed traits are not a thing. Yeah you can get an off dog.. but it is not common with someone breeding with purpose. 

When I was looking for a herding breed mix PUPPY to rescue.. I watched petfinder and local rehomes every day. I visited my local shelters and they had NOTHING but Pit mixes (most with a big WATCH sign on them).. the occasional random unidentifiable mix or hound. Very rarely do puppies come around and when they do they are either Pit mixes or something I really didn't want. The only places that ever had herding breed mix puppies spayed and neutered them at 8 weeks old. That is necessary for the general public I guess.. but I refuse to adopt a puppy already spayed due to risk of inverted vulva, spay incontinence and mostly importantly proper growth in a dog I plan to do high impact dog sports with. I had no luck finding what I wanted and I had kept my eye out for a year. I ended up with another dog from a breeder. I don't regret it because I learned SO much about how heavily GENETICS impact how a dog will behave. 

If there were no dogs available from breeders.. me and a bunch of other people would be fighting over the same small pool of herding and sporting mixed breeds that were left. A few more pits might get adopted.. but maybe not even. I guess I could maybe, maybe MAYBE find the right Pit type mix if I absolutely HAD to. I really, really don't mesh with them. BUT if the shelter was filled with Old English Bulldogs instead.. I would have to import a dog from another country because you couldn't pay me to own one.

Even regular non sport homes have their reasons for getting breeds they want. Some can only have certain coat types. Some can only have certain sizes. Why should I force someone who would be super happy with a Toy Poodle to get a Beagle just because someone else was irresponsible?


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Again, completely supportive of WL breeders, assuming all screening is done. I may not see the POINT in breeding pets, but I only desire for BYB's to be diminished, as was stated before. Even WL breeders will produce a couple of not working quality dogs. I feel like some of you are picking apart my words and not looking at the whole picture.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> Wow.... Why search for things to be offended about and fabricating stories to imply I said you all think Pit Bulls/shelter dogs are hideous and you hate them? Never said that and don't think that.
> 
> I adopted because there were no breeders in my area for the breed I was looking for. I'm against BYBs, and my take on reputable breeders is ones that breed as closely to the original working form as possible and within breed standard. jmo. Running does not stimulate the mental capacity of most working breeds.


What huh? I think you might be missing something in this back-and-forth as far as what people are actually saying and meaning. Not sure what, maybe its that most of us know the backstories of each others dogs so we're not taking things out of context in each others words?

Mental stimulation can come from different activities. No, running doesn't stimulate the mind much but why must it? I'm using running as an example of a physical trait (joy of running, stamina) plus a health question (wanting to hedge bets towards strong joints) that a "pet" home of a dedicated distance runner might want in their companion. Nothing says that a long run cannot be combined with nose work to work the mind for example. 

Not all breeds were originally breed to work anyways. But even for those working breeds, there will be dogs who are better suited to "pet" homes and there are "pet" homes who enjoy using those working traits for sports or activities. 

Is a dog that goes bird hunting with his owner on the weekends during the hunting season a working dog? Or is he a pet dog because the rest of the year he just hikes and swims with his owner and does "pet" dog thing?

Is a dog who does Shutzhund for fun a working dog or a pet dog?



DracoGSD said:


> Again, completely supportive of WL breeders, assuming all screening is done. I may not see the POINT in breeding pets, but I only desire for BYB's to be diminished, as was stated before. Even WL breeders will produce a couple of not working quality dogs. I feel like some of you are picking apart my words and not looking at the whole picture.


Okay, so hypothetically there are only working line breeders in existence. Working dogs (lets use AKC groups for example) tends to mean dogs from the Working group, herding group and maybe some hounds and terriers. So where do people who want Toy breeds go? Or those who want the traits of a water retriever because they have a lake house and want to swim and play fetch at the lake? Or the hound traits of scent tracking because they want to do nose work or teach the dog to hunt sheds? 

Someone who wants a small breed dog to live with in their apartment with a 25 lb weight limit is going to have a hard time around here finding a puppy in a shelter. Because a responsible owner doesn't adopt a puppy of a breed/type that 6 months later is going to outweigh their limit or turn out looking like a banned breed. 

On the flip side, someone like me who does not want to raise a puppy, has no housing restrictions and does like the types of dogs readily available in shelters here has a nice plethora of options.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't think anyone is "searching" for things by which to take offense. It seems that people are simply taking a small issue with the tone of judgment towards people that choose to go to a breeder FOR A PET. Nothing wrong with that... I don't care if you want a pet, a working dog, a stud, whatever... Feel free to go to a breeder. Feel free to adopt. Whatever floats your boat. But I disagree that if you want a dog solely as a pet that you shouldn't go to a breeder if you want. And I disagree that going to a breeder negatively affects the lives of shelter dogs - that is definitely a media bias. I have experience in rescue, both personally and because one of my close friends is the shelter director in our town, so I do have a little bit of insight as do many people here. Most breeders I know ARE ethical, and breed to improve, not to dilute. Of COURSE there are "bad" breeders out there, but that's not what we're talking about here. Many breeds have the option to get a field line or show line... I wouldn't necessarily consider that the show lines shouldn't be bred because they aren't working toward their original purpose. Breeds evolve, as do the reasons why people want those particular breeds - including things like aesthetics. I'm not gonna lie... I fell in love with the breed I have now initially because of their look. DH introduced the breed to me because he met some and fell in love with their personality/temperament. What is wrong with wanting a dog because they happen to be stunningly gorgeous? Or because you like the goofy antics and high intelligence? It should go without saying that health should be a priority, but there is no reason to waive any "cosmetic" preferences if you don't want to.

People's reasons are their own, and whichever route you choose, as long as you have the intent of raising a confident, happy, and healthy dog then... who cares how you got there?

In any case, to go back on topic, the more I think on it the more I realize I have no desire to enter back in the world of breeding and would instead rather develop relationships with existing breeders if I ever want a specific dog again.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

PPDs are not pets, no, and once trained in Sch they are NOT suitable for pet lifestyle. Once you teach a dog that biting is OK there is a lot more that goes into it, for the rest of that dogs life. It takes a very specific kind of dogs for Sch or French ring. I consider game bred dogs WL, personally. It is a job, yes.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> Again, completely supportive of WL breeders, assuming all screening is done. I may not see the POINT in breeding pets, but I only desire for BYB's to be diminished, as was stated before. Even WL breeders will produce a couple of not working quality dogs. I feel like some of you are picking apart my words and not looking at the whole picture.


I think there is a misconception here that ALL breeders who breed with "pet dog" in mind are BYBs. Yes, most responsible breeders show/work/title their dogs. But not all do... and that doesn't by default make them a BYB. If a breeder has a dog from great lines, knows their pedigree, does all of the requisite health testing, offers pre and post purchase support, contracts, etc.... does that make them a BYB? I think not. I do understand the definition of a BYB may change based on perspective, but I don't agree that a breeder who doesn't focus on WORKING line dogs is automatically a BYB.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are not pets, no, and once trained in Sch they are NOT suitable for pet lifestyle. Once you teach a dog that biting is OK there is a lot more that goes into it, for the rest of that dogs life. It takes a very specific kind of dogs for Sch or French ring. I consider game bred dogs WL, personally. It is a job, yes.


That's weird. There are several members on this board who have PETS who also participate in Shutzhund. As far as I know, the dogs haven't maimed anyone yet. 

You're making blanket statements and generalizations that are just wildly inaccurate, which is what we're all responding to. And you're only digging the hole further. Chalk me up as yet another person who has actively worked and volunteered in rescue who thinks that people buying from ethical breeders has absolutely nothing to do with the shelter population or with shelter dogs not finding homes.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I stated my standards on BYBs, you stated yours, not really much more to it. Judging my tone over text is going to be a vague tell of my perception. Not really valid, in the end. I stated my opinion, my opinion isn't wrong, it's just my opinion. Not everyone has to think alike.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Something to think about: potential breeders beware. This thread, particularly the last few pages, is a great example of the types of conversations you'll have with people if you choose to breed. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about breeding in general, and if you desire to become a breeder, you have to have the mental stamina and fortitude to defend your position; you also have to have a very clear idea of your purpose, and what your ultimate goals would be, and you need to be able to articulate that. If you don't have a purpose, or you don't know what your desired end game is, then you don't need to be breeding dogs.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are not pets, no, and once trained in Sch they are NOT suitable for pet lifestyle. Once you teach a dog that biting is OK there is a lot more that goes into it, for the rest of that dogs life. It takes a very specific kind of dogs for Sch or French ring. I consider game bred dogs WL, personally. It is a job, yes.


OK, part of the confusion here may be that we appear to have different definition of "pet"---

To me, "pet" is any dog that is not being used for a literal, day to day JOB. This includes dogs who do sports like IPO, flyball, hunting with their owners, nose work, weight pull, recreational herding, and of course, just being a companion and going on walks and hikes and playing fetch. 

A working dog is just that, a dog whose purpose is to provide a day to day service. Police, military, service/mobility dogs, stock herding dogs, PPD and guard dogs and similar.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

PPDs are working dogs, not SERVICE dogs, there is a difference. PPDs may legally be pets, but they are still working dogs.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> I stated my standards on BYBs, you stated yours, not really much more to it. Judging my tone over text is going to be a vague tell of my perception. Not really valid, in the end. I stated my opinion, my opinion isn't wrong, it's just my opinion. Not everyone has to think alike.


Opinions can absolutely be wrong. And yours is.

You can have the opinion that the world is flat. And all of the people who know it isn't aren't going to sit back and say 'oh, well if that's your opinion, it must be right!'


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are working dogs, not SERVICE dogs, there is a difference. PPDs may legally be pets, but they are still working dogs.


Um, first, where did I say PPDs are service dogs? A day to day service does not mean "service" (as in providing a medically needed service) dog. Secondly, IPO is a sport. There are plenty of people who title IPO dogs who do not use them a personal protection dogs.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are working dogs, not SERVICE dogs, there is a difference. PPDs may legally be pets, but they are still working dogs.


Uh... that's what she said:



> A working dog is just that, a dog whose purpose is to provide a day to day service. Police, military, service/mobility dogs, stock herding dogs, PPD and guard dogs and similar.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I did not say anyone said PPDs are service dogs  wtf? This is getting really off topic, does that really matter? I would only buy and breed WL dogs, our standards of qualification do not really matter.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> OK, part of the confusion here may be that we appear to have different definition of "pet"---
> 
> To me, "pet" is any dog that is not being used for a literal, day to day JOB. This includes dogs who do sports like IPO, flyball, hunting with their owners, nose work, weight pull, recreational herding, and of course, just being a companion and going on walks and hikes and playing fetch.
> 
> A working dog is just that, a dog whose purpose is to provide a day to day service. Police, military, service/mobility dogs, stock herding dogs, PPD and guard dogs and similar.


Agreed. 

Dog sports are not working dogs. I do several dog sports, some intensively and some very casually. The most intensive, at most, takes up about 4-5 hours a week of training. That less than an hour a day, y'all. That isn't work. It is also, while I love it very much HIGHLY optional. I also know MANY people in IPO and none - event he nationally ranked dog/handler - use their dog for actual, real life, protection work. It's, you guessed it, a recreational activity.

That said, it's a big part of my life and you can bet your butt I will pick a dog who can do that with me. And because I have no intention of quitting if a given dog I have doesn't like it, has a health issue/structrual issue, or a temperament issue (nor will I force the dog to particulate), I will be - Yep, going to someone who breeds to produce dogs who are less likely to have those issues.

Also in before "Any pet dog can do sports". No. They can't.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

TGKvr said:


> Uh... that's what she said:


Yes, PPDs are not service, they are working, I concurred.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

FWIW, I think this is an interesting discussion because it highlights different thought processes that people have in their approach to various "types" of dogs (not breeds). I actually tend to agree that there are no wrong opinions; that said, some opinions may simply be based on false information and as such may be misguided. Anyone has a right to feel what they feel, and it's our right here to try and persuade people why that is. Semantics can get in the way of lots of things, though. Obviously.

People define things differently, and that's OK, but when there are universally accepted definitions then it's a lot harder to sway people to seeing your side if it goes against a universally accepted truth.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

TGKvr said:


> FWIW, I think this is an interesting discussion because it highlights different thought processes that people have in their approach to various "types" of dogs (not breeds). I actually tend to agree that there are no wrong opinions; that said, some opinions may simply be based on false information and as such may be misguided. Anyone has a right to feel what they feel, and it's our right here to try and persuade people why that is. Semantics can get in the way of lots of things, though. Obviously.
> 
> People define things differently, and that's OK, but when there are universally accepted definitions then it's a lot harder to sway people to seeing your side if it goes against a universally accepted truth.


what is the universally accepted truth in this thread i seem to disagree with? I never disagreed that some people are simply set on breeders, that's true. But I work hard to rehome dogs, if I put the effort into the people I would hypothetically sell puppies to, a few shelter dogs could have potentially have found homes. I talk to at least one person a week at the park who is looking for another dog, breeders are easy access, but when talking about what they are looking for I can direct them to a dog in the shelter that I am familiar with and feel they would be interested in. I might see 1/10 of them actually follow up at the shelter, but that's something to me, and a person who was turned away from easy access breeders.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I can be supportive of adoption without spewing propaganda. Sue me, I disagree. I'm speaking from my own experience and I answered the thread. I simply wouldn't scoff at a shelter dog simply because it might not be pretty. As I said, I disagree with deluding breeds to the point of being pets, and most breeds had a utility purpose. If I want a pet I will go to a shelter, if I want a working dog I will go to a breeder.
> 
> Most breeders have no idea what the OFA, TTS or any sort of certs even are, though. Many people buying from breeders will pay a petty $800 for a puppy they have no idea the history even to the great grandparents are, much less having good OFA scores 3 generations back.


This isn't about "most" breeders. This is about knowledgable, and responsible people considering whether they'd contribute to the continuation of their breed. We're not talking about breeders who close their eyes, point randomly, and breed those two dogs because they're cute or because they need to make a quick buck. This is about people who are aware of the enormous amount of time, effort, money, and heart to do deciding (or not) if it is something they are interested in pursuing.

Honestly, the problems you're talking about are as much buyer problems. People want what they want, and a lot of them don't want to wait for it, and yes that is a problem. But people also don't know what they don't know, and simply saying "no one should ever breed" isn't going to 1) make buyers more aware of what it takes to produce a healthy, sound dog, and 2) isn't going to result in production of more healthy, sound dogs. If there were MORE responsible breeders, more people breeding for temperament and health first and money last, more people willing to take responsibility for a puppy for it's entire life, there would be fewer pups in shelters. You know why? There would be fewer puppies with problems and also a back-up to care for those puppies if/when the original home could or would not.

Maybe I'm selfish, but my motivation for considering breeding (which I won't be in any position to do for at least a decade, likely two or three) is to stop dogs from my breed from ending up in the shelter. Because I know there is a demand for them, and because the breeders for that breed in my area are producing temperamentally unstable dogs with poor conformation. The people who want that breed of dog - which only occasionally shows up in the shelter - are going to go out and get it, except all of the places to get them around here suck. I don't see how attempting to replace the supply of unsound dogs with stable, healthy ones is a bad thing.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

TGKvr said:


> FWIW, I think this is an interesting discussion because it highlights different thought processes that people have in their approach to various "types" of dogs (not breeds). I actually tend to agree that there are no wrong opinions; that said, some opinions may simply be based on false information and as such may be misguided. Anyone has a right to feel what they feel, and it's our right here to try and persuade people why that is. Semantics can get in the way of lots of things, though. Obviously.
> 
> People define things differently, and that's OK, but when there are universally accepted definitions then it's a lot harder to sway people to seeing your side if it goes against a universally accepted truth.


Agreed completely. I don't have problems with people having different definitions of breeding, or whatever is 'working', or even whatever they think qualifies someone as a reputable breeder.

The opinion that breeder dogs are actively taking homes away from shelter dogs and therefore causing shelter dogs to be euthanized is the statement here that I have a BIG problem with. Because it's inaccurate and intended to make anyone with a breeder dog feel directly responsible for the deaths of dogs in shelters, and to me, it's not an acceptable thing to say (without quantifiable evidence that it is a fact and not an opinion).


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> what is the universally accepted truth in this thread i seem to disagree with? I never disagreed that some people are simply set on breeders, that's true. But I work hard to rehome dogs, if I put the effort into the people I would hypothetically sell puppies to, a few shelter dogs could have potentially have found homes. I talk to at least one person a week at the park who is looking for another dog, breeders are easy access, but when talking about what they are looking for I can direct them to a dog in the shelter that I am familiar with and feel they would be interested in. I might see 1/10 of them actually follow up at the shelter, but that's something to me, and a person who was turned away from easy access breeders.


Just because they -can- get a dog from a shelter, doesn't mean they should or would, and it doesn't mean that the dogs available in a shelter are appropriate for their family and wants/needs. 

That is what people are disagreeing with.

Also what Hiraeth said above. Getting a dog from a responsible breeder isn't killing a dog in a shelter.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

^^ yes, what they said.

I think it's fantastic you are actively working to re-home dogs that sadly end up in shelters. I just don't think that it has anything to do with responsible breeding, which was the point of this thread in the first place. Adoption and breeding are two completely different aspects and have far less to do with one another than the general public believes.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Breeders are actively taking homes away from shelter dogs, as a whole, but reputable breeders specifically do not. As I stated before, most breeders don't have a clue what the OFA or TTS even are though. Most breeders ARE BYBs. You're using the general term 'breeder', there are many types.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I don't want a shelter dog. 

It's really that simple. You can point me to them all day long, I don't want one. A private rehome, *some* rescue dogs from particular rescues (very particular ones where I have no issue with either the screening process of the dogs or screening o the adopters) , okay but I do. not. want. a shelter dog.

I don't know how to make this more plain to you. 

I do not want a puppy of unknown background who may grow to who knows what size or with what issues (health wise).

I do not want a puppy who has not been vaccinated from a public space/uncontrolled and dog heavy area. 

I do not want an adult dog at all. I want to do my own foundations training. I also want a dog who has been health tested themselves or comes from health tested dogs. 

I especially do not want want an adult dog I have to evaluate under stress. 

I am not going to get one. 

Lack of breeders will not make me get one. 

Lack of breeders means I will go to a private rehome or, lacking availability of what I want there, *not own a dog*. 

No shelter dog is dying regardless of where my next dog comes from - rehome, rescue, breeder, whatever - because I AM NOT GETTING A DOG FROM A SHELTER. PERIOD. I really do not know how to be more plain.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> You're using the general term 'breeder', there are many types.


Actually we both specifically said "reputable breeder".


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> Just because they -can- get a dog from a shelter, doesn't mean they should or would, and it doesn't mean that the dogs available in a shelter are appropriate for their family and wants/needs.
> 
> That is what people are disagreeing with.
> 
> Also what Hiraeth said above. Getting a dog from a responsible breeder isn't killing a dog in a shelter.


I agree, that's why I said a FEW COULD have POTENTIALLY found homes. I do not believe buying a dog from a breeder is killing a dog, it simply isn't saving a dog.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I agree, that's why I said a FEW COULD have POTENTIALLY found homes. I do not believe buying a dog from a breeder is killing a dog, it simply isn't saving a dog.


And sometimes the goal is to save a dog. 

And sometimes the goal is actually to have a dog that is what you want. 

Sometimes they overlap. 

Sometimes they don't.

When they do, awesome.

When they don't - that's okay.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> Actually we both specifically said "reputable breeder".


Except not the person I was referring to 



Hiraeth said:


> The opinion that breeder dogs are actively taking homes away from shelter dogs and therefore causing shelter dogs to be euthanized is the statement here that I have a BIG problem with.


BREEDER dogs, instead of Reputable breeder, or reputably bred dogs.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

For the purpose of THIS thread, we are only discussing responsible breeders. And maybe it's just the people I know, or the level of involvement I've had with dogs over the years, but I have been fortunate enough that "MOST" breeders I know of ARE ethical, do health testing, are incredibly knowledgeable about genetics and health risks, etc. BYB situations were never even part of this discussion until you brought it up. And... it's hard to just let that sit out there without rebuttal, since the majority of people here on this forum tend to think of "breeder" as one type: ethical, responsible, and with a purpose.

Perhaps there would be less dogs in shelters if these kinds of discussions took place in the general public. Many BYBs have no idea that we'd classify them as a BYB and not a breeder... As with so many things, education is key. I think having open and honest discussions (outside of dog-centric forums) about the POSITIVE impacts of responsible breeding would go a long way toward making people think twice about mating two dogs just to get some cute pups. It's the responsibility of people like us, who DO see the benefits, and DO have an understanding of what "ethical" means, to explain and educate people about it and mitigate the breeder bashing and overall negativity surrounding it.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> Breeders are actively taking homes away from shelter dogs, as a whole, but reputable breeders specifically do not. As I stated before, most breeders don't have a clue what the OFA or TTS even are though. Most breeders ARE BYBs. You're using the general term 'breeder', there are many types.


Yeah, we've specified that we're discussing reputable breeders here multiple times. NONE of us are okay with people patronizing backyard breeders (whatever our own definitions of backyard breeders may be).

If most breeders you talk to don't know what OFAs are, you're talking to the wrong group of breeders, and basing your generalizations on the worst breeders, and not the best ones. Most breeders I talk to absolutely know what OFAs are, and I am fairly active in multiple purebred communities and speak to breeders on a very frequent basis.

ETA: If you're going to go through our posts and pick up the times we didn't put 'reputable' or 'ethical' before the word breeder and try to use that to indicate that we're discussing all breeders... Well, that's pretty silly. Especially from someone who used the word 'deluded' instead of 'diluted' to talk about dog breeds a few pages ago.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> I agree, that's why I said a FEW COULD have POTENTIALLY found homes. I do not believe buying a dog from a breeder is killing a dog, it simply isn't saving a dog.


Sure, it isn't saving a dog.

But it also isn't inherently taking the home of a dog in a shelter. It's not preventing that dog from being saved.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

I'm not even sure "byb" are taking away homes from shelter dogs as much as you think. People are still actively seeking out a breed or type.. and don't want what is in the shelter. Now.. they are going the wrong way about it and very badly informed.. but I still don't think the people who just bought the Bichon wanted the ******* or Pit mix from the shelter. 

In fact.. our shelters would be nearly empty or emptied very quickly if it wasn't for Pit type dogs. Many of these types of dogs around here aren't even from true "byb". They are often from low income areas that don't have their dogs fixed.. or really uneducated people that really just. breed a litter or two because maybe money and puppies would be fun.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> And sometimes the goal is to save a dog.
> 
> And sometimes the goal is actually to have a dog that is what you want.
> 
> ...


And I am not disagreeing with that, hence my wording.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> And I am not disagreeing with that, hence my wording.


This wording: 



> "It's supply and demand, less supply of pets from breeders more people go to shelters. Adding to that supply only works against finding shelter dogs homes."


And this statement: 



> "And sometimes the goal is to save a dog.
> 
> And sometimes the goal is actually to have a dog that is what you want.
> 
> ...



Are directly contradictory to one another.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> In fact.. our shelters would be nearly empty or emptied very quickly if it wasn't for Pit type dogs. Many of these types of dogs around here aren't even from true "byb". They are often from low income areas that don't have their dogs fixed.. or really uneducated people that really just. breed a litter or two because maybe money and puppies would be fun.


Yeah, here too. Most dogs in our shelter - and I just looked - are pit-xs, and some lab-xs and coonhounds. The hounds tend to be bred for hunting with 'left over puppies' (like teen-18 month olds) who either didn't get sold or didn't hunt as well as wanted, the pit-xs tend to just 'happen'. Same with the lab-xs. Almost all are medium to large dogs with short, heavily shedding, coats. 

Even someone buying that toy poodle off craigslist isn't going to find it in a shelter. Or even, at least locally, a local rescue. 

There is an oversupply of DOGS, but it's dogs of a very particular type in a lot of areas.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, here too. Most dogs in our shelter - and I just looked - are pit-xs, and some lab-xs and coonhounds. The hounds tend to be bred for hunting with 'left over puppies', the pit-xs tend to just 'happen'. Same with the lab-xs. Almost all are medium to large dogs with short, heavily shedding, coats.
> 
> Even someone buying that toy poodle off craigslist isn't going to find it in a shelter. Or even, at least locally, a local rescue.
> 
> There is an oversupply of DOGS, but it's dogs of a very particular type in a lot of areas.


Absolutely. I actually tried to rescue a Dane before I took in Zephyr. I actively searched for a suitable companion for Titan from a rescue who would adopt to me for months on end. Nada. 

The supply of shelter dogs that is available does not completely meet the demand of the kinds of dogs the general public wants.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

The other thing I see a lot of in at least my local shelter is that dogs who are DA and need to go to only dog homes. Or homes without cats, because of prey-drive. Or homes who can crate and rotate. Or homes without kids.

So it's a shortage of SPECIFIC homes, too. Not just 'homes'.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Many BYB dogs end up in shelters. They don't always TAKE AWAY potential owners, but the result is the same, homeless dogs. I couldn't live with myself if I found out a dog I was responsible for bringing into the world was euthanized in a shelter. Once you sell a dog you don't have power over it, despite the contract reputable breeders use, things happen to those pups you may not want to happen. I would feel responsible, whether it was the dog I produced or the dog that could have gone that family I sold my puppy to.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Many BYB dogs end up in shelters. They don't always TAKE AWAY potential owners, but the result is the same, homeless dogs. I couldn't live with myself if I found out a dog I was responsible for bringing into the world was euthanized in a shelter. Once you sell a dog you don't have power over it, despite the contract reputable breeders use, things happen to those pups you may not want to happen. I would feel responsible, whether it was the dog I produced or the dog that could have gone that family I sold my puppy to.


But responsibly bred dogs *don't* end up in shelters.... And it's really easy to prevent via not just contract but *microchip with the dog's breeders info* as well as the dog's owner. Shelter calls to say 'we have your dog', responsible breeder takes dog back and rehomes. Boom, done. (I've done it more than once working in a rescue, I've seen my oldest dog's breeder take dogs back).

And the family you, as a responsible breeder sold to, probably isn't finding what they want in a shelter, anyway. Which is that whole previous discussion.

I mean by all means if you don't want to breed don't, but stop making it about issues that aren't.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are working dogs, not SERVICE dogs, there is a difference. PPDs may legally be pets, but they are still working dogs.





DracoGSD said:


> I did not say anyone said PPDs are service dogs  wtf? This is getting really off topic, does that really matter? I would only buy and breed WL dogs, our standards of qualification do not really matter.


Your first quote above appeared to come across as a direct response to my list of what I consider working dogs in a way that made it seem like you thought I said PPDs were service dogs (due to the capitals on SERVICE and telling me that there is a difference...). 

Hence my response that by "day to day service" being my defining line for a working dog _rather than being from working lines_ I was including both working line dogs doing jobs and non-working line dogs doing jobs such as service dog. 

Honestly, I think more reputable breeders is a key to reducing both shelter populations AND backyard breeding. Reputable breeders can supply the demand for specific types of dogs like small breed companions for example while also reducing the number of dogs ending up in shelters due to behavioral or health problems and of course, taking the responsibility for life of each dog they produce should be buyer not be able to care for the dog for whatever reason.

The other part of saving shelter dogs is not having them end up there to begin with. That's why I said it isn't purely a question of over-population (simply too many dogs for the human population to accommodate) but a mix of issues that cause owner surrenders. A group I know has statistically significantly reduced shelter intakes from one part of town by providing a variety of service to help owners who have fallen on hard times, who are having behavioral problems with their dogs, or who want but cannot afford spay/neuter.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> This wording:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't see how, the statement is that they sometimes overlap, and the overlapping is where my comment is applicable.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> But responsibly bred dogs *don't* end up in shelters.... And it's really easy to prevent via not just contract but *microchip with the dog's breeders info* as well as the dog's owner. Shelter calls to say 'we have your dog', responsible breeder takes dog back and rehomes. Boom, done. (I've done it more than once working in the shelter, I've seen my oldest dog's breeder take dogs back).
> 
> And the family you, as a responsible breeder sold to, probably isn't finding what they want in a shelter, anyway. Which is that whole previous discussion.
> 
> I mean by all means if you don't want to breed don't, but stop making it about issues that aren't.


That is not actually legal, and I have seen people try to do that but rescues and shelters cannot comply. Not to mention the error scanners get over double readings.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> Many BYB dogs end up in shelters. They don't always TAKE AWAY potential owners, but the result is the same, homeless dogs. I couldn't live with myself if I found out a dog I was responsible for bringing into the world was euthanized in a shelter. Once you sell a dog you don't have power over it, despite the contract reputable breeders use, things happen to those pups you may not want to happen. I would feel responsible, whether it was the dog I produced or the dog that could have gone that family I sold my puppy to.





CptJack said:


> But responsibly bred dogs *don't* end up in shelters.... And it's really easy to prevent via not just contract but *microchip with the dog's breeders info* as well as the dog's owner. Shelter calls to say 'we have your dog', responsible breeder takes dog back and rehomes. Boom, done. (I've done it more than once working in the shelter, I've seen my oldest dog's breeder take dogs back).
> 
> And the family you, as a responsible breeder sold to, probably isn't finding what they want in a shelter, anyway. Which is that whole previous discussion.
> 
> I mean by all means if you don't want to breed don't, but stop making it about issues that aren't.


CptJack's response is spot on. Reputably bred dogs don't end up in shelters. I've seen multiple dogs returned to breeders from shelters, or removed from homes by breeders who do not find the conditions the dog is being kept in acceptable. Jackie (GSD breeder on this board), received one of her pups back that way. 

I get the feeling that the ONLY breeders you know are the horrible ones. And you're blanket judging most breeders by this standard.



DracoGSD said:


> That is not actually legal, and I have seen people try to do that but rescues and shelters cannot comply. Not to mention the error scanners get over double readings.


You are very horribly misinformed and DELUDED about what ethical breeding entails.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

DracoGSD said:


> Many BYB dogs end up in shelters. They don't always TAKE AWAY potential owners, but the result is the same, homeless dogs. I couldn't live with myself if I found out a dog I was responsible for bringing into the world was euthanized in a shelter. Once you sell a dog you don't have power over it, despite the contract reputable breeders use, things happen to those pups you may not want to happen. I would feel responsible, whether it was the dog I produced or the dog that could have gone that family I sold my puppy to.


As long as the dog is of decent temperament, health and not overly old.. anything appearing Purebred or designery gets adopted here in a second. Or pulled by a breed specific rescue that will let nobody but the most fenciest, childless, yearly vaccineest homes in the world adopt it. 

People will line up for those dogs. Why is that there can be over 700+ applications for 100 imported rescue Golden Retrievers from Turkey but you don't see those same people who did not get a dog at their local shelter? It is because they will wait.. and wait.. and wait for the dog that they want. No homes were lost for the other dogs left over in the shelter.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

As I said, I am not against reputable breeders, and I have seen reputable breeders unable to get their pup back due to legalities of ownership.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

...There is room for more than one contact on a microchip - it gives you a single number, you input it into a database, it comes back with all info. And breeders absolutely can and legally do have their info *as well as the owners* on the same microchip, with leaving it there as part of the contract. That's how they work. There is no double reading. There is no double number.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> As long as the dog is of decent temperament, health and not overly old.. anything appearing Purebred or designery gets adopted here in a second. *Or pulled by a breed specific rescue that will let nobody but the most fenciest, childless, yearly vaccineest homes in the world adopt it. *


The bolded part made me laugh out loud. You forgot to include 'intact dogless'


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Hiraeth said:


> The bolded part made me laugh out loud. You forgot to include 'intact dogless'


Not sure how I forgot that! Probably because I don't have one yet to make shelters hate me more.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> The bolded part made me laugh out loud. You forgot to include 'intact dogless'


Yeah. 

None of my dogs are intact now, but 'got neutered at 8 and 3' tends to turn them off. 'Haven't been in for vaccinations in 3 years' doesn't make anyone happy, either. Vaccinate yearly, alter before 6 months, have a fenced yard, don't have kids. Especially don't have an autistic kid. 

Meanwhile the land that isn't fenced, the classes, the competitions, and the OTHER vet care, the lack of actual breeding are irrelevant. Except to breeders who FLING their dogs at me and our dog care methods synch up better and because I can (and will) get titles on their dogs and that's a good thing.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Microchipping with both breeder contact and owner contact doesn't necessarily mean putting in two chips (thus no double readings)... just make a secondary contact. Besides, a lot of dogs ending up in shelters are owner surrenders. Owner surrenders dog, shelter scans dog, discovers there is a breeder contact, owner surrenders have no stray hold so the dog can be released to the breeder.



> My rescue organization wants to remain as the primary contact for this pet. Can I add the new adopter as a secondary contact instead of transferring the pet registration?
> 
> Yes. When you transfer the pet registration, you have the option to remain as the Secondary Contact. However, you also have the option to stay on the pet's record as a pet's Primary Permanent Rescue Contact. This way, if the pet is lost, both you and the new adopter will be notified when a lost pet is found.


https://www.freepetchipregistry.com/faqs/


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> ...There is room for more than one contact on a microchip - it gives you a single number, you input it into a database, it comes back with all info. And breeders absolutely can and legally do have their info *as well as the owners* on the same microchip, with leaving it there as part of the contract. That's how they work. There is no double reading. There is no double number.


I've seen the other side of this, there are a dozen other ways around it and legalities behind it you're not aware of, at least not in my state.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Actually those are all valid points. Sometimes adopting from a rescue is much more difficult than simply establishing a relationship with a <reputable> breeder. Many of them have this arbitrary list of qualifications, where a breeder will actually evaluate potential quality of life far more readily.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I mean, if you're not qualified to own a dogs it's just that, you are not qualified. Breeders can be a way around that, but that's a whole other can of worms.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

TGKvr said:


> Actually those are all valid points. Sometimes adopting from a rescue is much more difficult than simply establishing a relationship with a <reputable> breeder. Many of them have this arbitrary list of qualifications, where a breeder will actually evaluate potential quality of life far more readily.


Yep, and in fairness it makes sense because they're dealing with much lower volume and communication usually starts before the puppies are on the ground, or even conceived. They have a puppy application, but they also have time to really evaluate the PERSON. Rescues and shelters don't have that, and they're *also*, god forgive me, not the most up to date on various things like training methods, diet, or health care. Breeders (Reputable ones) tend to be.

But it does mean 'I will have an easier time getting a dog from a breeder (reputable) than a rescue organization' and I still have no desire to try to get a dog from an open intake shelter. I don't trust my ability to evaluate, I don't trust their ability to evaluate, in a highly stressful environment. I also don't like the contagious disease risk.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I mean, if you're not qualified to own a dogs it's just that, you are not qualified. Breeders can be a way around that, but that's a whole other can of worms.


Yes. I am not qualified to own a dog. Except, you know, I clearly am. Saying otherwise - especially of others - is just inflammatory bullcrap.

My AGILITY instructor got turned down by a rescue because she keeps animals intact until beyond 2 and titers instead of vaccinates annually. I mean wtf. "Not qualified' my butt.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Yeah and don't get me wrong, I'm not saying shelters are in the wrong for having such strict adoption policies. Sheer volume alone means you simply can't give each pet placement your full and undivided attention. But it IS a reason why some people go to a breeder instead - I know of several folks who were turned down by shelters that ended up buying from a breeder. These people are not unqualified to be pet owners, and are in fact wonderful parents to their fur babies. But they didn't meet the shelter's requirements. Stories like that are not uncommon.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Not sure how I forgot that! Probably because I don't have one yet to make shelters hate me more.


Oh, just wait.

I feel like owning intact dogs is the #1 cardinal sin for most rescues. Because my dogs are intact, I must directly contribute to the homeless dog population, right? And my dogs are out of control and aggressive 24/7 because their testosterone-fueled brains can't handle basic obedience if there's an in heat bitch within four states of my location. 



CptJack said:


> Yeah.
> 
> None of my dogs are in tact now, but 'got neutered at 8 and 3' tends to turn them off. 'Haven't been in for vaccinations in 3 years' doesn't make anyone happy, either. Vaccinate yearly, alter before 6 months, have a fenced yard, don't have kids. Especially don't have an autistic kid.
> 
> Meanwhile the land that isn't fenced, the classes, the competitions, and the OTHER vet care, the lack of actual breeding are irrelevant. Except to breeders who FLING their dogs at me and our dog care methods synch up better and because I can get titles on their dogs and that's a good thing.


My yard also isn't fenced. I like to take my dogs festivals and places where there are loads of children. No cats, at least. I'm very vaccine-light (puppy vaccines, 3 year rabies as required by law). Oh, and I forgot, I work full time *to afford my dogs*, so being gone for 8 or more hours a day is a big no-no for a lot of places. 

Basically, most shelters/rescues won't touch my applications with a ten foot pole. Even though my dogs are trained (or at least, they get daily training ), exercised daily, provided incredible amounts of toys to destroy, fed high quality kibble and insured.

So I patronize breeders not only because I want my dogs (who weigh more than me when they're full grown) to have a fairly predictably calm adult temperament, but also because I have no choice but to patronize breeders because I'm not a candidate most shelters would even remotely consider.

And I also feel like people who breed responsibly deserve the patronage they receive from people like me and their other buyers. Reputable breeders have *really* tough jobs. Losing puppies is awful. Seeing your puppies go to homes and hoping they have wonderful lives must be beyond tough. And I feel like the dog community should actively support the people who go about producing puppies in a conscientious and ethical manner, because if we don't, *all we'll be left with is people who are breeding irresponsibly*.



DracoGSD said:


> I mean, if you're not qualified to own a dogs it's just that, you are not qualified. Breeders can be a way around that, but that's a whole other can of worms.


Yeah, read above. I'm certainly not denied by rescues because I'm unqualified to own dogs. And to imply as much is pretty insulting. Great introduction you've made for yourself on this forum.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

TGKvr said:


> Actually those are all valid points. Sometimes adopting from a rescue is much more difficult than simply establishing a relationship with a <reputable> breeder. Many of them have this *arbitrary* list of qualifications, where a breeder will actually evaluate potential quality of life far more readily.





DracoGSD said:


> I mean, if you're not qualified to own a dogs it's just that, you are not qualified. Breeders can be a way around that, but that's a whole other can of worms.


ar·bi·trar·y
ˈärbəˌtrerē/
adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
synonyms:	capricious, whimsical, random, chance, unpredictable;

The entire point being that a person can be a very good dog owner and not meet whatever list of check boxes that the rescue has decided is required to adopt from them. Which is the rescue's right but it doesn't say much about the quality of the potential owner either. 

I feel the requirements of the rescue I am fostering with to be reasonable and logical and can be explained to potential adopters (like, must have permission of landlord to adopt if you are a renter is so that the dog isn't returned a few weeks or months later when the landlord finds out etc). _Some_ rescues put down a laundry list of requirements that aren't really supported by real world factors that have direct influence on the quality of life for a dog. 

A reputable breeder will also have a list of "qualifications" but the expectation is that they are not arbitrary. Are there breeders with quirks? Sure, but most spend the time to match their puppies with the best home for that puppy and can weigh a variety of factors in the dog's potential home/life.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

ireth0 said:


> Did anyone actually say they wouldn't get a shelter dog because they weren't pretty?


I keep reading that and wondered the same thing.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Hiraeth said:


> And I also feel like people who breed responsibly deserve the patronage they receive from people like me and their other buyers. Reputable breeders have *really* tough jobs. Losing puppies is awful. Seeing your puppies go to homes and hoping they have wonderful lives must be beyond tough. And I feel like the dog community should actively support the people who go about producing puppies in a conscientious and ethical manner, because if we don't, *all we'll be left with is people who are breeding irresponsibly*.


THIS. Goes along with what I said above about how education is key, and it's really on us to shed light on what it means to breed responsibly, and why it isn't a BAD THING.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

InkedMarie said:


> I keep reading that and wondered the same thing.


I said I had a size requirement. That's as close as it got. Then we got into 'the only difference in pet bred dogs is how they look, regardless of breed'. So clearly the ony reason to have breed preferences if you're not working the dog is appearance.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

Crantastic said:


> Yeah. Not to turn this into a breeder vs. rescue debate,


Uh.... pages later... LOL! (Not saying you did that, just laughing because that has what has happened despite your best intentions...)

I don't know about y'all but I'm feeling invigorated by this discussion this afternoon!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> Did anyone actually say they wouldn't get a shelter dog because they weren't pretty?


Yeah. Look at my horribly ugly shelter dogs.

















I find my shelter dogs much more aesthetically pleasing than either of my breeder dogs, honestly.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

DracoGSD said:


> Breeders are actively taking homes away from shelter dogs, as a whole, but reputable breeders specifically do not. As I stated before, most breeders don't have a clue what the OFA or TTS even are though. Most breeders ARE BYBs. You're using the general term 'breeder', there are many types.


I think the one who doesn't have a clue is you.
You know very little about reputable breeders.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, I mean two of my dogs came out of the actual garbage. 

They're clearly ugly.



















That's totally a bias I have.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Omg this thread exploded since I checked last night :0 

Just adding that just because a breeder or a rescue turns away an applicant, it doesn't always mean the applicant is "not ready for the dog". Breeders and rescues are human, and they sometimes judge other humans in erroneously human ways (just like the deal with rescues and having intact dog or not LOL). It can be tough!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Yeah, I mean two of my dogs came out of the actual garbage.
> 
> They're clearly ugly.
> 
> ...


Thud not only has my favorite name on this board, but I think he's so handsome.

I clearly bought Titan for his looks. Such bias. How would I ever have found something this pretty in a shelter?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

I honestly think most rescues do the best they can to ensure a good home for their dogs, and those restrictions are there because they deal with high volumes of humans and dogs and adoptions so the safest requirements are the ones that are there, and the process is a bit rigid because, again, high volume. I'm okay with that, actually. I'm not okay with implying that the home is unsuitable as a result of not meeting those rigid requirements. 

And I WISH more rescues would get up to date on training methods and vaccine protocols, at least.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> I honestly think most rescues do the best they can to ensure a good home for their dogs, and those restrictions are there because they deal with high volumes of humans and dogs and adoptions so the safest requirements are the ones that are there, and the process is a bit rigid because, again, high volume. I'm okay with that, actually. I'm not okay with implying that the home is unsuitable as a result of not meeting those rigid requirements.
> 
> And I WISH more rescues would get up to date on training methods and vaccine protocols, at least.


Overall, the rescues I have worked with or know have pretty reasonable requirements. It seems (and this may be an erroneous observation) that the rescues that have oddly strict or illogical rules tend to be in areas with less crowded shelters (lower volume) and breed specific rescues with something of a luxury of having a limited number of dogs coming in and a proportionately high number of potential adopters.

It is hard enough to get the pitties adopted in general due to housing restrictions mainly, it would be a near impossibility if we had a blanket requirement for say, a fenced yard or no small children. Now, individual dogs might have specific requirements like that, but not a one-size-fits-all rule.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> I honestly think most rescues do the best they can to ensure a good home for their dogs, and those restrictions are there because they deal with high volumes of humans and dogs and adoptions so the safest requirements are the ones that are there, and the process is a bit rigid because, again, high volume. I'm okay with that, actually. I'm not okay with implying that the home is unsuitable as a result of not meeting those rigid requirements.
> 
> And I WISH more rescues would get up to date on training methods and vaccine protocols, at least.


Agreed. I think those rules are in place for a reason. No kids, no cats, etc. Those are to prevent lawsuits, because lawsuits have happened. It stinks, but I get it. I know ethical Dane breeders who won't sell puppies to households with children under 5, so that's not even just a rescue-specific thing. That's a 'this is about to be a 100 lb puppy who likes to run into objects at high speeds' thing. 

The fence rule strikes me as pretty dumb, though. A fenced yard in no way indicates that a dog gets exercise. In fact, a fenced yard gives an owner a way to let their dog outside and ignore it for hours on end and then pretend that it got exercise in the yard. And that fence rule is a deal breaker for me with every (breed specific) rescue that I have talked to.

The pediatric altering thing sucks, too. I get it. I know why it has to be done. I don't think that there are any current alternatives because OSS and vasectomies are expensive (and can they even be performed on puppies?) but I just really have trouble supporting any organization that removes hormones and sex organs from the bodies of infant animals, even though I know there's a very justifiable reason for it.

My beliefs are much more in line with the breeders that I discuss things with. They're (generally) up to date on training theories, vaccine protocols, and offer lifetime support for the puppies they sell. Most giant breed breeders these days disallow altering before 18 months of age (and some before 24). I like having that relationship with the person who painstakingly produced my dog over a decade or more of careful and thoughtful decision making.

I might rescue again in the future, when I can afford $500 a month in dog bills. I do like providing homes to dogs who need one. But at the same time, I'm really burned out. I've taken on some rough rescue cases, and yet again I find myself with a giant reactive dog who takes a ton of effort to manage on a daily basis.

I really just want a few years with two or three dogs like Titan, and he's not the type of dog who is readily available in rescues. He is the type of dog, temperamentally, I'd really love to work towards producing, if I ever decided to breed (to get back on topic). He could easily be used as a blood donor because of his size. He's biddable and smart enough to be a service dog. He's big and calm enough to be a mobility dog. He's also gentle enough to be a therapy dog. If I could get all of those traits into a package that could also do well in a conformation ring, that would be pretty awesome, in my book. And the dogs I would be producing, should I be able to get that all in one package, would first and foremost be excellent pets, and secondly be able to excel at just about whatever their owner wanted to pursue.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Just a difference in perception and priorities, I suppose.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> Overall, the rescues I have worked with or know have pretty reasonable requirements. It seems (and this may be an erroneous observation) that the rescues that have oddly strict or illogical rules tend to be in areas with less crowded shelters (lower volume) and breed specific rescues with something of a luxury of having a limited number of dogs coming in and a proportionately high number of potential adopters.
> 
> It is hard enough to get the pitties adopted in general due to housing restrictions mainly, it would be a near impossibility if we had a blanket requirement for say, a fenced yard or no small children. Now, individual dogs might have specific requirements like that, but not a one-size-fits-all rule.


I think some of it depends too, if you're dealing with a rescue group or a shelter and, yeah, what type of dog your pulling and how adoptable it is. Also depends on where you draw the line. I think as a blank checklist a lot of things make sense (and some are just crazy), and some make sense when you weight it against what the general public does for their dogs and is expected of them and how involved the foster homes are in setting adoption requirements for an individual dog and- 

There's just a lot of variables. 

Much like having a strict set of requirements for a dog can lead to you overlooking some good ones, having strict requirements for adoption may lead to you overlooking some good homes. I honestly think in the balance it works out pretty okay.

Though things like 'must be married' and 'no same sex couples' are kind of idiotic and offensive, but those are WELL outside the realm of justifiable to me.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> Agreed. I think those rules are in place for a reason. No kids, no cats, etc. Those are to prevent lawsuits, because lawsuits have happened. It stinks, but I get it. I know ethical Dane breeders who won't sell puppies to households with children under 5, so that's not even just a rescue-specific thing. That's a 'this is about to be a 100 lb puppy who likes to run into objects at high speeds' thing.
> 
> The fence rule strikes me as pretty dumb, though. A fenced yard in no way indicates that a dog gets exercise. In fact, a fenced yard gives an owner a way to let their dog outside and ignore it for hours on end and then pretend that it got exercise in the yard. And that fence rule is a deal breaker for me with every (breed specific) rescue that I have talked to.
> 
> ...


Burn out is ultimately my determination to be really particular, too. Thud's not a bad dog - he's a good, stable, sound one - but he's also not the kind of dog I want to own and he's hard. Molly, god help me, is exhausting. I just really need the next dog I get to be mentally and physically sound. IfI can find a 2 year old private rehome or older breeder puppy/wash out, I'll be on it because that's even MORE certain.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> Burn out is ultimately my determination to be really particular, too. Thud's not a bad dog - he's a good, stable, sound one - but he's also not the kind of dog I want to own and he's hard. Molly, god help me, is exhausting. I just really need the next dog I get to be mentally and physically sound. IfI can find a 2 year old private rehome or older breeder puppy/wash out, I'll be on it because that's even MORE certain.


It's amazing to have a dog that lets you take a breath. I don't know how else to describe it. Titan was like that. Could go anywhere, greet any people, never freak out, never be embarrassing, never misbehave. He's just a fabulous dog and I feel SO lucky to have him, and I know that he is a product of both proper raising AND proper genetics. I hadn't been at peace with my dog life in 8 years, and I finally was with Titan. 

And then I added Zeph. And I don't regret Zeph... Except sometimes I do. I'm happy he has a good home, and I don't know many (or any) other people who are both capable and willing to handle him. Unless something drastic happens between he and Titan (and probably even if it does, I'd just crate and rotate), he has a lifetime home with me. But it stinks. It's beyond tiring sometimes, and I know you can relate because of your situation with Molly.

I've met some wonderfully stable shelter dogs, though I can never seem to end up with one personally. And some incredibly unstable breeder dogs (I own one myself). But nothing to me is as wonderful as when you have a well bred dog who suits you perfectly, who suits whatever your life or dog goals happen to be, and whose breeder you supported so that they can produce more wonderful dogs.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I don't think I've ever had a dog that was completely bombproof. All of my dogs have had their quirks and occasional behavior issues - none that were deal breakers, or even terribly problematic (except in my own head), but sometimes I do think that one day I'll have the dog that is essentially perfect, one that I'll never worry about and gets along with everyone all the time, etc. My dog now is ALMOST there, but with some selectivity on her part, she'll never be 100% bombproof and she'll never love ALL dogs. And that's OK. But it's also a reason why I might, one day, seek out a breeder with solid history of producing even tempered, healthy, completely stable dogs. I lucked out with my breeder for my current dog because in terms of her breed, she's incredibly stable and far more dog-friendly than is typical, but I'd have to go to another breed entirely in order to get that "perfect" dog. And... well, there are so many things I love about bullies. It's a checks and balance system, and you just have to weigh out what is most important to you in a pet.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

My version of bomb proof is just 'is comfortable' and 'can ignore things they don't like given that it's not in their face'. To whit, 4 of my 5 dogs are and the 5th is manageable. I just... don't want to go right back to 'dog is insane and medicated because she's insane'. Another reason bully breeds, in spite of ticking other boxes aren't for me. I do not want to deal with dog on dog issues. MY anxiety through Molly's stuff has been through the ROOF. We've gotten there (to 'manageable' and 'can do things'), but it's been a looooong road. Not one I want to get back on right now.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> I think some of it depends too, if you're dealing with a rescue group or a shelter and, yeah, what type of dog your pulling and how adoptable it is. Also depends on where you draw the line. I think as a blank checklist a lot of things make sense (and some are just crazy), and some make sense when you weight it against what the general public does for their dogs and is expected of them and how involved the foster homes are in setting adoption requirements for an individual dog and-
> 
> There's just a lot of variables.
> 
> ...


Wow, those would be so far beyond justifiable that I'd expect (hope?) they'd be entering into illegal territory, especially for a registered non-profit rather than a person doing private rescue/rehomes. 

I don't want the impression that there are not decent standards with the rescue groups I work with, just that some of the "common" requirements like a fenced yard are not requirements. Vet references are checked, landlord permission is verified, home visit is done to meet and greet all people and animals in the home etc. 

The city shelter just verifies that you are an adult basically. 

I think trying to place rescue dogs is/would be a big part of me not wanting to be a breeder. Not because I think good breeders are causing dogs to end up in shelters or be overlooked at shelters, but because the responsibility of putting puppies in "good" homes is a big thing. I care about each foster and wish them the best in their new home, but, I wasn't the one responsible for them needing a home to begin with if that makes sense.


----------



## Sprocket2016 (Feb 14, 2017)

I have 2 mixed dogs both from the shelter and recently got my first puppy from a Breeder 
Shelter dogs are definitely not for everyone both of mine were difficult at first i honestly wasn't expecting it to be so hard the first year 
no one really prepares you before hand it was a shock for me and I almost took my Great Dane/lab mix back but stuck it out and within a year she was the best dog ever I am so glad I didn't take her back she is my heart dog but that first year was really a challenge my second dog a pit wasn't nearly as bad but the first few months were rough 
My puppy is only 19 weeks but so far he's been a piece of cake compared to the other two when I first got them 
I love my rescues and my puppy I see nothing wrong with getting the dog you want wether it's from a breeder or a shelter your the one that has to take care of your dogs for the next 10 or more yrs you should be able to get the one you want without having people pressure you into something else 
There's something about knowing you probably saved a dogs life though that is very rewarding there are lots of dogs that need homes and someone to love them if you choose to rescue that is awesome there's no shortage of dogs needing homes it seems never ending  
no one should be made to feel that they are bad ppl for choosing a puppy and there's something wonderful about being able to train and teach from 8wks and I love that I am in control of his experiences so early in his life hopefully will be able to avoid a lot of issues a lot of shelter dogs have 
I feel blessed to get to experience both 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Maybe instead of attacking owners who do their research, buy a dog from a responsible breeder, and keep that dog for its entire life, people should focus on the actual problem: the people who impulse-buy puppies and dump them when they hit adolescence, or who let their pet dog get knocked up and pump out puppies. I've always resented the implication that I need to be a martyr, to give up on my dream of owning a specific breed because I need to clean up those irresponsible people's messes. Rescue needs to put less time into trying to shame and guilt-trip people like me and more time into educating and helping these people who know nothing about dogs. Try to cut the problem off instead of guilt-tripping good people into dealing with it.


----------



## InkedMarie (Mar 11, 2009)

^^^^^

I can't like this post enough!


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Crantastic said:


> Maybe instead of attacking owners who do their research, buy a dog from a responsible breeder, and keep that dog for its entire life, people should focus on the actual problem: the people who impulse-buy puppies and dump them when they hit adolescence, or who let their pet dog get knocked up and pump out puppies. I've always resented the implication that I need to be a martyr, to give up on my dream of owning a specific breed because I need to clean up those irresponsible people's messes. Rescue needs to put less time into trying to shame and guilt-trip people like me and more time into educating and helping these people who know nothing about dogs. Try to cut the problem off instead of guilt-tripping good people into dealing with it.


This is a fantastic point and way to say it! I'm saving this. LOL


----------



## Canyx (Jul 1, 2011)

Excellent post, Crantastic. 

I am proud to be part of a shelter that, in it's statement on breeders, does not support IRRESPONSIBLE breeding. Certain colleagues of mine feel more strongly about "adopt, don't shop" than others. But it is refreshing to be in a shelter that doesn't try to shame good breeders.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> Just a difference in perception and priorities, I suppose.


What do you mean by this? What that people have been saying do you disagree with?


Also yes, our shelter doesn't have the typical blanket requirements, but certain dogs have certain requirements. (No kids under a certain age, pre-enrollment in obedience classes required, etc)


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

If I am not mistaken concerning the Thread the majority of people said NO they did not want to be breeders,, . and the most we hear about in the news is the puppy mills being raided and those puppies going to the rescues. They transport monthly from TX, a 100 dogs or more to Colorado for a rescues. (that was in the local news recently, they drive right by my home every month) Not the first time I have heard there is not enough (adoptable type dogs) to go around to fill rescues.. Rescue/adopt marketing platform are big business in money . That is where the current education needs to be, is supporting the right rescue organizations. Since they need to import dogs and the sadder side of dog trafficking very specific types that are more adoptable out of states quickly were owners can not find them. that is where new education needs to be for the public, And I do feel a majority of claimed rescue and adoption is because many states past laws that no puppies can be sold in Pet shops and the puppy mills needed a new outlet to sell their puppies so they use Rescue and adoption with all these higher fees.. so it's business as usual for them.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> What do you mean by this? What that people have been saying do you disagree with?


It means I am content with the fact that many people do not think the same as I do, and they don't have to


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

My comment was attacking backyard breeders, not owners of purposefully bred dogs. My GSD is a breeder dog, it has nothing to do with the dogs themselves. All dogs deserve homes.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

But "backyard breeders" (I hate that term) are still breeders. And when you use the term breeder and say such animals cause a shelter pet to lose their home, not only are you not being factual, you're spreading AR propaganda. 

Fault lies with buyers just as much. Especially in our throwaway society. 

I repossessed a puppy from my first litter and have had dogs returned (nobody's fault beyond the repossessed one). My puppies are all microchipped. None have ended up in a shelter. If they did, it wouldn't be my fault. It'd be the fault of the owner who didn't bother to contact me. And of the shelter if they didn't check for a chip and let me know they had one of my dogs. 

I won't ever get a dog from the shelter, nor will I get an GSD rescue. I want a well bred dog. 

The other day a friend showed me a GSD for adoption. He was handsome. 

He also had kidney stones and a liver shunt. 

No thank you.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> My comment was attacking backyard breeders, not owners of purposefully bred dogs. My GSD is a breeder dog, it has nothing to do with the dogs themselves. All dogs deserve homes.


But you also stated that "ONLY working line dogs should be bred". The idea that only "purpose" for dogs to be bred is working 8+ hours per day, 5-7 days per week is a pretty ludicrous idea, especially when you consider the number of breeds that were bred entirely or in part specifically to be companions.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Xeph said:


> None have ended up in a shelter. If they did, it wouldn't be my fault


YOU'RE blaming buyers, I'm blaming irresponsible breeding. I would feel guilty if one of my pups ended up in a shelter and feel it were my fault, you wouldn't. Just a difference in opinion and priorities. Clumping all breeders together is naive though, when like I said, most breeders don't even know what the OFA or TTS is, much less utilize them, but some do, they shouldn't be considered on the same level as the ones that don't screen.

AR propaganda is exactly what you're saying, the term is ADOPT DONT SHOP, not ADOPT DONT BREED. The propaganda is against the buyers not the sellers, just like you stated.

The term propaganda is just a cop out to feel like someone has an agenda instead of an opinion.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also let me just go ahead and be a jerk, but no. Not all dogs deserve homes. All dogs without serious mental and physical problems deserve homes. Dogs suffering serious and mental problems deserve either a gentle death or *timely* help.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> But you also stated that "ONLY working line dogs should be bred". The idea that only "purpose" for dogs to be bred is working 8+ hours per day, 5-7 days per week is a pretty ludicrous idea, especially when you consider the number of breeds that were bred entirely or in part specifically to be companions.


Yes, I would not buy a pet from a breeder, you are correct. Your opinion of working dog differs from mine, though. Dogs are not humans, the do not work 9-5 jobs. Not in my mind at least.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Yes, I would not buy a pet from a breeder, you are correct. Your opinion of working dog differs from mine, though. Dogs are not humans, the do not work 9-5 jobs. Not in my mind at least.


First I don't really care whether you would buy a pet from a breeder, this has nothing to do with where you get your personal dogs from? There is a difference between saying "I don't want to get my pet dogs from a breeder" and "no one should get their pet dogs from a breeder".

If you're throwing around terms like "working line" you should probably consider that there might be a generally accepted definition of what that means. If someone makes up their own definitions for terms and throws them around - especially without defining them - that does nothing to foster any kind of discussion. Words have definitions for a reason - for effective communication.

There are plenty of dogs that work regularly. Are they the majority? No. But if you're breeding working-lines, they are (presumably) being bred specifically to work. Obviously they don't go into an office and sit at a desk and make small talk at the water cooler, but there are plenty of people that don't do those things either and I imagine you'd still consider them to be working.  K9s, security/protection dogs, service dogs, working herding dogs, sled dogs. Their "job" (protection, herding, pulling, whatever) is their primary function and spend most of their active time doing it.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

CptJack said:


> Also let me just go ahead and be a jerk, but no. Not all dogs deserve homes. All dogs without serious mental and physical problems deserve homes. Dogs suffering serious and mental problems deserve either a gentle death or *timely* help.


YES THIS. Thanks for having the guts to say what I was thinking.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

gingerkid said:


> But you also stated that "ONLY working line dogs should be bred". The idea that only "purpose" for dogs to be bred is working 8+ hours per day, 5-7 days per week is a pretty ludicrous idea, especially when you consider the number of breeds that were bred entirely or in part specifically to be companions.


Exactly. Breeds developed to suit different needs of different peoples, regions, cultures and times. Breeding "pet" dogs or companion dogs is nothing new and has nothing to do with dilution of traits of working breeds. I mean, the Pekingese is a breed that's got 2000 years behind it of specifically being bred to be a lap dog.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

So every working dog must work 8+ hours a day to be considered a working dog? As far as I was aware a working dog was a dog that was trained and performs utility tasks regularly. Hunting dogs perform utility tasks, but they do not work 8+ hours a day, they go months without 'working' due to hunting being seasonal. Sled dogs do not run 8+ hours EVERY DAY... I do not believe that is the generally accepted definition.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Breeding has always, and will always, be to suit human whims. IT's why breeds exist, it's why breeds change. That's not a bad thing, it's just the nature of selectively breeding anything. That includes more companions and sports dogs today than working dogs. That's just LIFE. I think working dogs need to be available (clearly) but breeding following the lifestyles of the people who inhabit the world is predictable sense. If that's a problem, well, I hope you like a mid-sized, prick eared, curly tailed, brown dog. Because that's what you get when you STOP breeding - dilution.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

DracoGSD said:


> So every working dog must work 8+ hours a day to be considered a working dog? As far as I was aware a working dog was a dog that was trained and performs utility tasks regularly. Hunting dogs perform utility tasks, but they do not work 8+ hours a day, they go months without 'working' due to hunting being seasonal. Sled dogs do not run 8+ hours EVERY DAY... I do not believe that is the generally accepted definition.


Generally they mean that the dogs are bred, purchased, and kept specifically to do their jobs, and not primarily as pets/companion animals.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> YES THIS. Thanks for having the guts to say what I was thinking.


Any time. 

It's a thing I feel both guilty for believing but believe strongly. Odd dichotomy.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I do not believe that every dog with mental and physical problems deserves to be killed.

I've worked with shelter dogs my entire life and have never encountered a dog with such severe issues it could not be homed, I think people just give up too easy on rehabilitation. I've worked in shelters that don't just kill those dogs, they put time into it and so does the adopter.

I don't expect everyone's values to be the same as mine, but I simply don't believe killing every faulty animal is right.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> Generally they mean that the dogs are bred, purchased, and kept specifically to do their jobs, and not primarily as pets/companion animals.


This makes sense to me, I agree. but 8+ hours 5 days a week does not make sense to me.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> I do not believe that every dog with mental and physical problems deserves to be killed.
> 
> I've worked with shelter dogs my entire life and have never encountered a dog with such severe issues it could not be homed, I think people just give up too easy on rehabilitation. I've worked in shelters that don't just kill those dogs, they put time into it and so does the adopter.
> 
> I don't expect everyone's values to be the same as mine, but I simply don't believe killing every faulty animal is right.


She didn't say 'kill every faulty animal'. She said euthanize OR get them help in a timely manner.

It seems like sometimes what other people write, and what you read and conclude from what other people write, are two very different things.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> She didn't say 'kill every faulty animal'. She said euthanize OR get them help in a timely manner.
> 
> It seems like sometimes what other people write, and what you read and conclude from what other people write, are two very different things.


Show me where I quoted her as saying that.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Yes, some dogs live lives in immense pain, some dogs pose far to great of a risk on human life. But dogs are what humans made them, they all DESERVE loving homes and to be happy, doesn't mean life situations always permit that. I have yet to personally encounter such a dangerous dog, though, and I think those cases are extremely rare.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> She didn't say 'kill every faulty animal'. She said euthanize OR get them help in a timely manner


To be fair, to get help in a timely manner, a dog would need to be in a home. At least a foster home. So if the defective dog didn't deserve a home they wouldn't have any chance at getting help. 

I do think some mental illnesses are terminal but not most. And I think every dog deserves a chance at least.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Hiraeth said:


> She didn't say 'kill every faulty animal'. She said euthanize OR get them help in a timely manner.
> 
> It seems like sometimes what other people write, and what you read and conclude from what other people write, are two very different things.


Yep, that is exactly what I said. Thank you for reiterating for me. 

Also I didn't say 'every dog that has problems'. I said serious problems.

And frankly I think unless there's a person up to give the dog with serious issues a chance it is far, far better to put them to sleep than to leave them languishing in misery - physical or mental - until that chance may come along. Dogs don't live for the future. They live NOW. Leaving a dog suffering because you can't bring yourself to put them down and want the warm fuzzy happy ending that or might, maybe, someday, possibly, come is flat out cruelty. 

There is a REASON there are laws for 'get the animal vet treatment or euthanized' on the books with animal cruelty. Because doing otherwise is *animal cruelty*. In my opinion a terrified or aggressive dog or one breaking down from kennel stress is at LEAST as miserable as one with a broken leg

And I judge the HECK out of anyone who keeps a miserable dog suffering just because they like the spine and balls to do what needs to be done - be that putting the dog on medication and getting behavioral help, taking the dog in for surgery and treatment or PUTTING IT DOWN. My position on that softens not at all just because the dog is in a rescue or shelter. There are minimal standards, and that one's bottom of the barrel for anyone charged with care of an animal. 

Yet shelters get a pass? I don't think so.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also let me remind you "Shelters don't have money for that!" is not an excuse any more than 'owners don't have money for that'. You are charged with the care of and have legal ownership of the animal. In an ideal world they'd have money, time and people to treat all the problems. This isn't one. Either step up and do what it takes or put the animal down. 

Again - serious issues. I do not mean leash reactive and ear infections. I mean dogs posing a threat to the safety of people caring for them that can't be managed, dogs who are terrified of life, and dogs with painful, ongoing medical issues. Treat it or put the dog down. Anything less is a copout of responsibility, and there is NO WAY around that.

(That is not even touching the whole practical side where shelters or rescue using tons of money on one animal and then complaining about how underfunded they are while healthy animals die because they can't take more, or that human aggressive dog with cancer who is terrified of everything is sitting in a kennel getting worse for a year. Literally just the ethics of it - or lack of ethics in it)


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

And there are plenty of situations where keeping that dog with serious problems in a shelter only makes their problems worse. Or worse yet, keeping that dog in the shelter poses a danger to the safety of either the employees/volunteers or other dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I think maybe it's the difference between "it's not possible to give this dog a chance" and "this dog doesn't _deserve_ a chance". All dogs deserve a chance. It's just not possible sometimes.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> And there are plenty of situations where keeping that dog with serious problems in a shelter only makes their problems worse. Or worse yet, keeping that dog in the shelter poses a danger to the safety of either the employees/volunteers or other dogs.


Yep. Dog suffers, dogs NEAR the dog suffer because of the increased stress levels, volunteers suffer or avoid the dog because of fear, and the dog becomes worse, and worse, and worse. 

And again, seriously, if someone came on and said 'I own a dog who has serious fear, aggression' issues and I can't afford to do anything about it or manage the dog safely, or 'I own a dog with a painful health problem I can't afford treatment for' would we REALLY be okay with it?

Cause guys? The rescue or shelter? It owns the dog.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

We are talking about DESERVE, though. Apparently people here believe that some dogs don't deserve homes but instead deserve to be killed.



Willowy said:


> I think maybe it's the difference between "it's not possible to give this dog a chance" and "this dog doesn't _deserve_ a chance". All dogs deserve a chance. It's just not possible sometimes.


Exactly. Every orphan deserves parents, but in the real world they simply cannot all have parents.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> I think maybe it's the difference between "it's not possible to give this dog a chance" and "this dog doesn't _deserve_ a chance". All dogs deserve a chance. It's just not possible sometimes.


I honestly think sometimes giving a dog a chance is still an excuse - or saying 'I want him to have a chance' is. 

I mean let me remind you - I have a dog I've done two years of behavioral work on and that used to be unable to leave the house. I will tell you straight up if meds had not worked, and I had not seen improvement... I'd have had her put to sleep. She got a chance but in a shelter I'd hope like HELL, for her sake, they'd put her down rather than leaving her to live in stark, raving, terror and being a danger for every dog around her and some of the people. And herself. 

Jack, right now, has had THREE surgeries in the last month. I am now seriously considering whether I'll do a fourth, even though the issue is, apparently, minor. Where is the cut off for me, I keep asking myself. Not because of financial considerations because how many times does it take before I decide his quality of life is in the toilet and I keep trying for me? In a shelter, I'd seriously pray that they'd have put him down rather than leaving him screaming or ineffectively treating even the first issue while waiting on someone else to come along and try harder. Not fair - to him. 

'Deserving a chance' to me, in these situations, still reads as 'forcing the dog to live miserably to make me feel better and I can say it had a chance'. *I* happen to think the real thing they deserve is, as I said, either a peaceful death or HELP. Which is... literally exactly what I said. 

If you can't do one, do the other. There is no third option for me.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I think that all dogs deserve compassion and kindness. And I believe that sometimes the only available option to provide that to them is to euth.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> I honestly think sometimes giving a dog a chance is still an excuse.


You have to give a the A CHANCE before determining the dogs quality of life, though. Even if a dog cannot live a happy life, it still DESERVED to have a good home, even if that isn't a realistic result.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

> Because 'deserving a chance' to me, in these situations, still reads as 'forcing the dog to live miserably to make me feel better'.


. . .except that you apparently thought your dog deserved a chance and gave her that chance . Like I said, I believe some mental illnesses are terminal but without a chance at treatment you can't know if it is or not.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I'm actually a little confused as to what we're even discussing at this point. It seems some just want to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Pretty sure that a forum of dog lovers won't include people who actually, literally, don't believe all dogs "deserve" a "chance", whatever that means. Let's be real here - we all love dogs. We all want every puppy and dog in the world to have a loving home that takes care of their physical, medical, and emotional needs. Sometimes that's simply not possible. But the semantics going back and forth here is kind of silly, because it projects that some commenters don't care about dogs as much as others. Which... is patently untrue.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

ireth0 said:


> I think that all dogs deserve compassion and kindness. And I believe that sometimes the only available option to provide that to them is to euth.


I do not believe that contradicts believing all dogs deserve a good home. My statement was not 'every single dog could be happy if only they were placed in a good home'. I still think that such cases where euthanization is the most humane option are frequent enough to make adoption risky. 

Mercy killings aren't always wrong.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Willowy said:


> . . .except that you apparently thought your dog deserved a chance and gave her that chance . Like I said, I believe some mental illnesses are terminal but without a chance at treatment you can't know if it is or not.


Yep, but if the dog doesn't have someone to provide it do they deserve to be forced to live in terror until they either maul a person or dog (does the person or dog deserve that?) and they end up put down at that point. Or just forced to live in terror while people wait on that help to magically come along. 

Molly is owned. I had the option of the hundreds of hours of b-mod and hundreds (probably excess of a thousand) dollars of vet and training bills. 

The option is do what it takes to help or euth. 

If a shelter or rescue cannot do one - and they can't - then the only fair option left is putting the dog down. I mean what magical third option do you see in this?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

TGKvr said:


> I'm actually a little confused as to what we're even discussing at this point. It seems some just want to be contrary for the sake of being contrary. Pretty sure that a forum of dog lovers won't include people who actually, literally, don't believe all dogs "deserve" a "chance", whatever that means. Let's be real here - we all love dogs. We all want every puppy and dog in the world to have a loving home that takes care of their physical, medical, and emotional needs. Sometimes that's simply not possible. But the semantics going back and forth here is kind of silly, because it projects that some commenters don't care about dogs as much as others. Which... is patently untrue.


The discussion here is that I find some methods of "caring" about dogs patently cruel, frankly, and I'm sure people feel the same re: me and what I'm saying. It isn't actually semantics. or logistics. It's downright, legitimate, different philosophies and strongly so.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Like I said, just word choice nitpicking, I suppose. 

The dog deserves a chance to have a good home. It may not be possible in certain circumstances. But that doesn't mean the dog doesn't deserve it. 

That's all.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

I guess to me the discussion was "you should attempt to rehome every dog, because they deserve to have a home" and by so doing, "you should keep every dog until it can be rehomed"

And... no, I don't agree with that.

But if we're talking in a philosophical sense? Sure I guess all dogs "deserve" a good home. That doesn't mean trying to put them in one is always the right thing to do, though.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> I guess to me the discussion was "you should attempt to rehome every dog" and by so doing, "you should keep every dog until it can be rehomed"
> 
> And... no, I don't agree with that.
> 
> But if we're talking in a philosophical sense? Sure I guess all dogs "deserve" a good home. That doesn't mean trying to put them in one is always the right thing to do, though.


Yeah, this. Thank you.


----------



## TGKvr (Apr 29, 2015)

I guess what I should have said is... I don't think everyone is as far apart on this issue as it seems.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

TGKvr said:


> I guess what I should have said is... I don't think everyone is as far apart on this issue as it seems.


I agree. I think everyone got caught up in terminology. 

My original comment was my own personal feelings that are specific to me and my beliefs, it wasn't directed at anyone, especially not to attack them, because I actually don't know who here is a breeder or isn't. I don't have to feel like it's a good idea to breed pets to feel like someone is a good or bad dog owner, that is specific to how they treat their dog, and frankly is none of my business. No one here needs my approval before breeding their dog, I'm sorry you felt attacked. My opinions and beliefs are suited to my particular situation, not everyone else'.

Seems like there was an original miscommunication and everyone read things with a tinge of negativity.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

So to hit on the original topic:

Yes, I am interested in breeding someday down the line. Beckett should actually be up for his health tests in a few months and then, hopefully, we can see about studding him out. Down the line I'd like to see about having a bitch and litters of my own.

My breed is the Eurasier. 

So, Eurasiers are companion breeds. Not working dogs. Unless you REALLY stretch the definition of "working" to include "giving snuggles". Though Beck IS super good at that job. Not too keen on the idea that my breed is basically the same as any shelter dog just because they're not working lines. Mostly because it's such a ridiculously false idea. There's a reason I want a Eurasier. 

Anyway, I also agree with the folks who stated that having a dog from a responsible breeder isn't taking the place of a shelter dog. I wouldn't be going to a shelter for a dog so if there were no responsible breeders, I wouldn't have a dog. ESPECIALLY with a dog like Annabel. Giant breeds I just would have such paranoia not knowing the background.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I do not believe that every dog with mental and physical problems deserves to be killed.
> 
> I've worked with shelter dogs my entire life and have never encountered a dog with such severe issues it could not be homed, I think people just give up too easy on rehabilitation. I've worked in shelters that don't just kill those dogs, they put time into it and so does the adopter.
> 
> I don't expect everyone's values to be the same as mine, but I simply don't believe killing every faulty animal is right.


You're either working in a shelter that 1) has limited admission and screens the owner surrenders that they take in and/or 2) that doesn't care about liability issues.

And it's not just about aggressive or "unstable" dogs either; severe, self-mutilating anxiety that doesn't respond to medication is a quality of life issue, just like any medical issue. Keeping dogs alive that are severly suffering (whether that suffering is mental or physical) with very little hope of rehabilitation or improved quality of life is unethical and immoral.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> You're either working in a shelter that 1) has limited admission and screens the owner surrenders that they take in and/or 2) that doesn't care about liability issues.
> 
> And it's not just about aggressive or "unstable" dogs either; severe, self-mutilating anxiety that doesn't respond to medication is a quality of life issue, just like any medical issue. Keeping dogs alive that are severly suffering (whether that suffering is mental or physical) with very little hope of rehabilitation or improved quality of life is unethical and immoral.


Sorry, but that is all based on assumption. Shelters are allowed to claim a no kill policy even if they euthanize dogs with medical issues that cannot be treated, that is the only exception both the shelters I work at make. I have yet to see a single dog with such anxiety that medication and conditioning do not help with. Both shelters take in strays and owner surrendered dogs, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, there is the option for them to clarify why they are getting rid of their dog and what they would like us to know about the dog, but it is not required. The dogs are either assessed by a staffed trainer or a volunteering trainer and notes are made. The training after that is specific to the dog, some need rehab, some only need basic training.

I am not against kill shelters, as they are needed with the dog population issue, just an FYI.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Sorry, but that is all based on assumption. Shelters are allowed to claim a no kill policy even if they euthanize dogs with medical issues that cannot be treated, that is the only exception both the shelters I work at make. I have yet to see a single dog with such anxiety that medication and conditioning do not help with. Both shelters take in strays and owner surrendered dogs, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, there is the option for them to clarify why they are getting rid of their dog and what they would like us to know about the dog, but it is not required. The dogs are either assessed by a staffed trainer or a volunteering trainer and notes are made. The training after that is specific to the dog, some need rehab, some only need basic training.
> 
> I am not against kill shelters, as they are needed with the dog population issue, just an FYI.


Now the issue is kill vs. no-kill? No-kill and open admission are not synonymous (similarly, "closed admission" doesn't mean there isn't screening going on prior to the dogs entering the shelter. I'm well aware of what no-kill means (although it actually has multiple definitions, depending where you're asking, and most definitions also allow for the euthanasia of severe/dangerous behaviour problems that are either a serious danger to the public or a quality of life issue for the dog). Regardless, I was responding to this statement:



> I've worked with shelter dogs my entire life *and have never encountered a dog with such severe issues it could not be homed*


If you've worked in shelters and never encountered a single dog that was dangerous, either: the shelter does not have a true open-admissions policy and only accepts cases that have already been deemed to be at least somewhat workable, you are not seeing all of the cases in the shelter (not sure what your involvement has been, but volunteers and non-behaviour staff in our shelter rarely see the behavioural euths in our shelter), or you/the shelter have very questionable standards of what is considered homeable.

Maybe more than one of those things is true, maybe only one is, but I am calling shennanegans that you have worked in a truly open-admissions shelter that has never euthanized a single dog for a severe behavioural problem. Either they have, and you just aren't aware of it, or they haven't and they're either not admitting those cases at all or are showing questionable judgement in rehoming them.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

I admit I'm a bit confused as to why my needs as a 'pet' home (as I currently consider myself, as much as I want to do sports and/or showing in the future) are any less important than a 'working' home. Just because my dog doesn't have a 'job' outside of being an excellent companion doesn't mean I didn't have very valid requirements when I got him. Size (apartment restrictions), coat type (allergies), and nothing that could possibly be mistaken for a commonly banned breed or a mix thereof (apartments and a then-hypothetical move to a country with a banned breed list) might be the most 'justifiable' ones. But temperament was hugely important as well, because I wanted a dog I enjoyed interacting with and could live with happily for its whole life. 

The main reason I didn't go with a breeder is that I stumbled upon a private rehome. But it seems to me that by going to a breeder to get exactly what I want means my dog is much LESS likely to wind up in the shelter system (hypothetically) due to a poor fit than by going to a rescue or shelter and picking out whatever they had that was the closest fit to my priorities. I'm not saying a dog like the one I was looking for (and found) would NEVER show up in shelters, but they sure as heck weren't common in our area. Like many people here, I didn't want to get a dog just to have a dog, any dog. I don't think it's fair to say we shouldn't be able to get a companion dog at all if we can't find one we like at a shelter, or that we should HAVE to pick a shelter dog, regardless of its fit with our family.

For the record, over here? Intact dogs are the norm. There's good breeders and not so good breeders and (probably, though I haven't met any yet) downright terrible breeders. I'm sure there are oops litters (though way fewer than you might expect, coming from the US dog culture). And yet, there are so few homeless dogs that most people import rescues from other countries if they want to go that route. Breeders alone aren't the problem.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Maybe more than one of those things is true, maybe only one is, but I am calling shennanegans that you have worked in a truly open-admissions shelter that has never euthanized a single dog for a severe behavioural problem. Either they have, and you just aren't aware of it, or they haven't and they're either not admitting those cases or have questionable judgement.


They're a Cesar Millan fan. 

Just. You know, leaving that powder keg there, because it's very telling as to why they think this.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

CptJack said:


> They're a Cesar Millan fan.
> 
> Just. You know, leaving that powder keg there, because it's very telling as to why they think this.


Ah, well, that explains a lot! Thanks for saving my sanity.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

CptJack said:


> They're a Cesar Millan fan.
> 
> Just. You know, leaving that powder keg there, because it's very telling as to why they think this.


Oh, I missed that.

Mr. Shiny Teeth certainly does know how to dazzle the general dog owning public, doesn't he?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

gingerkid said:


> Ah, well, that explains a lot! Thanks for saving my sanity.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

gingerkid said:


> Now the issue is kill vs. no-kill? No-kill and open admission are not synonymous (similarly, "closed admission" doesn't mean there isn't screening going on prior to the dogs entering the shelter. I'm well aware of what no-kill means (although it actually has multiple definitions, depending where you're asking, and most definitions also allow for the euthanasia of severe/dangerous behaviour problems that are either a serious danger to the public or a quality of life issue for the dog). Regardless, I was responding to this statement:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Assumptions are really not valid. I am not a Milan fan, have never used his methods, have never NEEDED to, but yes, it impresses me when dogs can come over their fear.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

CptJack said:


>


Totally and completely off topic, but this made my day.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> Assumptions are really not valid. I am not a Milan fan, have never used his methods, have never NEEDED to, but yes, it impresses me when dogs can come over their fear.


He doesn't help dogs overcome fear. 

He shuts dogs with MINOR fear or resource guarding issues down with abusive at worst and casually cruel at best methods. 

If he was ever faced with a dog with real issues, he'd be mauled and the dog would be dead.

That is not the same thing. 

But I mean I'm impressed by the depth of his arrogance and stupidity, so there's that. And his ability to spin being a reality show star into making it appear that he knows crap about dogs. 



Effisia said:


> Totally and completely off topic, but this made my day.


Jack makes me happy! ...Clearly, I say, eyeing my username.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Also, weren't you the one advising 'tssting' a biting puppy as a means of teaching them to be gentle because that's how you taught your dog? That means you use at least some of his methods.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

There's only what you see on TV, we will never know the full story. It's off topic, anyway.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> Also, weren't you the one advising 'tssting' a biting puppy as a means of teaching them to be gentle because that's how you taught your dog? That means you use at least some of his methods.


Yes, a dog I owned before his shows were even produced. A stop cue is a very old method, it's the same as telling your dog NO, you never tell your dog no?


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> There's only what you see on TV, we will never know the full story. It's off topic, anyway.


So is discussion about shelters, and euthanasia. Or, well as off topic as that, since you being impressed by him is a pretty good clue as to why you've never seen a dog that was that bad in a shelter. 

And no, he's been here locally. He's terrible.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I can't believe I am being STALKED on other websites. What is even more hilarious is no one cares to look into it themselves, they just take the stalkers word.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> So is discussion about shelters, and euthanasia. Or, well as off topic as that, since you being impressed by him is a pretty good clue as to why you've never seen a dog that was that bad in a shelter.
> 
> And no, he's been here locally. He's terrible.


THE RESULTS in fearful dogs, NOT his training methods. Why not actually quote me?


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

If you're going to stalk, then why not also see the advice I have given on buying pets from breeders? Never told anyone not to, simply advised on how to find a responsible breeder.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> So is discussion about shelters, and euthanasia. Or, well as off topic as that, since you being impressed by him is a pretty good clue as to why you've never seen a dog that was that bad in a shelter.
> 
> And no, he's been here locally. He's terrible.


I know someone who has trained with him in person....

Anyways, I agree with gingerkid that _something_ doesn't line up for an open intake shelter to never have had a behavioral issue that rises to the level of euthanasia. Even if it was only in cases of bite history.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> THE RESULTS in fearful dogs, NOT his training methods. Why not actually quote me?


Yes. The results in fearful dogs are shut down dogs. 

Also I don't think posting on a public forum and having someone else read it and know it counts as stalking. I mean, if it were a private community, or something, but it's really not. RIGHT OUT THERE and public, but I find it kind of weird that you're so offended. It's... Sort of like someone accusing you of stalking because you ran into them in the supermarket and saw them again in the parking lot.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

I have a different opinion, not sure what you WANT from me, you don't need my approval, it's OK!


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I have a different opinion, not sure what you WANT from me, you don't need my approval, it's OK!


For you not to be having a stroke about being stalked based on people seeing your public posts and calling you out for lying about something? Ie: For you to chill out. That's just about it, and clearly you can do that or not as you see fit.

But no, your approval isn't on the list and I don't actually want anything at all from you. To tell the truth I mostly have you blocked. But I am enjoying the conversation happening AROUND you so sometimes one gets through and I answer a question. Like the mystery of how you can work in a public intake shelter and never see a dog you think is behaviorally bad enough off to qualify for euthanasia.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

CptJack said:


> For you not to be having a stroke about being stalked based on people seeing your public posts and calling you out for lying about something? Ie: For you to chill out. That's just about it, and clearly you can do that or not as you see fit.
> 
> But no, your approval isn't on the list and I don't actually want anything at all from you. To tell the truth I mostly have you blocked. But I am enjoying the conversation happening AROUND you so sometimes one gets through and I answer a question. Like the mystery of how you can work in a public intake shelter and never see a dog you think is behaviorally bad enough off to qualify for euthanasia.


What do you need?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> Yes. The results in fearful dogs are shut down dogs.


Which is a big risk if a shelter is "rehabbing" fearful or aggressive dogs with methods that result in shut-down dogs. Because the shut-down doesn't last and that results in things like bites or at minimum, a miserable dog and a miserable family. 

I remember a case where a trainer "cured" a dog-aggressive dog using a shock collar. Dog no longer _acted_ dog aggressive. Dog was still DA of course. Within a few weeks in his new home, he broke a tie-out, attacked a dog being walked nearby and a person ended up getting bit trying to save the victim dog. DA dog was PTS.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Shell said:


> Which is a big risk if a shelter is "rehabbing" fearful or aggressive dogs with methods that result in shut-down dogs. Because the shut-down doesn't last and that results in things like bites or at minimum, a miserable dog and a miserable family.
> 
> I remember a case where a trainer "cured" a dog-aggressive dog using a shock collar. Dog no longer _acted_ dog aggressive. Dog was still DA of course. Within a few weeks in his new home, he broke a tie-out, attacked a dog being walked nearby and a person ended up getting bit trying to save the victim dog. DA dog was PTS.


There is a video for a local dog place right now talking about how this dog adopted from the shelter a few months ago was great but scared of some things. They 'rehabbed him' with a shock collar because it's what they knew, and then took video of the dog holding a stay on a bed in the midst of running dogs and kids (things that scared him). They posted it proudly. Dog was whale eyeing, lip licking, stress panting, and FROZEN in place. 

That's not rehab.

The saddest part is how unaware of how loudly that dog is screaming misery with every signal it has.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

DracoGSD said:


> What do you need?


For you to just, y'know, stop.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Freedom of speech is something I fully support. Don't want to talk to someone, don't respond to them.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I'm going to respond and call someone out on ludicrous, false, and faulty notions.

I am glad you won't breed, though.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

DracoGSD said:


> Freedom of speech is something I fully support. Don't want to talk to someone, don't respond to them.


That has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech means you can't be arrested for your opinions, not that everyone has to accept them or scroll on by.

You're fairly new here, so just so you know, this forum (at least the regulars) is overwhelmingly pro-_responsible_-breeder and anti-Cesar Millan. We've had many, _many_ discussions about both things, which is why your comments generalizing breeders and insisting that nobody knows what Millan's techniques are really like are being met with so much scorn. We've discussed purposeful breeding, companions vs. working dogs, Millan's "rehabilitation" techniques, what happens to dogs after they're on his show, etc. inside and out. Opinions are fine, but nobody's going to simply ignore assertions that are flat-out wrong.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Crantastic said:


> nobody's going to simply ignore assertions that are flat-out wrong.


As I said, just opinions, training and breeding is not an exact science, hence why no one has any external scholarly cites.



Xeph said:


> I'm going to respond and call someone out on ludicrous, false, and faulty notions.
> 
> I am glad you won't breed, though.


PPDs are a big part of my future, and I intend to breed military dogs. Dogs with utility purpose only.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

DracoGSD said:


> I can't believe I am being STALKED on other websites. What is even more hilarious is no one cares to look into it themselves, they just take the stalkers word.


Reading current posts on more than one large, public website on the same topic is stalking now? Because, uh, I'm pretty sure I happened upon the post in question before it was ever mentioned here. Coincidentally. Because I check several dog communities daily, and have for nearly a decade. Let's not cheapen the word for people who are actual victims of being stalked, considering it's a pretty darn devastating experience that can ruin lives.

I think it's wonderful that you - and people like you - have homes and needs that are flexible enough to accommodate rescue dogs. Personally, when I was living somewhere with a high need for rescue homes, I was not stable enough financially or settled enough for that to be a wise choice. Though if I had owned my home at that time, and/or was established in a stable career, I'd have absolutely considered broadening my options, at least as a foster home. 

No one here is arguing that your choice to rescue for yourself and not wanting to breed ever is wrong. We are taking exception to things you've brought up that are just factually _wrong_ about how reputable breeders impact rescue populations and the motivations of people who buy from those breeders. Not to mention how apparently no one should dare want a well bred, health tested, early-socialized companion dog, even if those are the best fit for our home. Not to mention the fact that a lot of Service, Therapy, and Emotional Support dogs come from dogs bred primarily for companionship, and that the complete halt of breeding for companionship would wipe out literally dozens - if not hundreds - of much-loved breeds.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> PPDs are a big part of my future, and I intend to breed military dogs. Dogs with utility purpose only.


Good luck with that.

The military has large kennels on contract for that sort of thing. Usually overseas. They don't go to private breeders for that sort of thing


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

DracoGSD said:


> Freedom of speech is something I fully support. Don't want to talk to someone, don't respond to them.


Freedom of speech means that you cannot be persecuted by your government for stating your opinions. It does not, however, mean that you can say whatever you like in public without repercussions, including on a privately owned forum.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> As I said, just opinions, training and breeding is not an exact science, hence why no one has any external scholarly cites.


OR people haven't provided any "scholarly cites" because everything about training that's been said is general knowledge among science-based trainers (even the balanced ones), and I'm sure you are well aware that even in scholarly/scientific research articles, general knowledge does not require citations (in fact, it's the easiest way to pick out an article written by a student or someone else very new to the field). 

But sure, I'll bite - what specific claims made by people in this thread would you like citations for?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

^^glutton for punishment


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Xeph said:


> Good luck with that.
> 
> The military has large kennels on contract for that sort of thing. Usually overseas. They don't go to private breeders for that sort of thing


I appreciate the advice, thank you


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DracoGSD said:


> PPDs are a big part of my future, and I intend to breed military dogs. Dogs with utility purpose only.


Going by the rest of your comments, this is sort of surprising. What happens to an animal that's kept purely for utilitarian purposes when the animal is no longer useful? What happens to a dog bred for utilitarian purposes who isn't good at that purpose? I'd rather breed pets, who (if in a good home) at least will be loved even when they get old or sick.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

Willowy said:


> Going by the rest of your comments, this is sort of surprising. What happens to an animal that's kept purely for utilitarian purposes when the animal is no longer useful? What happens to a dog bred for utilitarian purposes who isn't good at that purpose? I'd rather breed pets, who (if in a good home) at least will be loved even when they get old or sick.


you may agree more with doing private family PPD services have more control of their individual training and who they are going to.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Willowy said:


> Going by the rest of your comments, this is sort of surprising. What happens to an animal that's kept purely for utilitarian purposes when the animal is no longer useful? What happens to a dog bred for utilitarian purposes who isn't good at that purpose? I'd rather breed pets, who (if in a good home) at least will be loved even when they get old or sick.


This, actually. If you don't think people should buy pets from a breeder, what happens if your two working PPD parents produce a puppy who just doesn't have the drive, nerve, or physical soundness (not all congenital defects are genetic, and some genetic ones can't be 100% prevented by testing) to work? My in-laws have a lovely wirehaired dachshund from working hunting lines. She's trained as a tracking dog, loves it... and is _terrible_ at it. And this isn't their first hunting dachs - my FiL actually helps judge hunting trials, so it isn't a case of poor or amateur training. They kept her. She's very much loved and gets lots of affection and warm blankets to snuggle in, but she's not anyone's definition of a working dog. 

Tl;dr, even 'working line' breeders have to place dogs in 'pet' homes quite regularly.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Willowy said:


> Going by the rest of your comments, this is sort of surprising. What happens to an animal that's kept purely for utilitarian purposes when the animal is no longer useful? What happens to a dog bred for utilitarian purposes who isn't good at that purpose? I'd rather breed pets, who (if in a good home) at least will be loved even when they get old or sick.


Retired military dogs are veterans and treated with respect as such. People who spend the kind of money PPDs cost and considering the service they provide they are also very respected. The idea that if a dog goes into a good home it would be loved when when old or sick still applies to dogs with utility purpose. In military quality dogs you won't find a single pup that will be content with a completely laid back pet lifestyle. They would be more appropriate for sports like agility. But as someone who feels very responsible for dogs I would produce I would certainly make new owners aware that I will take a dog back no questions asked. You might get one or two 'pet' pups out of a WL litter, but it's not very frequent.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Funnily enough, I see military wash outs and retirees due to injury for adoption all the time in areas with military bases. on Craigslist, even. 

How's that work, again?

http://www.uswardogs.org/mwd-adoptions-faqs/ What's all this about?

Or the tons of other similar organizations?

Or the dogs who retire when their handler does and become pets?

Or, you know, my working bred BC who would be much happier as a pet than a sports dog given her genetic fear issues, but kind of makes due anyway? Or, heck, how DID a working bred dog end up with fear issues making her unsuitable for work anyway?


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

CptJack said:


> Funnily enough, I see military wash outs and retirees due to injury for adoption all the time in areas with military bases. on Craigslist, even.
> 
> How's that work, again?
> 
> ...


This. I have far to many friends with working line dogs who are THRILLED to be nothing more than pet dogs to put any credibility to an argument that working lines hardly ever produce dogs happy to just be pets.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Yeah that's... just not how genetics work, period. Outside of species who literally clone themselves, there's going to be some natural variance in temperament, confirmation, and health in _every_ litter. You can hedge your bets with health and temperament tests and careful selection of mating pairs, and guide your breeding program towards a certain goal, but even very intense breeding programs that have been ongoing for decades rarely produce litters where every dog goes on to do serious work like PPD or military dogs do.

I mean, look at guide dog programs. Talk about dogs with a full-time job and an extremely high standard for genetically stable temperament. And their breeding programs, run by very competent, knowledgeable people, graduate what... a quarter of the dogs they produce? Personally, I think that's impressive.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> You might get one or two 'pet' pups out of a WL litter, but it's not very frequent.


It's incredibly frequent


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Roughly 75% don't make the cut to working. Which you could find if you'd *GOOGLE*, Draco.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

Still trying to figure out where people who want pet/companion dogs are supposed to get them if A) only working line dogs should be bred and B) BYBs are put out of practice (which, I agree, they aren't a good thing but replacing with a reputable breeder seems to make the most sense....) 

I mean, not all dog breeds _should_ be bred for their main/original purpose for the majority of living situations but that doesn't mean they don't have a current place and purpose due to their temperament and physical attributes. If Chester and Eva were doing what they were bred to do originally, we'd be hunting lions and bears and baiting bulls. Obviously not appropriate for today's urban society but the same traits of drive in both (good for training), independent thinking in him (fun for training, maybe less "good"), tracking ability in him (fun for hikes), athleticism in both (perfect for running and hiking) and human friendly behavior in both (great overall) make them good PET dogs.

(And Edit-To-Add since everything seems to need to be spelled out-- both Chester and Eva are rescue dogs but I am speaking about the purpose breeding of dogs _like_ them, as I DNA tested Chester and Eva, well, fits every APBT terrier phenotype there is along with majority of behaviors)


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

The majority of breeds are not given to having pups which would be called hard, even GSD,Rotties,Bully breeds, and Dobies.

One of the very few breeds I can think of which is naturally hard temper wise would be a Fila and most of them are pets. But they are the extreme.

So please explain to me if a Fila which make a lot of working PPD trained dogs look soft can be a pet, why would not a retired working dog?


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> You might get one or two 'pet' pups out of a WL litter, but it's not very frequent.


Haha. Really? You didn't even know that PPD and military dogs were purchased on contract out of large overseas kennels, and now you think you know how many 'pet' pups occur in a WL litter?


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Why does it matter? I simply do not think exactly like most of you, and diversity is ok 



Hiraeth said:


> Haha. Really? You didn't even know that PPD and military dogs were purchased on contract out of large overseas kennels, and now you think you know how many 'pet' pups occur in a WL litter?


Some are contracted overseas, but not all, and I know this because I know of contracted kennels in the US. Not to mention there is the police force too, which is always looking for good dogs. My dog's litter mate is a K9 officer.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> Why does it matter? I simply do not think exactly like most of you, and diversity is ok


It's not that you don't think the same as us. Thinking differently is fine.

Having an uninformed opinion and making up statistical facts like 'only 1-2 puppies in working litters don't turn out for work' is going to get you called out on this forum. Every. Single. Time.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Calling someone out without any proper citations is just spewing personal opinions. I love when people provide me with new information, if it is scholarly and educated, but just personal opinions based off of 'said facts', then it is just that, personal opinion. Like I said, JMO.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> Calling someone out without any proper citations is just spewing personal opinions. I love when people provide me with new information, if it is scholarly and educated, but just personal opinions based off of 'said facts', then it is just that, personal opinion. Like I said, JMO.


I kind of think you're about to get slammed with a large number of articles in response to the....1 or 2? None?...that you have provided to support your personal anecdotes and opinions. I believe Hiraeth's record for most scientific articles in one post is the upper teens, if I remember correctly...

But, as a wise teenage Facebooker once posted, "Everybody's opinion is valid whether it is based on fact or not!"


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Lillith said:


> I kind of think you're about to get slammed with a large number of articles in response to the....1 or 2? None?...that you have provided to support your personal anecdotes and opinions. I believe Hiraeth's record for most scientific articles in one post is the upper teens, if I remember correctly...
> 
> But, as a wise teenage Facebooker once posted, "Everybody's opinion is valid whether it is based on fact or not!"


I would greatly appreciate links and would read all of them! I will say it again, just my opinion, which is why I find it funny you all invest to much time trying to change my mind, when I continuously say JMO and just my opinion. I have my own reasons for myself to believe what I believe, but am content with just having my own opinion and others not agreeing with me.


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

DracoGSD said:


> I would greatly appreciate links and would read all of them! I will say it again, just my opinion, which is why I find it funny you all invest to much time trying to change my mind, when I continuously say JMO and just my opinion. I have my own reasons for myself to believe what I believe, but am content with just having my own opinion and others not agreeing with me.


If you're just here to have an opinion and say 'I believe what I believe and am content with having my own opinion'... Why join a public forum? The point of this place is chatting about dogs, education, learning, and helping others. Seems to me like you're here to just spew opinions and say 'well, I'm entitled to believe what I want, even if I'm wrong!' 

Yes, you are entitled to be wrong. Doesn't mean we won't point out when you are, though. 



Lillith said:


> I kind of think you're about to get slammed with a large number of articles in response to the....1 or 2? None?...that you have provided to support your personal anecdotes and opinions. I believe Hiraeth's record for most scientific articles in one post is the upper teens, if I remember correctly...


Haha. I generally only go to the time to post articles when I think they will actually help someone with a problem, or to answer an important question.

The only problems here are immaturity and willful ignorance. Nothing articles will solve, sadly.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

See, even the record holder can't prove me wrong and isn't even willing to try. I have no issue with debate, or this debate, just asking for more information for better understanding of your guy's outlook. You're content with your opinion, are you not? And you joined a public forum. I like a challenge, which is why I still read these responses and partake in the debate. I like hearing a variety of opinions, which is why I don't tell you any of you to stop or shut up or anything like that, it's an interesting read!


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

But just for fun:


https://www.boston.com/culture/anim...ervice-dogs-that-dont-complete-their-training



> Finally, after months of training and exams, the pups graduate. The best join 45 working guide dog teams in the Massachusetts area. A second tier of dogs is paired with autistic children through the Healing Autism program. Others become breeders.
> 
> *Overall, more than half the dogs will fall into one of the three tiers, but that leaves a lot of dogs that don’t. And some pups don’t even make it into training to begin with. So what happens to the dropouts?*


So less than half of the dogs in this very good program actually become guide dogs. 

Furthermore:



> And Guiding Eyes is not alone. Many service training organizations have their own, in-house public adoption programs.


You’d think in-house public adoption programs would be a waste of time if dogs from working litters had a 80% or higher success rate, as Draco projects.

From an article in Companion Animal Psychology (http://www.companionanimalpsychology.com/2015/01/how-can-we-improve-working-dog-programs.html), written by Zazie Todd, PhD:



> Each working dog organization does its own thing, *and there is a high failure rate of dogs trained for specific roles.* The authors [of this new research paper “The advent of canine performance science: Offering a sustainable future for working dogs” - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376635714002538] say, “around half of all dogs being bred, or considered to work or race, fail to become operational.” In some cases the outcome for dogs is still good, as with a failed service dog that finds a home as a pet; but in other cases, unwanted dogs may be euthanized.


From an article in New Mobility (http://www.newmobility.com/2011/08/service-dogs-making-the-grade/):



> Even with CCI’s selective breeding and training, *only about 35 to 40 percent of their dogs graduate to become full-fledged service dogs.* Dogs “wash out” for a variety of reasons, including “typical dog behavior” — like being distracted by cats or birds, or whining or barking in public.


From a PPD training program (http://www.wolfsbanek9.com/buying-a-dog):



> *A good percentage of dogs will wash out* (term for a dog being dropped from the program) because of any number of issues.


According to GoArmy.com, *only 50% of MWDs (Military Working Dogs) get certified to actually work. Special Forces canine training *has a 1% graduation rate*.*

According to the book “Trident K-9 Warriors”, written by a military canine handler:



> The drop-out rate among those who qualify as a Navy SEAL is very high. *The drop-out rate among dogs we select is even higher than that.*


Navy SEAL attrition rate is at a cool average of 80% per intake class.


ETA: I want to add something - these are failure rates from dogs who actually pass the temperament test to be permitted to ENTER these programs. Statistics about how many puppies don't pass the temperament test and are deemed companion-only are nearly impossible to find.

National Geographic, in an article about military canines (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0409_030409_militarydogs.html), suggests that "The majority of these medium sized dogs are bought from European breeders. About four times a year military personnel travel overseas and look at hundreds of animals, ranging in age from 12 to 36 months.* About one third of the dogs viewed are purchased.*"


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> I would greatly appreciate links and would read all of them! I will say it again, just my opinion, which is why I find it funny you all invest to much time trying to change my mind, when I continuously say JMO and just my opinion. I have my own reasons for myself to believe what I believe, but am content with just having my own opinion and others not agreeing with me.


Well, for me, it's extremely entertaining and I throughly enjoy proving people wrong and being inflammatory behind the mask of anonymity the Internet provides.

For others, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that many people, members and lurkers alike who may or may not have much experience with dogs, come to this forum searching for solutions to behavioral problems, breed selections, and other issues, and information based on your personal opinion is not sufficient, and in some cases could cause a reader to make a poor decision. So, why would they not challenge that? Many of these people are professional dog trainers, breeders (reputable, I might add), or have spent countless hours researching various aspects of dog ownership on a number of different levels, from services dogs, working military dogs, to companion pets.

An opinion is based on your emotions and cannot be proven. It is not a substitute for facts. Just because you feel that only 1-2 pups are wash outs does not make it valid...it's just wrong. I imagine that's where people are running into issues with your assertions. I mean, would anybody let me get away with "I feel that 1+1=3!" on a math forum? Doubt it. Because it is wrong, it can be proven wrong, it is a math forum, and nobody on said math forum wants readers to come around and think that 1+1=3 because somebody feels like it should and thinks they can say whatever they want because it's just in their own personal opinion. An opinion is "I like the color blue!" "I feel that 1+1=3!" is how we get this:


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Hiraeth said:


> But just for fun:
> 
> 
> https://www.boston.com/culture/anim...ervice-dogs-that-dont-complete-their-training
> ...


There was little to no info about the authors of your links. The fourth quote was the only one relevant to breeder success rate. The link did not work, though, and on another one. But I guess you didn't expect me to even look, nice try tho.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Lillith said:


> Well, for me, it's extremely entertaining and I throughly enjoy proving people wrong and being inflammatory behind the mask of anonymity the Internet provides.
> 
> For others, I imagine it has something to do with the fact that many people, members and lurkers alike who may or may not have much experience with dogs, come to this forum searching for solutions to behavioral problems, breed selections, and other issues, and information based on your personal opinion is not sufficient, and in some cases could cause a reader to make a poor decision. So, why would they not challenge that? Many of these people are professional dog trainers, breeders (reputable, I might add), or have spent countless hours researching various aspects of dog ownership on a number of different levels, from services dogs, working military dogs, to companion pets.
> 
> An opinion is based on your emotions and cannot be proven. It is not a substitute for facts. Just because you feel that only 1-2 pups are wash outs does not make it valid...it's just wrong. I imagine that's where people are running into issues with your assertions. I mean, would anybody let me get away with "I feel that 1+1=3!" on a math forum? Doubt it. Because it is wrong, it can be proven wrong, it is a math forum, and nobody on said math forum wants readers to come around and think that 1+1=3 because somebody feels like it should and thinks they can say whatever they want because it's just in their own personal opinion. An opinion is "I like the color blue!" "I feel that 1+1=3!" is how we get this:


Again, never said to stop commenting or challenging me! You are WELCOME to 'correct' me with your own opinions! And I will say it again, JMO, I am not trying to force you to change your opinion based off of my opinion. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I want you all to stop responding, that's fine!


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Well, I'm a little disappointed that you never answered my questions about what a 'pet' home with specific temperament and physical requirements that aren't easily found in rescue are supposed to do if they can't go to breeders, nor why we should kiss dozens of popular breeds goodbye simply because they're primarily bred for 'just' companionship, but...

Here's my favorite resource concerning the 'results' Cesar Millan gets, and the greater damage his show has done to dog training: http://www.whyanimalsdothething.com/posts/2016/6/2/the-damage-of-dog-whispering

As a bonus, it comes with its own resources! I'm sure you'll appreciate that, since it's both scholarly and educated.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The more you talk, the more evident it is that you know very little.

The police force also uses contracted kennels. And they, too, are frequently imported.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

DracoGSD said:


> I would greatly appreciate links and would read all of them! I will say it again, just my opinion, which is why I find it funny you all invest to much time trying to change my mind, when I continuously say JMO and just my opinion. I have my own reasons for myself to believe what I believe, but am content with just having my own opinion and others not agreeing with me.


That's funny, when I offered to provide citations for things you thought had no scientific evidence, you didn't respond. Regardless, here are a few links (one study with data from multiple organizations, and two organizational websites) that provide data on the proportion of dogs that go on to perform the jobs they were bred for:

Among five service dog organizations with their own breeding programs, 30-50% of dogs make it to actually working as a service dog: http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016815911200...t=1487959619_e2ba76973d5394eda93503e48d41dcca

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police graduates only 17% of the dogs in its program to field work as police K9s. http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/fs-fd/dog-chien-eng.htm

The Swedish Armed Forces produces 35-40 _litters_ per year for their program, to fill 50 working service spots per year. They do 200-250 service aptitude tests per year, of which ~60 (24-30%) pass. http://www.forsvarsmakten.se/en/abo...ent/swedish-armed-forces-dog-training-center/

The closest thing that I could find to your claim that 75% of purpose-bred dogs to on to perform their jobs was a study out of the DOD Military training facility in Texas, in which 60-75% of _adult dogs purchased at between 1-3 years old from overseas specifically for working in the DOD program_ were certified for military work in either detection, defense, or both. That is NOT the same as 75% of dogs coming out of a breeding program succeeding in work, as there will have been all kinds of selection biases being applied to that group of dogs prior to them even being considered for purchase into the program.

but also... if you are making claims, it is up to YOU to support the claims that YOU are making. It is not the responsibility of everyone else to provide evidence that proves that you are wrong. Burden of proof. Your argument, you're responsible for providing the evidence to support it.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

DracoGSD said:


> Again, never said to stop commenting or challenging me! You are WELCOME to 'correct' me with your own opinions! And I will say it again, JMO, I am not trying to force you to change your opinion based off of my opinion. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I want you all to stop responding, that's fine!


I don't believe that anybody has insinuated you have told them they are not welcome to correct you. They have repeatedly corrected your opinions with facts, however, as evidenced by the recent flood of citations.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

Lillith said:


> I don't believe that anybody has insinuated you have told them they are not welcome to correct you. They have repeatedly corrected your opinions with facts, however, as evidenced by the recent flood of citations.


It's become obvious: there's no point trying to be rational with someone who believes that facts and opinions are the same thing.


----------



## Lillith (Feb 16, 2016)

gingerkid said:


> It's become obvious: there's no point trying to be rational with someone who believes that facts and opinions are the same thing.


It's both saddening and immensely entertaining at the same time. I guess nobody can say the forum didn't try


----------



## CiElBie (Mar 5, 2016)

I may get people upset for mentioning this, but its my opinion (yes, opinion), that "not working quality" does NOT mean "suitable for the average pet home". 

There will be dogs from the litter lower drive and energy than others. And they could be more likely to be suited for the average pet home, but that doesn't mean more than half of the dogs from a litter of sports/work dogs, lets say malinois, will be fine for the average pet home. 

I don't mean pet home as anything not a working home. 

I mean the type of dog most people own. They take it on a walk twice a day, maybe a little fetch, teach basic commands, perhaps go to puppy classes. 

And a guide dog washout or unsuitable pup for example would be more likely to be able to fill that role than perhaps an unsuitable pup for sledding from high drive working sleddogs. 

And there are different ways they don't qualify. For example, a border collie without much talent for herding? They could still be very high drive and energy that are not suited to the average life of a pet. 
A malinois that is too soft to do well in bitework? They may not be lacking drive, or be much easier for the average person. And I doubt even the lowest energy pup from most litters would be suited to the average pet home. (Purely average, not sports or highly active family)

And how many dogs go into work depends on the breeder and the breed, surely? I know some kennels where the majority of their dogs go as pet dogs, and others where the vast majority go into sports or work. 

But what people call a "pet" is up to the individual and the types of people they know, surely? 

But if we take it into the context of a pet dog meaning a dog that is more suitable for the average owner in ones area, are really the majority of dogs in a high drive litter suited for that? 

Not saying dogs should be "bred down" to make good pets BTW. 

Or am I missing something regarding the argument? I haven't had time to read everything.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

CiElBie said:


> Or am I missing something regarding the argument? I haven't had time to read everything.


There's two arguments here. The more recent is the claim that working line breeding programs consistently produce litters where all puppies go on to successful working careers - Draco claimed that _maybe_ one or two puppies in a litter wouldn't be suitable for work. As the sources people have linked show, this is abjectly false. I don't think anyone is claiming that pups that wash out of military or similarly intense programs universally make good 'average' pets, though a few have cited that they've seen incidents of these dogs winding up happy in 'pet' homes.

The other is that people looking for 'just pets' should never go to breeders. Which also has pretty darn glaringly obvious issues.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Most high drive dogs are stable. Stable dogs are fine in average homes, provided they are moderately active and capable of basic sit/stay training and can throw a ball. At least in the case of BCs. This is also true for things like GSDs, labs, hounds, and frankly I know quiet a few Mals in VERY casual sports homes, people who are playing at IPO (as in again, very casually), or just owned by hiking people. 

They're dogs. 

Dogs with drive only means dogs who want something. High drive means they want it a lot. In some cases that something is really mouth heavy and that might be problematic, but otherwise? They're emotionally stable, biddable dogs with off switches. That's pretty much what pet owners need - it's what everyone needs.

Dogs who are bred to work typically have stable temperaments and good work ethic and good off switches. Not necessarily ability to be military or police dogs, but stable temperament, good off switch, and good focus and biddabiity.

They are not dragons who must be owned by only the elite.

And even if they were, I have seen little to no difference between 'average pet' owners and 'average sports' people. Not in the exercise the dogs get, not in the level of general training, not in a single aspect of day to day life. It'd make me feel GREAT to claim so, but I see nothing aside from maaaaaybe, sometimes, a tendency to take more classes. 

I don't know a single sports dog, including some who do national or higher level events who wouldn't be just fine as 'just a pet' going on hikes and playing fetch instead of going to world disc or agility or flyball or obedience competitions. I see some super high drive, fast, dogs who would be *happier* as 'just pets' and without the constant adrenaline flood and chaotic environments, but in general what it takes to be good at work or sports is what it takes to be a good pet - there are just other things added to be good at sports or work that may or may not be there.

This is not 'on a chain in the back yard' definition of average owner, because in my experience that's not average. That's bad. 'Takes some classes once or twice for fun, plays a lot of ball or tug in the yard, hikes/bikes/runs with the dog on weekends and in nice weather, and works 8-10 hours a day' as average. 

They'd be fine.


----------



## Effisia (Jun 20, 2013)

DaySleepers said:


> The other is that people looking for 'just pets' should never go to breeders. Which also has pretty darn glaringly obvious issues.


I'm also super curious where actual companion breeds would fit into this argument. There aren't "working lines" in my breed - they're bred to be companions. Does that mean we should stop breeding my breed and all of us who love Eurasiers should just go get random shelter dogs? They they're the same? Because that's just ridiculous. (This is a general question, btw, not directed at you, DaySleepers  )


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

Effisia said:


> I'm also super curious where actual companion breeds would fit into this argument. There aren't "working lines" in my breed - they're bred to be companions. Does that mean we should stop breeding my breed and all of us who love Eurasiers should just go get random shelter dogs? They they're the same? Because that's just ridiculous. (This is a general question, btw, not directed at you, DaySleepers  )


There are, sadly, a lot of people who believe any dog bred for companionship is irresponsibly bred. Automatically because that doesn't count as a purpose.

It's really stupid.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

^^Haha, yeah, excellent point there too, CptJack.

Which brings me to something else - I love these threads. I've picked up the grand majority of my dog knowledge from forums (and resources recommended by people on forums), and spent many, many years as a lurker. Here and elsewhere. And threads like these taught - TEACH - me a lot, because you see many people with different experiences and views explaining issues from a lot of different angles. You see where there's a general consensus among people - even the ones who frequently butt heads in other areas - and where you might need to dig a little deeper and explored further to fully understand the issue and form your own opinion. So even if the catalyst doesn't come away learning anything new, I honestly think these threads are helpful and constructive and that someone, somewhere is probably learning from them.


----------



## DaySleepers (Apr 9, 2011)

Effisia said:


> I'm also super curious where actual companion breeds would fit into this argument. There aren't "working lines" in my breed - they're bred to be companions. Does that mean we should stop breeding my breed and all of us who love Eurasiers should just go get random shelter dogs? They they're the same? Because that's just ridiculous. (This is a general question, btw, not directed at you, DaySleepers  )


I've asked and am waiting on an answer for that exact question, Effisia. Owning a miniature poodle, myself. Yes, there are agility lines, but what a blow to the genetic pool if we decided to only use those lines for some reason.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

DaySleepers said:


> ^^Haha, yeah, excellent point there too, CptJack.
> 
> Which brings me to something else - I love these threads. I've picked up the grand majority of my dog knowledge from forums (and resources recommended by people on forums), and spent many, many years as a lurker. Here and elsewhere. And threads like these taught - TEACH - me a lot, because you see many people with different experiences and views explaining issues from a lot of different angles. You see where there's a general consensus among people - even the ones who frequently butt heads in other areas - and where you might need to dig a little deeper and explored further to fully understand the issue and form your own opinion. So even if the catalyst doesn't come away learning anything new, I honestly think these threads are helpful and constructive and that someone, somewhere is probably learning from them.


I learned a TON from this thread and my own opinion shifted somewhat in the process, though admittedly that shift was just further toward 'I don't care people can get the dogs they want from the source they want' than away from it.


----------



## CiElBie (Mar 5, 2016)

CptJack said:


> Most high drive dogs are stable. Stable dogs are fine in average homes, provided they are moderately active and capable of basic sit/stay training and can throw a ball. At least in the case of BCs. This is also true for things like GSDs, labs, hounds, and frankly I know quiet a few Mals in VERY casual sports homes, people who are playing at IPO (as in again, very casually), or just owned by hiking people.
> 
> They're dogs.
> 
> ...


That would again depend on the dog. 

My working lab in a family home? Fine. 
Would be very happy with two walks a day and no special training or socialization. 

My belgian in a family home? Insanity and misery. 

My Mudi? They need socialisation, and lots of it. I remember distinctly the person who trained my Mudi when my Mudi was in Hungary until she was old enough to come over stated before she ended up with her own mudi, she hated the breed because every one she met and worked with that lived in pet homes was poorly behaved and nasty, because they were not given an outlet and were not socialized. 
My Mudi? She would need socialization, but exercise and training wise I reckon she would be fine. 

The dogs I see in sports? They are usually reasonably intense in drive when working, but they are not difficult to train or live with from what I see. 

Some moderate drive GSDs bred for bitework? Would probably be fine too from an exercise perspective. If socialized and trained well. 

Its when a lot of training or exercise is required that I see issues occur. The average pet owner I see is not someone off hiking with their dog (in the UK, I don't know many dog owners who hike). The average pet owner I see would say "what?" if I asked them what socialisation is. Many will not even realise traits of the breed they get, such as being difficult to train for example. 
But what they will do is throw a ball, walk their dogs, teach them the basic "sit" or "stay" or "no". 

No, dogs are not dragons, but not every dog is suited to the pet home. Most? Yeah, sure. Every dog? No. 
Adolescence is also a tricky time. It seems a lot of dogs end up in shelters at a young age because of this. 

A lot of border collies I see want to use their minds, but are happy and content with playing fetch each day. 

If someone is not breeding the type of dog that would be happy playing fetch each day and with some basic commands, I don't think its reasonable to say the dogs produced would make great pets for the average home. 

Sports homes have a slight difference in that they usually can train to a higher degree. Obedience? Follows a lot of the principles of dog training in life. Agility? Agility people are some of the most hard-working people I know when it comes to raising dogs, constant socialisation, drive building, tricks, foundation work, etc. 

And I just don't see that in the average pet home. 

So while I am not saying the dogs they own are not suited to the average pet home, I am trying to say most sporting people I know learn from others, learn about dog training, socialization, etc. They are in a circle where they learn. Much like on this forum where we also share information. They can choose good breeders and gain knowledge of how to raise a dog to be a great dog. 
So its not an accurate comparison as there is a difference in knowledge. 
Perhaps its even the case that their dogs are suitable for the average pet home because they raised, trained and socialised the dog well and went to a good breeder? Or perhaps not. 

And not everyone is equally good at dog training. 
My father struggles with even basic dog training. Though thats below average. Most people I see though do not do the amount of work the sporting people I meet do.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

CptJack said:


> There are, sadly, a lot of people who believe any dog bred for companionship is irresponsibly bred. Automatically because that doesn't count as a purpose.
> 
> It's really stupid.


And as I mentioned earlier (and still haven't gotten as response to) as to where people looking for companion dogs are supposed to get these dog when magically only responsible working line breeders exist and the vast majority of their dogs are suited to work.... it isn't like breeding dogs for companionship is some new-fangled, "dilution", lower standards kind of thing. 1000+ years of breeding some breeds ONLY for companionship.


----------



## rookips (Feb 20, 2017)

This is a great thread and I've learned a lot (especially about PPD and other working breeds of dogs!) and I thought I would pop in with a personal anecdote.

My partner's black lab is a guide dog washout. Too curious about people, anxiety (not SA, just... general anxiety), no drive, low energy, and not a whole lot of basic common sense (I have to constantly stop her from walking towards traffic on walks). If I were a blind person, I would 100% NOT trust my life and wellbeing to this dog. Does this mean she's a bad dog in any way? No, she's a GREAT dog, and many people's idea of the perfect "just a pet" dog. The family who bred her is very close to my partner's family and gifted the dog to her to be an (unofficial) emotional support dog. She came fully trained (well... sit, stay, the basics), has barked like twice in her life, and was potty trained to the point where she knew to ring a bell if she wanted to go out in their huge yard. Just overall a very reliable, good dog (with horrible farts). 

And I know for a fact there is a HUGE waiting list for washed out guide dogs. Like, YEARS in some cases. Lots of people who want these dogs are looking for emotional support animals, dogs for their children with developmental disabilities (especially because they know not to jump up and are SUPER tolerant), therapy dogs, or just a really great, well-behaved low energy dog to be a companion. 

Anyways, just a personal tidbit I thought some might find interesting


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

Seems moderators aren't approving my comments with links. w/e


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

You need to PM them and tell them where your posts are; they don't get automatically notified.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Crantastic said:


> You need to PM them and tell them where your posts are; they don't get automatically notified.


Agreed. Mods are happy to approve posts in moderation, but you need to actually let us know about them. Send one of us a pm with a link to the post in question, and we'll be happy to approve it.


----------



## CptJack (Jun 3, 2012)

You can also avoid the issue by posting your comment without the link, and then editing it in.


----------



## DracoGSD (Feb 13, 2017)

There are two screenshots in my album 'dog', there's only 3 pics in there total. Couldn't get some of the websites linked to me to work so that's what the screenshots are. I think we are all past this, so I don't care about my comment not being approved.


----------

