# The Rehoming Fee



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

As I am sure most people here go on craigs list and ebay looking at dogs and I was just curious what you guys think of the re-homing fee. Do you think its fair or not so fair.

I ask this because people who have owned their dogs for a few years ask for upwards of 600 dollars. Usually there is no proof of any blood line or being AKC registered. I am sure there are "breeders" that post their dogs up on these sites but who knows that kind of health testing has been done? I am not quite sure how it all works though. 

Anywho I was looking at this 2 year old pap and the lady wanted 600 dollars for her, apparently she has papers for it, but does this seem reasonable? Although she is throwing in the purses (don't get me started on that one), the clothes, and toys ect. I mean in a shelter the fee is around $25-150.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

My understanding of a rehoming fee was to simply prevent people who may not truly "care" from taking your "free to a good home" dog. People sometimes do not value what does not cost them something. That being said, 600 bucks? Sheesh. If you got a dog, cannot keep it and just happened to spend hundreds of dollars on "stuff" or even medical care it does not increase the value of the dog. You charge a rehoming fee to weed out the weirdos (at least SOME of them), find the dog a good home and move on. It should not be a money making enterprise. IMO


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Cracker said:


> My understanding of a re-homing fee was to simply prevent people who may not truly "care" from taking your "free to a good home" dog. People sometimes do not value what does not cost them something. That being said, 600 bucks? Sheesh. If you got a dog, cannot keep it and just happened to spend hundreds of dollars on "stuff" or even medical care it does not increase the value of the dog. You charge a re-homing fee to weed out the weirdos (at least SOME of them), find the dog a good home and move on. It should not be a money making enterprise. IMO




Although I agree that people do not value what comes cheap or easy to them in some cases, the fact that the people are dumping them via craigslist speaks volumes to how much they care. (in most cases) Personally, If I had to re-home one of my animals (and I pray I never do) I would much more concerned with the animals future home then the money. My dog would go for free to an excellent home and I would spend the time trying to find that "right person" or family to take in the dog. Personally, I think MOST of the people who post on craigslist to get rid of their animals are selfish, greedy and irresponsible people.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I tried posting Barrett there a couple of days ago.

F that noise x.x


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

I don't have an issue with someone seeking a rehoming fee -- after all, they may have paid something for their pet in the first place, and have certainly invested a lot of money in it's food and hopefully veterinary care and supplies and toys and such over the years. It seems reasonable to me that they might hope to get a little bit of that back. And buying from a private person has a big advantage over shelters and rescues in that you don't have to sign any contracts, submit to some sort of screening, or agree to anything, if you're the type of person who gets a little offended when someone tries to make you follow *their* rules for how you care for *your* pet, and who is trying to "look into you" and decide if they think you meet their criteria as pet owner material.

Having said that, though, I'd be smart about it. If the dog is a mixed breed, don't pay a rehoming fee of more than $100. If you don't have a preference for certain types of mixes over other ones, you could probably even hold out for a free dog (I see a lot of pit mixes and even full pits out there for free -- I didn't really want a pit when I was looking, but if you like or don't mind them, it seems like they can be had without much "money down"). Pure bred dogs are worth more (Not necessarily as dogs, but economically speaking), so that you might have to pay a premium for them, and whether it's worth it depends on how important it is to you that the dog be pure bred. I'd look at puppy prices for your suggested breed and adjust somewhat downward for what you'd expect to pay for an adult.


----------



## That'llDo (Apr 13, 2010)

In my opinion, the appropriate use of a rehoming fee on Craigslist is to protect the _dog_ by discouraging collectors or flippers from trying to get it. I do not, personally, think trying to recoup the money you spent on your pet is appropriate. Dog food is not an investment. It is an obligation you take on when you obtain an animal in the first place, as is vet care, etc. You had the dog during the time you spent that money, therefore, you already got what you paid for--the companionship of the dog. As for the original cost of the dog, I have little sympathy for most re-homers. If the dog was really well-bred, I would think the breeder would want it back, so I see few cases in which a high cost could be justified for the potential new owner. If the dog wasn't well-bred, then usually (from what I've seen of my local Craigslist pet section) we are talking about a designer or BYB dog, and if the new owner wanted to buy a poorly bred dog for an exorbitant fee, well, they would go get a cute little puppy from the "breeder"--just like the relinquishing owner did. 

(BTW, I don't feel the same way about rescues charging somewhat higher fees. They get pretty high sometimes, but in those cases, they seem to be usually being used to pay for the care of that animal, or of other rescued animals with lower demand due to sickness, higher age, things like that.)


----------



## nneessaa (Feb 18, 2010)

Some people ask for high prices because they really need the money. If the person really cares about the dog and they find the perfect home, they'll waive the fee even if they need the money. That's my experience, at least. Other people are just greedy and don't care for the well being of their pet.


----------



## Bubbly (Mar 20, 2010)

That'llDo said:


> In my opinion, the appropriate use of a rehoming fee on Craigslist is to protect the _dog_ by discouraging collectors or flippers from trying to get it. I do not, personally, think trying to recoup the money you spent on your pet is appropriate. Dog food is not an investment. It is an obligation you take on when you obtain an animal in the first place, as is vet care, etc. You had the dog during the time you spent that money, therefore, you already got what you paid for--the companionship of the dog. As for the original cost of the dog, I have little sympathy for most re-homers. If the dog was really well-bred, I would think the breeder would want it back, so I see few cases in which a high cost could be justified for the potential new owner. If the dog wasn't well-bred, then usually (from what I've seen of my local Craigslist pet section) we are talking about a designer or BYB dog, and if the new owner wanted to buy a poorly bred dog for an exorbitant fee, well, they would go get a cute little puppy from the "breeder"--just like the relinquishing owner did.
> 
> (BTW, I don't feel the same way about rescues charging somewhat higher fees. They get pretty high sometimes, but in those cases, they seem to be usually being used to pay for the care of that animal, or of other rescued animals with lower demand due to sickness, higher age, things like that.)


+1

I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

One reason for a re-homing fee is to dicourage bunchers....they get about $25 an animal (last I heard) so they prefer to get free animals. Other than that, screening the potential adopters carefully is much more important than how much you're charging.


----------



## GSD (Jul 18, 2010)

Inga said:


> Although I agree that people do not value what comes cheap or easy to them in some cases, the fact that the people are dumping them via craigslist speaks volumes to how much they care. (in most cases) Personally, If I had to re-home one of my animals (and I pray I never do) I would much more concerned with the animals future home then the money. My dog would go for free to an excellent home and I would spend the time trying to find that "right person" or family to take in the dog. Personally, I think MOST of the people who post on craigslist to get rid of their animals are selfish, greedy and irresponsible people.


This is the best way to place a pet. There are many stupid people with money to spend and when the pet is no longer "cool" so what dump it at the pound since money is no object. Money does not = a good home.



DogsRCool said:


> I don't have an issue with someone seeking a rehoming fee -- after all, they may have paid something for their pet in the first place, and have certainly invested a lot of money in it's food and hopefully veterinary care and supplies and toys and such over the years. It seems reasonable to me that they might hope to get a little bit of that back. And buying from a private person has a big advantage over shelters and rescues in that you don't have to sign any contracts, submit to some sort of screening, or agree to anything, if you're the type of person who gets a little offended when someone tries to make you follow *their* rules for how you care for *your* pet, and who is trying to "look into you" and decide if they think you meet their criteria as pet owner material.
> 
> Having said that, though, I'd be smart about it. If the dog is a mixed breed, don't pay a rehoming fee of more than $100. If you don't have a preference for certain types of mixes over other ones, you could probably even hold out for a free dog (I see a lot of pit mixes and even full pits out there for free -- I didn't really want a pit when I was looking, but if you like or don't mind them, it seems like they can be had without much "money down"). Pure bred dogs are worth more (Not necessarily as dogs, but economically speaking), so that you might have to pay a premium for them, and whether it's worth it depends on how important it is to you that the dog be pure bred. I'd look at puppy prices for your suggested breed and adjust somewhat downward for what you'd expect to pay for an adult.


When people buy a pet they do so for themselves it is wrong to try to recoup money you spent on things for that pet.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> Having said that, though, I'd be smart about it. If the dog is a mixed breed, don't pay a rehoming fee of more than $100. If you don't have a preference for certain types of mixes over other ones, you could probably even hold out for a free dog (I see a lot of pit mixes and even full pits out there for free -- I didn't really want a pit when I was looking, but if you like or don't mind them, it seems like they can be had without much "money down"). Pure bred dogs are worth more (Not necessarily as dogs, but economically speaking), so that you might have to pay a premium for them, and whether it's worth it depends on how important it is to you that the dog be pure bred. I'd look at puppy prices for your suggested breed and adjust somewhat downward for what you'd expect to pay for an adult.


Come again? Why do mixes require a cap of $100, but purebreds, even those who are nothing more (substance/pedigree/what have you) than the mutts are more because it just so happens their mom and dad were the same breed? I also am not one to look at dogs economically speaking, so that makes no sense to me. When I adopt a dog, I meet that dog and determine if they're what I'm looking for and if I'm what they're going to need, not how much I could sell them for later if I had to or how much they're "worth" 

The worth of a dog is subjective. I happily paid $250 a piece for Jonas and Jack, and they're not any better than Smalls and Magpie because they're purebred. Their being purebred literally doesn't mean squat. Jonas is riddled with health and behavioral issues and came from a shoddy BYB who did nothing any breeder worth their salt would do. What he is worth to me is priceless, and if I EVER had to rehome one of my dogs money would not be a factor in the slightest. I would not be trying to "recoup" any thing I spent on him because it was my choice to get a living, breathing creature that I knew in the beginning that would require food and care to survive. His or any of my others rehoming would be screened up the butt and they would only go to a home I thought appropriate for them, not whoever was willing to pay whatever price I set for them.

Even with a costly rehoming free, you are never guaranteed a good home. For those who remember, the Magpie saga. Her rehoming fee was $150 which her previous scumbag owner paid. Certainly didn't stop her from dumping her at the shelter two months later and lying to me about the whole situation, almost costing Magpie her life. And this is AFTER she was approved via application, interviews, and a home visit. You can't guarantee someones behavior through any thing, not even money.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Come again? Why do mixes require a cap of $100, but purebreds, even those who are nothing more (substance/pedigree/what have you) than the mutts are more because it just so happens their mom and dad were the same breed? I also am not one to look at dogs economically speaking, so that makes no sense to me. When I adopt a dog, I meet that dog and determine if they're what I'm looking for and if I'm what they're going to need, not how much I could sell them for later if I had to or how much they're "worth"
> 
> The worth of a dog is subjective. I happily paid $250 a piece for Jonas and Jack, and they're not any better than Smalls and Magpie because they're purebred. Their being purebred literally doesn't mean squat. Jonas is riddled with health and behavioral issues and came from a shoddy BYB who did nothing any breeder worth their salt would do. What he is worth to me is priceless, and if I EVER had to rehome one of my dogs money would not be a factor in the slightest. I would not be trying to "recoup" any thing I spent on him because it was my choice to get a living, breathing creature that I knew in the beginning that would require food and care to survive. His or any of my others rehoming would be screened up the butt and they would only go to a home I thought appropriate for them, not whoever was willing to pay whatever price I set for them.
> 
> Even with a costly rehoming free, you are never guaranteed a good home. For those who remember, the Magpie saga. Her rehoming fee was $150 which her previous scumbag owner paid. Certainly didn't stop her from dumping her at the shelter two months later and lying to me about the whole situation, almost costing Magpie her life. And this is AFTER she was approved via application, interviews, and a home visit. You can't guarantee someones behavior through any thing, not even money.


I agree with you 100% I think that if the dog truely matters to you it should never be about the money, but about the person and the family your pup is going to. I also agree on the whole idea of not getting your money back for the dog, you may have payed lots of money for your dog but that was that persons choice and took on that payment knowingly.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

That'llDo said:


> In my opinion, the appropriate use of a rehoming fee on Craigslist is to protect the _dog_ by discouraging collectors or flippers from trying to get it.


Agreed. I see a lot of people selling their dog, however, who call the charge a "rehoming fee" to make it sound more PC.


----------



## infiniti (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm doing what I thought I would never do ... trying to rehome a dog via Craigslist, ugh! And I am asking an unspecified rehoming fee, along with a screening, home visit, adoption contract, follow-up visit and all that.

If any of you remember my other thread about the pit bull puppies my daughter and her friend got, well the friend wants to sell hers and wants me to try to find a good home for her. I honestly don't know how to go about it because NO ONE I know is even a dog person, let alone a pit bull person. And these are young girls who hang out with some immature, shady young men. My daughter is keeping her puppy.

Guess what! I've gotten NO responses on my ad. Big surprise, huh? Pits are a dime a dozen on CL and why would they go through the trouble that I will put them through to adopt mine if they can so much easier pluck one from another seedier ad?


----------



## GSD (Jul 18, 2010)

infiniti said:


> I'm doing what I thought I would never do ... trying to rehome a dog via Craigslist, ugh! And I am asking an unspecified rehoming fee, along with a screening, home visit, adoption contract, follow-up visit and all that.
> 
> If any of you remember my other thread about the pit bull puppies my daughter and her friend got, well the friend wants to sell hers and wants me to try to find a good home for her. I honestly don't know how to go about it because NO ONE I know is even a dog person, let alone a pit bull person. And these are young girls who hang out with some immature, shady young men. My daughter is keeping her puppy.
> 
> Guess what! I've gotten NO responses on my ad. Big surprise, huh? Pits are a dime a dozen on CL and why would they go through the trouble that I will put them through to adopt mine if they can so much easier pluck one from another seedier ad?


I think you can post them on PBRC site and try to e-mail some pit bull rescues in the area some will put them up on petfinder as a courtesy.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

The purpose of a rehoming fee is to keep the dog out of the hands of resellers who will turn around and sell your dog to a lab or a dog fighting ring as a bait dog. It is not recoup costs.


----------



## Papilove (May 20, 2010)

"Rehoming" is just syntax. Those listing places "craigslist" (not sure about ebay--didn't even know ebay had a dog sales site) anyway, craigslist does not allow SALE of pt animals... so, they 'call it' rehoming. that's what it all boils down to 90% of the time.


----------



## GSD (Jul 18, 2010)

KaseyT said:


> The purpose of a rehoming fee is to keep the dog out of the hands of resellers who will turn around and sell your dog to a lab or a dog fighting ring as a bait dog. It is not recoup costs.


So how does selling a pet make sure it wont get dumped at a shelter or sold to a lab?


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Even with a costly rehoming free, you are never guaranteed a good home.


This is why I think the whole "re-homing fee" thing is silly.

The idea that ability to pay money = ability to care for another life is silly to me.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

KBLover said:


> This is why I think the whole "re-homing fee" thing is silly.
> 
> The idea that ability to pay money = ability to care for another life is silly to me.


Definitely means squat. I can guarantee my two free mutts here live in a better home than a few people I can think of who paid hundreds of dollars for their dogs.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Come again? Why do mixes require a cap of $100, but purebreds, even those who are nothing more (substance/pedigree/what have you) than the mutts are more because it just so happens their mom and dad were the same breed?


It's just an issue of market price, really. If you're looking for a mixed breed dog (and aren't too specific about the breeds you want involved), you can generally find one under $100. If I saw someone charging a lot more than that as a rehoming fee or whatever, I'd feel I was being ripped off, unless there was a specific reason (i.e. some sort of rare mix people really want, a dog with incredible training/temperment, etc..). It would generally behoove folks to keep looking in such a situation (where one is being sold for a lot more) because they will almost certainly find a similar dog much cheaper (or free). I'm not saying people can't pay what they want, just offering some friendly advice.

Pure breds can go for a lot more than that, so, just in an economic sense, you're not going to typically find one really cheap, so it makes sense to budget for a little more if you want a pure bred (with the exception of breeds like pits that aren't in demand relative to the enormous supply of them).

I'm not making a statement about which is better here. Some people prefer the greater degree of predictability involved in a pure bred dog, and really like or are attached to certain breed specific traits. Others might actually prefer the less predictable more unique nature of a non-pure breed and the generally better health that they often enjoy. It's all a matter of personal preference, really.

I personally really wanted a golden and spent a lot of time and energy tracking down people offering a price anywhere close to what I could afford to borrow to get one, and then negotiated it further downward until I got an even better deal (that I needed to be able to afford to get the dog and all the things a dog needs). But that is because I really have a strong emotional attachment to the breed -- the appearance, the build, the average temperament, common behavioral quirks, etc., which made it worth it to me. I knew in the rough times to come while the dog got trained (and was making messes and biting and whatever) or when I had to walk it and didn't feel up to it, or had to buy food or pay a vet bill that was really straining my budget, the dog being a golden would make a huge psychological difference to me because I really adore goldens (had one as a child, etc..). And it has -- I love my dog to death -- and I think part of forming that quick bond was because I love his breed to death, odd though that may seem to some people.

But that's not a knock on mixed breeds. I have some relatives with a mixed breed who fits in with them really well and who they really like. It's personal preference. Talking about what someone can expect to pay isn't assigning a value in a large non-monetary sense -- it's just talking about the financial transaction. What's in your heart, and your emotions, and the dog becoming a member of your family is a different story.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Definitely means squat. I can guarantee my two free mutts here live in a better home than a few people I can think of who paid hundreds of dollars for their dogs.


Very true. The big part of caring for a dog isn't how much money you have, but how much time and love and sacrifice you're willing to put in to make sure they have a good home with you. A dog who a poor person makes a huge part of his or her life, and really sacrifices for, is going to be much happier than a dog who lives with a rich person and isn't given the time and attention he/she needs.


----------



## LazyGRanch713 (Jul 22, 2009)

KBLover said:


> This is why I think the whole "re-homing fee" thing is silly.
> 
> The idea that ability to pay money = ability to care for another life is silly to me.


I can understand that sentiment. However, when it came to finding our foster kittens homes, we didn't advertise them as free. We ended up giving them away, but only after the people "knew" there was a fee of X amount (I think we said 75 or 100, to cover vet costs). They didn't care, they wanted a kitten and were happy to get one that had been handled, vetted, and was healthy and social. 
And we also had a contract with our adopters. Basically it said if you can't keep the kitten, to bring it back to US, NOT dump it off at a pound to be gassed. The other things in the contract were basically ideas to get adopters thinking. In one case I wrote about the pros and cons of declawing, and asking the adopters to do their research before making a final decision. (I am against declawing, but I couldn't tell an adopter they weren't allowed to declaw their pet. That's just stupid ) Also had a few websites in there about food and feeding, dry vs. canned, pros and cons, and basically to use their brains and use common sense. 
We even did the unthinkable a few times and posted fliers at walmart in the pet section. We attracted some really good people, and some complete bimbos. If people balk and think "75 for a cat? No way", the potential for the cat (or dog) to be uncared for down the road is probable IMO. It's not about who "has" the money, it's more about people who are willing to make a small investment before making a larger investment in the near future. Tags adoption fee was 250, and I didn't bat an eye because I knew he was going to need shots, neutering, food, a collar, a leash, toys, training, and the like. 
A few rare times we put a price of 500 dollars on a kitten when we weren't comfortable with the people. If they would have said great and paid 500 cash, great. A friend of mine has a gorgeous bi-color GSD who is a retired show champion she would LOVE to place. He's huge, he's got a gorgeous topline, great movement, wonderful personality, but looks meaner than heck. She's had some people stop by looking for a "guard dog", "junk yard dog", etc, and she's put a price of 2,000 for him to ward off the idiots. She told me if I wanted him, I could have him 



DogsRCool said:


> Very true. The big part of caring for a dog isn't how much money you have, but how much time and love and sacrifice you're willing to put in to make sure they have a good home with you. A dog who a poor person makes a huge part of his or her life, and really sacrifices for, is going to be much happier than a dog who lives with a rich person and isn't given the time and attention he/she needs.


I'm thinking of that old movie called Savannah Smiles. It was about a little kid (maybe 5) who's parents were rich and gave her all the toys she wanted. They never paid attention to her and never played with her or anything. A couple of burglers somehow wound up with her, and they loved her and spent time with her, played with her, etc. She loved them right back. (Same with the movie The Toy with Richard Pryor...the kids dad "bought" Pryor so he would have someone to play with over his summer vacation because his dad was far to busy and important, he also had a houseful of toys and games but really wanted companionship instead.)


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

LazyGRanch713 said:


> Tags adoption fee was 250, and I didn't bat an eye because I knew he was going to need shots, neutering, food, a collar, a leash, toys, training, and the like.


I wouldn't mind paying it - but if I don't have $250 at that moment (like right now I couldn't), that doesn't mean I'm not capable/willing to care for another life. So if that's what it took to save Wally from his craptastic breeder - he wouldn't be with me now...and might still be suffering.

That's the thing I have about it. Yeah, you want to ward off idiots, but price also can run away good people who can't write a $250 check or pull out 3 Benjamins at that moment.

I just think warding off idiots could be better done in other ways - but I'm not in the foster/rescue business so I'm probably just talking out my butt.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> It's just an issue of market price, really. If you're looking for a mixed breed dog (and aren't too specific about the breeds you want involved), you can generally find one under $100. If I saw someone charging a lot more than that as a rehoming fee or whatever, I'd feel I was being ripped off, unless there was a specific reason (i.e. some sort of rare mix people really want, a dog with incredible training/temperment, etc..). It would generally behoove folks to keep looking in such a situation (where one is being sold for a lot more) because they will almost certainly find a similar dog much cheaper (or free). I'm not saying people can't pay what they want, just offering some friendly advice.
> 
> Pure breds can go for a lot more than that, so, just in an economic sense, you're not going to typically find one really cheap, so it makes sense to budget for a little more if you want a pure bred (with the exception of breeds like pits that aren't in demand relative to the enormous supply of them).
> 
> ...


I suppose I'm not looking at it in terms of a rehoming fee, only from a rescue point of view. I'm willing to pay just as much for mutt or pure as long as the dog is what I'm looking for but to a reputable rescue, not someone off Craigslist. Largely because I don't really trust Craigslist posters. A lot of postings I come across are disguise BYBs or someone trying to recoop what they spent on a dog (which is usually nothing. A good amount of these posts the dogs are not vetted or altered or anything I get automatically through a rescue) I think a lot of peple underestimate what they can find in a shelter, too. We found our Elkhound in one, and have even met breeds like Boerboels in them.


----------



## Papilove (May 20, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I'm willing to pay just as much for mutt or pure as long as the dog is what I'm looking for but to a reputable rescue, not someone off Craigslist.



I like you, so please don't take this wrong, but that sentiment is insane. Now, I KNOW why you feel it shows you are a good person. You believe a dog is a dog no matter what it is, what it's background, etc.

And you're right.

You say you're not looking at it right. Well, you said in the right terms, but you are looking at it ENTIRELY wrong. So do most people. They feel guilty to begin with putting a price on a living animal, but moreso it is wrong to value one over another simply becasue of something they can't control. They believe they are paying such and such for the DOG.

Here's how buyers SHOULD look at dog prices, rehoming fees, shelter fees, WHATEVER...

base value of the animal... okay, fair is fair, but here is where you can say one is only worth what another is, not more or less becuase of it's breed/breeding.

then add on the cost of the work done by the breeder.

Show titles
health checks (not vet visits, actual health evaulations like OFA, vision, etc)
experience. (has this breeder been around for years, and likely to continue, has a great reputation in the community, and you know you will have someone to turn to for questions, or are they going to be gone the moment you put the money in their hands?)


Those are the things you are paying for, and then some. Those things cost a lot of money.

It's crazy to pay that much for a BYB dog, or a mixed breed. Not because they aren't 'worth' as much personally, but because not as much is in their background work up. If those things aren't important to you then don't pay for them AT ALL. Some people consider them worthwhile because they feel it helps them make a good decision on the longevity of their dog, how the dog will do in competition, etc.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Papilove said:


> I like you, so please don't take this wrong, but that sentiment is insane. Now, I KNOW why you feel it shows you are a good person. You believe a dog is a dog no matter what it is, what it's background, etc.
> 
> And you're right.
> 
> ...


I have no idea what this has to do with my post or how it makes me wrong.. let alone insane. I said nothing about reputable breeders because obviously the grounds there are a bit different and the buying a mix from a breeder is a whole different debate I'm not even touching on. I in fact said my defense of mutt cost vs. purebred cost is based solely on rescue dogs because all of my dogs are rescues and that it what I deal with. I would pay just the same at a rescue for a purebred dog as I would for a mutt at the same rescue. _At a rescue._

I also said nothing about a dog being a dog or any thing about feeling like a good person. I in fact said quite the contrary by stating "as long as the dog is what I'm looking for." Not all dogs are one in the same to me. I would not take any dog that was not right for me and I was not right for them. Nor do I find it wrong putting a price on a dog and can't recall saying that, either. I probably paid on what people would consider the high end for two of my rescues.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I suppose I'm not looking at it in terms of a rehoming fee, only from a rescue point of view. I'm willing to pay just as much for mutt or pure as long as the dog is what I'm looking for but to a reputable rescue, not someone off Craigslist. Largely because I don't really trust Craigslist posters. A lot of postings I come across are disguise BYBs or someone trying to recoop what they spent on a dog (which is usually nothing. A good amount of these posts the dogs are not vetted or altered or anything I get automatically through a rescue) I think a lot of peple underestimate what they can find in a shelter, too. We found our Elkhound in one, and have even met breeds like Boerboels in them.


One of the issues I had with looking at a rescue or a shelter was that they demanded people sign a contract adhering to a lot of conditions. The rescues even charged a large fee and including such conditions as home inspections and interviews with people listed as references and so on and so forth. I even saw some that said the new owner doesn't get to pick the dog, the rescue decides which dog they think is most suitable. It was important to me when making the type of commitment it takes to have a dog, which includes a lot of financial, physical, and emotional strain at times, that it not come with the additional strain of having to be judged by people as to whether or not I was "suitable" down ownership material, and then have to commit in writing to raising my dog their way (Which includes things like committing to neuter at a certain age, and so on and so forth). I didn't feel I should have to prove myself to some people who may or may not share my outlook on a lot of things, and I don't think they should get a say in how I raise my pet, even if in some cases I might agree with the way they want me to raise it. I also wanted to be able to pick a pet I felt a connection with and not have one assigned to me.

I even know someone who had relatives who adopted a dog from a particularly up-tight rescue, and had the dog plucked right out of their yard because they let it run around in their fenced in yard for a few hours on mild summer days, and the contract stated that the dog must be accompanied at all times when outdoors. It absolutely broke their hearts. They loved that dog. I wouldn't ever want to take a chance on something like that happening if any other options were available (and I say that even as someone who does watch my dog at all times while outdoors, it's the principle of the thing).

Many of these organizations also make you agree that if you ever are in a situation where you can't keep a dog, it reverts back to them. Personally, if I were ever in a horrible situation and there were no way I could keep my pet, I'd want the freedom to give my pet to a friend or a relative who I knew and trusted would raise him well, and who I might even be able to make an agreement with that I could have him back if and when my situation improved, and if not could at least get updates on him.

For the breed I was looking for, by looking around in newspapers and online, I was able to get a puppy at the age I wanted (eight weeks) and drive over and pick him up and take him home with no forms, no contracts, and no conditions. Because I shopped around and negotiated a price, I actually wound up getting him significantly more cheaply than a what rescue would have charged me (and which I couldn't afford anyhow -- so it was really an impossibility) for an older dog with fewer years to live, more chance of near-term health problems, and less freedom to make my own decisions about (In addition to having to submit to the scrutiny of the dog mafia.  ). I also got my choice of several puppies, so I could pick the one in the group I felt was best suited to me.

I get that there is a certain nobility in adopting an unwanted dog, but the shelters and the rescues make it such a difficult ordeal that I couldn't see doing it. Going through a process like that and agreeing to all those things would have soured the beginning of what has become a beautiful relationship with my pet.

In 10-15 years when my dog passes away from old age, or if I ever were in circumstances where I'd want a second dog, I can't imagine even giving a rescue or a shelter the time of day, even if I wanted to rescue a dog and didn't care about breed or anything. I'd just get my mutt or whatever from a private individual and be able to rest soundly at night knowing that he was my dog, and that I was free to raise him or her how I felt best.

I understand that some people don't like back yard breeders and this and that and the other, and I respect their right to their opinion, but personally that kind of thing seems like a small issue compared to the stuff I'd have to deal with from a "more reputable" shelter or rescue. I just wanted a puppy I could love and care for my own way on my own terms without having some organization dictating everything to me.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

OK, so you bought a puppy from a BYB. Did you ask anything about the breeders, like how often they breed their bitches or what they do with their retired breeding dogs or is supporting cruel breeding practices fine with you just as long as they sell you a puppy cheap with no questions asked? I shudder to think of how few of your dog's littermates lived to be a year old.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> One of the issues I had with looking at a rescue or a shelter was that they demanded people sign a contract adhering to a lot of conditions. The rescues even charged a large fee and including such conditions as home inspections and interviews with people listed as references and so on and so forth. I even saw some that said the new owner doesn't get to pick the dog, the rescue decides which dog they think is most suitable. It was important to me when making the type of commitment it takes to have a dog, which includes a lot of financial, physical, and emotional strain at times, that it not come with the additional strain of having to be judged by people as to whether or not I was "suitable" down ownership material, and then have to commit in writing to raising my dog their way (Which includes things like committing to neuter at a certain age, and so on and so forth). I didn't feel I should have to prove myself to some people who may or may not share my outlook on a lot of things, and I don't think they should get a say in how I raise my pet, even if in some cases I might agree with the way they want me to raise it. I also wanted to be able to pick a pet I felt a connection with and not have one assigned to me.


Rescues vary just like good to bad breeders vary. There are good and bad. I am hesitant to say bad, but overly zealous about the best interest of the dog. As a person who does home checks and drop offs of dogs for a rescue, I don't feel I am judging anyone nor do we have uptight criteria about where the dog goes. Nor do we assign dogs to potential adopters unless they write that they would just like the best match for their home. I do know of a breed specific rescue that does do dog selection, but you're not forced to take said dog if you meet them and feel it isn't a match. And that isn't common for rescues across the board. You also have to understand that rescues go to hell and back for some dogs, not to mention the immense cost that goes into some of the worse off cases. We're a bit hesitant to just allow any one to take any dog they want without an application, phone interview, and home check. My rescue just spent well over 4 grand on a puppy that had been hit by a car and required skin grafts/extensive surgeries/etc. Her adoption fee is no more than the other dogs. 



DogsRCool said:


> I even know someone who had relatives who adopted a dog from a particularly up-tight rescue, and had the dog plucked right out of their yard because they let it run around in their fenced in yard for a few hours on mild summer days, and the contract stated that the dog must be accompanied at all times when outdoors. It absolutely broke their hearts. They loved that dog. I wouldn't ever want to take a chance on something like that happening if any other options were available (and I say that even as someone who does watch my dog at all times while outdoors, it's the principle of the thing).


I don't know how that is the rescues fault. Leaving a dog unattended in a yard leaves a chance of that happening. 



DogsRCool said:


> Many of these organizations also make you agree that if you ever are in a situation where you can't keep a dog, it reverts back to them. Personally, if I were ever in a horrible situation and there were no way I could keep my pet, I'd want the freedom to give my pet to a friend or a relative who I knew and trusted would raise him well, and who I might even be able to make an agreement with that I could have him back if and when my situation improved, and if not could at least get updates on him.


Any breeder worth their salt will also require the dog be returned to them, and a rescue wants to do the same. I don't see any problem with it, and sadly the rescue doesn't really have a way to keep track of what happens to a dog after they're adopted. 



DogsRCool said:


> For the breed I was looking for, by looking around in newspapers and online, I was able to get a puppy at the age I wanted (eight weeks) and drive over and pick him up and take him home with no forms, no contracts, and no conditions. Because I shopped around and negotiated a price, I actually wound up getting him significantly more cheaply than a what rescue would have charged me (and which I couldn't afford anyhow -- so it was really an impossibility) for an older dog with fewer years to live, more chance of near-term health problems, and less freedom to make my own decisions about (In addition to having to submit to the scrutiny of the dog mafia.  ). I also got my choice of several puppies, so I could pick the one in the group I felt was best suited to me.


I have to say I'm offended you would liken a rescue to a mafia or that a BYB would be a better, cheaper option. I am of the camp that if you want a dog, you save to afford a dog from a good venue, not just where you could find the cheapest the easier. Lots of those dogs end up in our rescue. 



DogsRCool said:


> I get that there is a certain nobility in adopting an unwanted dog, but the shelters and the rescues make it such a difficult ordeal that I couldn't see doing it. Going through a process like that and agreeing to all those things would have soured the beginning of what has become a beautiful relationship with my pet.


As I said, shelters and rescues are not the same across the board. I'm not sure where you're from, but in my town there are at least 10 rescues and several animal controls. Of those rescues there is one I find militant that I would not try to adopt from (and WAS denied years back by a ridiculous standard- not being married.) but all the rest are lovely and not difficult to adopt from by any means. 



DogsRCool said:


> In 10-15 years when my dog passes away from old age, or if I ever were in circumstances where I'd want a second dog, I can't imagine even giving a rescue or a shelter the time of day, even if I wanted to rescue a dog and didn't care about breed or anything. I'd just get my mutt or whatever from a private individual and be able to rest soundly at night knowing that he was my dog, and that I was free to raise him or her how I felt best.


I don't know what it is you think rescues do. Your house is not bugged and you're not followed by an agent for the rest of your life to raise a dog to their standard of care.



DogsRCool said:


> I understand that some people don't like back yard breeders and this and that and the other, and I respect their right to their opinion, but personally that kind of thing seems like a small issue compared to the stuff I'd have to deal with from a "more reputable" shelter or rescue. I just wanted a puppy I could love and care for my own way on my own terms without having some organization dictating everything to me.


Yeah, I don't really find BYBs, a leading source of a stream of dogs/puppies that end up in rescues, a good alternative to any thing and find that comparison offensive.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Willowy said:


> OK, so you bought a puppy from a BYB. Did you ask anything about the breeders, like how often they breed their bitches or what they do with their retired breeding dogs or is supporting cruel breeding practices fine with you just as long as they sell you a puppy cheap with no questions asked? I shudder to think of how few of your dog's littermates lived to be a year old.


I hesitate to call them a backyard breeders, because the term is used in a derogatory way in some places, but they did have the puppies in their backyard.  The mother and father of the puppies were both around to look at and play with (They appeared to be the family pets), they'd only had one or two previous litters, and they generally seemed like very nice people who took good care of their puppies and were very nice to me as a prospective buyer. The puppies had all been to a vet for their initial shots, and so on and so forth. Sure, they didn't have the sort of in-depth health clearances some breeders would provide, and didn't have a champion bloodline or whatever, but they were well cared for pure bred puppies at an affordable price.

Right now I have this great puppy who means the world to me and is exactly the breed I want, and was exactly the age I wanted when I got him. And I can make my own decisions about him. Had I gone another route, I'd have been flat out unable to afford a dog of the breed I wanted (I had to borrow money for this one, even), and would probably not gotten the age I wanted, and might have had a lot of conditions, restrictions, and hassles to deal with that I consider wrong in principle. Sometimes that's exactly the sort of stuff that can make the difference between a great experience where you can handle the rough spots, and souring on the whole thing and never really being able to appreciate the pet in the way he should be appreciated. Everytime something gets frustrating, I can just remind myself that I got exactly what I wanted, and that makes me much better able to handle those trying times and love my puppy the way he should be loved. Sometimes I see him walking around and I melt because of how cute the little guy is.

My childhood pet came from a family, too, and that was a great experience as well.

I really appreciate that there are still some private individuals out there who breed some great pets at affordable prices and without a lot of red tape or strings attached. Obviously, that doesn't mean I agree with the practices of every single breeder -- of course there are some who don't do things the way they should (just as some shelters and rescues don't do things the way they should), but I think there are a lot of them who geniunely care for their animals and do the best they can. Many of these breeders people spend so much energy deriding are like a godsend for a lot of people who really want a dog in their lives and are willing to provide great homes, but have issues with the prices and hassles associated with getting dogs from other sources.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

This thread took a horrible, horrible turn.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Well, if you're happy with your dog that's good. Just keep an eye out for hip dysplasia. If the breeders didn't screen for HD, well, I wouldn't like those chances. That's the kind of thing that can really cut into your enjoyment of a dog. Expensive, too.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Rescues vary just like good to bad breeders vary. There are good and bad. I am hesitant to say bad, but overly zealous about the best interest of the dog.


I think I can agree with you there. I'm sure some rescues are better than others. That makes sense to me.



> As a person who does home checks and drop offs of dogs for a rescue, I don't feel I am judging anyone nor do we have uptight criteria about where the dog goes.


I know that there are a lot of good hearted people involved with rescues, and I don't want to sound like I am judging anyone either, in saying that I wouldn't want to adopt from a rescue. I'm sure it is a good fit for some people. It probably depends on what things are important to the person looking for a pet, in many respects.

Doing a home inspection does imply that some people are turned down who want a dog based in some way on their home, though. Am I wrong about that? If they aren't looking to reject some people due to things like too small a home or too messy a home or whatever, what's the point of the home inspection? I guess I feel like everyone should have a chance to own a dog if they are willing to put in the time and effort, have a way to provide food and basic necessities, have love to give, and aren't abusive. Some of the dogs that seem the happiest don't have rich owners or owners who have super big yards or whatever, but they have owners who love them. A dog doesn't know whether he or she is poor or not. 



> I don't know how that is the rescues fault. Leaving a dog unattended in a yard leaves a chance of that happening.


I'm sorry, I may not have been clear in what I was trying to say when I mentioned that story initially. It was the *rescue* that took the dog out of their yard. Apparently someone with the rescue had been driving by the house to check up on it and didn't like what he saw. When the owners called the police, the rescue showed them the contract that said they had the right to take the dog back under such circumstances.



> Any breeder worth their salt will also require the dog be returned to them, and a rescue wants to do the same. I don't see any problem with it


Well, I'm not saying there is a problem with it in it's very essence. Some dog owners might actually appreciate knowing that if anything happens to them, the dog will go back to the rescue they like. However, for me personally, I object to being told where my dog would have to go if I died or was unable to keep him for a while -- I like knowing that I'd have the option under such circumstances to place him with friends or relatives who I know will take good care of him and give me updates and/or the dog back one day.



> and sadly the rescue doesn't really have a way to keep track of what happens to a dog after they're adopted.


Some rescues require contractually that owners notify them if they move and provide the new address and contact info for the life of the dog. I guess this might not be enforced, but I try to take anything I sign seriously, knowing that it *can* be enforced, even if it usually isn't in practice. Like that situation my friend's relatives got into, who would have thought they'd actually take the dog back for something like that? Nine times out of ten, a rescue probably would never enforce that sort of thing. But they had the contractual right to do it, and they did it.



> I have to say I'm offended you would liken a rescue to a mafia


That part might have been a little much on my part. In retrospect, I shouldn't typed it.



> or that a BYB would be a better, cheaper option.


That part I'm sticking to, at least for me in my own personal situation.



> I am of the camp that if you want a dog, you save to afford a dog from a good venue, not just where you could find the cheapest the easier.


The nice part about living in a free country, is that people don't get to dictate to me and to others how we handle personal choices like that.



> Lots of those dogs end up in our rescue.


It sounds like what you're saying there is that rescue dogs don't necessarily have any better bloodlines or temperaments than other dogs. They just may have the bad habits they picked up from spending their formative years with owners who didn't care for them properly.



> Of those rescues there is one I find militant that I would not try to adopt from (and WAS denied years back by a ridiculous standard- not being married.)


That's actually a good example of the sort of thing that worries me. Here you are, I'm assuming a really loving dog owner, and maybe one who has more time and emotional energy to devote to a dog than a married person would, but a rescue rejected you because you didn't meet their arbitrary standard of being married. I'm single too, and one of the reasons I got my dog was because since I can't find a good woman who wants to settle down with me, and don't have any kids, so this might be the closest thing to a family I'll have, and I know I have plenty of love to give because of that. Like I'm guessing you properly do, I take extra care to give my dog lots of opportunities to socialize with other people and other dogs, including some relatives and friends of mine. In the end, that sort of thing is a personal decision that in my mind belongs with the prospective owner, not some sort of agency or organization.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> I know that there are a lot of good hearted people involved with rescues, and I don't want to sound like I am judging anyone either, in saying that I wouldn't want to adopt from a rescue. I'm sure it is a good fit for some people. It probably depends on what things are important to the person looking for a pet, in many respects.


I don't have any problem with people choosing not to go through a rescue for their dog. But to compare one to the mafia and fund BYBs because you want a cheap easy dog? Every thing I find wrong about opposing rescues. 



DogsRCool said:


> Doing a home inspection does imply that some people are turned down who want a dog based in some way on their home, though. Am I wrong about that? If they aren't looking to reject some people due to things like too small a home or too messy a home or whatever, what's the point of the home inspection? I guess I feel like everyone should have a chance to own a dog if they are willing to put in the time and effort, have a way to provide food and basic necessities, have love to give, and aren't abusive. Some of the dogs that seem the happiest don't have rich owners or owners who have super big yards or whatever, but they have owners who love them. A dog doesn't know whether he or she is poor or not.


I don't represent every rescue in the world, but I can tell you from personal experience no one has ever been turned down due to home size or mess. The point of the home inspection is that I can meet you, see you live where you do (people DO lie about this), meet your family and any pets, and bring the dog you're looking to adopt to your home so every one can meet them. If you feel every one who puts in the time and effort should get a dog, then I'm not sure why you oppose rescues. Picking a random "breeder" out of the paper and handing them cash is not what I would consider time or effort. I also didn't say at any point only rich people with giant yards should own dogs. I'm certainly not one of those people. 



DogsRCool said:


> I'm sorry, I may not have been clear in what I was trying to say when I mentioned that story initially. It was the *rescue* that took the dog out of their yard. Apparently someone with the rescue had been driving by the house to check up on it and didn't like what he saw. When the owners called the police, the rescue showed them the contract that said they had the right to take the dog back under such circumstances.


If that was in the contract, then they violated the contract and therefore the rescue reserved the right to take the dog back. That is why you should read and sign a contract only if you are prepared to accept the consequences. I'm not saying this rescue is necessarily going about things the right way, but contracts are contracts. 




DogsRCool said:


> Well, I'm not saying there is a problem with it in it's very essence. Some dog owners might actually appreciate knowing that if anything happens to them, the dog will go back to the rescue they like. However, for me personally, I object to being told where my dog would have to go if I died or was unable to keep him for a while -- I like knowing that I'd have the option under such circumstances to place him with friends or relatives who I know will take good care of him and give me updates and/or the dog back one day.


I really have no problem with the places that brought my dogs to me taking them back and finding them another great person to keep them if some thing should happen to me. 



DogsRCool said:


> Some rescues require contractually that owners notify them if they move and provide the new address and contact info for the life of the dog. I guess this might not be enforced, but I try to take anything I sign seriously, knowing that it *can* be enforced, even if it usually isn't in practice. Like that situation my friend's relatives got into, who would have thought they'd actually take the dog back for something like that? Nine times out of ten, a rescue probably would never enforce that sort of thing. But they had the contractual right to do it, and they did it.


If they read the contract they signed, they would know they would take the dog back for something like that. The ability to enforce something doesn't always necessarily mean they will/can enforce it, but you can't count on breaking the rules in hopes of never being caught. I happily supplied the rescue with our new address when we moved, and I often send photos of the dogs and updates about their lives. 



DogsRCool said:


> It sounds like what you're saying there is that rescue dogs don't necessarily have any better bloodlines or temperaments than other dogs. They just may have the bad habits they picked up from spending their formative years with owners who didn't care for them properly.


That isn't what I'm saying at all, but of course that is the case. The chances of a dog from an ethical breeder ending up in the shelter is extremely slim, so you are taking a crap shoot with any dog you adopt. I'd much rather save a dog than take the crapshoot AND fund a BYB churning pups with undetermined temperaments and genetics. What I'm saying is a good chunk of rescue dogs are from these sort of breeders. If you're not breeding for health and soundness and just pairing two purebreds because they're purebreds you have no idea what is going to become of that dog. Jonas is a rescue but came with registration papers from his shoddy breeder. He has PRA, a horrendous body structure, and is a completely unsound dog. Not only was he given this by his "breeder" but also had to go through the life of being a shelter dump. His behavior certainly didn't start because he ended up in a rescue. I have two bomb proof sound dogs (one being a mutt, and one BYB) who are both rescues.



DogsRCool said:


> That's actually a good example of the sort of thing that worries me. Here you are, I'm assuming a really loving dog owner, and maybe one who has more time and emotional energy to devote to a dog than a married person would, but a rescue rejected you because you didn't meet their arbitrary standard of being married. I'm single too, and one of the reasons I got my dog was because since I can't find a good woman who wants to settle down with me, and don't have any kids, so this might be the closest thing to a family I'll have, and I know I have plenty of love to give because of that. Like I'm guessing you properly do, I take extra care to give my dog lots of opportunities to socialize with other people and other dogs, including some relatives and friends of mine. In the end, that sort of thing is a personal decision that in my mind belongs with the prospective owner, not some sort of agency or organization.


I gave that example because I HAVE said several times that not all rescues are doing the right thing. I am not single, but I was denied for being young and not married which doesn't have any thing to do with the price of tea in China. But I DID end up with four dogs from rescues that looked at what I could provide for them, not trivial things unrelated to the raising of a dog. I, however, find this is all a moot point because I do not support buying from any thing less than a reputable breeder. Some rescues being difficult does not equal BYBs being the only and best option.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> If that was in the contract, then they violated the contract and therefore the rescue reserved the right to take the dog back. That is why you should read and sign a contract only if you are prepared to accept the consequences. I'm not saying this rescue is necessarily going about things the right way, but contracts are contracts.


Yeah, unless the contract itself is illegal (and I have to wonder if breaking into someone's property is legal...I don't think even a repo agency can do that) then yeah, nothing the owners can do. 

They may have had the right to repossess the dog, but if they broke into their property/fenced yard to do it - I wonder...

And, seriously, rejected because you weren't married? Wow. That's insane. I hate arbitrary stuff like that.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Some rescues are good and others not so good. In my area the local rescues can pick up up to 150 dogs from kill shelters daily. They then find foster homes till real homes can be found. I saw a lot of them in my area who wanted 300 for a mixed breed because they actually had to rent space to house them all to keep them from being pts. My dog came from a group who did a home visit to see how the dog would do with all of us and the other household pets, so to me that seemed better than going to meet them, falling in love, and getting home to find out that there was no hope with her. The foster for Bugatti made some suggestions on how to dog proof for her. We did a contract agreeing she would go back to them if we couldn't keep her. She also offered free pet sitting. The fee was reduced from 150 to 100 after the meeting and she stayed in our home. There are good people at everything. Good and bad rescues (the one who couldn't give me any more info than what was online) and breeders. On craigslist I would worry about why they want so much and if you don't take it who will and why? But maybe she really is hard up for money, and if you don't want the stuff, there's always Ebay so you can make back some of what you spent with the purses and clothes lol.


----------



## doginthedesert (Jun 18, 2010)

In my area there are literally hundreds of puppies listed on craigslist from BYBs selling for 300-600 every day. Our shelters put down many many dogs, I firmly believe these two things are related. This is not the case everywhere, but here a lot of people make a living breeding dogs in poor conditions, then selling sick, unvacinated puppies on craigslist. For that reason, I would not recomend anyone getting a dog off craigslist in Vegas. Back east where I am from craigslist is a better community in general and there are mostly people who really need to find a good home for good dogs for whatever reason. Charging something reasonable for that is different than selling litter after litter on craigslist for hundreds of dollars with no vet care or health testing of the parents.

As for rescues (who I do fully support), when we were looking for our dog someone from one rescue organization told me if I go to one perticular other rescue I should tell them I can not have children because they will assume that people in their mid 20's without children are going to have kids and then dump the dog. I was offended by that on two levels, first that I would give up a dog if I had children and also that all young women are on a one way path to motherhood that they can not avoid. Either way, after looking at a number of rescues, and being fully prepared for a home check/interview/$450 adoption fee, we ended up finding Copley at a small city shelter that charged $65, didn't even ask if we owned/rented/had other dogs, and made sure to tell us that because we did not live in that jurisdiction, if we decided not to keep him we could not bring him back there. It was about 5 minutes between "we want the dog in kennel 12" and "here he is, good luck with life".


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

I think that rather than ask a rehoming fee to the person selling the pet, they should ask for a donation to a rescue (that the seller names/gives choices), with a receipt as proof it was paid. It would prevent "resellers", show committment on the part of the buyer/adopter, help a rescue, and show that the seller is not just being greedy. Or if the dog is not nuetered/spayed, require they pay a vet the fee to speuter, and verify that it was paid.


----------



## KaseyT (May 7, 2008)

GSD said:


> So how does selling a pet make sure it wont get dumped at a shelter or sold to a lab?


Because resellers only get $20 or $50 for a dog. That's why they stick to "free to a good home" dogs. 5 or 10 a day. A $50 or $100 rehoming fee makes selling a dog unprofitable.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Yeah, unless the contract itself is illegal (and I have to wonder if breaking into someone's property is legal...I don't think even a repo agency can do that) then yeah, nothing the owners can do.
> 
> They may have had the right to repossess the dog, but if they broke into their property/fenced yard to do it - I wonder...
> 
> And, seriously, rejected because you weren't married? Wow. That's insane. I hate arbitrary stuff like that.


Definitely something they could have contested and gotten the person who broke in in trouble for, but if the rescue went the right venue and called AC and presented the paper work then they would have been in the clear. 

They seem to equate young and unmarried = will break up and the dog will be in limbo or dumped. I know I cannot prove any thing to them about the future, but that is the risk they take with ALL dogs. We've also been in the position of being denied for not having a yard. We were denied an older GSD for not having a yard and thus not being able to exercise him, but adopted an Elkhound from another shelter. GSD went I believe another year without being adopted and Jack was in a home that took him for runs, play in the park, and regular walks.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> If that was in the contract, then they violated the contract and therefore the rescue reserved the right to take the dog back. That is why you should read and sign a contract only if you are prepared to accept the consequences. I'm not saying this rescue is necessarily going about things the right way, but contracts are contracts.


Why would I assign a contract agreeing to a bunch of conditions when equally good dogs are available, sometimes at a lower price and of ages and breeds I might prefer, without having to sign a contract? I guess part of it was that, in general, I sometimes have trouble getting along well with people and arbitrary conditions placed on me really chafe on me to such an extent that I would have been complaining about the whole thing for the next decade or two had I gone that route. I just knew that for my own personality and temperment (We humans have those, too, a lot like dogs), a rescue was not the way to go. I had a mile long mental list of reasons why I wanted a dog, and one of them was to have some non-human companionship, because sometimes I have trouble getting along with people for extended periods of time. Being able to just pick up a dog with a minimum of human interaction was a lot easier on me psychologically -- had I had to go through a whole procedure and been examined in depth with home visits and all this stuff, it would have made me extremely edgey and defensive, and I may have even wound up in an argument with the rescue that would have precluded me from getting a puppy had I done that.

I guess in general, I just feel like, my dog, my way of doing things. Honestly, I feel the vast majority of the way I raise a dog would be acceptable to most rescues, it's just the principle of the thing that when I adopt a pet, I get to choose how things go, not some organization. I'm not fostering him, he's my dog.



> I really have no problem with the places that brought my dogs to me taking them back and finding them another great person to keep them if some thing should happen to me.


It doesn't bother me that some folks are alright with that, to each his or her own. For me personally, though, it gives me peace of mind to know that if something happened to me, my dog would be able to stay in the extended family, or with a close friend who was a bit like family, and, if what happened to me wasn't death or some sort of a coma, that I could keep up with how the dog is doing and maybe readopt him one day if I got through whatever the issue was. I guess it's a little like if I had a child. If for some reason I couldn't care for my (hypothetical) child, it'd be better for him to stay with his grandparents or something than a random foster family or whatever, at least he'd still be in the family.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> Why would I assign a contract agreeing to a bunch of conditions when equally good dogs are available, sometimes at a lower price and of ages and breeds I might prefer, without having to sign a contract? I guess part of it was that, in general, I sometimes have trouble getting along well with people and arbitrary conditions placed on me really chafe on me to such an extent that I would have been complaining about the whole thing for the next decade or two had I gone that route. I just knew that for my own personality and temperment (We humans have those, too, a lot like dogs), a rescue was not the way to go. I had a mile long mental list of reasons why I wanted a dog, and one of them was to have some non-human companionship, because sometimes I have trouble getting along with people for extended periods of time. Being able to just pick up a dog with a minimum of human interaction was a lot easier on me psychologically -- had I had to go through a whole procedure and been examined in depth with home visits and all this stuff, it would have made me extremely edgey and defensive, and I may have even wound up in an argument with the rescue that would have precluded me from getting a puppy had I done that.
> 
> I guess in general, I just feel like, my dog, my way of doing things. Honestly, I feel the vast majority of the way I raise a dog would be acceptable to most rescues, it's just the principle of the thing that when I adopt a pet, I get to choose how things go, not some organization. I'm not fostering him, he's my dog.


How you feel about rescues is a moot point when you fund BYBs for your ease and convenience. It doesn't make any part of it right. As much as I love Jonas who is confirmed from a BYB, in a better world he would not have to have been born and given to the first person with cash later to be easily dumped at a kill shelter. I would NEVER purchase a dog from his breeder and no one should because they will just keep breeding. Because of her now I have a dog who cannot be handled safely and comfortably by anyone but myself and my boyfriend, who will continue to lose his vision at his incredibly young age and we'll deal with whatever health issues pop up as he ages, hopefully none of them will prematurely end his life. Not to mention not every one is willing to pick up the pieces of a shoddy breeder and thousands of dogs just like him die in the shelter every day. I can not even begin to dream how many shelters and rescues would not have to exist if there was a way to put a stop to this breeding for profit and the people who fund it.


----------



## FridaysMom (May 9, 2010)

Well, in my personal experience, you are better off waiting for the right dog to come along. I got Friday for $25 and Wednesday for free, when their previous owners could have very easily called them "Designer Dogs" and charged an arm and a leg for them. Right now, "Highland Malties" (Friday-Westie/maltese mix) are going for $350. And "Chiweenies" are going for $250 up. But every once in a while you will find someone like the people that I adopted my babies from, that aren't in it for the money, and that just want a great home for their dogs. And I also like the fact that I was asked a lot of questions about my family and home. I think it is important for the adopters to be invested and interested in where their dogs are going. Nothing makes me feel sicker than someone just "getting rid of" a dog to the first interested person.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> How you feel about rescues is a moot point when you fund BYBs for your ease and convenience.


I disagree. When those are two of the main options out there, it makes perfect sense to weigh them against each other when deciding what one wants to do.



> It doesn't make any part of it right. As much as I love Jonas who is confirmed from a BYB, in a better world he would not have to have been born and given to the first person with cash later to be easily dumped at a kill shelter. I would NEVER purchase a dog from his breeder and no one should because they will just keep breeding. Because of her now I have a dog who cannot be handled safely and comfortably by anyone but myself and my boyfriend, who will continue to lose his vision at his incredibly young age and we'll deal with whatever health issues pop up as he ages, hopefully none of them will prematurely end his life. Not to mention not every one is willing to pick up the pieces of a shoddy breeder and thousands of dogs just like him die in the shelter every day. I can not even begin to dream how many shelters and rescues would not have to exist if there was a way to put a stop to this breeding for profit and the people who fund it.


I don't think you can measure the quality of a dog, in a deeper sense, based on it's health or it's temperment. I think all life has some instrinsic value to it. I don't feel like only perfect dogs should be bred. There are a lot of people out there who really want pets and would care for them well, and these dogs may be a godsend for some of those people. Obviously, some breeders do things they shouldn't and don't take the care they should, but I don't like the other extreme where people act like it is some sort of a grave moral injustice for people to breed a couple dogs and sell or give away the puppies to people they know or can find, assuming they aren't overbreeding their dogs or failing to take care of them.

I'll be honest, in a world where everything was a "rescue" or only breeders who were really uptight homed dogs, I probably wouldn't have a pet (due to cost, my extreme dislike of those sort of restrictions -- and maybe I'd even get rejected even if I could stomach going that route and somehow the money appeared in front of me), and I think a lot of people who really benefit from having a pet in their lives and who's pets really benefit from them wouldn't either.

Sometimes it seems like in a lot of areas there are people who just strive to make everything as difficult as possible and load on the redtape and restrictions. There's a certain beauty, I think, in being free to make one's own decisions, and that includes being able to decide on one's own if one wants a pet, being able to make a less expensive hassle-free purchase, and then being able to take care of the animal according to the dictates of one's own conscience and what one thinks is best for the animal.

If rescues really want to appeal to people that would otherwise buy from private individuals, they can start by dumping the restrictions and the redtape, and lowering their cost. If they aren't willing to do that, we'll probably continue to go elsewhere.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

DogsRCool said:


> If rescues really want to appeal to people that would otherwise buy from private individuals, they can start by dumping the restrictions and the redtape, and lowering their cost. If they aren't willing to do that, we'll probably continue to go elsewhere.


What do you consider a "rescue"? I got Toby from a high-kill city shelter that was overflowing with all kinds of dogs, purebred and mutts, and tons of puppies, too. Adoption fee $5 (with a $75 neuter deposit, only because Iowa has a state law that every pet adopted from a shelter must be spayed/neutered....SD doesn't have that law; you can get any animal from a city shelter for $5, no deposit). The only paperwork was to sign a contract that I would have him neutered (because of the state law again.....in SD they let you out of the city shelters with no paperwork at all, they just check your ID to make sure you're over 18). There was very little human interaction, in fact I had to take him out of the kennel myself and bring my own leash. That experience matched all your criteria.

Really, I think that breeding without doing health clearances is irresponsible, and doing a disservice to the animals themselves, and to their new owners. And selling puppies cheap with no questions asked is just asking for your pups to end up in bad situations. It sounds like your dog did well for himself but it's very likely that many of his siblings did not.

P.S.---I think all life has intrinsic value as well, but that doesn't mean I think NEW life should be brought into the world if there's a high chance that that life will mostly involve suffering.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I don't think you can measure the quality of a dog, in a deeper sense, based on it's health or it's temperment. I think all life has some instrinsic value to it. I don't feel like only perfect dogs should be bred.


And yet without acknowledging that that's what you did, that's exactly what you did when you went out to get your dog. You wanted the "perfect" dog for yourself. It's an ideal that a whole lot of new, independent owners hold on to and they get all pissy when they run into the rescues and the shelters who actually require certain conditions to be met.

I find it wholly interesting that you also admitted in this thread that you "even had to borrow" money for the dog that you got, which is indicative that if an emergency came up with your pet, you would likely be incapable of affording that. THAT is part of what the rescues are screening for. The rescue I volunteered for had an extensive questionnaire that asked people what they believed food and health management cost per year. I would LOL (internally) at the answers some people would come up with. We wouldn't reject on spot for people like that, but we would educate them before they settled on a dog and signed the contract.



> There are a lot of people out there who really want pets and would care for them well, and these dogs may be a godsend for some of those people.


"Would" is subjective here. No one knows what anyone WOULD or COULD do, and sometimes circumstances happen that are out of someone's control. You can have all the money and luxury in the world, be a fervent animal lover whose pet would "be a godsend" to them, and still NOT be able to care for a pet properly (Example: Paris Hilton).



> Obviously, some breeders do things they shouldn't and don't take the care they should, but I don't like the other extreme where people act like it is some sort of a grave moral injustice for people to breed a couple dogs and sell or give away the puppies to people they know or can find, assuming they aren't overbreeding their dogs or failing to take care of them.


Seems to me that you are incapable of comprehending the crisis that companion animals are in at this very moment, and you cannot comprehend it until you have worked in animal rescue (any sector, be it a private rescue or the state run animal controls). There are literally thousands of dogs in kill shelters *right now* in my area alone, and they were bred by 1) backyard breeders, including the "Oops!" litters made by morons who don't want to get their animals speutered, 2) reputable breeders whose buyers can't take care of their pets anymore and who can't seem to get their heads on properly OR who cannot find a person who is willing to pay the cost of having a reputably bred dog with papers and 3) strays. Just a cursory glance at the county animal shleters (read: kill shelters) in my area alone there are 100 pages of homeless dogs (and Dear G-d, I sure hope that "Vinnie"'s age (first page) is a typo, because I cannot even fathom a 22-year-old chihuahua stuck in a county animal shelter for his last days). Did you even TRY PetHarbor.com? PetFinder? Did you even *try* various breed-specific rescues? Or even reputable breeders? In more cases than less I seem to stumble upon people who didn't do *everything* that they could in order to save a life before resorting to paying a BYB for their dog (OR they ended up not meeting the standards that a *reputable* breeder holds for his adoptable dogs, so that right there is a red flag).



> I'll be honest, in a world where everything was a "rescue" or only breeders who were really uptight homed dogs, I probably wouldn't have a pet (due to cost, my extreme dislike of those sort of restrictions -- and maybe I'd even get rejected even if I could stomach going that route and somehow the money appeared in front of me)


"Stomach going that route", huh. Well right now you're not exactly painting a likable or picture of yourself for us that tell us that you ARE knowledgable about the responsibilities of owning a dog/cat. Really, with that comment right there you're essentially telling us that you cannot afford a dog. So what happens if something comes up with its health? Are you going to borrow money again? Or are you going to DUMP it, like a whole ton of other people who are *just like you* do when they realize that they cannot afford a dog's medical costs? You don't seem to realize that people JUST like you with "good intentions" do what you do and then something happens and WE, i.e., the rescues, end up scrambling to save the life that youu could not take care of. Do you really think "friends and family" are going to commit to taking care of a responsibility that you could not? Of course not, it's not their dog, it's YOUR dog, and once you dump it on them, it becaomse their burden...and then what do you think happens?



> and I think a lot of people who really benefit from having a pet in their lives and who's pets really benefit from them wouldn't either.


That much is true. There are SOME people who would fail the stringent home eval tests of some rescues. But guess what? County Animal Services *do not* have those stringent home evals and as you might have noticed, they are jam-packed with adoptable dogs. The rescues go to these kill shelters and pick up dogs. The rescues pay for the dog's vetting, and in some cases that can get expensive. After the vetting and healthcare, they usually set up the dogs for adoption, and that's where the fees come in. People like you who don't understand the costs of this make me ill, mainly because we had idiots who were always complaining about a $250 adoption fee. They always whined about how "they could get a dog for cheaper at animal control" or how they could get one for free off of Craigslist, but they never ever had an answer about how much they'd be paying to get the dogs vetted *themselves*. In most cases, if some Regular Joe had gone and done what the rescues do, they'd end up paying much, MUCH more for their dog than had they just STHU and paid the adoption fee (because these Regular Joes don't know how or where to get cheap/discounted speutering and shots, or are too lazy to do the research themselves).



> Sometimes it seems like in a lot of areas there are people who just strive to make everything as difficult as possible and load on the redtape and restrictions.


Ths is a blanket statement that is false and misleading. Yes, there are rescues that go over the top. Personally, I think the repossession that you described was over the top; no rescue should just kidnap a dog out of its yard without telling the owners what they were doing and why. The Ellen Debacle that happened a few years ago was also a bit over-the-top, EXCEPT that Ellen likely signed a contract that said that the dog was to be returned to them (and I think it is bullcrap that the rescue then didn't adopt the dog out to the family that Ellen had given the dog to in the first place because the rescue "didn't want to adopt the dog out to a home with kids"...that's just bull). Had it been our rescue, we would likely have gladly drawn up a new contract for Ellen's friend instead of acting like a pissy little child who was wronged by a celebrity (after all, rescue is about what's best for the dogs,and it sure seemed like the dog was very happy and had a great home in that family).

(cont'd)


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

(cont'd from above)

Do you even know why that clause is written into the contracts? Because of dogs like my Jeckle. He is my best friend, my "heart dog", as people call it, but before that, he was just another weird looking dog in our rescue camp. He was rescued from one of the worst kill shelters in our area and then had gotten adopted out last year, only to have been DUMPED at the local shelter because the woman had no idea how to train a dog (personally, *I* would not have adopted him out to her, but it was not my call). Never mind that we had rescue fairs every weekend back then at the same place. Never mind that it's in her contract that she needed to bring him back to us. Never mind that she didn't even call or tell us that this is what she had done--and we only found out that he was at the shelter because *I* was randomly perusing Craiglist and clicked on the shelter's text ad and found his picture at the bottom of their CL ad (he has an unmistakable face). So in effect, our rescue had to *re*-rescue him from a situation in which he could have likely been put to sleep, or adopted out to another moron who again would not have known how to deal with him (because he seems to have been abused). The rescue's director had to call the "owner" to give her a piece of her mind and threaten to sue and then she had to call the shelter director to explain the situation (and I think we were able to retrieve him without paying the shelter's costs...and Jeckle was already neutered/health vetted, but the shelter microchipped him -- what would have happened if Jeckle had come down with kennel cough or some other thing contracted at the shelter? That's even MORE money on top of whatever else had been spent on him previously).



> There's a certain beauty, I think, in being free to make one's own decisions and that includes being able to decide on one's own if one wants a pet, being able to make a less expensive hassle-free purchase, and then being able to take care of the animal according to the dictates of one's own conscience and what one thinks is best for the animal.


I'm all for free will, but this was literally gag-worthy for me. You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself and your ability to make responsible choices, yet you have admitted that you couldn't even afford (on your own) the dog that you ultimately purchased. 



> If rescues really want to appeal to people that would otherwise buy from private individuals, they can start by dumping the restrictions and the redtape, and lowering their cost. If they aren't willing to do that, we'll probably continue to go elsewhere.


Again, as idealistic as you are, you essentially don't have any idea why rescues charge what they do for their dogs. It costs money to get a dog neutered/spayed. It costs money for a vet to examine a dog and to give it its shots. It costs money to feed a dog. It costs money to HOUSE a dog (and a lot of times, fosters DON'T get paid for their work, they do it out of their own pocket). It costs money to license a dog (if your area requires dog licensing). All this, and yet some rescues don't even charge the *actual* cost of what it took to get that dog vetted and healthy for you (some do, but they are the "expensive" ones that you're complaining about). Dogs cost money AND energy, and people like you who insist that you will continue to go elsewhere do nothing to help the problem. Why do you think people are so passionate about this? It's because the dogs that were passed over by you because you couldn't get off your butt to go down to the county shelters to look over what they had end up either being rescued (by a rescue or someone who WAS pro-active enough to go down there themselves) or being euthanized. 

I'm not a PETA/ALF person or anyone nearly as radical, but damn when I see simple cases of human irresponsibility when it comes to our earth and our animals. The common sense seems to fly out the window in favor of something that's "simple and easy". Nothing in life is simple or easy, and until people start realizing this, people like you are going to continue to help exacerbate our problems.





Willowy said:


> What do you consider a "rescue"? I got Toby from a high-kill city shelter that was overflowing with all kinds of dogs, purebred and mutts, and tons of puppies, too. Adoption fee $5 (with a $75 neuter deposit, only because Iowa has a state law that every pet adopted from a shelter must be spayed/neutered....SD doesn't have that law; you can get any animal from a city shelter for $5, no deposit). The only paperwork was to sign a contract that I would have him neutered (because of the state law again.....in SD they let you out of the city shelters with no paperwork at all, they just check your ID to make sure you're over 18). There was very little human interaction, in fact I had to take him out of the kennel myself and bring my own leash. That experience matched all your criteria.
> 
> Really, I think that breeding without doing health clearances is irresponsible, and doing a disservice to the animals themselves, and to their new owners. And selling puppies cheap with no questions asked is just asking for your pups to end up in bad situations. It sounds like your dog did well for himself but it's very likely that many of his siblings did not.
> 
> P.S.---*I think all life has intrinsic value as well, but that doesn't mean I think NEW life should be brought into the world if there's a high chance that that life will mostly involve suffering.*


I agree with everything you said.

And wow, $5??? That's too good to be true for us over here. Our city/county also has the "shelters can't adopt out unspeutered dogs" clause too...forget if it's also a statewide thing...but really, $80 for a dog is a great deal. Still, I think that low fees that don't include s/n can be potentially hazardous because then you get people who just pay the $5 and then don't invest in the dog's s/n surgery and end up getting oops litters and the cycle continues. And then there are the people who get those lost cost (or free dogs) from Craiglist to use them as bait. Yeah, you heard me...and it happens a LOT around here in the Bay Area. People use helpless small dogs and cats/kittens offered for free as pit bull/dogfighting bait. :\\\\\

"Suffering" is the key world there...Willowy, that's too true.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> I disagree. When those are two of the main options out there, it makes perfect sense to weigh them against each other when deciding what one wants to do.


No, it doesn't. It makes sense within those "two" options. And as I have said before, rescue is not black and white and nor are ethical breeders. Every single one of them handles dog adoptions differently. That and rescues and well bred dogs do not compare to profiting someone who is only churning these puppies out for profit. I can't even begin to search for the number of incidents report only online of people who bought from pet stores or BYBs and something horrible happened to their puppy- even within the first year. 



DogsRCool said:


> I don't think you can measure the quality of a dog, in a deeper sense, based on it's health or it's temperment. I think all life has some instrinsic value to it. I don't feel like only perfect dogs should be bred. There are a lot of people out there who really want pets and would care for them well, and these dogs may be a godsend for some of those people. Obviously, some breeders do things they shouldn't and don't take the care they should, but I don't like the other extreme where people act like it is some sort of a grave moral injustice for people to breed a couple dogs and sell or give away the puppies to people they know or can find, assuming they aren't overbreeding their dogs or failing to take care of them.


I find it morally reprehensible to throw two random dogs together with no knowledge of their temperaments and health in them let alone a full blood line. I find the lives of my dogs to be a GRAND injustice even though they're safe now. I think you should spend a half hour at the local kill shelter, or a half hour with my dogs. Completely ignoring their previous lives of abuse or neglect and the length of time they spent at shelters (which would be a ten hour story that I don't think you really care about if you fund BYBs) do you know what they had to go through so that litters that you purchase from could exist and be sold for profit? If whoever brought them into this world considered health, temperament, and the homes they went in to my Dachshund would not be so fearful and aggresive that he cannot be handled by any one but us. He would not have PRA and he would not have had to live in a kennel for three years with no contact other than to be bred (passing on that PRA and temperament to other pups that I can't save, yay!). My Elkhound would be a beautiful drivey dog instead of a punching bag for the beginning of his life. My GSD mutt would not have festered in a garage with mange and toenails so long that her toes are permanently splayed and HD at 2 years old. She is skittish and aggressive towards children. My Lab mutt would not have been dumped on the street at 5 weeks old to languish in AC with ruptured intestines and permanent illness that we will struggle with for the rest of her life. If only someone considered these things before bringing then into the world. 



DogsRCool said:


> I'll be honest, in a world where everything was a "rescue" or only breeders who were really uptight homed dogs, I probably wouldn't have a pet (due to cost, my extreme dislike of those sort of restrictions -- and maybe I'd even get rejected even if I could stomach going that route and somehow the money appeared in front of me), and I think a lot of people who really benefit from having a pet in their lives and who's pets really benefit from them wouldn't either.


You not having a pet versus thousands of dogs not ending up in horrible situations like my dogs really does not move me. Besides the fact that you are wrong on all accounts. 



DogsRCool said:


> Sometimes it seems like in a lot of areas there are people who just strive to make everything as difficult as possible and load on the redtape and restrictions. There's a certain beauty, I think, in being free to make one's own decisions, and that includes being able to decide on one's own if one wants a pet, being able to make a less expensive hassle-free purchase, and then being able to take care of the animal according to the dictates of one's own conscience and what one thinks is best for the animal.


Yeah. Having the option of buying a dog who could die before they reached a year old from one of many genetic disorders or disease is a really beautiful thing. 



DogsRCool said:


> If rescues really want to appeal to people that would otherwise buy from private individuals, they can start by dumping the restrictions and the redtape, and lowering their cost. If they aren't willing to do that, we'll probably continue to go elsewhere.


More blanket statements about rescues. Have you ever even attempted to get a dog from a rescue or shelter? I have four dogs, three from a rescue and one from a kill shelter. My purebred Norwegian Elkhound and Miniature Dachshund were purchased fully vetted and altered for $200. My Dacshund was not altered, but adopted on a contract to be altered. One of my mutts was at a kill shelter where I literally paid $15 and walked out with my puppy. My other mutt was at a rescue where no one wanted her and I was the only person who expressed interested in taking her in (as a foster at first) where not only she was free but DRIVEN from southern Illinois to Michigan directly to me. Sounds like these shelters and rescues are terrible, terrible people trying to stop people from saving dogs all right.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Some of these responses are getting a bit too long for me to reply to point by point without getting into novel writing territory, but I did read over all of them. I appreciate people's passion for dogs. It sounds like we have a lot of the same passion, but we've just come to different conclusions about how that translates into practical things.

I don't really think there is a lot more to be said on my part. I love dogs, and of course I am against anyone abusing a dog, but I also am against unfair restrictions on potential owners. I might have been turned down for my dog because I'm poor, single, and live in a crappy place had such criteria been in place, but in fact I sacrifice greatly to make sure my dog gets all the vet appointments he needs, fairly good food, some exercise, some socialization with other people and other dogs, and am with him nearly 24/7; which beats the sort of care a lot of better off people give their dogs.

Even just in general, I support the principle that the person owns the dog, and not the rescue or shelter, once the dog is rehomed -- the new owner should get to make the decisions, not a group of people who think they should get to tell everyone else what to do. And as long as the rescues and shelters hold out the view that they get to screen people extensively and then force contracts upon them, I won't ever be getting a dog that way -- you all may not like that, but, well, too bad for you, I guess. I support people's right to support rescues and shelters if they agree with what they do, but I object to the way people try to shove it down the rest of our throats. I get the feeling some people would making breeding and private animals sales illegal if they could, and that thought makes me sick -- I think it's a freedom people should have, and I think breeders provide a valuable service. My childhood pet came through a newspaper from people breeding dogs and he was amazing, and my current pet is great so far too -- and, in both cases, we knew he was our (well, just mine in the second case) pet (We did neuter my childhood pet, for example, but it was because my parents though it was the right decision, not because someone forced it on them, and that difference is important).

The thing is, I actually am the type of person who would be very tempted to consider saving a dog from a kill shelter or something, if the way they operated was different. I do love animals, and while I sort of had a thing about my first one being my favorite breed and a puppy, I could see a situation in some years after the puppy expenses are over with, considering getting a well-trained adult dog as a second pet (I probably wouldn't for financial and other reasons, but I could see considering it) to save it from death. But I'd be very hesitant to deal with some of these groups, so that would probably mean whatever chance there was of me doing it would disappear. I'd imagine I'm not the only one who feels this way -- and I'd hope that some of these groups, especially kill shelters, would consider whether being able to impose their will on others is worth dogs that could be adopted dying. Every time I hear about a shelter killing some dogs, I think about the stories I've heard about people who either were not willing to deal with their restrictions, or were rejected for things like wanting to have an outside dog living in a dog house on a large fenced in property, and I can't help but think the shelters bare part of the responsibility for these animal deaths.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

Permanently splayed? Your poor dog. 

A great percentage of the dogs that came through our rescue were from kill shelters. Our puppy, Henry, had been dumped in their nightbox at a few months old, and Jeckle was also dumped. We are unsure of the chihuahua and the poodle mix, but the chihuahua was listed as a stray/pickup and the poodle mix (we think he's designer, i.e. Scottie/Poo) was left to fend for himself on the streets of Oakland by a neglectful owner. Actually, the director of the rescue saw him by himself running around her neighborhood, then returned him to his owner. But then he was out running around by himself again and after a couple of sightings after that, they took him into the rescue and left all of the rescue's info/contact info with the owner. Guess what? No one ever called for him, and he had been suffering from some kind of bowel problem since they had taken him in. So according to the local laws, after two weeks of no contact/no attempt to retrieve the dog, he could be legally claimed by a rescue and put up for adoption. We were his fosters at first but then Henry bonded with him and they are practically inseparable now. Chances are, Buddy's previous owner bought him from a breeder just like the person in this post. Now instead of running around the streets of Oakland and eating bad things (Oakland is terrible re: trash and stuff, so he likely ate discarded Chinese food and chicken bones and other crap), he lives a life of *terrible abuse!!!*...just lying on his back, sleeping, eating proper food that he has access to at all times and playing fetch with his numerous toys. (LOL, we often joke with the dogs that they have SUCH a haaaaaard life...also, we are blessed that none of them are food gobblers and that they can all handle being free-fed, which I do not recommend for food gobbling dogs or all dogs; all of our dogs are in tip-top shape physically and seem to know how to keep themselves that way...it's bizarre because when Henry was an only furkid he got overweight/was a food gobbler...now he is not o__O).

Anyway, I digressed. The bottom line is that no dog is perfect, but no dog is "better" than any other dog. It's the peoples' behavior that affects the state of shelters and rescues, and BYBs ("family breeders" included) do nothing but contribute to the mess that everyone else has to clean up.

So to the one defending BYBs/family breeders: How much DID you end up paying for your dog? Was spay and neutering and first shots included? Ultimately if you ended up paying even $100 for the dog without any of these, you were ripped off, because you're going to have to pay even more for what that dog needs anyway.



DogsRCool said:


> And as long as the rescues and shelters hold out the view that they get to screen people extensively and then force contracts upon them, I won't ever be getting a dog that way -- you all may not like that, but, well, too bad for you, I guess.


Your "I want what I want, nanabooboo" attitude doesn't affect any of us personally--personally, I don't give a flying crap what you think of me as a person. What it DOES affaect is *the dogs*/each dog or puppy (purebred, even) that is put to death because you couldn't be bothered to do your research, but you just don't seem to want to get it through your thick skull. You refuse to answer any of the questions any of us put forth (i.e., did you even try checking with the county animal shelters, etc.), so the only conclsuion that we can draw from that is that you didn't.



> The thing is, I actually am the type of person who would be very tempted to consider saving a dog from a kill shelter or something, if the way they operated was different.


Dear -- we have told you how they operate. Kill shelters don't do homechecks. Kill shelters are normally run by the county/state. How do you think kill shelters operate? Ah, that's right, you don't know how they operate because you didn't bother to check. You didn't at all think that maybe a kill shelter might have puppies or purebreds (one of the kill shelters that I looked at last year during the rescue operation had a huge litter of two-week-old chihuahua/dachs, all slated to death because there weren't any volunteers to take them home/nurse them). And it's obvious by the rest of your paragraph that I'm quoting here that you have no idea how kill shelters work, particularly with this statement of yours: "I'd imagine I'm not the only one who feels this way -- and I'd hope that some of these groups, especially kill shelters, would consider whether being able to impose their will on others is worth dogs that could be adopted dying."

Kill shelters =/= rescues!!! Rescues GET their dogs FROM kill shelters. Geez. It's too late for you now re: your own dog, but you should really, really do some work WITH a rescue or your local shelter to understand how these things work.

(EDIT) For the record, I used to think somewhat like you. Before we got Henry, I was very specific about what kind of dog I wanted and not hopeful about what my options were. I always wanted either a Yorkie or a Dachshund and I didn't have a favorable opinion of rescues or the shelter situation. But my eyes were opened after I started volunteering for the rescue and Henry, a Dorkie who was still a puppy, came to us under their foster program. There I learned about how these things work, how much money goes into *every dog*, no matter what dog it is (BYB/fam bred, oops, AKC/papered dogs, etc.). You ought to do the same.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

I'll be honest, in a world where everything was a "rescue" or only breeders who were really uptight homed dogs, I probably wouldn't have a pet (due to cost, my extreme dislike of those sort of restrictions -- and maybe I'd even get rejected even if I could stomach going that route and somehow the money appeared in front of me), and I think a lot of people who really benefit from having a pet in their lives and who's pets really benefit from them wouldn't either.

Sometimes it seems like in a lot of areas there are people who just strive to make everything as difficult as possible and load on the redtape and restrictions. There's a certain beauty, I think, in being free to make one's own decisions, and that includes being able to decide on one's own if one wants a pet, being able to make a less expensive hassle-free purchase, and then being able to take care of the animal according to the dictates of one's own conscience and what one thinks is best for the animal.





Wow... I am truly glad you got the dog you wanted. That is wonderful and I am glad you are completely happy. Let's hope you are completely happy if what I tell you next happens to you and your dog.

I bought a GSD, my first, when I got my own place many years ago. I had wanted one for years and I, too, couldn't stomach paying money for a rescue whom others had ruined. (Sad to say I was once an idiot) 
Instead I found some people whom had a beautiful litter of GSDs and they were absolutely adorable and the parents were on site and were pets. These people wanted others to enjoy dogs like theirs so they bred them. 
Thor was a dream from the beginning- easy to train, pleasing, sweet, and super duper friendly with everyone and in every situation. I was very pleased with myself for going this route and then the unthinkable...
He began to limp while playing at 5 months of age. It began in his back legs but eventually worked up and his front legs gave him problems also. I held off taking him to the vet because I 'figured' he had just strained himself. Boy was I wrong. 
At 91/2 months of age Thor had his first operation on his right rear leg to try and correct his severe Hip Dysplasia. At 10 1/2 months the left rear leg which was not quite as severe but bad enough for his young age. At a year old he was diagnosed with Elbow Dysplasia in BOTH elbows (front legs), both cases were severe. 
He was crated alot during all this time- a young puppy/dog in a crate for months and months to speed up his healing time. We had to take out a personal loan to pay for his Elbow surgeries.
He got better for a short amount of time but it wasn't meant to last for the poor sweet guy. At 125 pounds very lean his legs just couldn't stand up to the pressure.
He battled til he was nearly 3 years of age and one morning I knew, without a doubt, it was time to let him go.
That morning he couldn't even rise without crying loudly, sounded like screaming. He vomited when I did finally get him to his feet and his body shook with pain. No tail wagging which was the norm for him even in pain. That beautiful jaunty tail tucked between his legs as his body shook with deep breaths. I carried him to the car and we took our last trip together... I was there to the end and watched him as his pain ridden body relaxed and he sighed... 
To this day I picture him this way- for once in a couple of years time he was completely at ease, pain free, and relaxed. Knowing what I know now Thor wouldn't have suffered that long. Thor came to me as a teacher I believe. His life was very short but in that time he taught me many, many things. Although the cost was great I am appreciative for having had this lesson.

I hope you never have any health problems with your Golden but the reality is that it could happen. It could happen with a well bred Golden but the reality is because of the health testing it is less likely to happen. 
I am glad you are confident in your ability to be a good dog owner but what are the chances that every pup in the litter you bought yours from got good owners? Because of lack of asking questions these pups most likely will end up in less than good homes. Because you don't want any 'hassle' when adding a furry family member you are also supporting and helping condemn other puppies from the litter you chose from and other future litters to a merely 'existing life'. Existing life to me means life in a backyard with hardly any interaction, life on a chain, life on the streets, and most likely life at the shelter til the end. The lucky ones may meet with a rescue worker whom will pull them and put in the work and effort to help that dog/s. They don't consider finding these dogs a good home a 'hassle'. 
Since you don't like being hassled what happens when your dog whom you love dearly right now becomes a 'hassle' down the road? Maybe you will accept it as part of owning a dog but others whom wanted to also avoid the 'hassle' what will become of their dog when it also becomes a 'hassle'? 
What it all comes down to is this: Looking for the easy way in your case has helped buld demand for these 'breeders' to keep supplying. Meanwhile I would wager to bet that half or more than half of the pups they bred are sitting in shelters or have been heaped into a pile waiting to be turned to ashes. All because of people like you whom don't want to put any effort into adopting or buying from a reputable breeder. I will never again support any unreputable sources by funding their operation- no BYBs, no Mills, no badly run rescues either. I will however support Reputable Breeders and Reputable Rescues. 
Take a look at your local area shelter and see what all different breeds and types of dogs are there. Find a Golden and look it in it's eyes. This may be a sibling to yours. Know it is possibly going to die and then see if you feel the same way.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

That's a heartbreaking story, MooMoosMom. And I agree with the rest of what you wrote, particularly this: "Looking for the easy way in your case has helped buld demand for these 'breeders' to keep supplying. Meanwhile I would wager to bet that half or more than half of the pups they bred are sitting in shelters or have been heaped into a pile waiting to be turned to ashes. All because of people like you whom don't want to put any effort into adopting or buying from a reputable breeder. I will never again support any unreputable sources by funding their operation- no BYBs, no Mills, no badly run rescues either. I will however support Reputable Breeders and Reputable Rescues. Take a look at your local area shelter and see what all different breeds and types of dogs are there. Find a Golden and look it in it's eyes. This may be a sibling to yours. Know it is possibly going to die and then see if you feel the same way."

She doesn't even have to go to a shelter to do this. I'm perusing PetHarbor right now and there are tons of puppies (newborns even) that will likely die if no rescue steps up to the plate. There are so many beautiful dogs on PetHarbor just in my area that I find it hard to even go on there to look at them because I know that a lot of them won't be as lucky as my dogs and will end up getting the needle because of the people who support BYBs/mills/etc.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

JohnHouse said:


> So to the one defending BYBs/family breeders: How much DID you end up paying for your dog?


$300. It was just over half the price of the next lowest price I could find for my breed at the age I wanted.



> Was spay and neutering and first shots included?


First shots yes, neutering no (My understanding is that a dog can't be neutered until he is 6th months old anyway, and I haven't decided if I want to neuter him or not yet, I figure I owe it to both my dog and myself to keeping reading up on it and to make sure I'm considering it from all angles before making a final decision).



> Ultimately if you ended up paying even $100 for the dog without any of these, you were ripped off, because you're going to have to pay even more for what that dog needs anyway.


By the time the second of first two vet visits (not counting the one the breeder had for him) are done, especially added into the cost of the crate, the food, the toys, etc., I'll have paid more for that than the cost of the dog. And I'm still paying back the loan for the dog. It's a huge financial strain on me, but I knew it would be coming into things, and it was a sacrifice I was and am willing to make.



> You refuse to answer any of the questions any of us put forth (i.e., did you even try checking with the county animal shelters, etc.), so the only conclsuion that we can draw from that is that you didn't.


I'm not refusing to answer questions, it's just a bit overwhelming sifting through so many long replies, so I'm sometimes economizing a bit and replying more generally. To answer your question specifically, though, I did go to one humane society because I had family that urged me to. I found one dog that was nice and might have been suitable personality wise (Even though he was older and a breed I wasn't very familar with), but he was way too large to be happy where I live and for someone like me to get him enough exercise. He could have eaten three golden retrievers or labadors.  I really liked his personality, but I had to be realistic about whether I could offer him the right home. Realistically, I knew a lab or a golden was probably about as big as I could go dog wise and still be fair to the pet.

So, I didn't completely ignore that stuff as an option, but I was pretty set on the breed and age I wanted (And the place I looked really didn't have any puppies or anything from the breed I wanted -- they were mostly older mixed breed dogs, or breeds that weren't really what I was looking for). It'd be different if I were looking for a second dog as a companion to the first or something (Which I doubt I'd do, but who knows what things might be like in a few years) -- I would be a lot more flexible on those fronts and might even prefer an older lower-maintainance mixed breed dog I could save from a bad situation under such circumstances. But for the first time, I really wanted to go with a dog from the breed I love and watch him develop and grow. And for better or worse, I do really have some strong feelings about agreeing to conditions that organizations often impose -- though shelters are usually much better than rescues on that front, even though maybe not in other ways.

There was someone who asked if I knew that shelters were less stringent than rescues, and I am aware of that. The place I looked at (though it was a humane society and not actually labeled "shelter", if that makes a difference) was a lot better in terms of requirements, but it did still require a contract with a bunch of different points to agree to like spraying/neutering, the pet being an indoor pet, maybe even the pet being returned to them if something happens to me (Though I'm not sure on that one), etc.. Now, my dog does live indoors with me, and I'll probably neuter him (Though I'm not 100% sure, I do have some time to make that decision), but I really do value being able to make my own decisions and not having stuff imposed on me, even if it is stuff I might do anyway. Call it a personality quirk, but I like feeling as though I have some options and can make some decisions -- it makes a real difference to my mental well-being.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

Welp, there we go kids -- questions answered and more ignorance written. Doesn't even know if she wants to neuter her dog at all, went to *one* humane society before making up the mind to go to a BYB. Wonderful.

I sure hope that you know (even if you don't *realize* it yet) that you contributed to someone making money off of dogs' lives. $300 that does not include neutering or "papers" (i.e., this person is a registered breeder looking to preserve the characteristics of the breed itself/breed puppies that are of a healthy breed line) is a ripoff. The worst kind of "family breeder"/BYB that exists today. 

If you have that many problems comprehending and following well-placed rules, then maybe it's a good thing that you aren't involved in animal rescue (in the shelters, as a foster, etc.). Your egocentric "personality quirks" would serve no one involved, including the animals, well.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Let me ask you this DogsRCool... Do you at least get why shelters/rescues ask some of the questions they ask and have some requirements? 
As an example (spay/neuter). Many, many people whom have had oops litters have been left with the decision to spay or neuter. And as evidenced by the oops litter
one can know what their choice. Oops litters= more dogs. More dogs in general-more dogs in shelter/rescue. More dogs in shelter/rescue= more dogs PTS. Easy deduction. 

Another example: Pit Bulls. Many shelters/rescues are making more demands and asking more questions to adopt this breed. I am sure you can at least understand the reasoning behind this. If not... well, ask. 

For people with opinions like yours I always suggest they volunteer at a shelter. Even for a short time. You will get to see the variety of dogs surrendered by normal people. People whom had all the good intentions in the world when the dog was a puppy and wasn't a 'hassle'. You will get to know the dogs as you walk them, clean up after them, and care for them. You will see that many, many dogs in shelters do not have issues at all. The only issues were with the previous owners. Many teenage dogs in shelters because they are after all as teenagers, acting like teens. They aren't bad dogs just need continued training just like your dog needs and will need. Most dogs at shelters that I've volunteered aren't damaged goods. Their only sin is being unwanted, a 'hassle'. 
The dogs you will get to know at the shelter will tug at your heart unless of course you are devoid of that. You will come to at least care about them. One day you will come in and either that dog will be gone or you will see it being lead away towards the euthanasia room. After experiencing that loss then come back and tell us how wrong adopting is for you or that there are too many regulations and rules at shelters.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Wow... I am truly glad you got the dog you wanted.


Thank you.



> He began to limp while playing at 5 months of age. It began in his back legs but eventually worked up and his front legs gave him problems also. I held off taking him to the vet because I 'figured' he had just strained himself. Boy was I wrong.
> At 91/2 months of age Thor had his first operation on his right rear leg to try and correct his severe Hip Dysplasia. At 10 1/2 months the left rear leg which was not quite as severe but bad enough for his young age. At a year old he was diagnosed with Elbow Dysplasia in BOTH elbows (front legs), both cases were severe.
> He was crated alot during all this time- a young puppy/dog in a crate for months and months to speed up his healing time. We had to take out a personal loan to pay for his Elbow surgeries.
> He got better for a short amount of time but it wasn't meant to last for the poor sweet guy. At 125 pounds very lean his legs just couldn't stand up to the pressure.
> ...


I'm sorry to hear about what happened with your dog. It's a concern for me with my dog, I worry about him a lot, not just because of those sort of possibilities, but because I care about him and sometimes it's natural to worry about all sorts of things when you care about a person or an animal. As you said or implied, though, health complications are a possibiltiy with any dog, no matter what their clearances are, and a very healthy pet is also a possibility no matter where a dog has come from. 

Would I have been more comfortable with a dog who had had his breeding line cleared six-ways from Sunday against certain common maladies for his breed like hip displasia and cancer and such? Absolutely. However, the price on dogs with those type of clearances was stratospheric, and many of those higher-end breeders wouldn't even let me pick my own puppy, and would impose the same sort of terms and conditions a rescue might, even if I could have somehow raised the money, which seemed highly unlikely. There's no perfect answer for stuff like this, one just has to figure out firstly what is realistically possible for their situation (There was really no way on the planet to realistically be able to raise the money to buy from a high end breeder, especially considering the vet costs and supply costs on top of it that any puppy needs from any source), and secondly which imperfect scenario fits them best. I'm fully aware that there are problems that exist with anything.



> Since you don't like being hassled what happens when your dog whom you love dearly right now becomes a 'hassle' down the road? Maybe you will accept it as part of owning a dog but others whom wanted to also avoid the 'hassle' what will become of their dog when it also becomes a 'hassle'?


I love my dog and knew full well that there were likely be some hassles associated with him. Even as a puppy, training him not to destroy things and not to bite things (and people) he isn't supposed to, and to go outside to urinate and such, are sometimes tough. But it's worth it, and it's part and parcel of owning a puppy. I knew it coming in and accepted it as intrinsic to the experience I wanted. In a way, we're lucky to have found each other, because he is highly stubborn for his breed, and probably benefits from having a highly stubborn owner.  And there will be a lot of other challenges as he grows older, I'm sure.

But it's a whole different category from things other people are imposing on me. It's one thing for me to say "Well, listen, this is just how dogs are, and there are certain things you have to go through with them, especially puppies, because they don't know any better and need to be taught and corrected and such. And of course they need food and vacines and toys and a vet and so forth, because those are what they need to be happy and healthy.", that I understand. But it's another scenario to say "These are things I have to do because some people somewhere decided that they know better than me and imposed these conditions on me.". I'm happy to sacrifice to give my puppy what I think he needs, but I'm not happy to jump through hoops to make some people somewhere who think they should be in charge of me and my dog happy.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Rescues work with people. If something happened to you they probably would work with you to care for one until you were better able to care for it again. If you have patience you can find anything at a shelter. Our last dog was a Lhasa. My mother HAD to have one. So we went to the Humane Society and got put on a list for one and when they got one we got her. Our new dog is a pure bred English Pointer who was bought by a BYB and bred in her first heat. It stunted her growth and due to untreated ear infections during this she lost her hearing. They thought it might be passed on to her puppies (her *smaller* size and deafness), so she, and all the puppies, were dumped in a kill shelter in Miami. She happened to be pulled by the rescue we got her from. But had someone been looking they could have gotten one of those pure bred puppies from Animal Control. Really, you just have no patience.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

This is your problem here: 

"These are things I have to do because some people somewhere decided that they know better than me and imposed these conditions on me.". I'm happy to sacrifice to give my puppy what I think he needs, but I'm not happy to jump through hoops to make some people somewhere who think they should be in charge of me and my dog happy. 



You have this attitude that says 'These people are trying to make me do things their way. They are out to control me." That is essentially what you have been saying all along. I would say you have some serious 'control issues'. 
Some shelters/rescues IMO do indeed carry things too far. Like the marraige thing. Sheesh- even if one is married now does that mean a year or more from that point he/she will still be married. No guarantee there. I do understand spay/neuter contracts but prefer spaying and neutering before adoption. They are trying to lower the pet overpopulation problem. This clearly isn't an issue for most whom adopt. Homechecks aren't like Child Protective Services investigating your home and lifestyle. They meet the family, other pets, see your yard or lack of. I have seen and known people whom have lied about where they live and whether they have a fenced yard or not. If they are going to ask if you have one and then not check it out, asking was sort of pointless, eh?
Most kills shelters don't even have stringent demands and are overflowing with mixes and purebreds. Ours is always full. There are some really nice dogs there just waiting for a chance. Purebreds whom were bred to fill the supply and demand that others like you have created. If a rescue doesn't come forward and make space to pull them most will never leave the shelter until they take their final walk. A couple of months ago I went with a friend to look because she was adding another dog. There were quite a few Goldens and Golden mixes. Maybe they were related to your dog in some way. 
Instead of thinking of it as controlling you why don't you look at it as they are trying to protect the dogs in their care of having the same fate yet again.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

JohnHouse said:


> Doesn't even know if she wants to neuter her dog at all


I guess I just don't buy into group-think very easily. I know what's right for one dog and one situation isn't always right for every dog and every situation. I have been making sure to look closely at both options (leaving intact/neutering) and will continue that process. I understanding neutering has a lot of advantages, and those advantages are real, and I may very well ultimately end up neutering (I'd even say I am leaning towards it), but I also feel like leaving the dog intact is worth considering. There actually are some advantages to not-neutering, the dog gets adult hormones and sometimes settles down into less puppish antics (Even though they are more prone to mark, fight with males, and chase females) as those hormones tell him he is an adult member of his pack. I also think there is something to be said about the dignity of allow an animal to remain its natural state and go through his entire natural life cycle without artificially taking away a part of his body that plays an important role in who he is as an animal and how he develops. But that's not saying I won't neuter -- just that I'm keeping my options open, and am not automatically ruling out anything.



> I sure hope that you know (even if you don't *realize* it yet) that you contributed to someone making money


I don't think they're making a lot of money, given the prices they charge, considering the costs and the time involved in raising puppies. They're probably making a little, but that seems reasonable to me. At these prices, probably a lot of it is for the experience of doing it more than anything else, I'd imagine, and a love of dogs.



> $300 that does not include neutering or "papers"


I did make sure I got everything I needed to register with the American Kennel Club if I choose to do so (and I probably will). There are some papers. Not the sort of extensive background some more pricey breeders would give you, but I made sure he was a real pure bred and could be recognized as such by the AKC easily if I wanted to go that route.



> If you have that many problems comprehending and following well-placed rules, then maybe it's a good thing that you aren't involved in animal rescue (in the shelters, as a foster, etc.). Your egocentric "personality quirks" would serve no one involved, including the animals, well.


You know, that may be phrased a little harshly, but I don't actually entirely disagree with you. I realize that I am not good at meshing with a lot of people and organizations. I'm not well liked and a lot of times I get frustrated with a lot of people. That's part of why I got a dog -- I do a lot better with dogs, and they do a lot better with me, than most people. I probably wouldn't be able to get along with a human roommate, but my dog and I are starting to click and gell more and more. In a way, he's my family. No good woman has ever really wanted to settle down with me, and I don't have any kids, so this might be the closest I come to that. And when I visit what friends I do have, and my extended family, that gives the dog a chance to socialize with a wider group, which I know is important to his development and happiness.



MooMoosMommy said:


> Let me ask you this DogsRCool... Do you at least get why shelters/rescues ask some of the questions they ask and have some requirements?


I do understand why they have the rules they have, and why they seems reasonable from their perspective. Having said that, though, in their shoes it would be more important to me to keep the dog alive, even if he had to go to an imperfect home, than to hold out for someone who met all those criteria and have to euthanize extra dogs. Like the dog I heard about who wanted his dog to live in a nice dog house in a several acre fenced in yard and was denied the chance to adopt by a high-kill shelter -- sure, it'd be better for the dog to get to go indoors -- but having the dog live like Snoopy would have beat killing it.

The rules are kind of a "one-size-fits-all" imposition on every dog owner, and every dog in these places, some of whom they don't always well fit. I understand why they have them, but they aren't something I want to deal with.



MooMoosMommy said:


> You have this attitude that says 'These people are trying to make me do things their way. They are out to control me." That is essentially what you have been saying all along. I would say you have some serious 'control issues'.


Maybe so. However, if I do, that is a part of who I am to some degree. For someone like me, it's better to get a dog on my terms and be happy with the experience, than try to get a dog with those sorts of conditions attached and stew about it for the next decade or so. And I probably would stew about it.  That's just how I am. I knew I'd be a lot more at peace with things if I did it my way. And I knew being more at peace with things would help me be patient with the dog and the unadvoidable struggles that come with raising all puppies. If I go in and set up what I think is the best possible situation for me, that gives me an extra psychological reserve to handle the other stuff, instead of wearing me a bit thin from the beginning. When my dog is causing me trouble, I look at him and know he's really my dog and the breed I wanted and the age I wanted, and that helps me a lot - versus having some resentment built in from doing things another way. It helped me bond with him a lot quicker and I still melt when I see that goofy golden retriever smile that's so unique to his breed. And I think even some of the bond I had with my childhood pet carried over in a lot of ways, even though that are about as opposite as you can get personality wise for their shared breed.

Obviously that doesn't mean I'd do things the exact same way if I thought the conditions were right to get him a companion in a few years (Which they probably won't be). Then I'd probably be less set on all the stuff I was set on in getting him, because I already have him, and I'd probably be more interested in a lower-stress older dog who I could save from a bad life or being killed (and maybe a different breed or a mixed breed, for some variety because I already have a golden, because it'd be less expensive, and because those are the sort of dogs who tend to wind up needing to be saved more often than goldens, which tend to be everyone's favorite dog.  ). But for my first and primary pet (and probably the only one I'll have in his lifetime-- it looks like for financial and other reasons, I'm best as a one-dog-at-a-time person, though one never knows, I try to not rule anything out long-term), it was important to do things the way I really wanted to and have everything set.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

"There actually are some advantages to not-neutering, the dog gets adult hormones and sometimes settles down into less puppish antics (Even though they are more prone to mark, fight with males, and chase females) as those hormones tell him he is an adult member of his pack."

This shows us all that you know little if anything about hormones in general. The only real reason to wait on neutering for some dogs is growth/growth plates. I'm not even going to ask you if you know anything real about hormones in general, because you don't. "Adult hormones" in all mammals don't "settle down" anything, and if anything, they *create* behaviors that can too easily get out of control...or did you never go through puberty yourself?

Ah, so you tell us that "no good woman" ever wanted to settle down with you -- so you're male, huh (unless you're a lesbian, but I'm going to go with manhood here). That would explain your hesitance to cut a dog's balls off. You need to get a grip on yourself and realize that dogs are dogs and you can't control your dog the way you control yourself, and that his balls don't mean the same thing to him the way that yours do (and if you really think they do, then you've got a bigger problem that none of us can help you with...though you could always soothe your bruised ego and your pup's lack of balls by becoming one of those ninnies who buys Neuticles for their dog). If your dog ends up meeting up with an unneutered female, chances are you will end up the grandpop of a litter of dogs. Are you going to take the responsibility of those pups, or are you just going to continue your unrelenting egocentric "those puppies are not my problem" attitude?

You don't have to answer that. I sense that I'd only read even more nonsense, given your track record.

( I can also tell that you're in that school of thought that think that dogs are pack animals, when they are in fact, NOT WOLVES, and they form loosely structured groups rather than "packs"...your Alpha Dog Theory is very sadly outdated.

http://k9domain.org/alpha_theory.aspx )


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> *I don't think you can measure the quality of a dog*, in a deeper sense, *based on it's health or it's temperment*. I think all life has some instrinsic value to it. I don't feel like only perfect dogs should be bred. There are a lot of people out there who really want pets and would care for them well, and these dogs may be a godsend for some of those people. Obviously, some breeders do things they shouldn't and don't take the care they should, but I don't like the other extreme where people act like it is some sort of a grave moral injustice for people to breed a couple dogs and sell or give away the puppies to people they know or can find, *assuming they aren't overbreeding *their dogs or failing to take care of them.


This whole commentary makes me literally sick to my stomach. I feel like crying at the fact that there are still people out there who don't accept or realize that there IS overbreeding going on. Insane insane amounts of it, and thousands and thousands of dogs are dying because of people missing this point. 

Also, if you've ever seen a cavalier King Charles spaniel yelping in agony at the pain of his brain growing larger than his skull, I think health and wellness would matter more to you. These problems come ONLY as a result of careless breeding, regardless of whether the breeders really do love their dogs. LOVE is about how the OWNER feels. Does it not matter how the DOG feels?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

If you couldn't be patient with a dog if you were "stewing" over a contract with a rescue that put a few restrictions on you maybe you shouldn't have one at all.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

kafkabeetle said:


> Also, if you've ever seen a cavalier King Charles spaniel yelping in agony at the pain of his brain growing larger than his skull



Wait, what? Seriously?

Yikes!


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

JohnHouse said:


> This shows us all that you know little if anything about hormones in general. The only real reason to wait on neutering for some dogs is growth/growth plates. I'm not even going to ask you if you know anything real about hormones in general, because you don't. "Adult hormones" in all mammals don't "settle down" anything, and if anything, they *create* behaviors that can too easily get out of control...or did you never go through puberty yourself?


Well, there is at least one website out there that disagrees with you. You might be correct, though. I am not just going to go by some random website when I make my final decision, I'll be perusing a lot of different things and examining a whole body of opinion. It's just that right now, I still have some time, so I've only done some very preliminary investigations into the whole issue.

My suspicion is that, just as in humans, there is a mixed bag of changes that occur when a dog reaches maturity. I'd read about the marking, fighting, and chasing after females and so on and so forth, but it does seem reasonable to think that in the long-run a dog who's body and hormones are allowed to reach their full maturity level may also derive some benefit from that in terms of taking on an adult perspective and place in the pack rather than remaining more of a perpetual puppy. And there's the dog's own dignity to consider, too, as well as what might be easiest for me. So it's a complicated picture.

Neutering has a lot of benefits, too, and I am considering it, and probably will go in that direction. I'm just not sure yet. Since it can't be done while the dog is this young, it won't hurt anything if I take a while to make up my mind.



> If your dog ends up meeting up with an unneutered female, chances are you will end up the grandpop of a litter of dogs. Are you going to take the responsibility of those pups, or are you just going to continue your unrelenting egocentric "those puppies are not my problem" attitude?


I have a shared backyard, so when he is out back, I am (and really have to be) back there to supervise him while he plays and digs and romps and does his business. Obviously, he's leashed on walks. He often visits my extended family with me, but their dog is male and neutered. So, there isn't likely to be a whole lot of opportunity for him to randomly mate.

If somehow he does wind up mating with a female dog, though, I'd probably offer to take a single "pick of the litter" puppy myself, and also contact family and friends to see if any of them would be interested in one of the puppies (Presuming the female dog's owner wanted help in finding them homes), as they might actually enjoy an opportunity to adopt a puppy related to my dog, who they'd presumably have gotten to know and love over the years. But I doubt it would come to that, because I'd be taking precautions against any uncontrolled breeding.

That's all really a hypothetical, though. Truthfully, what's likely to happen is that the dog will reach neutering age, and start marking his territory and fighting and doing all the things unneutered dogs do, and I'll take him in to get neutered, if I don't decide to neuter him in advance anyway, which I may well do. I just haven't completely decided on that yet. I think it's reasonable to consider all the angles while he is still a ways away from maturing, and make my own decision.



kafkabeetle said:


> This whole commentary makes me literally sick to my stomach. I feel like crying at the fact that there are still people out there who don't accept or realize that there IS overbreeding going on. Insane insane amounts of it, and thousands and thousands of dogs are dying because of people missing this point.


I don't want anyone to think I automatically approve of anything a breeder does. Obviously, even while I might not argue that they need to do everything someone else might think they should, I do think there are certain basic responsibilities involved in deciding to breed some animals in terms of looking after their well-being and such.

I also understand that there are problems with overpopulation, and that sometimes overpopulation can pose a danger to these animals. I think one way of addressing that is to do everything we can to encourage more dog ownership, though, and to make the adoption process as smooth and easy as possible for people who are willing to take on the intrinsic responsibilities that come with having a dog.

I'm not going to automatically say that any dog who's had a rough life at times is better off dead. I'm a human who's had a very rough life in many respects, and I still don't think I'd be better off having never been born -- I've had my own pretty severe health issues, just as many of these dogs have, to cite just one example. Sometimes suffering is part of life, but that doesn't necessarily render the life worthless or suggest that it should never have happened. It's a complicated philosophical issue, and I don't necessarily fully endorse either extreme of the issue when it comes to pets (i.e. that dogs shouldn't be bred at all, or that they should be bred without any regard to what will happen at all), which I recognize are different from humans. I don't see it as a black and white thing.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

... Dogs have the cognitive capacity of human toddlers, and human toddlers aren't cognitively capable of comprehending what "dignity" is, so you are anthropomorphizing faaaaaaaaar too much.

Point out that "at least one website" that disagrees with me about the physiology of the endocrine system and the mechanics of it in pre-pubescent bodies going through puberty, because I doubt any medical professional would deny what the effects of puberty are with any mammal (human, canine, doesn't matter).

P.S. You're not the only one with severe health issues here, but that doesn't absolve us of the responsibility towards being better people and CONTRIBUTING solutions to the problem of overbreeding and BYBs. I stood for hours in pain during the adoption fairs, just to make sure the people who came in were educated about each dog and about what it means to adopt one of our dogs, period. And while there are no black or white issues, there is common sense, and if you do not have the common sense to know that there are dogs dying every day and that a lot of them are dying because people like you couldn't be bothered to go take a look at them at your local county shelter, then there is no hope for you until you get off your @ss and do so.

And to emphasize, dogs aren't pack animals and Dominance Theory is scientifically incorrect (in case you missed that the last time). If you were truly the kind of "educated" guy you try to make yourself come off as you'd know this, or at least do some freaking reading on it.


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

KBLover said:


> Wait, what? Seriously?
> 
> Yikes!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pm17MesMFRc 

I admit this is in the UK and the program is mainly focused on the horrors of inbreeding, but that's not the only way dogs end up with genetic diseases like this one.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

JohnHouse said:


> ( I can also tell that you're in that school of thought that think that dogs are pack animals, when they are in fact, NOT WOLVES, and they form loosely structured groups rather than "packs"...your Alpha Dog Theory is very sadly outdated.
> 
> http://k9domain.org/alpha_theory.aspx )


I looked over your link, and I've also read some similar things recently. I am not necessarily a "true believer" when it comes to the alpha dog theory, because I do give creedence to what science is starting to discover that mitigates some of it. Having said that, though, I know that a lot of dogs have been raised very successfully, and I've even seen them raised very successfully, using a "parenting" method derived from some of the ideas present in the old school of thought when it came to this stuff. So, I'm not as quick as some have been to completely dismiss it either. I suspect that the truth of the matter is more complex, and incorporates some elements of a lot of different models of dog behavior and social hiearchy.

My natural tendency is be a very soft touch with my dog. I melt for dogs in a way I don't for much else. And I know my particular breed of dog isn't really the type to really be doing most of that alpha stuff with, they are too emotionally sensitive for a lot of it, and not really aggressive or dominant enough to really "need" it in most cases. I won't say I won't occasionally hold his jaw if he is repeatedly ignoring me and attempts to redirect him from, say, chewing an electric wire, to chewing one of his toys, completely fail, though. I think there are times and places to occasionally incorporate some aspects of some of these theories without going hog wild and acting like Caeser Milan or something. 

I have seen dogs interact with each other, and I do notice the ones that seem to be in charge do correct the others sometimes and will sometimes back other dogs away a bit when they are doing something unwanted. The problem is that many times people will go overboard with this stuff and border on the abusive. You have to approach anything in a well-balanced way that takes into account the dignity and well-being of your pet, and the idea that you don't just want to be in charge of your pet, in most cases, you want to be buddies and be able to show lots of love and affection and have them show it you, even when the old school dog trainers might not think it's appropriate.  So, I think there are some things we can take from dominance theory that have some practical application, but it needs to be balanced with a lot of different ideas and approaches, and one can't go to extremes with it. That's just my take, though, I could be wrong.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

JohnHouse said:


> Permanently splayed? Your poor dog.


Yep. When she is standing, her toes are basically at 90 degree angles, so they're laying on their sides and curled under instead of normal toes where the pads touch the ground. She goose steps every where and is quite uncomfortable with having her nails trimmed. All because someone had an oops litter or purposely bred two random dogs (she's mutty as all get out, so I would REALLY hope this litter wasn't some genius idea) and she ended up in a garage where no one took care of her and let her toe nails grow wild. Her mange was so bad when we got her she was riddled with secondary infections and most of her was bald and bloody/scabby. Her face was so swollen from infection that we initially guessed her as a Shar Pei mix. She never slept because she couldn't stop itching. Spent most of her beginning with us sedated. 

So no, not all dogs are one in the same, but one dogs suffering to me is not enough to justify getting a pup that lives a normal life from a shoddy breeder.



MooMoosMommy said:


> I bought a GSD,..


I literally could not even read all of your post because I am crying over Thor, this dog I never met. I'm so sorry for what happened to him and I'm glad he is not in pain anymore. These are the kind of stories that I want to stop hearing, but threads like these are a sad reminder that you can educate someone all you want and it might not make a difference. Was Thor not enough for people? What about Magpie, Jonas, Jack, and Smalls? How many dogs is enough?


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

Again, the anthropomophizing isn't doing you any favors here in the knowledge department. Dignity is a human concept that dogs (and a lot of other mammals with cognitive capacities that do no equal ours) cannot "work out" in their minds. We as humans can only apply "dignity" towards a dog's life (and death).

The problem with Dominance Theory is that the science it is based around was flawed to begin with. You cannot logically justify a study that was essentially flawed. The trainers who exist on this theory haven't done their homework and refuse to evolve like the rest of the scientific/biologic community. It was once common knowledge that the world was flat, but science and observation has proved that "knowledge" incorrect.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

JohnHouse said:


> ... Dogs have the cognitive capacity of human toddlers, and human toddlers aren't cognitively capable of comprehending what "dignity" is, so you are anthropomorphizing faaaaaaaaar too much.


I see what you're saying, but I don't really consider dignity to be something that is solely about how a being views itself. I think sometimes dignity can involve other larger considerations, even beyond what a dog could perceive.



> If you were truly the kind of "educated" guy you try to make yourself come off as you'd know this, or at least do some freaking reading on it.


I'm not really very educated, in general. I just come off as educated because I spent way too much time as a small child watching C-SPAN and reading books, and that really effected the way I speak, and how I phrase things, since it was actually a large part of socialization for me in some of my formative years. I'm probably one of the few people who probably speaks in a more and more formal way when I have had a couple beers or am feeling ill. I have to really struggle to tone down my vocabulary and be more concise when a situations calls for it. It's not some sort of air I try to put on. I'm actually less educated than most people, at least in a formal sense, and don't hold myself out as a great expert on much of anything, I just have an odd way of phrasing things. There are a lot of people out there who are far more intelligent and knowledgeable than I am. I do have opinions on nearly everything, but I know they're likely wrong a great deal of the time. Knowing that I could be wrong about something usually doesn't prompt me to place all my decisions in the hands of someone else, or a group of someone elses, though -- Ultimately I feel better making my own decisions, and even taking my own lumps when I'm wrong, then living by someone else's rules and taking their lumps for them.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> Neutering has a lot of benefits, too, and I am considering it, and probably will go in that direction. I'm just not sure yet. * Since it can't be done while the dog is this young*, it won't hurt anything if I take a while to make up my mind.


Why couldn't it be done? While they may be a little smaller if you do it young you apsolutley can get it done. I've never had a dog, or cat who wasn't, and except for the one we just got, they were all done before 10 weeks.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> These are the kind of stories that I want to stop hearing, but threads like these are a sad reminder that you can educate someone all you want and it might not make a difference. Was Thor not enough for people? What about Magpie, Jonas, Jack, and Smalls? How many dogs is enough?


If we lived in a world where there were only breeders with very strict requirements, along with rescues and shelters, there would still be animals who had health complications, and there would still be owners who mistreated them. The truth is, a lot of abusive owners are the people who are the most likely to lie and manipulate their way through a screening process, for example, and are more likely to have used their skills at manipulating things to have what appears to be a perfect fit on the surface of things (Nice house, big yard, family). And the people who seem the most scruffy and irresponsible are sometimes the ones who love their pets the most because their pet is all they have to love.

While there might be fewer health complications and fewer bad owners in that hypothetical world (Though it would by no means eliminate either), there would also be a lot fewer dogs in general, and a lot of good prospective owners who couldn't find pets. I don't think any of us want to see pet ownership become a thing that only the rich can afford, because the supply of dogs is so small, and the prices just keep getting higher, and the restrictions more restrictive. In some ways, having private sales of dogs and private breeding can serve as a great market corrective that keeps prices low and keeps restrictions from getting out of hand.

What a lot of animal lovers don't stop to think about is that if things were run the way they'd like them to be run, they probably wouldn't be able to afford to have an animal themselves. The idea that the little guy can breed animals or privately transfer them is not only good in the sense of allowing more freedom, but it's also a great democratizing influence, and helps ensure that everyone who wants a pet can have one. It keeps pets from just being playthings or assecessories for the elite, to go along with their nice cars and vacation homes and luxury yachts, and allows them to be part of regular families and be owned by regular folks.



tskoffina said:


> Why couldn't it be done? While they may be a little smaller if you do it young you apsolutley can get it done. I've never had a dog, or cat who wasn't, and except for the one we just got, they were all done before 10 weeks.


My vet told me that, with dogs, neutering should be done at six months if one is going to do it. All the other resources I've read (at least those I remember) say between six months and just after two years is the ideal time. I couldn't tell you the reason why for sure off the top of my head, to be honest, but I think it has something to do with allowing them to get through a large chunk of their puppyhood developing naturally.

I don't know much about cats, but I think I did see somewhere that cats are often neutered much earlier. I wouldn't take my word for that, though, because I wasn't really looking for cat information and thus wasn't paying close attention to where whatever I was reading starting discussing cats, just skimmed it, probably (So I could easily be remembering the whole thing incorrectly).


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

That may be true about the differences, but I have had 4 dogs and all were fixed early. Far better to fix a little early than have a half a dozen dogs to take care of all at once because of an unwanted litter. You can't always control your animal. The leash could be yanked out of your hand when you're not paying attention because he smells a dog in hear, what if you go on vacation? What if he just manages to slip past your door? Great, maybe you'll take a puppy, or find a home or two, but that's another group of puppies added to the shelters that's going to cause more over crowding and more deaths for no reason than, I wanted to weigh my options. OOPS. That helps. Unless you're going to show your pet there's not much reason to wait on it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool

Love isnt the only thing a breeding animal needs. the audacity of this ridiculously uninformed post is MIND BOGGLING.

Did you know dogs carry sexually transmitted diseases? the most common one is Brucellosis. Ever heard of walrus puppies? What about all the other problems, complications and concerns?

you got your dog from a piss poor excuse for a breeder. sorry. the reason top notch breeders charge what they charge is because they arent breeding for YOUR sake, they are breeding for the sake of the dogs themselves, so the next generation will be healthier and happier. you bought a dog from a money grubbing person who does NOT have the best interests of the dog in mind. there's just no excuse for it. if you dont have the money on hand, you wait..you save the money and bring yourself into a financial situation where you can handle it. a properly bred litter costs a breeder upwards of several thousand dollars minimum..they are only trying to break even.

as for breeders not letting you choose your own puppy...do you honestly have the audacity and the gall to think that you are a better judge of puppy behavior and temperament than someone who has raised those puppies's parents, their grandparents etc etc...who has spent incalcuable amount of time studying the lines, the genetic trends, the developmental trends of their particular family of dogs? that's pure ignorant foolishness on your part if you do. 

ridiculous.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> If we lived in a world where there were only breeders with very strict requirements, along with rescues and shelters, there would still be animals who had health complications, and there would still be owners who mistreated them. The truth is, a lot of abusive owners are the people who are the most likely to lie and manipulate their way through a screening process, for example, and are more likely to have used their skills at manipulating things to have what appears to be a perfect fit on the surface of things (Nice house, big yard, family). And the people who seem the most scruffy and irresponsible are sometimes the ones who love their pets the most because their pet is all they have to love.
> 
> While there might be fewer health complications and fewer bad owners in that hypothetical world (Though it would by no means eliminate either), there would also be a lot fewer dogs in general, and a lot of good prospective owners who couldn't find pets. I don't think any of us want to see pet ownership become a thing that only the rich can afford, because the supply of dogs is so small, and the prices just keep getting higher, and the restrictions more restrictive. In some ways, having private sales of dogs and private breeding can serve as a great market corrective that keeps prices low and keeps restrictions from getting out of hand.
> 
> What a lot of animal lovers don't stop to think about is that if things were run the way they'd like them to be run, they probably wouldn't be able to afford to have an animal themselves. The idea that the little guy can breed animals or privately transfer them is not only good in the sense of allowing more freedom, but it's also a great democratizing influence, and helps ensure that everyone who wants a pet can have one. It keeps pets from just being playthings or assecessories for the elite, to go along with their nice cars and vacation homes and luxury yachts, and allows them to be part of regular families and be owned by regular folks.


No where did I say that by erradicating crap breeders would health problems and bad owners cease to exist. But the handful of great breeders I know would certainly not stop screening for those health issues and not keep breeding dogs that had them. Jonas sure as hell wouldn't have PRA, either. That was a result of a BYB breeding a stud who had it and they made no effort to screen for it. I'm willing to bet the farm dogs being bred willy nilly for profit and people who want one and want it now make up a vast majority of the shelter system AND I sincerely doubt their "breeders" make any effort to keep track of their pups. No way they could, they churn out litters whenever they feel like it. Even in the smallest sampling, follow the life of Jonas and follow the life of a pup from a fab breeder. Jonas is born unsound and riddled with health issues. He is bought and subsequently dumped before he is 3 because his pups aren't selling. Ends up in a kill shelter where he is luckily pulled by a rescue and then adopted. Take that same pup from a breeder who lives for their dogs. Pup is bought, and subsequently not wanted. He is either returned because the breeder keeps track of where their dogs end up and stipulates that in a contract, or he ends up in a shelter where because the breeders I know microchip he is returned. BYB dogs are never even given that chance. 

If dogs like mine were NOT bred in the first place, they would not have had to go through the hands of abusive owners. Not to mention most don't get as far as mine have. They die in the shelter, where they're not adopted, because people do asinine things like buying from the easiest news paper ad. 

And you seem to be stuck on this "low price" thing. What is exactly a low price? I've paid no more than $200 for two of my rescues. And you better believe I put away money long before that to cover initial costs of the dog and keep a savings account for the dogs only. Dogs are not impulse buys. Not everyone who is good their dogs is rich, either. Plenty of people aquire the dog of their choice from an ethical breeder because they saved to get that dog. Dogs are not "I want it and I want it now!" and not every one who wants a pet deserves it. If you can't be bothered to save for the cost of a dog, then you shouldn't have one. 

I'm actually quite done with this conversation. You can keep using these lame excuses and reasons but they in no way make it right. How sad you think you can reason that because there are still bad owners and health issues with dogs that it's OK you purchase from a breeder that completely disregards every thing in effort to make some cash. I have very little faith in education helping folks make the right decision and this thread is doing nothing for the small amount of faith I hold onto.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

My beautiful, sweet, wonderful Pure Bred without papers, but hearing issues, dog cost us 100. PLUS the next day's check up at the vet, PLUS the training class, PLUS the food, bowls, toys etc, and I haven't even bought her the special collar she needs. My 100 dog cost, grand total, 800 within a week and a half. If you added up all the stuff needed because of poor breeding and care before us, I probably could have bought from a reputable breeder. But I'd rather make her life better with my money.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

tskoffina said:


> My beautiful, sweet, wonderful Pure Bred without papers, but hearing issues, dog cost us 100. PLUS the next day's check up at the vet, PLUS the training class, PLUS the food, bowls, toys etc, and I haven't even bought her the special collar she needs. My 100 dog cost, grand total, 800 within a week and a half. If you added up all the stuff needed because of poor breeding and care before us, I probably could have bought from a reputable breeder. But I'd rather make her life better with my money.


no offence to your dog..but if she had been bred properly...you'd likely still have all that money.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

tskoffina said:


> My beautiful, sweet, wonderful Pure Bred without papers, but hearing issues, dog cost us 100. PLUS the next day's check up at the vet, PLUS the training class, PLUS the food, bowls, toys etc, and I haven't even bought her the special collar she needs. My 100 dog cost, grand total, 800 within a week and a half. If you added up all the stuff needed because of poor breeding and care before us, I probably could have bought from a reputable breeder. But I'd rather make her life better with my money.


So.. you would buy from this breeder or another BYB again?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> no offence to your dog..but if she had been bred properly...you'd likely still have all that money.


That was my point. She was bred and sold and bred in her first heat and lost hearing. I mentioned it further up. She was dumped with her pups because the original owners assumed it would be genetic. I got her from a rescue and just want to give her a happy life. My point was I could get from a Reputable Breeder without issues, or help an animal who needed it. Ends up costing about the same long run.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> So.. you would buy from this breeder or another BYB again?


I would never buy from a BYB. She was a rescue, but came from one.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

tskoffina said:


> That was my point. She was bred and sold and bred in her first heat and lost hearing. I mentioned it further up. She was dumped with her pups because the original owners assumed it would be genetic. I got her from a rescue and just want to give her a happy life. My point was I could get from a Reputable Breeder without issues, or help an animal who needed it. Ends up costing about the same long run.


many apologies..another poster in this thread sent my brains into firey overload. i mostly read only their posts in order to be able to properly respond. tis a rather long thread lol..


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

I don't know where you got the idea that a BYB has $300 invested in each puppy or even near that. That is crazy talk. Purina/Pedigree dog food- Don't even get me started on these cheap, crappy foods most BYBs feed their dogs. Vaccinations- If they go to a vet this can be done relatively cheaply. Many I know buy from farm supply stores or order vaccines online very cheaply-$4 up to $10 per vaccine. I don't know who told you they are barely making anything. If it is these 'breeders'.. well their breeding practice speaks for itself anyway. They can sling that crap elsewhere- I ain't buying!
Most of us whom profess ourselves as dog lovers care about dogs in general. We put our own selfish wants aside and look at the bigger picture. We don't want to see thousands of dogs dying every week, month, whatever. 
You, sir, are looking no farther than your own desires and care nothing for learning what is really going on because that would make you have to second guess and question your own thoughts. 
No one can sway your opinions because quite obviously you are unwilling to listen or care about the plight of shelter animals as long as you have the dog you wanted. 
I would be quite willing for there to be no need for shelters in the future. I prefer there only be reputable breeders so that issues like BYBs and overbreeding and animals being PTS for lack of homes never happens again. 
Those whom choose to own animals should have to do their research because in the long run it weeds out those whom will be committed and ready to take on all responsibilities owning an animal and those whom just want to get a cute puppy. The problem is just that- dogs are too easy to obtain. You like that. Most knowledgeable people don't. Joe Blow can pick up a puppy today, tie it up in the backyard for a few months, get rid of it when it isn't cute anymore, and repeat. This cycle repeats all the time. 
Thor, the GSD I spoke of earlier... His 'breeder' was still breeding last I heard. Different dogs now but still has no care that many of his litter had the same issues. When I told them they said " Seems to be happening alot in this litter. Maybe it's cause shes too young." Grrrr.... Still making money because of people like you whom fill her demand. 
It's sickening to me that some people care so little about what happens to the discarded dogs and to those whom die horrible deaths because of health issues due to breedings by 2 dogs whom carried or had the disease. Thors sire had HD and ED I later found out. I supported them and to this day still feel horrible that I supported their practices.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> many apologies..another poster in this thread sent my brains into firey overload. i mostly read only their posts in order to be able to properly respond. tis a rather long thread lol..


Me too. Probably because of this one on the couch with me. She's the first with a real story and it's so sad and I can't begin to figure out how to train her.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

tskoffina said:


> Me too. Probably because of this one on the couch with me. She's the first with a real story and it's so sad and I can't begin to figure out how to train her.


it just pisses me off. im taking college level genetics courses, vet tech certification courses and animal husbandry courses in preparation for setting up my kennel. im spending several thousand in loans on this. im going to shows, working in rescue and studying animal development and training..Ive racked up over 10,000 dollars spent on becoming a breeder and _i dont even have the dogs yet._ 

on top of that there will be the purchase of at least an acre of land, the purchase of the dogs..i plan to feed raw exclusively so there's that too..followed by show entry fees, weight pull and agility entry fees, costs of travel for those events, OFA and Pennhip testing, genetic testing, vaccines, regular vet care...and after all that..i may have to speuter the animals and start over if they do not live up to my standards.....but if they do..there's progestorone tests, std screening, proper prenatal care, equipment and supplies for birthing, puppy care, the cost of the lawyer to draw up the contracts...

and that..person...is whining about the cost of a dog??!! beyond offensive and ignorant.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Reading comprehension skills FTW. Redacted.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> Reading comprehension skills FTW. Redacted.


Lol, sorry it's hard to make sense when I'm all riled up. Been following this for days and even though it took a bad turn it's so upsetting I couldn't not jump in.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> If we lived in a world where there were only breeders with very strict requirements, along with rescues and shelters, there would still be animals who had health complications, and there would still be owners who mistreated them. The truth is, a lot of abusive owners are the people who are the most likely to lie and manipulate their way through a screening process, for example, and are more likely to have used their skills at manipulating things to have what appears to be a perfect fit on the surface of things (Nice house, big yard, family). And the people who seem the most scruffy and irresponsible are sometimes the ones who love their pets the most because their pet is all they have to love.



What does this have to do with rescues vs byb vs responsible breeders?

The fact there's no guarantees in life? Well, yeah. There's no guarantee you'll be alive tomorrow - so why not go for a stroll across a busy highway blindfolded at night wearing all black clothes? 

Just because there's no guarantees doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to improve the odds and just let it be one big free for all where people just breed dogs left and right and hand them out not caring at all about even trying to give them the best possible chance - be they bred or acquired from a rescue. Since we can't tell with 100% certainty if someone won't abuse the dog given to them, let's just put them out in the open with a sign that says "Free dogs! Take one!"?

The truth probably is more like abusive owners aren't even going through the rescue process. They'll get their dogs from avenues that have no questions asked policies. 

Which would be more attractive to an abuser? A system where they have to "fake it until they make it" or one where they can just drive up, pick a pup, slap down $50, and go on with life?




DogsRCool said:


> While there might be fewer health complications and fewer bad owners in that hypothetical world (Though it would by no means eliminate either), there would also be a lot fewer dogs in general, and a lot of good prospective owners who couldn't find pets.


Why not have more quality breeders in the hypothetical world so there can still be "dogs for everyone" but those dogs are all sound, stable temperaments, and are a nice, quality puppy that's ready for anything the new owners would want to teach and develop him into?

But - I know - requiring breeders to be quality would need those restrictions you hate and thing are the ruin of people finding dogs. 




DogsRCool said:


> I don't think any of us want to see pet ownership become a thing that only the rich can afford, because the supply of dogs is so small, and the prices just keep getting higher, and the restrictions more restrictive. In some ways, having private sales of dogs and private breeding can serve as a great market corrective that keeps prices low and keeps restrictions from getting out of hand.


As much as I love Wally and Cotons in general, I would not want to see Cotons because a dime a dozen if it meant that 11 of those dozen dogs have the same issues or worse that Wally had because they were bred by the same crap breeder that bred Wally.

There's more important things than "market correctives", especially when dealing with living creatures. If keeping the number of Cotons from having bad starts in life down means they stay "rare" and cost $1000+ so be it. I'd rather there be fewer Cotons than more Cotons but also more with issues - which are likely to put them into rescues/pounds/shelters because people don't want to pay for "broken" dogs.




DogsRCool said:


> What a lot of animal lovers don't stop to think about is that if things were run the way they'd like them to be run, they probably wouldn't be able to afford to have an animal themselves. The idea that the little guy can breed animals or privately transfer them is not only good in the sense of allowing more freedom, but it's also a great democratizing influence, and helps ensure that everyone who wants a pet can have one.


People aren't saying that the "little guy" can't breed. They are saying "the little guy" needs to do health testing, be knowledgeable of the breed they are breeding, knowledgeable about dog health and able to see/predict temperament of puppies, and then care about where those puppies end up. 

There's nothing in there that prevents "the little guy" from doing any of that. Especially in the age of the internet. There's so many resources - FOR FREE - that can be found just by using the internet. I mean, just a look at the breed standard can tell a lot. Then there's places like this place, information about dog structure and how to evaluate it, and more.

The "little guy" could even put together a package of training materials for new owners. All it would cost is time and printer ink and internet connection fees (and maybe not even that if they can go to a public internet connection (library) or borrow a neighbor's etc.

"The little guy" has plenty of options for learning and doing things with at least some measure of responsibility. Being "the little guy" shouldn't excuse them from any of that. 



DogsRCool said:


> It keeps pets from just being playthings or assecessories for the elite, to go along with their nice cars and vacation homes and luxury yachts, and allows them to be part of regular families and be owned by regular folks.


Or plaything and accessories for regular people. Teacup dogs, anyone? "Purse dogs"? Little dogs that don't even get to walk on the ground because they have to "look cute" - "regular" people do this too.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

KBLover said:


> People aren't saying that the "little guy" can't breed. They are saying "the little guy" needs to do health testing, be knowledgeable of the breed they are breeding, knowledgeable about dog health and able to see/predict temperament of puppies, and then care about where those puppies end up.
> 
> There's nothing in there that prevents "the little guy" from doing any of that.


*raises hand* single mom here. college student with an 8 dollar an hour job. i decided i wanted to do it and do it right..im doing it and doing it right..by being *smart about it.*

thank you KB.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

tskoffina said:


> That was my point. She was bred and sold and bred in her first heat and lost hearing. I mentioned it further up. She was dumped with her pups because the original owners assumed it would be genetic. I got her from a rescue and just want to give her a happy life. My point was I could get from a Reputable Breeder without issues, or help an animal who needed it. Ends up costing about the same long run.
> 
> I would never buy from a BYB. She was a rescue, but came from one.


Ahh all right. You have to forgive. The tone of this thread makes BYBs seem like an awesome super walmart with dogs for cheap.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Ahh all right. You have to forgive. The tone of this thread makes BYBs seem like an awesome super walmart with dogs for cheap.


Yeah it did and that's why everyone's so angry about it, me included. If hearing is her only problem I'm lucky. There don't need to be anymore ill bred animals out there, even if people do love them.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

tskoffina said:


> Yeah it did and that's why everyone's so angry about it, me included. If hearing is her only problem I'm lucky. There don't need to be anymore ill bred animals out there, even if people do love them.


Right. Like I said, I love my dogs like crazy, but I wish they never had to be born. I'm hoping now they'll lead long lives despite their problems, and I'll take on the next batch when they come to me.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> The idea that the little guy can breed animals or privately transfer them is not only good in the sense of allowing more freedom, but it's also a great democratizing influence, and helps ensure that everyone who wants a pet can have one. It keeps pets from just being playthings or assecessories for the elite, to go along with their nice cars and vacation homes and luxury yachts, and allows them to be part of regular families and be owned by regular folks.


I've been reading this thread with interest because in some ways I agree in principle that restrictions, hoops, and contracts can be off-putting and go too far in specifying what choices people make for their own pets (I've seen rescues specify the brands of food to be fed, for example). But you have to understand that good breeders and rescue workers have to sleep at night and look at themselves in the mirror knowing the pets they placed are safe, well, and happy - and that they have some legal protection in place for those pets if they aren't. It's not like there is any shortage of rescue groups, shelters, or animal controls out there - if you don't like one's policies, you can always move on to another. 


BUT, the quote above kind of gets my goat for a couple of reasons. First, pet ownership is not a right, it's a privilege. Not everyone who wants a pet _should_ have one automatically just because they want one. Second, being able to afford pet-related expenses (whether it's buying a well-bred puppy or feeding a raw diet or getting emergency veterinary care or anything else) has more to do with priorities and budgeting than with being rich. I'm far from rich but I have invested a great deal of money when needed for my pets' care because that is more important to me than, say, going on vacation (yes we blew the carefully scrimped-for vacation fund on vet bills one year). 

It's extremely ignorant and unfair to paint all "regular folks" as automatically providing more desirable/ loving homes than all "elite" (i.e. rich) folks and to assume that rich folks only care about their pets as accessories. In my experience income has very little to do with how a pet is loved, cared for, or viewed in a family.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I'm not really very educated, in general. I just come off as educated because I spent way too much time as a small child watching C-SPAN and reading books, and that really effected the way I speak, and how I phrase things, since it was actually a large part of socialization for me in some of my formative years.


Well, you just admitted it -- you're not as educated as you make yourself out to be (FTR, I never did say you *were* educated). So why don't you start listening to the people who are attempting to teach you a thing or two about cognition, common sense and the difference between concepts that can be applied to those of higher cognition (and thus, broader cognitive capabilities/capacities) vs. those of lesser cognition. None of this means that dogs DON'T or can't experience joy and pleasure (and on the other side, sadness and pain), but it does mean that canine cognition can only go so far and does not go as far as "feeling dignified" about themselves.

I'm just about done with this as well. To quote Moo, all of the excuses and b.s. pro-BYBs is crazy talk (truthfully, that's what I was thinking before when I responding earlier, but didn't want to say it just yet). Crazy talk. That's what this will remain until you, Mr. DogsRCool, snap out of it and stop trying to justify your terrible, terrible decision making. Yeah yeah, you did what you wanted and you got what you wanted, yay for you and your AWESOME INDEPENDENCE AND SELF-DETERMINATION!111...doesn't make it any less crappy for the dogs that are sitting on death row that you COULD have helped one way or the other.



sassafras said:


> BUT, the quote above kind of gets my goat for a couple of reasons. First, pet ownership is not a right, it's a privilege. Not everyone who wants a pet _should_ have one automatically just because they want one. Second, being able to afford pet-related expenses (whether it's buying a well-bred puppy or feeding a raw diet or getting emergency veterinary care or anything else) has more to do with priorities and budgeting than with being rich. I'm far from rich but I have invested a great deal of money when needed for my pets' care because that is more important to me than, say, going on vacation (yes we blew the carefully scrimped-for vacation fund on vet bills one year).
> 
> It's extremely ignorant and unfair to paint all "regular folks" as automatically providing more desirable/ loving homes than all "elite" (i.e. rich) folks and to assume that rich folks only care about their pets as accessories. In my experience income has very little to do with how a pet is loved, cared for, or viewed in a family.


Too true, that got to me as well. Politicizing the concept of pet ownership in this fashion does the exact opposite that Mr. Cool seems to have wanted to accomplish; it reduces the animals to objects/possessions. They are NOT merely possessions to be available to the masses in some kind of Marxist construct. These are lives, and it doesn't matter what economic class you belong to. There are stupid pet owners who are rich (Paris Hilton, Michael Vick) and stupid pet owners who are poor. But there are also excellent pet owners who are "rich" (Rose McGowan, Doris Day) and those who are poor (me...and the others on this thread who are by no means "rich"), just as there are stupid dog trainers who stubbornly adhere to scientifically debunked methodology and those who have evolved past that and continue to make strides towards limiting training to humane practices.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Like some of the people discussing this issue with me, I'm getting pretty close to the end of my rope discussing it as well. We obviously all have our opinions, and aren't changing each other's minds any. And carrying on one side of an argument with about a half dozen people is fairly time consuming and can get pretty frustrating. 

The main thing I guess I'd like to leave people with is a sense that life isn't a one-size-fits all kind of deal, and neither is owning a dog. The reason we have so many breeds of dogs is because people are often looking for different qualities in a dog, for example. If people are into this rescue and shelter thing, that's great, but that's no reason to impose their will on others (which is what trying to eliminate ordinary people breeding dogs would do, since the only options left would come with a lot of restrictions and requirements). In a way, it's a form of elitism to maintain someone must pay big bucks or agree to certain restrictions to own a dog -- sure, it's an elitism that might include some people of lower means than the usual forms of elitism, but it's still that same sort "I know better than you, and you have to do things my way or you're an evil so-and-so" and "Some people aren't good enough" sort of thing in concept.

To the folks who say that it'd be better to go for a more expert breeder, I'd have been happy to do it -- had their prices been something I could afford. All things being equal, of course you'd go to the expert. But if the experts price themselves out of what I can afford, that means they aren't really an option for me. If you're an expert breeder and you don't want people to patronize less expert breeders, you may want to consider offering some dogs at lower prices. It's fair enough if expert breeders expect more money because of their expertise, but than they can't come back and complain that people who can't afford them won't buy dogs from them and have to look elsewhere -- one can't have it both ways.  The same thing goes with some of the extensive requirements and contracts and forbidding owners from picking out their own puppy -- if you breed the dogs, you have the right to make the rules, but don't be surprised if some people don't like them and go elsewhere, that's kind of the way life works (and I'm glad it does -- choices are a good thing).



JohnHouse said:


> Politicizing the concept of pet ownership in this fashion does the exact opposite that Mr. Cool seems to have wanted to accomplish; it reduces the animals to objects/possessions. They are NOT merely possessions to be available to the masses in some kind of Marxist construct.


Animals do in a sense operate in sort of a middle ground between human beings and possessions. They don't really have *human* rights, but they do have some rights and are worthy of some protections beyond what we'd accord to a piece of furniture or whatever. I think sometimes there are errors when we go to either extreme -- a dog doesn't have as much value as your Great Uncle Bob, but it can't be treated like it's nothing more than a piece of furniture either. There's a broad middle ground, and I think that's traditionally the way society has thought of pets -- as being in their own category.

I think, in general, there are a lot of folks who don't want certain people to be allowed to make choices and try for some happiness in life. I'm had people really obnoxiously tell me everything from that I shouldn't own a dog, to that I shouldn't want to get married or have kids someday, to I shouldn't drink alcohol, to that I shouldn't every spend a dime on anything in my life that isn't strictly necessary, to just about everything under the sun. Being poor, having health problems, and/or having a unique outlook on life don't lessen my worth, or the worth of anyone in a similar situation -- we still deserve a shot at doing the ordinary human things that bring meaning and happiness to life. And I am really very very deeply offended by the reactions I get from people to basically anything I ever try to do to improve things for myself just a little bit. This isn't the first thread or discussion I've had like this, I've had a great many about all sorts of completely different topics.

Part of why I got a dog is because people misunderstand me and have such a low and offensive opinion about the worth of someone in my shoes, and what we should be "allowed" to do in life, that I really can't deal with most people without making me hate them or making me hate myself. In most ways, I think humans are more important than dogs, but one thing I'll say about a dog is that they sure are more accepting and tolerant than the vast majority of people, and don't have the sort of disgusting elitest ideologies that people so often do buried not so far under the surface.

One of these days I'm going to learn not to bother with these sort of message forums anymore. I really like the basic concept of them, but I've been a pariah on every message forum on every topic that I've visited, almost. I like reaching out to people and discussing common interests and such, but this really isn't worth it. I don't need the abuse.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

kafkabeetle said:


> This whole commentary makes me literally sick to my stomach. I feel like crying at the fact that there are still people out there who don't accept or realize that there IS overbreeding going on. Insane insane amounts of it, and thousands and thousands of dogs are dying because of people missing this point.
> 
> *Also, if you've ever seen a cavalier King Charles spaniel yelping in agony at the pain of his brain growing larger than his skull, I think health and wellness would matter more to you. These problems come ONLY as a result of careless breeding,* regardless of whether the breeders really do love their dogs. LOVE is about how the OWNER feels. Does it not matter how the DOG feels?


Kafkabeetle, I understand this is a heated debate about a specific topic, but at this point I need to address something said above in a response (even though I do agree with the concepts you are trying to get at, but as well with some of those DogsRCool has brought up.)

Syringomyelia in Cavaliers is just not a great example to use here. The ONLY word in the above highlighted sentence really should be rethought. SM comes about even from dogs that have been very carefully bred and from all reports I've heard, at about the same rate as in poorly bred Cavaliers . . . . and the only way to be sure to avoid it at this point is to end the breed. Maybe that is what you meant and I just didn't clue in.

I know of many a top Cavalier breeder that has produced puppies that went on to have SM. I know of many Champions or their siblings who currently have SM or which have produced SM. Until there is a genetic test for this condition, that is not inherited in the usual simple recessive or dominant modes, that is going to be the case.

Sorry about being off topic . . . . just had to mention that point.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> To the folks who say that it'd be better to go for a more expert breeder, I'd have been happy to do it -- had their prices been something I could afford. All things being equal, of course you'd go to the expert. But if the experts price themselves out of what I can afford, that means they aren't really an option for me. If you're an expert breeder and you don't want people to patronize less expert breeders, you may want to consider offering some dogs at lower prices. It's fair enough if expert breeders expect more money because of their expertise, but than they can't come back and complain that people who can't afford them won't buy dogs from them and have to look elsewhere -- one can't have it both ways.  The same thing goes with some of the extensive requirements and contracts and forbidding owners from picking out their own puppy -- if you breed the dogs, you have the right to make the rules, but don't be surprised if some people don't like them and go elsewhere, that's kind of the way life works (and I'm glad it does -- choices are a good thing).


i call major bs. you just wanted a dog now now now and dont care about anything but your own selfish wants..you make it that much harder for people like me to help dogs by acting like a spoiled brat and then acting proud of it.

no...total bs. you could have put money away like responsible people do. im probably poorer than you are but because i manage my money wisely and use patience..i can get what i want..the quality i want..in a timely fashion... 

grow up.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Zim, I still haven't taken in all that has been said in this thread, but are you listening to some of the things that DogsRCool is trying to get at?

Your are telling her/him? to grow up, but at the same time, as I'm trying to muddle through the thread, I find myself hearing from DRC what I hear from many, many about dogs and selecting puppies every day. I don't think it should so quickly be shouted down. If there is a concern and need for change then it needs to be truly thought on.

I met two women last night at a memorial. A former mentor of mine - a Westie breeder - has passed away, and these were his sister in laws. Both have Yorkie-Poos from pet stores despite all the advise given them. Both are over 55 years of age, and smart enought to be professionals in their own fields.

Perhaps something can be learned here, about attitudes if people actually listen to what each other was trying to say (not necessarily taking the exact words and sentences and disecting their meanings for arguments sake) and if things didn't get spat back so quickly. That doesn't just mean 'yeah attitudes suck', but a real attempt to figure things out. 

Cuz we just can't shout 'grow up' at the full population of people who avoid the pedigree system because of its deep flaws, I think, if I were one that had stake in it, I'd want to take in other's perspectives and try to weed through how their thinking process works. We already know, legally, there is no ground to stand on in regards to truly stopping any kind of poor breeding practices, and we certainly cannot force buyers their choices either.

Back to reading. I'll apologize ahead if I've missed a full concept and spoke out of turn . . . . there's a lot of catch up reading to do here.

SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> Zim, I still haven't taken in all that has been said in this thread, but are you listening to some of the things that DogsRCool is trying to get at?
> 
> Your are telling her/him? to grow up, but at the same time, as I'm trying to muddle through the thread, I find myself hearing what I hear from many, many about dogs and selecting puppies every day.
> 
> ...


i read his every word. and im offended at the implications. he's operating on the premise that only rich people can afford well bred dogs for an example of one of his more offensive points. i dont have time to break down every single astonishingly ill informed thing he said at the moment..i was a bit late to the thread..but i will if i have to.

i say grow up because he's not arguing anything of worth imo..he's just making excuses.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> he's operating on the premise that only rich people can afford well bred dogs for an example of one of his more offensive points.[/IQUOTE]
> 
> I do know many that believe that only rich people can afford well bred dogs. AS that IS a belief that many have (and it is very, very true in some breeds) then why not take that idea and see why it has formed and then brainstorm if something can be done to rectify that, or even decide if it is something that will just always be?
> 
> SOB


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> > he's operating on the premise that only rich people can afford well bred dogs for an example of one of his more offensive points.[/IQUOTE]
> >
> > I do know many that believe that only rich people can afford well bred dogs. AS that IS a belief that many have (and it is very, very true in some breeds) then why not take that idea and see why it has formed and then brainstorm if something can be done to rectify that, or even decide if it is something that will just always be?
> >
> ...


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> Back to reading. I'll apologize ahead if I've missed a full concept and spoke out of turn . . . . there's a lot of catch up reading to do here.
> 
> SOB


You didn't miss the concept exactly, but there were more things he was saying than that. He said there were 3 choices, basically. Reputable breeders, BYB, and rescues who put restrictions on you. He refused to consider the point that you can get dogs with little or no restriction from shelters, and even pure breds. He doesn't care that there are reasons rescues do the things they do, to prevent whatever happened to the dog from happening again and other reasons. And he had to borrow 300 for his puppy and said that was going to make things tough for a time because he's "poor", so how can he possible pay for vet bills when something happens, and something always does, no matter where the dog comes from.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

The reason it is even a belief IMO is this: Many do not want to spend big bucks to have a dog. Some believe that dogs aren't even worth putting that much money into. It all comes down to each individual person and the value they place on their pets. 
I am very poor at the current moment (moneywise). My fiance lost his job which supports us. I would not adopt or buy another animal until I could afford it. Let alone buy one when the initial fee caused me to borrow money. 
I have been poor and probably always will be. It doesn't bother me. I have, however, shared my life with a well bred GSD whose breeder talked with me many times before allowing me the opportunity to own one of his pups. Once he got to know me and knew I was very serious about what I was looking for and knew I was committed to sharing my life with another dog he even lowered his price for me. I am sure he would have done this with others also but he wanted to know who his pups were going to and to see a serious commitment which was how I wanted my pups breeder to be. 
There are ways to have a well bred dog from a good breeder and not go broke. For one if you are vigilant and have the willpower to wait you can save money in the meantime and be ready. Too many people are looking for immediate satisfaction when acquiring a puppy. I've seen people put more serious thought into what they were having for dinner and ask more questions about items than a living being which will share their home for, hopefully, the next 15 years. 
My Yorkie Poodle cross was a craigslist find whom I almost didn't adopt because I wasn't really looking. They asked for a trade of a ferret cage which I had. I imagined, in my head, what kinds of people would get her. I also knew that her value in that home was so very low if they were asking to trade. I am so glad I took the chance on her. In our home she doesn't have a price tag. She is one of the family. I could never come up with a number to gauge her worth. She is priceless because that's how I value her.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> its a baseless claim that's he is basing solely on purchase price..a one time payment. i make 8 dollars an hour. How can i afford a laptop? a car? a dog with mastocytoma? 6 cats? a nice cellphone? i have things in my house that if someone didnt know much about me they might walk in my house and think i stole it all. i didnt. i picked what i wanted and saved up for it. so that particular claim holds absolutely zero weight with me. its an excuse lazy people make.
> 
> furthermore..ill wager he didnt get beyond the simple "name your price" conversation with the breeders he talked to. more lazyness. one of the breeders i want to go through is rather expensive. i asked about how we might negotiate a situation that is amicable to both parties. she was willing to discuss it. now am i to believe that EVERY SINGLE so called expert breeder out there isnt willing to at least hear someone out? ive had quite a few willing to hear me out and one i really liked..we came to an agreement and the price ZOMG!! went down...


What I'm getting from the OP is that he walked into one shelter/rescue and decided that ANY restrictions placed on him by anyone else was unacceptable. So he went to someone who would sell him a dog for a price he was willing to pay and never talk to him again. For the record, I think this is stupid.

BUT. I think there is too big of a price gap between animal control/shelter/rescue/foster dogs and well bred dogs. In that gap are BYB who charge what seems, from the outside, like a reasonable price. Shelter dogs are cheaper, but there is a perception that they aren't purebred puppies (I think most people who want a baby puppy should really be looking at a young adult, but that's besides the matter). And, we really have no business telling people they can't have a purebred puppy just because they want one. There's really nothing wrong with that, if it's something they can handle. I'm not saying everyone should get Border Collies just because they can, but I know Equinox has said that before Trent she didn't seem like the kind of person who should have a GSD, but I doubt anyone would argue that he's a poor fit for her now. And even shelter purebred puppies aren't what we really mean by purebred which is really thoughtfully bred. Gatsby is for all intents and purposes a random bred dog, even though both of his parents are Miniature Schnauzers. Buying from a BYB doesn't really get you the advantages of a purebred puppy, which is the best odds that the dog is going to be a decent to excellent example of his breed.

So, if you want a well-bred, purebred puppy, you have the whole gamut of purebred breeders to look at. Some are better than others, and some are more expensive than others. It's not a direct correlation between quality and price, but it's a decent guideline for the point I'm trying to make. Zim may be able to arrange something with a breeder, because of all the work she does with her dogs. But pet people have a less chance to do that, because they want just a pet. They might be a great home that will train the dog and do all the things we define as good, even excellent, care, but at the end of the day they just want a pet. And $1000, $1500 seems like a lot to those folks, when there are puppies, that to them look identical, for a quarter to a third of that price.

I don't really have an answer here, and I'm pretty sure most of you won't agree this is a problem, but sometimes I almost think there's a market for ethically produced, mid-range priced puppies.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

MooMoosMommy said:


> The reason it is even a belief IMO is this: Many do not want to spend big bucks to have a dog. Some believe that dogs aren't even worth putting that much money into. It all comes down to each individual person and the value they place on their pets.


That is absolutely spot on. 

Now, we know there are many on this forum willing to make sacrifices and prioritise for their dogs. Others will never be willing to do that no matter their income because (usually) it is a matter of what they want to prioritise. I say usually because I spent a time as a youngster without shoes and at the end of the month with little food usually a day or two, so I know that side as well.

What can we do about that (trying to change attitudes about a dogs worth)?

Anything?

Or do we have to acknowledge it as a reality and work within that framework?

SOB


----------



## kafkabeetle (Dec 4, 2009)

spanielorbust said:


> Kafkabeetle, I understand this is a heated debate about a specific topic, but at this point I need to address something said above in a response (even though I do agree with the concepts you are trying to get at, but as well with some of those DogsRCool has brought up.)
> 
> Syringomyelia in Cavaliers is just not a great example to use here. The ONLY word in the above highlighted sentence really should be rethought. SM comes about even from dogs that have been very carefully bred and from all reports I've heard, at about the same rate as in poorly bred Cavaliers . . . . and the only way to be sure to avoid it at this point is to end the breed. Maybe that is what you meant and I just didn't clue in.
> 
> ...


Correction noted. I'm sure you know more about it than I do.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

SOB, I think the belief that well-bred dogs are unaffordable has very little to do with dogs and a lot to do with human nature and how different people place value on different priorities.

So many people can't budget their money and don't understand that "I don't want to pay that price" does NOT equal "I can't afford that" but rather "I choose not to afford that". So many people want it all and NOW. And that goes for cars or video games or the latest 4G phone or even just a measly MP3 they'd rather download for free. Add to that that few people choose to educate themselves about why, when they can get a dog out of the newspaper classifieds or Craigslist for $100 or $200, they should spend $400 or $600 or $800 or even more on a well-bred dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

you know what my deal was?

spend some time at the kennel. go down to her town, hang out, spend some time with the dogs. let her see me with them and get to know me.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

sassafras said:


> SOB, I think the belief that well-bred dogs are unaffordable has very little to do with dogs and a lot to do with human nature and how different people place value on different priorities.
> 
> So many people can't budget their money and don't understand that "I don't want to pay that price" does NOT equal "I can't afford that" but rather "I choose not to afford that". So many people want it all and NOW. And that goes for cars or video games or the latest 4G phone or even just a measly MP3 they'd rather download for free. Add to that that few people choose to educate themselves about why, when they can get a dog out of the newspaper classifieds or Craigslist for $100 or $200, they should spend $400 or $600 or $800 or even more on a well-bred dog.


I know that Sassafras. My question is about the reality of this. 

Human nature being what it is, can we change this thinking or do we have acknowledge it and work from within its framework . . . .either to try to change it or accomodate it? How do we go about addressing this? Telling people to grow up, one at a time, isn't going to accomplish the task even though it might feel good.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> I know that Sassafras. My question is about the reality of this. Can we change this thinking or do we have acknowledge it and work from within its framework . . . .either to try to change it or accomodate it? How do we go about adressing this? Telling people to grow up, one at a time, isn't going to accompish the task even though it might feel good.
> 
> SOB


Well if you think you can expunge the flaws in question from breast of humanity, go for it. 

Seriously, in the big picture I think it's just the way things are. In the little picture, though, I DO happen to think that each person who is knowledgeable about something (whether it's dogs or something else) educating people one at a time is valuable. Even if it's all any of us can really hope to accomplish it's not useless IMO. (Much like a Snickers bar, I have a nougat core of idealistic optimism somewhere under the more jaded nuts and chocolate.)


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Well if you think you can expunge the flaws in question from breast of humanity, go for it.
> 
> Seriously, in the big picture I think it's just the way things are. In the little picture, though, I DO happen to think that each person who is knowledgeable about something (whether it's dogs or something else) educating people one at a time is valuable. Even if it's all any of us can really hope to accomplish it's not useless IMO. (Much like a Snickers bar, I have a nougat core of idealistic optimism somewhere under the more jaded nuts and chocolate.)


I'll never stop, but threads like these and moments in my life make me feel very jaded towards trying to educate people. But then my dogs are a good reminder why not to stop.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> I don't really have an answer here, and I'm pretty sure most of you won't agree this is a problem, but sometimes I almost think there's a market for ethically produced, mid-range priced puppies.


I'm sure there is.

The question is - why hasn't it been filled (assuming it hasn't).


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

FWIW Sassafras I believe in educating people one at a time myself. Methods and beliefs might be completely different than what you might imagine though.

SOB


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> FWIW Sassafras I believe in educating people one at a time myself. Methods and beliefs might be completely different than what you might imagine though.
> 
> SOB


Well I believe more in honey than vinegar if that's where you're coming from.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

sassafras said:


> Well I believe more in honey than vinegar if that's where you're coming from.


i actually agree with that in most cases. but in this case..there were pages and pages of attempts with honey before i ever saw the thread.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> I know that Sassafras. My question is about the reality of this.
> 
> Human nature being what it is, can we change this thinking or do we have acknowledge it and work from within its framework . . . .either to try to change it or accomodate it? How do we go about addressing this? Telling people to grow up, one at a time, isn't going to accomplish the task even though it might feel good.
> 
> SOB


Why not do both?

Work within the existing framework while trying to change it? Create a method to ethically produce "cheaper" but still quality puppies while working on changing the money-rules-all-other-considerations mentality.

As far as telling people to grow up - it solves as much as coming to a forum and saying "dogs cost too much." If the person feels the breeder's price is too high, why not negotiate and see if you can't come to terms like Zim did. 

At least, that's trying to attack the actual roadblock, even if it failed.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Education is key of course. Sometimes we may be surprised when someone actually walks away with more knowledge that they 'thought' they already had plenty of. I will ALWAYS do my best to educate in a polite and thoughtful manner but alas, I am human and sometimes I have verbal diarrhea of the mouth which Peptol Bismol can't cure. *grin*
I also know that some people are lost causes and no matter what evidence we bring up and give, there will always be those whom are so closeminded and will walk away learning absolutely nothing. It will often feel like wasted breath but, but, but whom else heard? Did someone you weren't even directing the argument to take a little extra knowledge back with them? This is why arguments like these even when they seem pointless are VERY important and valid. How many others have read this thread and thought twice about an action they were about to take, changed their thinking somewhat, or saved a life because of something someone has 'said' on this little forum?
One person at a time, just like the poem about the starfish. We may not change everyones thinking but just this one this time. This is what it is all about.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i actually agree with that in most cases. but in this case..there were pages and pages of attempts with honey before i ever saw the thread.


I understand the sentiment Zim. It was getting pretty frustrating and I know where you were coming from. It is hard not to become angry when reasoning fails and you are passionate about something.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

MooMoosMommy said:


> I will ALWAYS do my best to educate in a polite and thoughtful manner but alas, I am human and sometimes I have verbal diarrhea of the mouth which Peptol Bismol can't cure. *grin*


Which is why I wanted to stay out, since I knew it wouldn't change anything, but sometimes just the right (or wrong) thing is said that gets your feathers ruffled and I just jump in and spew mine as well.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you know what my deal was?
> 
> spend some time at the kennel. go down to her town, hang out, spend some time with the dogs. let her see me with them and get to know me.


Right, but Zim what I'm saying is that I doubt John J. Petowner is going to get the same offer. You are an exception, not proof that anyone can get a lower monetary price on a puppy because you aren't everyone. You're a very particular, very dedicated, very involved type of owner. I'm talking about the person who is a very, very good owner, but doesn't plan to do anything in particular with their dogs. Meeting their exercise needs of course, but not going above and beyond the call of duty.



KBLover said:


> I'm sure there is.
> 
> The question is - why hasn't it been filled (assuming it hasn't).


Yes, of course. I misspoke. It's not that the market isn't there, it's that responsible breeders aren't doing anything to serve that market. I think for one we need more good breeders and more well-bred puppies from just a quantifiable supply standpoint. But with all the investment that goes into good breeding, how do you lower the consumer price without cutting corners? The least squicky way I can think of is to own a male and one or two females, all with appropriate health testing and some scattered and diverse titles, and a decent mentor for yourself. You aren't really improving the breed at that point, but you're doing a hell of a lot less damage than some other ways of cutting corners. I'm not sure how I feel about that solution, but it's the only one I've come up with that I haven't immediately thrown out as absolutely unethical.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> Right, but Zim what I'm saying is that I doubt John J. Petowner is going to get the same offer. You are an exception, not proof that anyone can get a lower monetary price on a puppy because you aren't everyone. You're a very particular, very dedicated, very involved type of owner. I'm talking about the person who is a very, very good owner, but doesn't plan to do anything in particular with their dogs. Meeting their exercise needs of course, but not going above and beyond the call of duty.


doesnt mean they would be wasting their time asking...



> Yes, of course. I misspoke. It's not that the market isn't there, it's that responsible breeders aren't doing anything to serve that market. I think for one we need more good breeders and more well-bred puppies from just a quantifiable supply standpoint. But with all the investment that goes into good breeding, how do you lower the consumer price without cutting corners? The least squicky way I can think of is to own a male and one or two females, all with appropriate health testing and some scattered and diverse titles, and a decent mentor for yourself. You aren't really improving the breed at that point, but you're doing a hell of a lot less damage than some other ways of cutting corners. I'm not sure how I feel about that solution, but it's the only one I've come up with that I haven't immediately thrown out as absolutely unethical.



breeding collectives would be the answer to that.

they're out there. i know of at least two. and they dont actually sell puppies at all. this is the route im planning to take.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> The least squicky way I can think of is to own a male and one or two females, all with appropriate health testing and some scattered and diverse titles, and a decent mentor for yourself.


Wouldn't another be for a reputable breeder to keep a lesser quality, but still healthy and all puppy from a litter and raising and breeding it? Like a reputable breeder keeps a few *good* dogs, just doesn't show them, and breeds a few litters? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know much about breeding, but would that help fill that niche?


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

I think the person who talked about some of the more expert breeders maybe considering pricing their puppies lower had a good point. Look, people like me are going to buy a dog at a price we can manage either way (even if a backyard breeder is the only option at that price level), but were the price the same and no strings were attached, of course I'd have picked a puppy with a great bloodline and a ton of health clearances and stuff, but there wasn't one out there like that at a price I could afford. And, yes, I did e-mail and call some breeders who did some of those things (and didn't have strings) and ask if their price was negotiable and asked them to contact me if they were having any trouble placing their pups and could come down in price. I didn't get any takers.

The whole "save up" thing is a bit ridiculous at my income level. One would have to have the patience of a Saint not to spend significant amounts of money each month when one is say out of money and gas for the next week or two at a given point. But if you have to make payments or pay for vet visits or buy dog food, you just do it upfront, like one would do with bills or food in the pantry and stuff.

I know some people would say "Well then you shouldn't have a dog" and some have, here and elsewhere, but honestly my response would basically be "Go !*#@ yourself", no offense intended. If I didn't do things because a group of zealots thought I didn't deserve it or couldn't afford it, I'd spend my free time staring at a blank wall eating bread and drinking water the rest of my life. No matter what the topic is, there always seem to be several someones telling people like me weren't not good enough or responsible or enough and we just ought to go eat sand. I don't know what it is about the way people are that makes some of them think others don't deserve to try to eek out what little happiness they can in life. Don't we all have the right to the pursuit of happiness? In some people's eyes, apparently only if we have money or meet their criteria of the way someone should earn, look, act, and think. I don't mean just about pets, it's about everything -- and the self-righteous assholery that pervades a lot of this stuff is really disgusting.

When someone is down in life and tries to do what little they can to make things just a little bit better, the proper response isn't to kick him in the head -- though one wouldn't know it from dealing with most folks sometimes, honestly. The proper response is "Hey, that's great that you want to look for a spouse or a pet or find some entertainment" or whatever it is someone is looking to do, not "Never do anything except what I think an icky person like you deserves".


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

I am not certain what the answer is. I do agree there should be someway to make purchasing from a reputable breeder easier on the wallet. That would be wonderful. Many more average people would be motivated to go that route then and then education would ensue. 
I know I would jump at the chance to get a well bred pet pup from a reputable breeder with costs lower. I am certain this would appeal to many. Of course my next well bred dog I am hoping for an all purpose dog- pet, sport, maybe even show (not big on my list) so I will have to dig deeper into the wallet. Even thinking/discussing this is making me want my next GSD and/or Rottie even more. Lol.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> The whole "save up" thing is a bit ridiculous on my income level. One would have to have the patience of a Saint not to spend significant amounts of money each month when one is say out of money and gas for the next week or two at a given point. But if you have to make payments or pay for vet visits or buy dog food, you just do it upfront, like one would do with bills or food in the pantry and stuff.


This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. If you can't afford to put ANY money away, how are you going to deal with surprise expenses? If you have to spend so much on gas every month and so much on food and there's absolutely no way you can lower your expenses at all, what are you going to do when your dog starts has bloody diarrhea for five hours? Just because you have to pay them up front doesn't make them any easier on your budget.



> Wouldn't another be for a reputable breeder to keep a lesser quality, but still healthy and all puppy from a litter and raising and breeding it? Like a reputable breeder keeps a few *good* dogs, just doesn't show them, and breeds a few litters? Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know much about breeding, but would that help fill that niche?


That's a thought. Perhaps even something about limited breeding rights on a few puppies placed in other homes. Though the further you get from a breeder's hands, the more likely something is to go wrong...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I think the person who talked about some of the more expert breeders maybe considering pricing their puppies lower had a good point. Look, people like me are going to buy a dog at a price we can manage either way (even if a backyard breeder is the only option at that price level), but were the price the same and no strings were attached, of course I'd have picked a puppy with a great bloodline and a ton of health clearances and stuff, but there wasn't one out there like that at a price I could afford. And, yes, I did e-mail and call some breeders who did some of those things (and didn't have strings) and ask if their price was negotiable and ask them to contact me if they were having any trouble placing their pups and could come down in price. I didn't get any takers.
> 
> The whole "save up" thing is a bit ridiculous on my income level. One would have to have the patience of a Saint not to spend significant amounts of money each month when one is say out of money and gas for the next week or two at a given point. But if you have to make payments or pay for vet visits or buy dog food, you just do it upfront, like one would do with bills or food in the pantry and stuff.
> 
> ...


did you even TRY to negotiate? offer some help with dogs? get an opportunity to learn? no. bet you went straight to the price talk instead of getting to know them better.
too much effort right?

dude..i make EIGHT DOLLARS AN HOUR. i have a four year old son, a dog and six cats. and im in college FULL TIME. and i STILL save money and NO i DONT pay upfront at the vet when we go in...i pay months in advance...or i trade kennel services for price cuts. you're only helpless because you DONT THINK and DONT TRY.

you're trying to do what's right for YOURSELF. totally ignoring the plight with dogs.

where there's a will, there's a way. guess what you're lacking?


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

When someone is down in life and tries to do what little they can to make things just a little bit better, the proper response isn't to kick him in the head -- though one wouldn't know it from dealing with most folks sometimes, honestly. 

I don't think that you get it yet. I am not trying to 'kick any dog while it's down' so to speak. I do believe that you shouldn't be denied happiness as much as the next person. Heck I am B-R-O-K-E. We are jobless and have 4 children, ourselves, and our little furkid to take care of. Thankfully I have wonderful family.
The point being made is that there are other places and ways to acquire a dog than supporting a BYB whom is all about the money and cares nothing for what happens to the dogs they have bred. What happens to these dogs is what volunteers and shelter staff see and live everyday. It is maddening to see so many animals PTS because of greed. 
You have your dog and love him which is wonderful. We do want to see all animals placed into loving homes like yours. This does include your dog. 
It isn't that we don't love the BYB dogs. We love them so much that we don't want to have to keep seeing them PTS because there are so dang many. Watching an animal pass is heartbreaking when they are old or sick. Seeing an animal PTS because of overpopulation is sickening. The animal had no fault- the person whom bred does and the previous owner does. 
I dream of seeing a day when this isn't the issue it now is. It is HUGE and beyond comprehension, belief, and many people just turn a blind eye so they don't have to 'know'. 
It's much easier to feign ignorance to a situation than to try to change the situation and ones own thinking. 
My mom always said- The best things in life aren't always easy. I apply this to everything in my life including my dogs.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> That's a thought. Perhaps even something about limited breeding rights on a few puppies placed in other homes. Though the further you get from a breeder's hands, the more likely something is to go wrong...


That's why I thought the breeder doing it might work... I know any breeding is work, but I would assume a none showed, but breed standard healthy dog would take a little less... Especially if they required fixing the pups...


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> This line of reasoning doesn't make any sense. If you can't afford to put ANY money away, how are you going to deal with surprise expenses? If you have to spend so much on gas every month and so much on food and there's absolutely no way you can lower your expenses at all, what are you going to do when your dog starts has bloody diarrhea for five hours?


That's the time to try to see if a vet is willing to bill me so I can pay in a couple weeks, or set up a payment plan or whatever. In a pinch, I might even be able to borrow the money from someone briefly. There are potential options. If nothing else worked, in a real emergency an overdraft on a debit card might even be worth considering. Of course, that isn't the rock steady certainty a rich person would have, but there are plenty of people with more money who's pets wouldn't get nearly the sort of attention and care I give mine. There are a lot of elements to quality of life for a pet, not just an owner's ability to write a check.

Honestly, I'm a person and don't have rock steady certainty about myself in an emergency. Sometimes I have to put some more minor things off -- my dentist is getting pretty persistent with reminder cards, I ask my doctor to try to write perscriptions I can get inexpensively, etc.. Oddly enough, though, the same people who would say I am not a suitable pet owner for similar reasons don't really want to lift a finger to help provide for, say, universal health care for humans. The only real consistency in a lot of their logic is that they don't really consider poor folks at all -- they want to restrict them from something as simple as having a pet, while not providing things that would help them live a better less impoverished life. Excuse me if I'm not real eager to engage in the sort of self-hatred that would make me say "Yes, I suck, I'll just sit here and never do anything because I'm so horrible". It makes sense for people in my shoes to reach to do what little things they can to make life more meaningful.



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> did you even TRY to negotiate? offer some help with dogs? get an opportunity to learn? no. bet you went straight to the price talk instead of getting to know them better.
> too much effort right?


I did contact them and asked them to get back to me if things changed, and did my best to be very polite. I'm not good at social manuevering and gamesmanship, or kissing people's butts, though. Like I said, I'm not really a people person -- that's part of why I have a dog, some companionship where things won't end in a shouting match, who'll love me without putting conditions on me that I can't live up to. Now, you can sit here and tell me to just *be* a good people person, but that's not really realistic. Some of us aren't.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> *That's the time to try to see if a vet is willing to bill me so I can pay in a couple weeks, or set up a payment plan or whatever.* In a pinch, I might even be able to borrow the money from someone briefly. There are potential options. If nothing else worked, in a real emergency an overdraft on a debit card might even be worth considering. Of course, that isn't the rock steady certainty a rich person would have, but there are plenty of people with more money who's pets wouldn't get nearly the sort of attention and care I give mine. There are a lot of elements to quality of life for a pet, not just an owner's ability to write a check.


So, in other words, you would set money aside or cut back other expenses so you could pay a bill. And why can't you do that to pay for a puppy? 

My point isn't that you shouldn't have a dog. My point is that your reasons for not going to a responsible breeder don't add up to anything more than "I can't stand anyone else having the slightest input into my life." Good breeders and rescues don't have contracts for shits and giggles and to restrict people because it gets them off, they have them because they care about the dog. These people aren't interested in your feelings about their contracts, they're interested in the welfare of the dog. These people constantly hear "Oh, of course I'll take good care of him and vet him properly and never let him enter a shelter," and then they turn around and do none of that. Taking people's word for things isn't in the best interest of the dog.



DogsRCool said:


> I did contact them and asked them to get back to me if things changed, and did my best to be very polite. I'm not good at social manuevering and gamesmanship, or kissing people's butts, though. Like I said, I'm not really a people person -- that's part of why I have a dog, some companionship where things won't end in a shouting match, who'll love me without putting conditions on me that I can't live up to. Now, you can sit here and tell me to just *be* a good people person, but that's not really realistic. Some of us aren't.


LOL. You clearly haven't seen Zim outside of this thread. Love ya, Zim, but people person you ain't.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> That's a thought. Perhaps even something about limited breeding rights on a few puppies placed in other homes. Though the further you get from a breeder's hands, the more likely something is to go wrong...


i really disagree with this idea.

the breeder collective is much much better. the premise is simple. i as the breeder choose my foundation bitch. i title, test etc her and breed her. i form a business contract with my puppy people regarding the dispostion of the puppies IN EXCHANGE FOR..work..dogsit...help with whelping, transport. being a handler, dog walk..help me run my kennel. you have the option to pay with your time and energy as opposed to your money. and it goes on and the network spreads..my website will have a messageboard..my puppy people will be there to help each other out..

in short..if everything is carefully done and goes well...a family. you get more than just a dog.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> That's the time to try to see if a vet is willing to bill me so I can pay in a couple weeks, or set up a payment plan or whatever. In a pinch, I might even be able to borrow the money from someone briefly. There are potential options. If nothing else worked, in a real emergency an overdraft on a debit card might even be worth considering. Of course, that isn't the rock steady certainty a rich person would have, but there are plenty of people with more money who's pets wouldn't get nearly the sort of attention and care I give mine. There are a lot of elements to quality of life for a pet, not just an owner's ability to write a check.
> 
> Honestly, I'm a person and don't have rock steady certainty about myself in an emergency. Sometimes I have to put some more minor things off -- my dentist is getting pretty persistent with reminder cards, I ask my doctor to try to write perscriptions I can get inexpensively, etc.. Oddly enough, though, the same people who would say I am not a suitable pet owner for similar reasons don't really want to lift a finger to help provide for, say, universal health care for humans. The only real consistency in a lot of their logic is that they don't really consider poor folks at all -- they want to restrict them from something as simple as having a pet, while not providing things that would help them live a better less impoverished life. Excuse me if I'm not real eager to engage in the sort of self-hatred that would make me say "Yes, I suck, I'll just sit here and never do anything because I'm so horrible". It makes sense for people in my shoes to reach to do what little things they can to make life more meaningful.


I, and my entire family, believe in universal health care, and help for people who need it. We aren't rich by any means, but we do the best we can. I can't work because I need to be home for my mother. Me and my 6 year old live with my parents and they had 1.5 incomes. We went into a lot of debt caring for our dog who was put to sleep last week. 300 or more in meds a month, for a year. 150 in IV fluid a month, and every 6 weeks or so she'd have a bad episode and need to go in to the vet and that ran 200-800 a visit, depending on what she needed. Thats a little more than what you can overdraft, or make payments on. That was several credit cards and all my income from my internet business.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I did contact them and asked them to get back to me if things changed, and did my best to be very polite. I'm not good at social manuevering and gamesmanship, or kissing people's butts, though. Like I said, I'm not really a people person -- that's part of why I have a dog, some companionship where things won't end in a shouting match, who'll love me without putting conditions on me that I can't live up to. Now, you can sit here and tell me to just *be* a good people person, but that's not really realistic. Some of us aren't.


im not a good people person either..and i dont kiss people's butts..or have you been reading my posts?

still managed it quite well...by being straightforward and totally honest.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> That's the time to try to see if a vet is willing to bill me so I can pay in a couple weeks, or set up a payment plan or whatever. In a pinch, I might even be able to borrow the money from someone briefly. There are potential options. If nothing else worked, in a real emergency an overdraft on a debit card might even be worth considering. Of course, that isn't the rock steady certainty a rich person would have, but there are plenty of people with more money who's pets wouldn't get nearly the sort of attention and care I give mine. There are a lot of elements to quality of life for a pet, not just an owner's ability to write a check.
> 
> Honestly, I'm a person and don't have rock steady certainty about myself in an emergency. Sometimes I have to put some more minor things off -- my dentist is getting pretty persistent with reminder cards, I ask my doctor to try to write perscriptions I can get inexpensively, etc.. Oddly enough, though, the same people who would say I am not a suitable pet owner for similar reasons don't really want to lift a finger to help provide for, say, universal health care for humans. The only real consistency in a lot of their logic is that they don't really consider poor folks at all -- they want to restrict them from something as simple as having a pet, while not providing things that would help them live a better less impoverished life. Excuse me if I'm not real eager to engage in the sort of self-hatred that would make me say "Yes, I suck, I'll just sit here and never do anything because I'm so horrible". It makes sense for people in my shoes to reach to do what little things they can to make life more meaningful.



How did you convince yourself that everyone is out to get you? I have had ALOT happen to me in my life and still I am not so jaded as to think that everyone has it in for me. Heck my brother and I always say "If it weren't for bad luck, we'd have no luck." 
If you think that everyone believes only the wealthy should own a pet you are seriously misled. My life is an example. Before we were jobless my fiance worked while I am a stay at home mother. He brought in 13.55 an hour. Think about that. 4 children, himself, I, and a small dog. Now if that isn't living in the poorhouse I don't know what is. And yes I have a dog. Not a large dog like I want but a dog I can afford to care for at the moment. 
I am not saying you could have reasonably bought a dog from a reputable breeder right away. I am saying you could have adopted a puppy from a shelter, saved a life, and gotten what you wanted. There are always dogs and puppies in shelters. You may have to keep looking til you find the right pup for you but it can be done and most likely cheaper than you purchased yours for with all of it's health care taken care of. For someone low on funds this is ideal and you get the added bonus of saying you saved a life. That's a boost to anyones ego.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i really disagree with this idea.
> 
> the breeder collective is much much better. the premise is simple. i as the breeder choose my foundation bitch. i title, test etc her and breed her. i form a business contract with my puppy people regarding the dispostion of the puppies IN EXCHANGE FOR..work..dogsit...help with whelping, transport. being a handler, dog walk..help me run my kennel. you have the option to pay with your time and energy as opposed to your money. and it goes on and the network spreads..my website will have a messageboard..my puppy people will be there to help each other out..
> 
> in short..if everything is carefully done and goes well...a family. you get more than just a dog.


Ohhhh, I see. I meant to shoot you a PM about this, but I'm at work and had a flurry of activity. I do like this situation a lot more, and really see it as preferable to a monetary transaction. The flow of knowledge would be so much better, I think much bigger strides could be made from generation to generation.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

MooMoosMommy said:


> I don't think that you get it yet. I am not trying to 'kick any dog while it's down' so to speak. I do believe that you shouldn't be denied happiness as much as the next person. Heck I am B-R-O-K-E. We are jobless and have 4 children, ourselves, and our little furkid to take care of. Thankfully I have wonderful family.
> The point being made is that there are other places and ways to acquire a dog than supporting a BYB whom is all about the money and cares nothing for what happens to the dogs they have bred. What happens to these dogs is what volunteers and shelter staff see and live everyday. It is maddening to see so many animals PTS because of greed.
> You have your dog and love him which is wonderful. We do want to see all animals placed into loving homes like yours. This does include your dog.
> It isn't that we don't love the BYB dogs. We love them so much that we don't want to have to keep seeing them PTS because there are so dang many. Watching an animal pass is heartbreaking when they are old or sick. Seeing an animal PTS because of overpopulation is sickening. The animal had no fault- the person whom bred does and the previous owner does.
> ...


There are some elements of all this that we'll probably always disagree on, but there are a few elements of commonality. I was pretty set on getting a puppy of the age and breed I got, generally unavailable at shelters, as my first real pet. But, like I said, had the price been similar and there been a similar lack of restrictions, I would have gladly got one from one of the breeders you consider more ethical. So, if you want to move people like me away from what you consider back yard breeders, there is a path to doing so, getting the expert breeders to sell for less with no conditions, that would do that. It's not like anyone is going to say "That person has a better bloodline and more complete health screenings, I want no part of that!" -- people like me are potentially movable to other breeders if you meet us halfway.

Similarly, were I to ever get a second dog during my current dog's lifetime, and don't worry, that's exceptionally unlikely due to my finances and the on-going care costs of pets, I'd probably be much less set on a breed or an age and maybe even be hoping to rescue an older mixed breed dog who'd otherwise be put down (Since I'd already have my current dog and have that very specific void filled, and would be then more be looking to do a good deed and introduce a little variety to the family). I'd just need a shelter willing to do it without any conditions versus trying to find a private owner who couldn't care for his/her dog. Again, a situation where you all could meet the rest of us halfway and it'd be better for everyone involved.

The thing is, people like me are often scorned instead of met halfway, and then lambasted for going the only route left that we can afford and are comfortable with. If, instead of trying to force us to your point of view, you all would instead address some of our concerns like cost and restrictions by lowering it and lifting some of them, you'd probably make progress in terms of your goals of having more people buying from breeders you approve of, and more people getting animals from shelters or rescues. But I think people let their ideology get in the way of meeting people halfway -- instead they want to convert them, and conversion is a pretty hard sell for many of us, not really realistic.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i really disagree with this idea.
> 
> the breeder collective is much much better. the premise is simple. i as the breeder choose my foundation bitch. i title, test etc her and breed her. i form a business contract with my puppy people regarding the dispostion of the puppies IN EXCHANGE FOR..work..dogsit...help with whelping, transport. being a handler, dog walk..help me run my kennel. you have the option to pay with your time and energy as opposed to your money. and it goes on and the network spreads..my website will have a messageboard..my puppy people will be there to help each other out..
> 
> in short..if everything is carefully done and goes well...a family. you get more than just a dog.


Zim, Have I ever told you that I love you?! This is a GREAT, no scratch that, WONDERFULLY SPECTACULAR idea! 
This would benefit anyone involved and the education that would be done would be a great service to all dogs. 

Kudos.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> ...getting the expert breeders to sell for less with no conditions...


*A breeder that lets their dogs go with no strings attached IS unethical. Period. You cannot keep the puppies you produce safe without imposing some restrictions on your buyers.*


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Dogs, 
The basis of your ideas are good but if there weren't some restrictions placed on whom could purchase the pups of a reputable breeder eventually well bred pups could be mistreated and dumped. 
You care deeply for your dog right? Imagine this, if you will. A few years down the road there is a major event that happens in your life that drastically changes everything, even your ability to keep this dog whom you love dearly. No one you know at that point in time can take him so you have no other option that to rehome him or place him in a shelter. You do not want to see him be another statistic, I assume, so you want to find the best possible home for him. 
Just because he is a desirable breed there are many takers. Only a handful seem reasonable. Do you check them out to ensure your baby a wonderful home and family or just let the first Joe Blow with some cash take your baby home?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Dogs,
> The basis of your ideas are good but if there weren't some restrictions placed on whom could purchase the pups of a reputable breeder eventually well bred pups could be mistreated and dumped.
> You care deeply for your dog right? Imagine this, if you will. A few years down the road there is a major event that happens in your life that drastically changes everything, even your ability to keep this dog whom you love dearly. No one you know at that point in time can take him so you have no other option that to rehome him or place him in a shelter. You do not want to see him be another statistic, I assume, so you want to find the best possible home for him.
> Just because he is a desirable breed there are many takers. Only a handful seem reasonable. Do you check them out to ensure your baby a wonderful home and family or just let the first Joe Blow with some cash take your baby home?


Or you discover he has a liver problem that will require a 3500 surgery he may not survive, or 8000+ in bills to care for him for a year?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Zim, Have I ever told you that I love you?! This is a GREAT, no scratch that, WONDERFULLY SPECTACULAR idea!
> This would benefit anyone involved and the education that would be done would be a great service to all dogs.
> 
> Kudos.


there is a lot of positive potential in it. ideally if someone breaks the trust placed in them..they wouldnt just answer to me..they'd answer to all the other members of the collective who helped them out during troubles, bailed them out of BSL, gave rides to vet appointments, hooked them up with trainers etc..

there will be tests..because i plan on having some rescues available too....you might be asked to briefly foster some of them..demonstrate you understand how to train a dog and have been listening to what ive been teaching as an example. i might ask you to do some research into breed history, come with me to protest and educate about BSl..things like that...as well as do work around and for the kennel

what im going to do is price the puppies. then i will place a dollar amount on an hour's worth of each kind of work. x amount of work will knock x amount of price off of your puppy. you can pay part, you can pay full or you can just completely work off the price of the dog. you can send your older, in need of a lesson type youngsters to work it off even...which not only benefits your family in that you get a dog, your kid gets some quality activity learning respect for his fellow creatures. 

there will of course be a legally binding contract but im totally willing to negotiate based on people's situations. requirements are not concrete. what im looking for in puppy people is dedication really...dedicated people are more likely to stick it out when there's problems.

only the BEST for MY babies.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> because i plan on having some rescues available too....you might be asked to briefly foster some of them..


Hahaha I don't think that would work for me... Love the rest of your plan, but if I tried to foster I wouldn't be able to give it up. I tried my hand at breeding hedgehogs, and after a tough first litter and a lot of sleepless nights, I couldn't part with them.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

tskoffina said:


> Hahaha I don't think that would work for me... Love the rest of your plan, but if I tried to foster I wouldn't be able to give it up. I tried my hand at breeding hedgehogs, and after a tough first litter and a lot of sleepless nights, I couldn't part with them.


then if the dog is a fit and you want it..you're totally able to choose a rescue instead...speutered of course.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> then if the dog is a fit and you want it..you're totally able to choose a rescue instead...speutered of course.


Lol but of course. I, personally, wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> So, in other words, you would set money aside or cut back other expenses so you could pay a bill. And why can't you do that to pay for a puppy?


I actually am doing that to make payments on my puppy, in a sense. I know myself pretty well, and my brain really doesn't work the way the average person's does (and there are even some medical reasons for some of that, which I prefer not delve too deeply into on a public forum). One of the things I've learned over the course of my life about myself is that it's very doable for me to say make whatever payments and purchases I need within a week or two when I have money and then coast for a while, but if I actually have to sit around with money available when I am say stuck at home doing nothing and eating cheap food and not going places and not spend that money, it's just not going to happen. That's why I try to do things that need to be done right away, even if it's a little early, because I know they'll get done that way.

In a way, it's the same thing to, say, make payments on a schedule or save up some money, but it's a lot easier for me, and I don't think I'm alone in this, to make a payment at a convenient regular time of the month or whatever, then to actively sit on money that would be really really handy to spend. It may not be much of a tangible concrete difference (Since it's the same amount of money either way), but it is a difference that is very real and significant for a lot of people. If that weren't the case, why would the savings rate be so low these days? And it's not always a problem that can be solved by better self-discipline, I tried very hard at it for many years until I finally realized the best I was going to be able to do was accept it and work around it as best I could.



> My point isn't that you shouldn't have a dog. My point is that your reasons for not going to a responsible breeder don't add up to anything more than "I can't stand anyone else having the slightest input into my life."


I think you can probably see a little hint from this thread that I am not always good at getting along with people, and I often feel misunderstood and wind up getting very defensive. So, knowing that, it's really not in my best interests to go in a direction where someone is really delving deep and deciding whether they think I am a suitable pet owner, and then thereafter getting to enforce their will in terms of what I do, and even potentially taking back my pet. I'm different enough and struggle enough with interpersonal relationships that it makes sense to get as far away as I can from anything that would require me to meet someone else's criteria in an in-depth way and engage in an on-going interpersonal thing where they have leverage. I also do have a deep need to be able to make my own choices and know I can do things the way I feel is best for my pet -- even if I wind up ultimately making the choice someone else wants and doing what they think is best, there is a big difference to me psychologically between them forcing it on me, versus me deciding on my own (maybe even after considering their advice.).

I'm a good pet owner with some support from the few people who do sometimes get me, and I know that realistically my dog is going to have a better lot in life than even many of these dogs that people get my jumping through the hoops and signing the contracts. I just needed the freedom and the space to be able to get the initial steps done in a way I was comfortable with, and I'm grateful that I had that opportunity.



> Good breeders and rescues don't have contracts for shits and giggles and to restrict people because it gets them off, they have them because they care about the dog. These people aren't interested in your feelings about their contracts, they're interested in the welfare of the dog. These people constantly hear "Oh, of course I'll take good care of him and vet him properly and never let him enter a shelter," and then they turn around and do none of that. Taking people's word for things isn't in the best interest of the dog.


Ultimately, though, there is no true way to guage how someone is going to take care of a pet. You can do home visits and have signed contracts and any conditions in the world, but there are still going to be folks that can fake their way through the process, or who pass the process but aren't actually going to be good with the pet when push comes to shove and they feel what can sometimes be a pretty intense pressure of having a life that is dependent on them and has a lot of needs. You just can't know for sure. And, on the flip side, there are going to be people who might not look very good going through a process like that, but who dote on their puppy like it was the greatest thing on earth and make whatever sacrifices were necessary and step up to the plate when there are rough spots in training and such. It's a very variable equation. I don't see it as a given that requirements mean the dogs get better homes, but I do see it as a given that requirements will, given a large enough sample size, always wind up excluding at least a few people from pet ownership unjustly.



RaeganW said:


> A breeder that lets their dogs go with no strings attached IS unethical. Period.


That's a pretty hardline stance. You have the right to your opinion, of course, but if you leave people who disagree with you with no room to compromise, then they won't even be able to meet you halfway and will probably wind up feeling forced into the route you least want them to go.



> You cannot keep the puppies you produce safe without imposing some restrictions on your buyers.


I don't think you can keep your puppies safe no matter what you do. At some point, even with all the restrictions in the world, they are going to be living away from you, with people you have an incomplete understanding of, and it will be those people who keep their puppies safe or fail to do so, once they've left the nest.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I actually am doing that to make payments on my puppy, in a sense. I know myself pretty well, and my brain really doesn't work the way the average person's does (and there are even some medical reasons for some of that which I prefer not delve too deeply into on a public forum). One of the things I've learned over the course of my life about myself is that it's very doable for me to say make whatever payments and purchases I need within a week or two when I have money and then coast for a while, but if I actually have to sit around with money available when I am say stuck at home doing nothing and eating cheap food and not going places and not spend that money, it's just not going to happen. That's why I try to do things that need to be done right away, even if it's a little early, because I know it'll get done that way.
> 
> In a way, it's the same thing to, say, make payments on a schedule or save up some money, but it's a lot easier for me, and I don't think I'm alone in this, to make a payment at a convienent regular time of the month or whatever, then to actively sit on money that would be really really handy to spend. It may not be much of a tangible concrete difference (Since it's the same amount of money either way), but it is a difference that is very real and significant for a lot of people. If that weren't the case, why would the savings rate be so low these days? And it's not always a problem that can be solved by better self-discipline, I tried very hard at it for many years until I finally realized the best I was going to be able to do was accept it and work around it as best I could.
> 
> ...


you totally misunderstood the process. and that's really sad. the point in them being the one to take the dog back isnt just to walk in and take your dog..its a support system for your dog..you fall on hard times..the dog has a place to go automatically.

and the contracts are binding. you break the contract...you face a lawsuit. i totally agree with there being some requirements that are kind of silly but if you dont ask..you'll never know if they will work with you.

you just gave up. ug. 

and the requirements keep more people from getting dogs that dont need to have dogs. that's worth a few people being denied..totally worth it.

do you know what a buncher is? a class B dealer? do you know what a bait dog is? 

the restrictions are there to keep THOSE PEOPLE from getting their hands on the dogs.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Dogs,
> The basis of your ideas are good but if there weren't some restrictions placed on whom could purchase the pups of a reputable breeder eventually well bred pups could be mistreated and dumped.
> You care deeply for your dog right? Imagine this, if you will. A few years down the road there is a major event that happens in your life that drastically changes everything, even your ability to keep this dog whom you love dearly. No one you know at that point in time can take him so you have no other option that to rehome him or place him in a shelter. You do not want to see him be another statistic, I assume, so you want to find the best possible home for him.
> Just because he is a desirable breed there are many takers. Only a handful seem reasonable. Do you check them out to ensure your baby a wonderful home and family or just let the first Joe Blow with some cash take your baby home?


My first option under such a scenario would be to place him with family or friends. Not only are they people I know and trust (to whatever degree I trust anyone  ), but I could also potentially make it a temporary arrangement where I could take my dog back when the circumstances allowed me to and get some updates and maybe visits in during the interim. If it got down to a situation where no one I knew could do anything at all, and no one in their networks could do anything, and the dog had to go to a stranger, I am not sure a contract would make much difference -- at some point it would be a leap of faith, because no matter what contracts or checks there are, this person could be a lot better or worse than he/she seems.

I do love my dog a lot and it's hard to even think about stuff like that, though. I'd move heaven and earth to keep him with me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> My first option under such a scenario would be to place him with family or friends. Not only are they people I know and trust (to whatever degree I trust anyone  ), but I could also potentially make it a temporary arrangement where I could take my dog back when the circumstances allowed me to and get some updates and maybe visits in during the interim. If it got down to a situation where no one I knew could do anything at all, and no one in their networks could do anything, and the dog had to go to a stranger, I am not sure a contract would make much difference -- at some point it would be a leap of faith, because no matter what contracts or checks there are, this person could be a lot better or worse than he/she seems.
> 
> I do love my dog a lot and it's hard to even think about stuff like that, though. I'd move heaven and earth to keep him with me.



the contract protects the animal in that if they break it..legal action can be taken. it doesnt matter if they fake it..if they show it..the dog can be taken from them by better people.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> That's a pretty hardline stance. You have the right to your opinion, of course, but if you leave people who disagree with you with no room to compromise, then they won't even be able to meet you halfway and will probably wind up feeling forced into the route you least want them to go.
> 
> I don't think you can keep your puppies safe no matter what you do. At some point, even with all the restrictions in the world, they are going to be living away from you, with people you have an incomplete understanding of, and it will be those people who keep their puppies safe or fail to do so, once they've left the nest.


Bull. Shit. So, because there are some things we can't control, we have to give up all control over anything we can do to ensure our dogs end up in the very best homes possible?

How do you think dog abusers get dogs in the first place? They get them from sources that don't check out their buyers.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I just want to point out not ALL reputable breeders require dogs back. I am allowed to rehome Mia as I see fit PROVIDED Mia's breeder also approves of the home. 

Then again I did have to sign contracts and spay Mia. I guess my breeder was just out to make things a hassle for me. 

You have to understand they're trying to safeguard their dogs. To me this is the pinnacle of a responsible breeder- keeping track of their pups and always being willing to take the pup back.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you totally misunderstood the process. and that's really sad. the point in them being the one to take the dog back isnt just to walk in and take your dog..its a support system for your dog..you fall on hard times..the dog has a place to go automatically.


I know someone who's relatives had a rescue actually go in and take their dog right out of their yard, because he was out in a fenced in property on a mild summer's day. The police were called, and the rescue produced a contract that stipulated they could take the dog back from it's owners if the owners let it outside unsupervised at any time. 

So, not all of these clauses are just about if the owner doesn't want the dog anymore, or can't care for it anymore. And even if it were truly only about such a scenario, I'd still want to have the *option* of lending or giving my dog to family or friends I personally trust, who might even already have a relationship with the dog, who the dog knows and trusts, and who could get the dog back to me after a while, potentially, rather than being forced to surrender my dog to a some organization somewhere to keep or permanently to people I've never met and never will meet.



> the restrictions are there to keep THOSE PEOPLE from getting their hands on the dogs.


Do you think they work? The type of people you describe are pretty savvy about how to manipulate peope, and probably would find a way around restrictions and present fake IDs and fake homes and such. It's probably more often the genuine honest people who don't meet some arbitrary criteria that a lot of restrictions tend to twart, because people like me, who are truly loving pet owners but aren't what many would consider ideal, aren't going to lie or misrepresent ourselves, and thus will come off as more "iffy" than someone without any such compunctions who might be truly up to something really bad and not be looking for a companion at all.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I know someone who's relatives had a rescue actually go in and take their dog right out of their yard, because he was out in a fenced in property on a mild summer's day. The police were called, and the rescue produced a contract that stipulated they could take the dog back from it's owners if the owners let it outside unsupervised at any time.
> 
> So, not all of these clauses are just about if the owner doesn't want the dog anymore, or can't care for it anymore. And even if it were truly only about such a scenario, I'd still want to have the *option* of lending or giving my dog to family or friends I personally trust, who might even already have a relationship with the dog, who the dog knows and trusts, and who could get the dog back to me after a while, potentially, rather than being forced to surrender my dog to a some organization somewhere to keep or permanently to people I've never met and never will meet.
> 
> ...



yes they work. ive seen them work NUMEROUS times. personally. ive personally acted on the dog's behalf in many of these occasions.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogsRCool said:


> I know someone who's relatives had a rescue actually go in and take their dog right out of their yard, because he was out in a fenced in property on a mild summer's day. The police were called, and the rescue produced a contract that stipulated they could take the dog back from it's owners if the owners let it outside unsupervised at any time.
> 
> So, not all of these clauses are just about if the owner doesn't want the dog anymore, or can't care for it anymore. And even if it were truly only about such a scenario, I'd still want to have the *option* of lending or giving my dog to family or friends I personally trust, who might even already have a relationship with the dog, who the dog knows and trusts, and who could get the dog back to me after a while, potentially, rather than being forced to surrender my dog to a some organization somewhere to keep or permanently to people I've never met and never will meet.
> 
> ...


As I said, a LOT of breeders (dunno about rescues because I haven't dealt with them) will work with you on this. If you have someone in mind to take the dog, I am 99% sure most reputable breeders will consider that person as a new home. The breeder just simply wants to know their dog isn't going to end up in a kill shelter. If the dog has no place to go, then the breeder will take it back. 

I would not sign anything allowing someone to reclaim my dog. I think that's unreasonable. But I have never seen a breeder with a clause in their contract that they can just come take the dog. 

The 'really bad' people like bunchers will be deterred by these types of things. They can get dogs much easier without all the hassle.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

RaeganW said:


> How do you think dog abusers get dogs in the first place? They get them from sources that don't check out their buyers.


I actually would be surprised if that were the case. People who abuse other people are usually master manipulators who come off as really nice charming folks to outsiders, and even to people they wind up abusing while in the early stages of dating and such. My guess is that animal abusers are probably a similar psychological type, and could easily present themselves as model pet owners, even to people who thoroughly checked them out, and might even be the first people to jump at signing a contract, knowing exactly how to prevent people from finding out how they were violating it.

Like I said, I think it's the straightforward loving people who don't come off well or maybe have different ideas about stuff like when or if to neuter and that sort of thing that these restrictions really tend to hurt in practice, rather than the truly dark souls who really would hurt the animals.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

to elaborate.

ive taken dogs with ribs showing, full of worms back from adopters and sued them under the terms of the contract to pay for the animal's care..several times. resulting in the saving of the dog's life. these arent always arbitrary rules...there's reasons...

if a rescue or breeder says fence..its probably because the dog is a known escape artist or similar reason..or there are containment laws in the area about such things. that's not always an arbitrary requirement. and if someone signs a contract..they AGREED to abide by those terms..if you dont agree with the terms..find someone who's terms you do agree with and DONT go encouraging people to keep pumping out puppies for money with nothing to protect the animals. those breeders like the one you got your dog from..they make the lives of rescue people a LIVING HELL. YOU go sit in on a day of euthanasia after learning those dog's stories and then come back and tell me you bought from a good breeder...you didnt.



Laurelin said:


> I would not sign anything allowing someone to reclaim my dog. I think that's unreasonable. But I have never seen a breeder with a clause in their contract that they can just come take the dog.


ive seen reclaim clauses certainly..but most of the ones i have seen are like "if the animal is in such poor health, displays signs of worms or other neglect and abuse" tacked onto the end. its not just "i can come take back the dog" its "i will take back the dog if you neglect or abuse it"


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> If the dog has no place to go, then the breeder will take it back.


You know, if that's all it was, an *offer* where a breeder said something like "Oh, by the way, if you ever need to give up your pet and can't find anyone you know and trust to take him, we'd be happy to have him come back and live with us here", I'd actually consider that a very positive thing when considering where I want to go to find a dog. It's great to have an option like that. Unfortunately, what many of these breeders and rescues do is *require* you to give them the dog if you can't take care of it, which to me really crosses a line. I want to be the one who determines my pet's next home if I can't keep my pet (A scenario I never see happening, but if it did...).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> You know, if that's all it was, an *offer* where a breeder said something like "Oh, by the way, if you ever need to give up your pet and can't find anyone you know and trust to take him, we'd be happy to have him come back and live with us here", I'd actually consider that a very positive thing when considering where I want to go to find a dog. It's great to have an option like that. Unfortunately, what many of these breeders and rescues do is *require* you to give them the dog if you can't take care of it, which to me really crosses a line. I want to be the one who determines my pet's next home if I can't keep my pet (A scenario I never see happening, but if it did...).


why is going back to be with people and dogs they already know, a bad thing? the dog goes back to the breeder and gets to see Mom again and be in the place it was born. a dog goes back to the rescue and gets to be with his buddies and the people who saved him from whatever hellhole they dragged him out of again. why the HECK is that a negative?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> As I said, a LOT of breeders (dunno about rescues because I haven't dealt with them) will work with you on this.





> Do you think they work? The type of people you describe are pretty savvy about how to manipulate peope, and probably would find a way around restrictions and present fake IDs and fake homes and such. It's probably more often the genuine honest people who don't meet some arbitrary criteria that a lot of restrictions tend to twart, because people like me, who are truly loving pet owners but aren't what many would consider ideal, aren't going to lie or misrepresent ourselves, and thus will come off as more "iffy" than someone without any such compunctions who might be truly up to something really bad and not be looking for a companion at all.


THEN TALK TO THEM. Put an ounce of goddammed effort in to it. How freaking hard is it to type, "I might not have A, B, and C, but I do have X, Y, and Z and I AM a good dog owner"? You can't just say "I'm not a people person" and refuse to deal with them. The vast majority of dog people aren't people people. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE DOG PEOPLE. My god, the arrogance you constantly spew has finally gotten to me. Just because you struggle with something isn't an excuse to never deal with it. Are you really so jaded that you see any effort to mitigate total disaster are pointless, futile, and an infringement on your personal dignity?


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and if someone signs a contract..they AGREED to abide by those terms..if you dont agree with the terms..find someone who's terms you do agree with


I did.

Having no terms or conditions was perfectly agreeable to me, because I knew I'd raise the pet well.

And, who knows, maybe I saved my puppy from one of those people that folks are scared will get their hands on them.

My heart breaks for dogs who are abused and suffering, but I don't view it as a simple issue that can be solved by just placing a lot of requirements and conditions on people. I think it's more complex than that.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogsRCool said:


> You know, if that's all it was, an *offer* where a breeder said something like "Oh, by the way, if you ever need to give up your pet and can't find anyone you know and trust to take him, we'd be happy to have him come back and live with us here", I'd actually consider that a very positive thing when considering where I want to go to find a dog. It's great to have an option like that. Unfortunately, what many of these breeders and rescues do is *require* you to give them the dog if you can't take care of it, which to me really crosses a line. I want to be the one who determines my pet's next home if I can't keep my pet (A scenario I never see happening, but if it did...).


My situation may be a bit unique because I am very good friends with 4 of my dogs' breeders. The other dog is from a different breeder whom I do not know nearly as well. But I still talk to her and send her emails about Mia's training progress and pictures. I am 100% certain that both would allow me to place the dogs where I thought was best. I am sure if you were dealing with a responsible breeder and they were able to check out the person you wanted to give the dog to, they would oblige. All it takes is talking to them and letting them know your wishes. That clause is there just to make double sure the owner knows the breeder will take the dog back without question. It's there to prevent their dogs from being discarded.

Actually though I would want them all to go to my 4 dogs' breeder. I know she would do exactly what is best for my dogs.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ive taken dogs with ribs showing, full of worms back from adopters and sued them under the terms of the contract to pay for the animal's care..several times.


How did you discover what was happening with the dogs in order to take them back?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I did.
> 
> Having no terms or conditions was perfectly agreeable to me, because I knew I'd raise the pet well.
> 
> ...


no...you vote with your money...and you voted for pet overpopulation and animals dying in shelters. that is the problem. you encouraged unethical breeding. frankly..i find it disgusting that you cant see that.

you DIDNT go to someone with a good contract. you didnt try.



DogsRCool said:


> How did you discover what was happening with the dogs in order to take them back?


the area vets and animal control. we find out who has been reported to animal control for what reason..or which vet has reported someone to animal control for what reason..and if its one of our dogs..we go check it out.

eta..the shelter will also call if they bring in a dog who is microchipped by the rescue people. all adopted out dogs are microchipped with the rescue contacts.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> My situation may be a bit unique because I am very good friends with 4 of my dogs' breeders. The other dog is from a different breeder whom I do not know nearly as well. But I still talk to her and send her emails about Mia's training progress and pictures. I am 100% certain that both would allow me to place the dogs where I thought was best. I am sure if you were dealing with a responsible breeder and they were able to check out the person you wanted to give the dog to, they would oblige. All it takes is talking to them and letting them know your wishes.


You may well be right about a lot of breeders, but there are always exceptions. And if I were to sign a contract, I'd have to do so knowing that potentially any clause in it could be enforced fully -- I couldn't just assume that the folks I was dealing with would act in a way I thought was reasonable. After all, sometimes those contracts are enforced in unreasonable ways -- like what happened to the relatives of the person I know, which I referenced in the thread previously.



> That clause is there just to make double sure the owner knows the breeder will take the dog back without question. It's there to prevent their dogs from being discarded.


If that's all it was, the breeder or rescue could just hand the owner a signed contract that said "We agree to take the dog back without question and provide for it's care, under any circumstances that might arise where you want to return the dog, no questions asked. This is our commitment to you and to your dog.". But it's more than just an offering or a commitment on their part -- it's a requirement placed on you to return the dog whether you want to or not.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

your relatives are well within their rights to dispute the rescue. if they didnt..that's on them. if people dont dispute such things..they wont change. duh.



DogsRCool said:


> If that's all it was, the breeder or rescue could just hand the owner a signed contract that said "We agree to take the dog back without question and provide for it's care, under any circumstances that might arise where you want to return the dog, no questions asked. This is our commitment to you and to your dog.". But it's more than just an offering or a commitment on their part -- it's a requirement placed on you to return the dog whether you want to or not.



ok like i said...what is wrong with the rescue being the one taking the dog back? 

and 2. their commitment isnt to you. they arent there to serve you. they're there to protect and care for dogs...and you're dissing them for that? wtf?


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the area vets and animal control. we find out who has been reported to animal control for what reason..or which vet has reported someone to animal control for what reason..and if its one of our dogs..we go check it out.
> 
> eta..the shelter will also call if they bring in a dog who is microchipped by the rescue people. all adopted out dogs are microchipped with the rescue contacts.


I think it's really awful the way some dogs are mistreated. My heart geniunely breaks for them. It sounds like, though, in many of these cases, the contract didn't really prevent the abuse, or help the dog escape it -- it was the normal things that happen with any dog that got the situation resolved. Granted, you were then able to recover some money and help the dog get better treatment, but it sounds like the discovery and the rescue process up to that point are what would have happened with any dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I think it's really awful the way some dogs are mistreated. My heart geniunely breaks for them. It sounds like, though, in many of these cases, the contract didn't really prevent the abuse, or help the dog escape it -- it was the normal things that happen with any dog that got the situation resolved. Granted, you were then able to recover some money and help the dog get better treatment, but it sounds like the discovery and the rescue process up to that point are what would have happened with any dog.


bull. animal control isnt really what it sounds like you think it is. most of the time they just pass out tickets. its grassroots efforts like rescues that are the REAL animal control.

more excuses and nitpicky roundabout arguments.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> ok like i said...what is wrong with the rescue being the one taking the dog back?


In a real pinch where I didn't have any other options? Nothing. I might even prefer it. But I'd want the option if I were say in the hospital or homeless or whatever situation might arise where I'd need to find a new home for my beloved pet to first look into placing my pet with family or friends who I know and trust, and who the dog may already know and trust and be comfortable with from visits, and who could potentially get the dog back to me when I got out of the hospital or found a place to live or otherwise resolved whatever my situation was.

It's just like, I'd imagine, if you have a son or a daughter you temporarily can't take care of, you might prefer to have his grandparents raise him for a while rather than have him put in an orphanage and adopted by strangers. You'd at least want the option of checking with the grandparents (or godparents or an aunt and uncle) first and not having things dictated to you by some sort of contract.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> It's just like, I'd imagine, if you have a son or a daughter you temporarily can't take care of, you might prefer to have his grandparents raise him for a while rather than have him put in an orphanage and adopted by strangers. You'd at least want the option of checking with the grandparents (or godparents or an aunt and uncle) first and not having things dictated to you by some sort of contract.


The grandparents analogy doesn't help your argument. They're the kid's original breeders.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> In a real pinch where I didn't have any other options? Nothing. I might even prefer it. But I'd want the option if I were say in the hospital or homeless or whatever situation might arise where I'd need to find a new home for my beloved pet to first look into placing my pet with family or friends who I know and trust, and who the dog may already know and trust and be comfortable with from visits, and who could potentially get the dog back to me when I got out of the hospital or found a place to live or otherwise resolved whatever my situation was.
> 
> It's just like, I'd imagine, if you have a child you temporarily take care of, you might prefer to have his grandparents raise him for a while rather than have him put in an orphanage and adopted by strangers. You'd at least want the option of checking with the grandparents first and not having things dictated to you by some sort of contract.


if its the breeder taking the dog back..it WILL be with its parents and grandparents..literally. a good breeder is your friend. same with a good rescue. they want what's best for the dog.

you just sound like a bratty control freak who doesnt really understand how these things really work or knows much about the dog world.

im sure you are a nice guy...but you come off as HORRIFICALLY IGNORANT . and to those of us fighting tooth and claw to give dogs a better life? that's an insult.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> bull. animal control isnt really what it sounds like you think it is.


Well, in that case, what is it? I as might as well learn something from this discussion in the midsts of all the arguing back and forth. 



> its grassroots efforts like rescues that are the REAL animal control.


Do rescues and such have any enforcement powers over animals that they didn't adopt out to begin with? I don't know for sure, but my guess would have been that a private entity like that can't really do anything legally, and that it would be up to animal control or some official government thing to step in to stop animal abusers.



RaeganW said:


> The grandparents analogy doesn't help your argument. They're the kid's original breeders.


Years later, though, the dog will probably know my parents (for example) from years of frequent visits and won't remember his short time with his breeders from when he was very very young.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

If it's really important to you, why not just say at the get go 'Hey breeder, what happens if I can no longer take care of my dog but I know a good home I want the dog to go to?' and spell it all out. Like I said it's actually written in my contract that I can help choose a new home if I were to ever have to give up my dog. But the breeder wants to okay it as well. What is so unreasonable about that?



DogsRCool said:


> In a real pinch where I didn't have any other options? Nothing. I might even prefer it. But I'd want the option if I were say in the hospital or homeless or whatever situation might arise where I'd need to find a new home for my beloved pet to first look into placing my pet with family or friends who I know and trust, and who the dog may already know and trust and be comfortable with from visits, and who could potentially get the dog back to me when I got out of the hospital or found a place to live or otherwise resolved whatever my situation was.
> 
> It's just like, I'd imagine, if you have a son or a daughter you temporarily can't take care of, you might prefer to have his grandparents raise him for a while rather than have him put in an orphanage and adopted by strangers. You'd at least want the option of checking with the grandparents (or godparents or an aunt and uncle) first and not having things dictated to you by some sort of contract.


When I temporarily couldn't take care of my dogs (yes this has happened to me when my mother was being treated for cancer and we were flying back and forth to hospitals) my breeder watched my dogs for me. I got them back...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> Well, in that case, what is it? I as might as well learn something from this discussion in the midsts of all the arguing back and forth.
> 
> 
> 
> Do rescues and such have any enforcement powers over animals that they didn't adopt out to begin with? I don't know for sure, but my guess would have been that a private entity like that can't really do anything legally, and that it would be up to animal control or some official government thing to step in to stop animal abusers.


the average animal control unit is HORRIFICALLY underfunded. like..i think in my city there are like maybe 4? animal control officers for the capitol city of my state. they depend on nonprofits to make up the slack. animal control just isnt a priority.

the second problem is the average AC bylaws. the norm is the animal must have food, water and shelter. you cant beat it. and you cant let it roam. you must have a rabies shot. 

thats it. if those are being apparently met..ac cant seize the animal. but think for a sec. just because that animal has food in its bowl right then...doesnt mean it always does. shelter can be a doghouse or it can be a rusty barrel with the dog on a tight chain. 

what the orgs often do..is teach..offer low cost spay and neuter. offer programs to help with vet bills..and in the process of this..keep their eyes open. in my state we are LUCKY to have another bylaw in place that says civil suits can be brought against neglectors and abusers..meaning orgs can sue for custody of an animal..but that is the ONLY law of its kind in the entire united states.



DogsRCool said:


> Years later, though, the dog will probably know my parents (for example) from years of frequent visits and won't remember his short time with his breeders from when he was very very young.


you think so? really? i mean..maybe...but from what ive seen..more often than not..its the opposite.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> Unfortunately, what many of these breeders and rescues do is *require* you to give them the dog if you can't take care of it, which to me really crosses a line. I want to be the one who determines my pet's next home if I can't keep my pet (A scenario I never see happening, but if it did...).


And you know this HOW??? Did you actually ask? 

I'd bet my bottom dollar that if, doG forbid, I ever had to give up my dog, the rescue organization from which I got her would be willing to let me choose a fit home for her, provided that they approved. Think about it - why would the rescue want a dog back if there's a suitable home waiting for it? Heck, I could probably name 10 people right now who would be happy to take my dog off my hands (agility instructor has already offered), and I bet the shelter would approve every one of them if it came down to it. 

Looking at my adoption contract (yes, I acutally dug it out), I fail to see "red tape", "restrictions", or any unreasonable demands:
I can't train her to be an attack dog. Well, frankly, that would be wasted effort in the first place. I have the friendliest dog on the planet.
I'm supposed to take her to the vet within 7 days of adoption. No biggie - any good owner would do this. I was there within 2 days.
I'm supposed to provide food, water, and shelter. Duh.
I can't let her ride in the back of an open pickup truck. Really? Who does that???
She's supposed to wear an ID tag and license. Well, that's required by law anyway.
I'm supposed to let them know if she's lost. Would do that anyway since her microchip links to me AND them.
I'm supposed to let them know if I move. No biggie - the email takes one minute to write. 
I have to submit to a home check. Actually this was a great opportunity to get the shelter lady to bring the dog to me, thus saving me another 2 hour trip to the shelter! She didn't seem to care that my house was a rental, and small with two housemates. She helped me puppy-proof, helped with the introduction, and took some pics.
I have to pay an adoption fee. Smaller, I might add, than what you paid DogsRCool. Even as a mutt of unknown origins, her temperament, health, athletic ability, and intelligence make her worth thousands. And not just to me.
The spay/neuter part was N/A because she was already spayed at the time of adoption. One less hassle for me.
And to top it off, there's a 30 day money-back guarantee. I could give the dog back any time within the first 30 days after adoption no quesions asked and get my money back. I find that to be incredibly lenient for a shelter. I'd venture to guess that most breeders don't even have a policy like that (could be wrong, though - have never and will never deal with them).

I didn't pick out this sheter on purpose because it was less restrictive than others that I looked at. I simply fell in love with a pic on petfinder and made it happen. I know that *some* rescue organizations have rather restrictive rules (like TWAB's example), but the bottom line is that they're trying to place dogs in good homes and if their rules are too restrictive, they won't be able to. 

And just because your comment irked me pages and pages ago, dogs in shelters are not all screwed up by their previous owners. I have no idea who owned my dog previously, but I know she had multiple sets of owners and had been returned to the shelter somewhat habitually. They may not have been the best owners, but I owe these folks a huge debt of gratitude: I don't know how, but they socialized my dog beyond what I could have ever managed. This has been incredibly useful to me because in competition venues and classes (agility, disc, whatever) she is completely unphased by strangers, dogs in her face, loud noises, strange situations, etc. Half of the fun of rescuing a dog is turning around the behaviors that you don't like and watching the dog bloom under your care.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> if its the breeder taking the dog back..it WILL be with its parents and grandparents..literally. a good breeder is your friend. same with a good rescue. they want what's best for the dog.
> 
> you just sound like a bratty control freak who doesnt really understand how these things really work or knows much about the dog world.
> 
> im sure you are a nice guy...but you come off as HORRIFICALLY IGNORANT . and to those of us fighting tooth and claw to give dogs a better life? that's an insult.


Lol, I think you're misunderstanding the analogy. It's not about who the DOG'S family is, it's about who the OWNER'S family is. Who the dog's parents are is truly irrelevant. 

Also, I have to agree with DogsRCool. If I was in a tough situation I'd want Basil to stay with my mother until I was back on my feet. Doesn't matter how good of a friend your breeder is, I'd rather keep my dog within my family. My dog is my family member, my property, and I keep him wherever I please. What if I got my dog from a breeder that's on the other side of the country? I'd rather have my dog be kept down the street where I'm free to visit as often as I'd like, and still have a major say in how he's cared for. What happens if the breeder has too many dogs and wants to rehome them? What if it takes "too long" for me to get back on my feet and the breeder decides that my dog is now their property, to do whatever they want with, including selling him to someone else. I agree that a dog should go back to its breeder before being dropped off at a shelter or put up on Craigslist, but requiring a dog to be returned to a breeder instead of staying with family is absolutely insane.

You can call people immature names and rant about "fighting tooth and claw to give these dogs a better life," but you're still being completely blind. How in the world is the dog being denied a good life if it's being temporarily cared for by a family member? Are you not allowed to let your family watch your dog for a weekend if you buy from a breeder? It's that cruel and inhumane? It's not as if a breeder can interview every daycare employee or dog sitter that happens to care for this dog at some point in its life. Also, how is it "best" to uproot a dog from its family if they are being well cared for and loved, and potentially risk stressing the dog out by shipping/driving them back to the breeder if they live a long distance away? If you truly believe that people shouldn't have any say in their dogs' lives and they should be dictated by their breeders' forever, then I personally believe that you are the ignorant one.

If anyone sounds like a "control freak," btw, it's the breeder that won't allow a dog to be cared for by family members. Not the person who doesn't feel as though their dog should be taken from them against their will. 

I'm 100% for breeders who are willing to take the dogs in if need be, but also respect your decision to keep your dogs with family if you cannot care for them.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

*groans*

Nargle..you seem to LOVE to misread me and blow things out of context.

im merely arguing that if you agree to take a dog with a contract...you abide by the contract. 

im arguing that there is NOTHING wrong with having a breeder or rescue with the requirement that the dog go back to them..you'd rather see them in a shelter maybe? do you think the breeder or rescue would? no..that's why they put those kinds of clauses in there...most breeders i know dont go that far though..the main thing is that they be consulted. 

you just...ug....really...really dont get me at all.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

LOL, I was making a joke.

But in the case of rehoming a dog in excruciating circumstances, I don't think anyone's arguing about that. I think a breeder deserves to know where one of her puppies are, and a person also deserves the ability to have a say in where the dog ends up, assuming it's an ability thing, not a neglect thing. But the point is all of this stuff is up for discussion if you just discuss it. Breeders aren't out to make life difficult for people. They're out to make life easy for dogs. If you want to rehome a dog yourself, but the breeder's standard contract says the dog must come back to them, talk to them about it! The might say no, that part is set in stone, and then you have to decide if that is a dealbreaker for you or not.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> LOL, I was making a joke.
> 
> But in the case of rehoming a dog in excruciating circumstances, I don't think anyone's arguing about that. I think a breeder deserves to know where one of her puppies are, and a person also deserves the ability to have a say in where the dog ends up, assuming it's an ability thing, not a neglect thing. But the point is all of this stuff is up for discussion if you just discuss it. Breeders aren't out to make life difficult for people. They're out to make life easy for dogs. If you want to rehome a dog yourself, but the breeder's standard contract says the dog must come back to them, talk to them about it! The might say no, that part is set in stone, and then you have to decide if that is a dealbreaker for you or not.


thank you.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Goodness....... this thread is quite exhausting. You know what guys? I don't think anything any of you are saying is going to change Dogs' mind. He's obviously set on his beliefs. All his arguments stem from his picking all you guys' grammar apart and twisting your words so that they fit into his idea that "it's a hassle for me, and I don't like these rules".

It's like you guys are trying to tell him A B C D and he's twisting ABCD into XYZ and then arguing with you about XYZ... which... is really beside the point. For example, the breeder contract thing. You guys are saying, "rather than give my dog up to someone else or a rescue or a shelter, I give my dog back to its breeder if for some reason I can't care for it anymore".

HE'S saying "what if I don't want to give the dog back to the breeder? Why should I HAVE to give the dog back to the breeder? It's MY DOG. MY PROPERTY. Therefore I should get a final say in what happens to it".

I see these as two totally different arguments. Dogs is debating about the PHILOSOPHY behind breeder contracts. You guys are talking about the PRACTICALITY of it. If he would just put aside his beliefs and philosophies, he'll see where you guys are coming from.... that it's ALWAYS BETTER to give a dog back to its breeder than to place it in another home where a) it doesn't know anyone and b) you can't say for SURE what will happen to it in the future. 

That said, I think I'm going to butt out of this thread......... because I don't really think there's a point in trying to level with Dogs because he obviously wants to be right... even in the face of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Nargle said:


> How in the world is the dog being denied a good life if it's being temporarily cared for by a family member? Are you not allowed to let your family watch your dog for a weekend if you buy from a breeder? It's that cruel and inhumane?


Did I miss something somewhere? I don't remember this being stated.

Especially cruel and inhumane? What? Where was it said that family watching a dog for a weekend is inhumane?



Nargle said:


> If you truly believe that people shouldn't have any say in their dogs' lives and they should be dictated by their breeders' forever, then I personally believe that you are the ignorant one.


Don't remember this being said anywhere either.




Nargle said:


> If anyone sounds like a "control freak," btw, it's the breeder that won't allow a dog to be cared for by family members. Not the person who doesn't feel as though their dog should be taken from them against their will.


Then...don't get a dog from that breeder? I mean, if the breeder demands this - you don't like it - breeder won't give up on it - you move on to another breeder?


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> And you know this HOW??? Did you actually ask?


He probably got that load of crap from the breeder that he bought from. Think about it -- who in their right mind would benefit from saying something so utterly stupid and misinforming? The unscrupulous BYB, who really just wants to sell his $300 puppy to you. "Oh, well rescues and OTHER breeders do this...I won't do that to you!" Think about it.



> Quote Originally Posted by zimandtakandgrrandmimi:
> 
> and if someone signs a contract..they AGREED to abide by those terms..if you dont agree with the terms..find someone who's terms you do agree with
> 
> ...


How many times do we have to tell you that this is not about YOU? Negotiating a contract..."negotiating" in general and in its essence...MEANS that terms would be acceptable to BOTH parties. I don't care what kind of mental crap you're trying to claim, whether you're mentally disabled or an "Aspie" (though truth be told, the only "Aspie" that I've met personally are just very smart but very OBNOXIOUS people), you don't claim to have tried to negotiate with someone when all you did was give an ear to what they wanted from you and then throw up your hands and say "That's not acceptable to me and I want things the way I want it, so BYEEE!" This is not the way these things work in life, and if you're as "bad at dealing with people" as you say you are, then you should be open to LEARNING how to deal with people. Obviously by your writings your cognition is working/NOT disabled, so the question now lies: Why are you not listening to anything that we have previously stated about why it was a poor choice for you to buy from a BYB? MOST of the arguments that we all gave you were reasonable and logical, but all that you've given back to the argument is the perception that 1) you didn't want to bother saving up for a dog from a reputable breeder, 2) reputable breeders are the reason why you went to a BYB and 3) *and this one is FAULTY, as we have proven so* all shelters, rescues and reputable breeders behave the same way and you would not have been able to get a dog that way. In the pages that have spawned since I left the conversation earlier today, there has been no answer, NONE whatsoever to the question "Well, did you even TRY going to _more than one_ shelter/various other resources for available and adoptable dogs?" And then you attempt to try and tack "elitism" onto US and to the rescues when YOU are the one being a whiny, elitist little bastard with the

Well *I* wanted what I wanted, *I* wanted a Golden Retriever puppy on the cheap and *I* didn't want those elitist "breeders" to charge me their hawwwwwrribly pricey prices for one because *I* can't afford it...so *I* got what *I* wanted and *I* don't give a G-d damn that *I* might be contributing to the problem of backyard breeding because to me, *I* don't see a problem so nyah nyah!

The sad thing is, you WOULD see the problem if you got off your own little egocentric ass and went out there and did some work with shelter animals or with the rescues. You don't think rescues have any power to act? Didn't I explain how my dog Buddy came to be with me? He was taken off the street here in Oakland after having been returned to his owner and his owner told NOT to let him out by himself to roam the streets. The LAW here states that *anyone* can take a neglected dog and make every effort to contact the owner/resolve the problem and after two weeks if the owner proves he/she doesn't give a crap by not answering any calls/contact/etc., the dog is considered abandoned. So after two weeks, my Buddy was considered abandoned and the rescue officially processed him as adoptable (except that at the time he was suffering from horrible diarrhea from something he ate on the street, so it was "foster-to-adopt").

You write like you're the only ego out there who thinks the way you do, that you're just so _special _and _unique_ with your "quirks". The problem with that line of thinking is that you are NOT unique, and there are many people who think the way you do, and THAT is why the rescue and shelter situations are the way they are. *You are part of the problem*, and you became part of that problem when you decided to buy from a BYB.

And it is even more insulting that you would even dare bring in the politics surrounding universal healthcare into this conversation. You don't know sh*t about any of us or where we stand on that, or where the common man stands on it, either. The people crying that Republicans don't care about people or having healthcare for everyone are the same people suckered in by the popular media who don't give a crap to do any reading on the issues and just swallow everything CNN feeds them. The fact is, all politicians suck something pretty hardcore, and the divide isn't between Dem or Repub, the divide is between those who DO the research and those who don't. *I* had to fight to get my Medicare coverage at a "young" age, and I fought when Clinton was in office. I got MORE coverage and money when BUSH was in office, and I started to HAVE to pay for my medications when Obama got into office. How's that for your lovely system?

The same whiners like you are the same whiners who say over and over again that they "can't afford to feed their families" when they haven't even *tried* to modify their behavior or even LOOK for alternative solutions. We fell on hard times in January when my girlfriend lost her job due to her store closing (Barnes & Noble -- yeah, thanks Obama for that GREAT 'stimulus' crap and taking over the car companies...where the Hell was the "stimulus" for B&N?), our cat suddenly died on us and sh*t just kept piling on and piling on. But guess what? We were still able to pay for the cat's cremation and feed ourselves on a modified budget. We were given $40 extra (after having raised the $ for the cat's cremation) and what did I do? I bought groceries that could last us *two weeks*. On $40. Not because I went to a food bank. Not because I stole anything. No, I got those groceries at Grocery Outlet and made do with what THEY had in order to make do with what *I* had. And the amazing thing is that *I* did not have to compromise *my* tastes because of it, either; GroceOut has the same yogurt that Safeway charges $.80 per for the price of 3/$1.00. And I found GroceOut because *I* looked.

And you can liken that to what the shelters and some rescues are like, too. you don't HAVE to compromise your wants and needs when you go looking for a dog in a shelter. City run/county run shelters *always* have dogs and almost always have the dog you're looking for; you just have to be willing to put in the effort to go find them. How the Hell do you think some rescues GET their dogs? Our rescue was in league with a woman who ran a service where she went around to all of the kill shelters and picked up dogs on death row, then we got to pick who would come into the rescue, foster room provided (and ours wasn't the only rescue she serviced, she would often leave from her drop offs with a ton of dogs still in the crates to go off to another rescue to do another drop off). Do you think this is fun for us? Do you think that it's just all sunshine and roses when we see things like this? I *always* had to stop myself from crying every damned time the van came and left, because *I* know that some of those dogs were dogs from idiot BYBs like the one you got your dog from. I wanted to take ALL the dogs and give them as much love as I give my dogs (again, FTR, who all came from the rescue I volunteered for), but alas, I don't own a gigantic farm/lots of space.

I have to side with Zim and Moo on this. You DO need to grow up, and it's not because we're "just saying" grow up, it's because we have told you explicitly why what you did was contributing to the problem of "too many dogs, not enough homes", but you consistently insist on NOT comprehending this. We WOULD be more angry at the idiot BYB who sold to you if you said "Oh, my...well, I didn't know any of this and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to contribute to this problem and maybe I should've done more research...and in the future I will try to help educate people about the effects of BYBs on the overbreeding/overpopulation problem", but you didn't say that. You're just a remorseless ass who wants to sit on your misguided deeds until the cows come home.

Go play with your puppy. I'm sure that he would benefit more from actual training and attention than we would with you yammering on about the injustices of the world of shelters/rescues that are out to get you...and come back when the light in your head comes back on.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

GottaLuvMutts said:


> I have no idea who owned my dog previously, but I know she had multiple sets of owners and had been returned to the shelter somewhat habitually. They may not have been the best owners, but I owe these folks a huge debt of gratitude: I don't know how, but they socialized my dog beyond what I could have ever managed.


Lucky. You know how our first dog, Henry came to us? He was another kill-shelter pull, and one Sunday he was adopted out to a supposedly "nice" couple who wanted a playmate for their dog. They even brought in their dog and Henry and their dog played and played and played and got on fabulously. So they took him home in the morning. Later on that day, they brought him back. Why? "He's too hyper!" They didn't even have him for one whole day, and hello -- he was still a puppy (an 8-month-old, but still a puppy). When *I* saw him, he was curled up in his pen looking depressed and withdrawn. The rescue director pretty much forced us to foster him (LOL...she is a forceful personality, but at the time, she was getting all of the other dogs packed up/ready to go to foster homes and we had come in and were sitting with him inhis pen because he was SO cute). And what did he do when he came home with us? Slept for two days. :| He wasn't hyper at all (and he won our hearts and became our first furkid). So, these are the types of idiots who come in to adopt from rescues -- even idiots who already own a dog who want another dog as a companion to theirs. The only sadness I feel for people like that is for their dogs...the ones who think they're getting a companion when their owners are idiots and return their new buddy for stupid, stupid reasons. (On a side note, Henry in turn "picked" Buddy {the dog that had been left out on the streets to fend for himself} out of a crowd of dogs that filled another pen months later...I'd already been set on fostering another dog and Buddy was my second choice, but for some odd reason Henry "knew" something and he just went right up to that pen and put his nose up to Buddy and that was it...and they are inseparable buddies to this day. THAT is the amazing potential to "know" that dogs have...). So I can't say that I thank Henry's previous "owners" for anything except for returning him to the rescue that day...had they not done so, we might not have him.



lucidity said:


> ...


I've had better philosophical arguments with a six-year-old. And I was a philosophy major.



KBLover said:


> Did I miss something somewhere? I don't remember this being stated.


It wasn't said anywhere except via Mr. Cool's posturing. None of us are arguing against having your dog be looked after/cared for by a family member if something happens to you. That's just more of the Crazy Talk crap that Cool is twisting about. He's twisted everything that we've tried to point out into an assault on his ego.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I did.
> 
> Having no terms or conditions was perfectly agreeable to me, because I knew I'd raise the pet well.
> 
> ...





Having no terms or conditions appeals to you? I haven't read past this assinine post yet so forgive me if I jump in where others already have. 
Kudos to you. You are now your own dogs' savior! Hallelujah! In the same sense you are saying to he** with all the other dogs that 'breeder' produced, at least I 'saved' mine. And before you say 'No, it isn't' let me be the first to say that Yes, your line of thinking does say "I just don't care about the plight of the rest of the dogs in the world. My own selfish wants are above anything else."
This whole BS about how contracts don't work and you don't see how they make a difference, people can lie, blah, blah, blah. Yes people can and do lie. That's why rescues and reputable breeders do check into these things. That's why there are vet checks, reference checks, home visits.... These are an extra safeguard for these animals whom have already been possibly abused, neglected, and have been abandoned. 
I am sorry but also you never answered my question that I noticed. Would you or wouldn't you want and try to check out the people whom adopted your dog if you had to let him go? And remember I also said friends and family couldn't/wouldn't take him. All hypothetical of course.



Nargle said:


> Lol, I think you're misunderstanding the analogy. It's not about who the DOG'S family is, it's about who the OWNER'S family is. Who the dog's parents are is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Also, I have to agree with DogsRCool. If I was in a tough situation I'd want Basil to stay with my mother until I was back on my feet. Doesn't matter how good of a friend your breeder is, I'd rather keep my dog within my family. My dog is my family member, my property, and I keep him wherever I please. What if I got my dog from a breeder that's on the other side of the country? I'd rather have my dog be kept down the street where I'm free to visit as often as I'd like, and still have a major say in how he's cared for. What happens if the breeder has too many dogs and wants to rehome them? What if it takes "too long" for me to get back on my feet and the breeder decides that my dog is now their property, to do whatever they want with, including selling him to someone else. I agree that a dog should go back to its breeder before being dropped off at a shelter or put up on Craigslist, but requiring a dog to be returned to a breeder instead of staying with family is absolutely insane.
> 
> ...



Wow.... Did you even read half of the posts here? There have been many whom have stated over and over again that many breeders/rescues will work with you in the situations described. 
These are 'guidelines' so to speak. These people give a da** about the pups they produce or dogs they have rehomed and want to have safeguards in place that will protect every pup they find a home for. Yes, this includes even people like you and me. Does it really hurt to talk to a breeder and ask them these questions when in the discussing stage? We were given mouths for a reason, use them. 
Rescues/Breeders are all people too and many will listen and offer help and advice if given the chance. The problem is too many people in todays world want everything to come extremely easy and to have their cake and eat it too. 
Yeah we all want people to care where they place their dogs but only as long as it doesn't cause us 'responsible' owners any grievance. As if they were mind readers and knew whom were responsible, caring owners. 
Checks and safeguards are there for a reason. No one ever said all this was set in stone and 100%. We all said talk to the breeder, explain your situation, ask questions, be willing to listen and learn.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Nargle said:


> Lol, I think you're misunderstanding the analogy. It's not about who the DOG'S family is, it's about who the OWNER'S family is. Who the dog's parents are is truly irrelevant.
> 
> Also, I have to agree with DogsRCool. If I was in a tough situation I'd want Basil to stay with my mother until I was back on my feet. Doesn't matter how good of a friend your breeder is, I'd rather keep my dog within my family. My dog is my family member, my property, and I keep him wherever I please. What if I got my dog from a breeder that's on the other side of the country? I'd rather have my dog be kept down the street where I'm free to visit as often as I'd like, and still have a major say in how he's cared for. What happens if the breeder has too many dogs and wants to rehome them? What if it takes "too long" for me to get back on my feet and the breeder decides that my dog is now their property, to do whatever they want with, including selling him to someone else. I agree that a dog should go back to its breeder before being dropped off at a shelter or put up on Craigslist, but requiring a dog to be returned to a breeder instead of staying with family is absolutely insane.
> 
> ...


I think you're missing a lot of how things generally work with breeders. My breeder does not demand she watch the dogs. We've had other people watch them no problem. Personally when I'm away for extended periods I would not trust them to anyone else. And yes, she lives a ways away but overall the benefits of sending the dogs to her versus having them boarded make it worth it. It's cheaper, I know the dogs will be fed/cared for according to my instructions, I know they'll have fun playing with their relatives, I know they'll be safe and not kenneled the whole time, she does a complete show groom on all of them before they come home, etc...

I have a working relationship with my breeder as well as many, many of her other puppy buyers. We network a lot and when one of us is in trouble, we help each other out. One of the other owners a few years ago was hit by a truck at a dog show and ended up in the hospital for well over 6 months. My breeder kept her 4 dogs the entire time even the one she did not breed and wasn't even her breed. Similarly, when I could not care for my guys for several weeks, she took them ALL including our dog she didn't breed. I know she would never up and rehome my dog without my permission because she suddenly had 'too many'. I would not buy from a breeder that would do that.

Most breeders are there to help their dogs AND you as an owner. Now, I have only had dogs from three different breeders but my experience has been pretty much the same with all three breeders. They're not out to get you, they're just there to offer you and your dog resources should you need them.


----------



## Noobcakes (Jul 23, 2010)

Not going to jump into this argument, but I would never have this kind of problem. I think breeding dogs for a profit is wrong  It's like having kids to sell them... Secondly, I prefer mutts over purebreds for many reasons. I love the surprise you get with mutts, because you never know what they will be like  I had had 2 mutts and only 1 purebred Great Dane. My parents bought the Great Dane from a breeder. He ended up dying early from a blood infection. My mutts have not even needed to go to the vet. I take them for their check-ups and they are super healthy  Hopefully, they will keep being like that for 20-30 more years!


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Wow.... Did you even read half of the posts here? There have been many whom have stated over and over again that many breeders/rescues will work with you in the situations described.
> These are 'guidelines' so to speak. These people give a da** about the pups they produce or dogs they have rehomed and want to have safeguards in place that will protect every pup they find a home for. Yes, this includes even people like you and me. Does it really hurt to talk to a breeder and ask them these questions when in the discussing stage? We were given mouths for a reason, use them.
> Rescues/Breeders are all people too and many will listen and offer help and advice if given the chance. The problem is too many people in todays world want everything to come extremely easy and to have their cake and eat it too.
> Yeah we all want people to care where they place their dogs but only as long as it doesn't cause us 'responsible' owners any grievance. As if they were mind readers and knew whom were responsible, caring owners.
> Checks and safeguards are there for a reason. No one ever said all this was set in stone and 100%. We all said talk to the breeder, explain your situation, ask questions, be willing to listen and learn.


I was specifically referring to breeders and rescues that aren't willing to work with you. I even included that I am 100% for breeders who are willing to work with you and help but also give you a say. I'm also specifically referring to Zim's posts, so I don't understand why it has anything to do with any of the other posts here. In fact there are plenty of posts that I agree with, for instance Laurelin's breeder sounds like she knows what she's doing and is being completely fair. Just because I made one post referring to something specific in someone's post doesn't mean I'm suddenly replying to everyone. I thought I had made that clear.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I was specifically referring to breeders and rescues that aren't willing to work with you. I even included that I am 100% for breeders who are willing to work with you and help but also give you a say. I'm also specifically referring to Zim's posts, so I don't understand why it has anything to do with any of the other posts here. In fact there are plenty of posts that I agree with, for instance Laurelin's breeder sounds like she knows what she's doing and is being completely fair. Just because I made one post referring to something specific in someone's post doesn't mean I'm suddenly replying to everyone. I thought I had made that clear.


and i was arguing the same point they were..merely with emphasis in a particular way...not saying ALL BREEDERS HAVE A CHOKEHOLD ON THEIR PUPPY PEOPLE..no..i dont agree with that...the guy took an extremist position so i countered in a particular manner..you hauled off on me for nothing.

for the record though..i do think PIT BULL breeders should be stricter than those who work with other breeds.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and i was arguing the same point they were..merely with emphasis in a particular way...not saying ALL BREEDERS HAVE A CHOKEHOLD ON THEIR PUPPY PEOPLE..no..i dont agree with that...the guy took an extremist position so i countered in a particular manner..you hauled off on me for nothing.
> 
> for the record though..i do think PIT BULL breeders should be stricter than those who work with other breeds.


Where did I say ALL breeders are like that? I eves specifically said I support the breeders who aren't..!! Talk about misinterpretation? 

I'm getting sort of a mixed message now, though. Before you seemed to support the idea of the dog going back to the breeder/rescue instead of staying with family or friends, but now you're saying you don't agree with that? Where exactly do you think the line should be drawn between needs to go back to the breeder/rescue, and owner still gets a complete say? I've already state my opinion on where the line should be drawn.

Also, I don't see how DogsRCool has an extreme position, at least in regard to the issue I'm specifically referring to. This doesn't seem unreasonable AT ALL, but apparently you think it is?:


DogsRCool said:


> You know, if that's all it was, an *offer* where a breeder said something like "Oh, by the way, if you ever need to give up your pet and can't find anyone you know and trust to take him, we'd be happy to have him come back and live with us here", I'd actually consider that a very positive thing when considering where I want to go to find a dog. It's great to have an option like that. Unfortunately, what many of these breeders and rescues do is *require* you to give them the dog if you can't take care of it, which to me really crosses a line. I want to be the one who determines my pet's next home if I can't keep my pet (A scenario I never see happening, but if it did...).


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Nargle said:


> I was specifically referring to breeders and rescues that aren't willing to work with you. I even included that I am 100% for breeders who are willing to work with you and help but also give you a say. I'm also specifically referring to Zim's posts, so I don't understand why it has anything to do with any of the other posts here. In fact there are plenty of posts that I agree with, for instance Laurelin's breeder sounds like she knows what she's doing and is being completely fair. Just because I made one post referring to something specific in someone's post doesn't mean I'm suddenly replying to everyone. I thought I had made that clear.


Thanks for the clarification but I don't quite understand?? Everyone has pretty much reiterated the same things over and over. What Laurelins breeder does is wonderful and I am willing to bet if one develops a relationship with their breeder (which IMO they should) most breeders would be understanding and listen. There are some breeders/rescues whom go overboard- I think everyone agrees there. I think everyone would also agree that even they have the best intentions and the best interests of their dogs in mind. 
Anyone can feel free to go whatever route they choose. The breeders with overboard requirements still aren't having problems placing their dogs so I am guessing some are willing to go that route. I, myself, want a working relationship with any breeder I purchase from but I don't want everything under the sun dictated to me either. So my choice would be to look further until I find that breeder whom does give me a little leeway but is still involved and does care for the animals they produce.



Nargle said:


> Where did I say ALL breeders are like that? I eves specifically said I support the breeders who aren't..!! Talk about misinterpretation?
> 
> I'm getting sort of a mixed message now, though. Before you seemed to support the idea of the dog going back to the breeder/rescue instead of staying with family or friends, but now you're saying you don't agree with that? Where exactly do you think the line should be drawn between needs to go back to the breeder/rescue, and owner still gets a complete say? I've already state my opinion on where the line should be drawn.
> 
> Also, I don't see how DogsRCool has an extreme position, at least in regard to the issue I'm specifically referring to. This doesn't seem unreasonable AT ALL, but apparently you think it is?:


The problem with the offer is this: Many people will say they are going to return said dog but out of embarassment or whatever reason decline to do so. Dog gets passed around or ends up at a shelter. This actually does happen. 
I understand what you are getting at and think this is where the relationship with the breeder will come into play. A breeder whom will agree and state in contract they will take the dog back for any reason unless a suitable home is found. Also if I needed someone to keep my dog for a short time I would want to be able to speak to my breeder about this because we do have a relationship (hopefully friendship too at this point). Maybe I will have someone in line but if I don't and that breeder would be willing and able to keep my baby for me while I get things in order that too would be absolutely wonderful!
Contracts actually can help the owner too. I don't see the negative in having a clause stating somewhere along the above lines.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Where did I say ALL breeders are like that? I eves specifically said I support the breeders who aren't..!! Talk about misinterpretation?


a twinge of sarcasm on my part Nargle.



> I'm getting sort of a mixed message now, though. Before you seemed to support the idea of the dog going back to the breeder/rescue instead of staying with family or friends, but now you're saying you don't agree with that? Where exactly do you think the line should be drawn between needs to go back to the breeder/rescue, and owner still gets a complete say? I've already state my opinion on where the line should be drawn.


i support breeder involvement in the process..what level of involvement varies depending on the situation(like for example how i think pit breeders should be more strict about it than say..pap breeders...with dogfighting being the reason behind that). the reason i presented it as i did was because he attacked the whole idea..totally..so i came at him from the position of "Why not? what's wrong with breeder involvement? I often take a hardline position with people but only for the purpose of illustration. it may be a side effect of spending too much time as a liberal atheist on political and religious forums lol.

so there's today's lesson in what KB calls "zimspeak"







granted sometimes i forget that not everybody gets it..but it's me..ya know? im just sort of..aggressive like that. and for the record i was going off his original statements on the matter...not the ones later in the thread..just wanted to try and get him to _think._


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

MooMoosMommy said:


> Thanks for the clarification but I don't quite understand?? Everyone has pretty much reiterated the same things over and over. What Laurelins breeder does is wonderful and I am willing to bet if one develops a relationship with their breeder (which IMO they should) most breeders would be understanding and listen. There are some breeders/rescues whom go overboard- I think everyone agrees there. I think everyone would also agree that even they have the best intentions and the best interests of their dogs in mind.
> Anyone can feel free to go whatever route they choose. The breeders with overboard requirements still aren't having problems placing their dogs so I am guessing some are willing to go that route. I, myself, want a working relationship with any breeder I purchase from but I don't want everything under the sun dictated to me either. So my choice would be to look further until I find that breeder whom does give me a little leeway but is still involved and does care for the animals they produce.


The disagreement I'm referring to is the one between DogsRCool and Zim. Personally, I think DogsRCool's opinion is perfectly reasonable, however at every turn Zim is disagreeing with him saying the BEST option is for the dog to be returned to the rescue or breeder, and that other options are unacceptable. That's what I don't agree with. If that's not her stance then it hasn't been made particularly clear. 



MooMoosMommy said:


> The problem with the offer is this: Many people will say they are going to return said dog but out of embarassment or whatever reason decline to do so. Dog gets passed around or ends up at a shelter. This actually does happen.
> I understand what you are getting at and think this is where the relationship with the breeder will come into play. A breeder whom will agree and state in contract they will take the dog back for any reason unless a suitable home is found. Also if I needed someone to keep my dog for a short time I would want to be able to speak to my breeder about this because we do have a relationship (hopefully friendship too at this point). Maybe I will have someone in line but if I don't and that breeder would be willing and able to keep my baby for me while I get things in order that too would be absolutely wonderful!
> Contracts actually can help the owner too. I don't see the negative in having a clause stating somewhere along the above lines.


If the dog is microchipped with both the owner and breeder's information, and the shelter scans the dog, shouldn't it not be an issue? Shelters should scan the dog and contact everybody they can to make sure all parties know what's going on and are at an agreement. Same thing for when somebody takes their dog to the vet as a new patient. Calling the breeder to let them know where the dog is being seen and who brought them in shouldn't be a problem, and it might alert the breeder to the possibility that the dog has been rehomed without their knowledge. Could also help enforce a "must provide proper vet care" part of the contract. All without being to intrusive or unreasonable. Of course there may be those that secretly rehome the dog to an individual and they never take their dog to the vet, but what exactly can you do about that?



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> a twinge of sarcasm on my part Nargle.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for clarifying, and I guess I'm not fluent in "zimspeak," lol! I was simply replying to what I could see.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Nargle said:


> The disagreement I'm referring to is the one between DogsRCool and Zim. Personally, I think DogsRCool's opinion is perfectly reasonable, however at every turn Zim is disagreeing with him saying the BEST option is for the dog to be returned to the rescue or breeder, and that other options are unacceptable. That's what I don't agree with. If that's not her stance then it hasn't been made particularly clear.


that's not what i was saying at all. i was saying the best thing is to have your breeder be involved. and at one point i said it fairly explicitly



> you totally misunderstood the process. and that's really sad. the point in them being the one to take the dog back isnt just to walk in and take your dog..its a support system for your dog..you fall on hard times..the dog has a place to go automatically.
> 
> and the contracts are binding. you break the contract...you face a lawsuit. i totally agree with there being some requirements that are kind of silly but if you dont ask..you'll never know if they will work with you.


i dont think that sounds like im saying the breeder HAS TO take the dog back. i think it sounds like "choose someone who you can work with and who will work with you for the best interests of the dog"


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i dont think that sounds like im saying the breeder HAS TO take the dog back. i think it sounds like "*choose someone who you can work with and who will work with you for the best interests of the dog*"


Zim, this is absolutely great advice, and I think, what it all comes down to. It is advice that I often give and always gave to those that had no luck when searching a dog from the rescues/pound system.

There are difficulties with it though and because it comes down to that element of human nature that we addressed earlier in the thread it won't ever be achieved completely. I do think it is an easy to take in message that is worth promoting.

I will mention that some of us live in places where the purebred system is not so well in place, and where our chosen breed (or few breeds) has no breeders (or none worth supporting). Myself, I would always choose a breeder that I can get to know rather than getting to know a breeder of a specific breed that lives a flight away. If they are a flight away, then I don't *really* know them, and can't *really* work with them (especially if you totally avoid flying as I do). My breeder happened to breed mutts/mixes of a type that I like and shared many of my philosophies.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

spanielorbust said:


> Zim, this is absolutely great advice, and I think, what it all comes down to. It is advice that I often give and always gave to those that had no luck when searching a dog from the rescues/pound system.
> 
> There are difficulties with it though and because it comes down to that element of human nature that we addressed earlier in the thread it won't ever be achieved completely. I do think it is an easy to take in message that is worth promoting.
> 
> ...


For me it depends. I would rather have a breeder that is close by but it's not always possible. All the breeders I've purchased from so far have been within a reasonable distance of me (under 4 hours). My next dog probably won't be from a breeder close to me. I'm very picky about this breed and what I expect from this dog. Since it's a working breed there are a lot of variables to consider about it too. 

I do think as a buyer you should look for a breeder that will work with you but also understand you need to work with the breeder. Try to at least see where they're coming from and why they do the things they do. Spay/neuter contracts and return clauses are there to help the dog. Most breeders are going to b very reasonable about these things and all of the ones I've dealt with have gone over the contract extensively before you buy the dog. Questions? They'll answer them and many are willing to negotiate if they can see you are considering the dog first and foremost. If something you absolutely do not agree with is in the contract then by all means, go elsewhere. But I think it's more than a little unrealistic to expect a dog to come with NO rules. 

To me a breeder that sells a dog with no clauses whatsoever is by definition not reputable. Breeders should care where their dogs are going and what happens to them. They should do their best to ensure they don't end up in shelters. I just have to wonder about the motives of someone who doesn't even try... I am pretty reasonable and more moderate than most on here about what constitutes a good breeder. But for me a return clause or something of that type is non-negotiable. I don't want to deal with someone who wants nothing to do with their dogs once they're gone.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> I do think as a buyer you should look for a breeder that will work with you but also understand you need to work with the breeder. Try to at least see where they're coming from and why they do the things they do. Spay/neuter contracts and return clauses are there to help the dog. Most breeders are going to b very reasonable about these things and all of the ones I've dealt with have gone over the contract extensively before you buy the dog. Questions? They'll answer them and many are willing to negotiate if they can see you are considering the dog first and foremost. If something you absolutely do not agree with is in the contract then by all means, go elsewhere. But I think it's more than a little unrealistic to expect a dog to come with NO rules.
> 
> *To me a breeder that sells a dog with no clauses whatsoever is by definition not reputable.* Breeders should care where their dogs are going and what happens to them. They should do their best to ensure they don't end up in shelters. I just have to wonder about the motives of someone who doesn't even try... I am pretty reasonable and more moderate than most on here about what constitutes a good breeder. But for me a return clause or something of that type is non-negotiable. I don't want to deal with someone who wants nothing to do with their dogs once they're gone.


yes. +10000. 100% agree with all of this but especially with the bolded point.

someone who will just hand you a dog no questions asked is someone who likely doesnt know or doesnt care what they are doing..breeding for money and money only absolutely DISGUSTS me to the point of feeling literally sick to my stomach when i hear of it.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> For me it depends. I would rather have a breeder that is close by but it's not always possible. All the breeders I've purchased from so far have been within a reasonable distance of me (under 4 hours). My next dog probably won't be from a breeder close to me. I'm very picky about this breed and what I expect from this dog. Since it's a working breed there are a lot of variables to consider about it too.


4 hours is a close breeder, where I'm coming from. I understand the variable. When I state my own ideals, that does not imply in any way that other's can't be different.



Laurelin said:


> But I think it's more than a little unrealistic to expect a dog to come with NO rules .


I agree. I have also come across some breeders with very unreasonable demands. A true example - $3000 pet price tag and I would be obliged to feed RAW or the already minimum health warrantees are void and pup could be seized (two breeders like this, not just one). It is very off-putting.



Laurelin said:


> They should do their best to ensure they don't end up in shelters. I just have to wonder about the motives of someone who doesn't even try...


Yup, yup, yup. As I said I do believe that this is the type of message that needs to get relayed and promoted. People should be purchasing from breeders who they can know and who do want to stay connected even if it is an insistance on future updates.

I do think that most purchasers don't have a problem with this idea. If I read DogsRCool correctly this would not be too much either (might be wrong). I do know that many I talk to have been put off by the type of breeders (and rescues) that go far overboard. Even though I understand, totally, why they do, I also think it needs to be understood how much of an impact those that are very much over-zealous are having. Unfortunately there is a fine line. 

Once put-off and someone has their back-up it is often hard to get them to see differently (just read this thread).

I offer no solutions, just an observation.

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

As a (hopeful) future breeder with her (possible) foundation bitch currently flopped out next to her, I sure as hell will be imposing rules and restrictions on my puppy buyers. 

in regards to "requiring" a dog of their breeding be returned to them, many breeders these days actually write "First right of refusal" instead. In other words, the breeder will discuss with you a potential home you've found for the dog in the event you can no longer keep said dog, but you MUST offer the breeder the *chance* to take the dog back. I plan on putting First right of refusal in my contract.

I also will not charge different prices for a show prospect puppy vs a pet puppy. I'd certainly charge more for a dog that was "grown out" and obviously could be finished, but I'm not going to charge $1800 for a show prospect and $1500 for a pet. One puppy may be structurally better than the other at 8 weeks, but it doesn't guarantee that the structurally superior puppy will STAY that way. I don't find it fair that one family should pay $300 more for their show prospect than a "pet only" family.

But then, I'm also the type of person that will give Juniors a break in price if they're looking for a show/performance dog.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Nargle said:


> Same thing for when somebody takes their dog to the vet as a new patient. Calling the breeder to let them know where the dog is being seen and who brought them in shouldn't be a problem, and it might alert the breeder to the possibility that the dog has been rehomed without their knowledge. Could also help enforce a "must provide proper vet care" part of the contract. All without being to intrusive or unreasonable..


I think the fundamental question that I'd have to ask myself in a situation like that is "Who's dog is it? Mine or the breeders?". When someone gets a dog, they put a lot of time, money, and love into that dog. Typically, the breeder gets a nice fee (Even the lower priced breeders are still getting a decent chunk of change). At that point, the dog is the owner's. If I had things like the above enforced where the vet was supposed to call the breeder when my dog was brought in, I'd feel like the breeders were still half-owners of the dog, or just letting me foster the dog, or whathaveyou. There are some things about me that are a bit idiosyncratic, but I don't think this is one of those things -- I honestly feel there is a substantial part of the population that would outraged if their vet contacted their breeder over something without their permission.

This isn't really hostility toward the breeders on my part. I think breeders are great. I just think that once I bring the dog home, he's joined my family, and is no longer really part of their's. If they want to own some more dogs, they can keep other puppies from their litter or buy their own. They can't have mine.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I think the fundamental question that I'd have to ask myself in a situation like that is "Who's dog is it? Mine or the breeders?". When someone gets a dog, they put a lot of time, money, and love into that dog. Typically, the breeder gets a nice fee (Even the lower priced breeders are still getting a decent chunk of change). At that point, the dog is the owner's. If I had things like the above enforced where the vet was supposed to call the breeder when my dog was brought in, I'd feel like the breeders were still half-owners of the dog, or just letting me foster the dog, or whathaveyou. There are some things about me that are a bit idiosyncratic, but I don't think this is one of those things -- I honestly feel there is a substantial part of the population that would outraged if their vet contacted their breeder over something without their permission.
> 
> This isn't really hostility toward the breeders on my part. I think breeders are great. I just think that once I bring the dog home, he's joined my family, and is no longer really part of their's. If they want to own some more dogs, they can keep other puppies from their litter or buy their own. They can't have mine.



bullshiz. again. you just like being ignorant dontchya?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I just think that once I bring the dog home, he's joined my family, and is no longer really part of their's


And there's your biggest problem, because with a good breeder, that just isn't true.

I had a person e-mail me, a complete stranger, about some issues they were having with their GSD, and they were asking me for advice. They were absolutely DISTRAUGHT, and I helped them the best I could. They couldn't go to their breeder (a known GSD miller in the midwest to those in "the fancy") because the breeder didn't care. All the breeder would have done (know this for fact) is taken their dog from them and "replaced" it with another dog.

That's not right.

When somebody purchases a puppy from me, they aren't just buying a puppy. They're sealing my support for them and that puppy. I will be offering support long before the puppy, but my buyers will know that if they have ANY issues with the dog that came from my kennel, be they behavioral or physical, I will be there to help them. That's what my breeder does for me.

I was concerned about Mirada's teeth and pasterns. My breeder told me what to do about both. If I'm worried about a current stage of growth, she explains to me what's normal at this age in her line, and what is not. She's supportive and knowledgeable.

This does not mean I always AGREE with certain methods. Of course not. But the fact that she is there to suggest, advise, and support is extremely important, and I know that should Jon and I ever need to give her up (Lord forbid!) she has a home to return to.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

Zim, wht part is bullshiz?

I'm not seeing it.

I agree with DogsRCool that the majority of the population would be outraged if their vet contacted the original breeder without permission, or are you on about something else?

Most people DO want to think that "once I bring the dog home, he's joined my family, and is no longer really part of their's"

Do I think this needs to change a bit? Yes I do, but I don't understand the desire to just dismiss these ideas as wrong, fight and move on, when they are prevalent ideas amonst many that are buying dogs. 

These conversations should be an opportunity to look at possible ways to address the stumbling blocks that are up between different factions

. . . . or is the idea just to show who's done things right/wrong and who has the better ideas?

SOB


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> \
> the second problem is the average AC bylaws. the norm is the animal must have food, water and shelter. you cant beat it. and you cant let it roam. you must have a rabies shot.


That actually sounds reasonable to me. I don't think it's in any dog lover's best interest to have a government agency getting into the nitty gritty of how people should raise their animals with the threat of taking the dog away looming over the dog's head. A few basic things are necessary -- the dog needs to be have food, water, shelter, and not be beaten or anything -- but I wouldn't want animal control to suddenly be dictating the dog food that has to be fed or whether crate training is okay. It sounds like that are finding about the right mix.



> in my state we are LUCKY to have another bylaw in place that says civil suits can be brought against neglectors and abusers..meaning orgs can sue for custody of an animal..but that is the ONLY law of its kind in the entire united states.


What state do you live in?



> you think so? really? i mean..maybe...but from what ive seen..more often than not..its the opposite.


In my case, I think my dog already probably knows my extended family better than the breeders as the memories of his early weeks fade. He gets very excited when he is on their property, and enjoys playing with the younger siblings and their dog. We visit a lot and sometimes some of the younger siblings take him for extra walks and such. I'm very cogniscent of the fact that goldens are highly highly social animals, and so I try to take him around to socialize with people as much as I can to make up for the fact that I live alone -- and he often goes to the fence while I'm outside with him to be petted by my neighbors or sniff the neighbor's dogs, I let people pet him when we encounter them on walks, etc.. So in that way he can satisfy some of his social urges on a regular basis with more than just me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> Zim, wht part is bullshiz?
> 
> I'm not seeing it.
> 
> ...



something else...this..



> think the fundamental question that I'd have to ask myself in a situation like that is "Who's dog is it? Mine or the breeders?". When someone gets a dog, they put a lot of time, money, and love into that dog. Typically, the breeder gets a nice fee


totally skewed point of view.

and as far as the vet thing..ive known vets who have done that...when for example the owner refused to allow the vet to set a broken leg..or in another case found obvious physical evidence of serious abuse(a home done docking gone horribly wrong)...in those cases..so what if the owner is pissed...?



DogsRCool said:


> That actually sounds reasonable to me. I don't think it's in any dog lover's best interest to have a government agency getting into the nitty gritty of how people should raise their animals with the threat of taking the dog away looming over the dog's head. A few basic things are necessary -- the dog needs to be have food, water, shelter, and not be beaten or anything -- but I wouldn't want animal control to suddenly be dictating the dog food that has to be fed or whether crate training is okay. It sounds like that are finding about the right mix.


then what's with all the homeless, abused and ill treated animals? why are there THOUSANDS OF THEM? ug..your ignorance is astounding.




> What state do you live in?


why should i tell you? you obviously just want to twist people's words around.




> In my case, I think my dog already probably knows my extended family better than the breeders as the memories of his early weeks fade. He gets very excited when he is on their property, and enjoys playing with the younger siblings and their dog. We visit a lot and sometimes some of the younger siblings take him for extra walks and such. I'm very cogniscent of the fact that goldens are highly highly social animals, and so I try to take him around to socialize with people as much as I can to make up for the fact that I live alone -- and he often goes to the fence while I'm outside with him to be petted by my neighbors or sniff the neighbor's dogs, I let people pet him when we encounter them on walks, etc.. So in that way he can satisfy some of his social urges on a regular basis with more than just me.


a one dog anecdote...how convincing..


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Nargle..you seem to LOVE to misread me and blow things out of context.
> 
> im merely arguing that if you agree to take a dog with a contract...you abide by the contract.


But you get upset when people get dogs without contracts. I don't quite see how that fits together. On the one hand, you say "Well, you chose to sign a contract and didn't have to, so you've gotta abide by it", but on the other hand you imply that it is somehow morally outrageous not to sign a contract. It's sort of having it both ways, isn't it?

I can actually agree with you when you imply that people should look at what they sign and abide by whatever terms they agree to. That's a big part of why I DIDN'T sign a contract. I wanted the freedom not to play by someone else's rules and do what I think is best for my own pet, not what someone I paid to get the pet from thinks. Once I pay them the money, it's my pet, otherwise why would I be paying them in the first place?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I wanted the freedom not to play by someone else's rules and do what I think is best for my own pet, not what someone I paid to get the pet from thinks.


Sooooooooooo what do you do if your dog ends up with some genetic disease and you don't know what it is? Who do you talk to? Where do you go for recourse?

I actually had a Shepherd "breeder" tell me they had no idea what bloat and torsion were! They'd never heard of EPI or Pannus either.

They shouldn't be breeding.

You just don't get it.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> But you get upset when people get dogs without contracts. I don't quite see how that fits together. On the one hand, you say "Well, you chose to sign a contract and didn't have to, so you've gotta abide by it", but on the other hand you imply that it is somehow morally outrageous not to sign a contract. It's sort of having it both ways, isn't it?


its morally outrageous to support scum that breed solely for money or "because they're cute" or whatever other bullshiz superficial ignorant and selfish reason that has nothing to do with helping dogs when there are dogs dying in shelters by the truckload BECAUSE those people keep breeding. you work with a breeder. you discuss and work with them..anything else is ignorant lazyness.



> I can actually agree with you when you imply that people should look at what they sign and abide by whatever terms they agree to. That's a big part of why I DIDN'T sign a contract. I wanted the freedom not to play by someone else's rules and do what I think is best for my own pet, not what someone I paid to get the pet from thinks. Once I pay them the money, it's my pet, otherwise why would I be paying them in the first place?


im sure the dogs that are getting the needle or the gas chamber right now are really happy for you.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> something else...this..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, I agree. I do believe that, though, in the heat of those things that are being disagreed on there are some concepts being missed. Understanbly as DogsRCool is writing what a lot of us know is true of the way too many people think, but would prefer not to hear as addressing it is too difficult.

SOB


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Xeph said:


> And there's your biggest problem, because with a good breeder, that just isn't true.
> 
> I had a person e-mail me, a complete stranger, about some issues they were having with their GSD, and they were asking me for advice. They were absolutely DISTRAUGHT, and I helped them the best I could. They couldn't go to their breeder (a known GSD miller in the midwest to those in "the fancy") because the breeder didn't care. All the breeder would have done (know this for fact) is taken their dog from them and "replaced" it with another dog.
> 
> ...


I think it's great that you're willing to provide advice and support to people. I certainly don't have a problem with that. But, at least for me personally, given all the time, money, effort, and emotion that goes into having a dog, it's important that there be a clear delinination that it is in fact my dog and I can raise him how I think is right -- so a *requirement* that I do x, y, and z or report back to the breeder or something, would have been a non-starter for me. If my breeder offered that stuff voluntarily, great, that's not the sort of thing I'd object to at all. There is a difference between someone being available if you *choose* to contact them and someone *requiring* that you do so, though, that's all I'm really getting at with this.



Xeph said:


> Sooooooooooo what do you do if your dog ends up with some genetic disease and you don't know what it is? Who do you talk to? Where do you go for recourse?


The vetinarian would of course be the first person I'd turn to in such a situation. If he didn't know what it was, he would probably have the resources to find out. In this day and age, it is also possible to do one's own research and reach out over the Internet and stuff to find out more -- after seeing the vet, of course.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> I think it's great that you're willing to provide advice and support to people. I certainly don't have a problem with that. But, at least for me personally, given all the time, money, effort, and emotion that goes into having a dog, it's important that there be a clear delinination that it is in fact my dog and I can raise him how I think is right -- so a *requirement* that I do x, y, and z or report back to the breeder or something, would have been a non-starter for me. If my breeder offered that stuff voluntarily, great, that's not the sort of thing I'd object to at all. There is a difference between someone being available if you *choose* to contact them and someone *requiring* that you do so, though, that's all I'm really getting at with this.



you dont get that by becoming a breeder..one takes responsibility for the lives they bring into the world. you're placing your own selfish bratty desires above the welfare of dogs. dog lover my arse...im done with you..i think youre nothing more than a poe trying to get a rise out of people. you disgust me.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you work with a breeder. you discuss and work with them..anything else is ignorant lazyness.


Honestly, what I get from you is that you feel that anyone who doesn't share you point of view is evil, essentially. You don't seem to even acknowledge that any other perspectives can be well-intentioned. Even though I have strong feelings on the issue, at least I will acknowledge that other people have the right to do things differently than I did when buying or selling a dog, and that they may mean well. It'd be nice if you'd extend the rest of us the same benefit of a doubt.



> im sure the dogs that are getting the needle or the gas chamber right now are really happy for you.


You know, I think that's really uncalled for. You want to blame breeders and puppy buyers for all the animals that are put down, as though they are the sole cause of that. They really aren't, though. I could just as easily turn it around and say "Well, if these kill shelters let people adopt more easily, not as many animals would have to be put down.". These issues are more complicated than you make them out to be.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> I think it's great that you're willing to provide advice and support to people. I certainly don't have a problem with that. But, at least for me personally, given all the time, money, effort, and emotion that goes into having a dog, it's important that there be a clear delinination that it is in fact my dog and I can raise him how I think is right -- so a *requirement* that I do x, y, and z or report back to the breeder or something, would have been a non-starter for me. If my breeder offered that stuff voluntarily, great, that's not the sort of thing I'd object to at all. There is a difference between someone being available if you *choose* to contact them and someone *requiring* that you do so, though, that's all I'm really getting at with this..


I'm curious DogsRCool, as I tend to be viciously independently minded and resent control over anything I own as well, by anyone else, (libertarian to extreme sometimes) where would the fine line be for you between someone overstepping your boundaries? Do you recognize the emotional vested interest the breeder has in knowing what happens with the pups they nurtured and sold, or do you think of pups sold on more like merchandise - out the door and gone?

I believe that people who consider pups in ownership terms and as merchandise tend to purchase from those that think the same way (please don't read judgement into that, it is an 'it is what it is' statement.) 

I honestly don't think this is something that is ever going to change.

Of course there will be varying degrees to one extreme and the other in this kind of thinking and hopefully the most extreme can be pulled somewhere into the middle.

SOB


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> The vetinarian would of course be the first person I'd turn to in such a situation. If he didn't know what it was, he would probably have the resources to find out. In this day and age, it is also possible to do one's own research and reach out over the Internet and stuff to find out more -- after seeing the vet, of course.


And how would you, who had to borrow money to buy him, pay thousands of dollars to fix said genetic problems, or any other problems.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DogsRCool said:


> Honestly, what I get from you is that you feel that anyone who doesn't share you point of view is evil, essentially. You don't seem to even acknowledge that any other perspectives can be well-intentioned. Even though I have strong feelings on the issue, at least I will acknowledge that other people have the right to do things differently than I did when buying or selling a dog, and that they may mean well. It'd be nice if you'd extend the rest of us the same benefit of a doubt.


no..that's not true. you're just not listening. well intentioned doesnt mean ANYTHING when you choose to be deliberately ignorant. 




> You know, I think that's really uncalled for. You want to blame breeders and puppy buyers for all the animals that are put down, as though they are the sole cause of that. They really aren't, though. I could just as easily turn it around and say "Well, if these kill shelters let people adopt more easily, not as many animals would have to be put down.". These issues are more complicated than you make them out to be.


go spend a few years doing rescue work..then come back and tell me that with a straight face.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I could just as easily turn it around and say "Well, if these kill shelters let people adopt more easily, not as many animals would have to be put down.". These issues are more complicated than you make them out to be.


Get over yourself and neuter the dog. That's the only requirement kill shelters have. Stop acting like a child and ignoring the things people have been telling you.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> I'm curious DogsRCool, as I tend to be viciously independently minded and resent control over anything I own as well, by anyone else, (libertarian to extreme sometimes) where would the fine line be for you between someone overstepping your boundaries? Do you recognize the emotional vested interest the breeder has in knowing what happens with the pups they nurtured and sold, or do you think of pups sold on more like merchandise - out the door and gone?
> 
> I believe that people who consider pups as merchandise tend to purchase from those that think the same way (please don't read judgement into that, it is an 'it is what it is' statement.)


My dog means a lot to me in a subjective sense. He is quickly becoming my best friend, and in many ways is a like a son to me. My childhood pet was my best friend. I actually get along with dogs better than people a lot of the time. That's the subjective emotional part of it. When I look at things more logically and objectively, though, I have to acknowledge that dogs aren't quite as important as human beings. At the same time, logically and objectively, they are more important than a non-living thing. So, there's sort of a middle ground there -- not quite human, not quite a thing. They're their own category -- I would say dogs are both possessions *and* family members, in a sense.

I could see why some breeders would have an emotional attachment to their puppies and want certain guarantees and such. At the same time, I could see why some breeders would be willing to move them out and focus on their own family pets and whatever puppies they might keep. I don't think either category of breeder is a bad person, I see both sides of it. At the same time, I can see why some dog owners might like having a breeder who is involved and where each make certain guarantees to each other, and I can see why some people would feel like it was very important than they have the ultimate say in their dog and that it be a member of their family first and foremost.

I don't mean to imply that people can't set conditions for the sales of their puppies, or that owners can't seek breeders that require those sorts of things. That's not what I'm saying. If people want to do that, it's fine with me -- not something I can personally identify with very closely, but it's a free country and it's good that people have the choice to do what they prefer. I wish more people would acknowledge that it's alright for folks like me to make a different choice, though -- and that there are perfectly good dog owners who feel strongly about the need to have the ultimate say in their pet's lives, and that this can be motivated by love and a desire that the pet be raised in the way they think is best for the pet and not because a contract says they have to do "x, y, or z". And that, similarly, some breeders may have a good intentions in allowing their buyers that sort of freedom to choose.



tskoffina said:


> And how would you, who had to borrow money to buy him, pay thousands of dollars to fix said genetic problems, or any other problems.


I'd do my best to raise the money, borrow the money, or set up a payment plan. I might even have to look into other vets who'd consider doing it on a payment plan or more cheaply if my vet wouldn't. In the end, I couldn't be as sure that I could do it as someone who makes more money could, of course, but I'd make my best effort. If there was no way to do any of that, I'd look for ways to mitigate the problem a little, help relieve the dog's pain and treat his symptoms. In the end, if there was really no way to do any of that and he was in such pain that he couldn't do what he needed to have a reasonable quality of life, then and only then, would I give some consideration to having him put down if the vet thought it was best, though that would only be an absolute last resort.

Now, I know, some people will say that makes me unfit as a dog owner, but the fact of the matter is that even dog owners who can afford thouands of dollars worth of treatment a lot of times won't pay it, or will at least hesitate. In my case, I'll do the best I can to find a way. In both cases, there are some things that aren't quite optimal, but I don't see it as a real bar to dog ownership. I think sometimes we have to acknowledge that not everyone is going to take their 10 year old dog to chemo for thousands of dollars so it can live an extra year or two, and that doesn't make them bad people. In many cases, they've given the dogs a long almost full and very happy life, much happier than what many dog owners do, and much longer than they'd have as wolf-like scavengers or whatever dogs were before they were domesticated.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

have you ever seen a euthanasia?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5PPlBGtrUk. do you know anything about the numbers? do you know what a drain this is on resources? breeders who just let dogs go..they are a direct cause of this. kill shelters cost relatively little to get a dog from. they cost the dog everything to drop them off at. rescues can only pick up a select few of the STAGGERING amounts of animals brought in. you really do disgust me if you cant see that this is a problem.

by getting a shelter or rescue dog or buying from an ETHICAL breeder...you dont add to this...you help make it stop. by encouraging money breeders..you sentance dogs to die.

(warning: video depicts euthanasia..both gas chamber and injection variety)


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

tskoffina said:


> Stop acting like a child and ignoring the things people have been telling you.


Another post from someone else called me deliberately ignorant. Maybe I am listening and have tried to inform myself, and just have a different point of view. That happens sometimes. Good people can both listen to each other, review the same information, and have different opinions. That's why most countries have several political parties, and the world has lots of different religions, some people prefer beer to wine or vice-versa, and so on and so forth. I don't know why we can't all respect each other's opinions and celebrate that we all have free will and the ability to choose for ourselves.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

> I wish more people would acknowledge that it's alright for folks like me to make a different choice, though -- and that there are perfectly good dog owners who feel strongly about the need to have the ultimate say in their pet's lives, and that this can be motivated by love and a desire that the pet be raised in the way they think is best for the pet and not because a contract says they have to do "x, y, or z". And that, similarly, some breeders may have a good intentions in allowing their buyers that sort of freedom to choose.


This is why I've been interested in the thread myself. Not politically correct with many, but I do know breeders that offer more freedom in their contracts than others and buyers who want more freedom. As we do live in a free society, no matter what other's convictions might be, these breeders and buyers are going to find each other.

I, like you, don't see this as such a terrible thing but more of just an 'how it is' thing(and I have volunteered in rescue for a great many years) but that comes from my libertarian leanings and the fact that I live in an area where the shelter system has had great success by NOT blaming just breeders and buyers for euthanasias (they have looked inward too). I also feel the culture of dog ownership here (Alberta, Canada) tends to be a bit different than in places like the Southern USA and the puppymill states. Others feel more strongly, as you have read, but I'm sure its cuz their experiences are very different.

I'm sure you would agree that all that are posting truly are posting because they love dogs and want to see things better than they are for a lot of dogs - how to make them that way would be where the disagreements happen. I've never considered solutions to be as simple as breeder/buyer. There are many more facets and that does include the culture of dog ownership and a communities willingness to fund and work with their shelter (and vice-versa) to improve things.

SOB


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogsRCool said:


> My dog means a lot to me in a subjective sense. He is quickly becoming my best friend, and in many ways is a like a son to me. My childhood pet was my best friend. I actually get along with dogs better than people a lot of the time. That's the subjective emotional part of it. When I look at things more logically and objectively, though, I have to acknowledge that dogs aren't quite as important as human beings. At the same time, logically and objectively, they are more important than a non-living thing. So, there's sort of a middle ground there -- not quite human, not quite a thing. They're their own category -- I would say dogs are both possessions *and* family members, in a sense.
> 
> I could see why some breeders would have an emotional attachment to their puppies and want certain guarantees and such. At the same time, I could see why some breeders would be willing to move them out and focus on their own family pets and whatever puppies they might keep. I don't think either category of breeder is a bad person, I see both sides of it. At the same time, I can see why some dog owners might like having a breeder who is involved and where each make certain guarantees to each other, and I can see why some people would feel like it was very important than they have the ultimate say in their dog and that it be a member of their family first and foremost.
> 
> I don't mean to imply that people can't set conditions for the sales of their puppies, or that owners can't seek breeders that require those sorts of things. That's not what I'm saying. If people want to do that, it's fine with me -- not something I can personally identify with very closely, but it's a free country and it's good that people have the choice to do what they prefer. I wish more people would acknowledge that it's alright for folks like me to make a different choice, though -- and that there are perfectly good dog owners who feel strongly about the need to have the ultimate say in their pet's lives, and that this can be motivated by love and a desire that the pet be raised in the way they think is best for the pet and not because a contract says they have to do "x, y, or z". And that, similarly, some breeders may have a good intentions in allowing their buyers that sort of freedom to choose.


Intentions don't really matter here. It's a fact that dogs in shelters are put down in alarming numbers in this country. How can you be a 'good intentioned' or 'caring' breeder without at least TRYING to safeguard your pups from that fate?

You can't. 

I have gotten a dog from a breeder like yours before. Were they evil people? No, they really liked their two dogs. Was my dog a sickly, horrible mess? No, she was wonderful for her 13 years. Did the breeders do right by their puppies? Absolutely not! I have no idea what happened to her siblings. Neither do they. We could have done ANYTHING with her we wanted. All we did was walk up, pay for her and take her home (at 5 weeks old nonetheless). We never heard from them again. Nothing was there to deter someone from dumping their dog or breeding it repeatedly. A breeder who is really in it for the DOGS is going to do every little thing they can to insure that each and every single pup they produced is taken care of. To do less is unethical. Period.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> This is why I've been interested in the thread myself. Not politically correct with many, but I do know breeders that offer more freedom in their contracts than others and buyers who want more freedom. As we do live in a free society, no matter what other's convictions might be, these breeders and buyers are going to find each other.
> 
> I, like you, don't see this as such a terrible thing (and I have volunteered in rescue for a great many years) but that comes from my libertarian leanings. Others feel more strongly, as you have read.
> 
> SOB


im liberal as hell..i dont believe in overlegislating...but i do believe in expressing it. DogRCool has demonstrated to me that he is in full support of unethical breeding practices. i dont begrudge him the right to his opinion...but i am disgusted by his ignorance and the fact that people like me have to clean up the messes that people who want want want now now now all mine...make.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> But you get upset when people get dogs without contracts. I don't quite see how that fits together. On the one hand, you say "Well, you chose to sign a contract and didn't have to, so you've gotta abide by it", but on the other hand you imply that it is somehow morally outrageous not to sign a contract. It's sort of having it both ways, isn't it?
> 
> I can actually agree with you when you imply that people should look at what they sign and abide by whatever terms they agree to. That's a big part of why I DIDN'T sign a contract. I wanted the freedom not to play by someone else's rules and do what I think is best for my own pet, not what someone I paid to get the pet from thinks. Once I pay them the money, it's my pet, otherwise why would I be paying them in the first place?


This is the personal value issue I was talking about earlier in this thread. Dogs to some are just objects that were bought like you would say, a toaster. The toaster comes with instructions but you don't have to use them so you aren't being dictated to or controlled. 
To me a dog I purchase isn't an object. It's a living breathing life. 
Using the toaster again... In some area somewhere there may be someone whom doesn't know how to use a toaster. If the toaster comes with zero directions how do they learn to use it? Many people purchase a dog and don't know how to 'use' it properly. A breeder whom will support this person through all of the dogs life and teach them about every aspect is likely to keep that dog in that home. These people are given directions. The person that doesn't know how to utilize that toaster may throw it aside because they have know idea how to use it. 
Just because you and I know how to do something doesn't mean the next person does. Just because you know how to care for a dog and what to expect doesn't mean another does. These regulations and guidelines are in place for a very GOOD reason.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> im liberal as hell..i dont believe in overlegislating...but i do believe in expressing it. *DogRCool has demonstrated to me that he is in full support of unethical breeding practices.* i dont begrudge him the right to his opinion...but i am disgusted by his ignorance and the fact that people like me have to clean up the messes that people who want want want now now now all mine...make.


We're having a conversation on two different planes here Zim. I am looking at DRCs posts and reading what I know many think . . . . therefore trying to take from them a place to start in figuring out where the disconnect is in getting people to support emotionally invested breeders and trying to figure out if there ever can be a great change. Give me just an inch . . . 

I have no interest in calling someone out over their choices at this point in the thread as it just serves no purpose . . . . minds are pretty much locked up all the way around here.

As I said, I believe it is more an 'it is what it is' problem, and it isn't going to change. There are a huge number of people out there that are totally OK with supporting breeders others would call unethical. Ethics simple cannot be legislated and as we all think differently what is right by one cannot be forced on others about most things. Since that is the case, then it should be acknowledged, and worked on but also worked around.

This IS what our SPCAs did when they decided to look inward instead of constantly focusing on the breeders/buyers as the reason for euthanasias. They took in what are realities about what they are facing, and tried to change the other things that they could. They acknowledged that there will always be less than responsible buyers/breeders that match each other, that their shelters would therefore never be empty, but it was within their power to push for more funding, push media into promoting shelter dogs, create educational programs that teachers in elementary schools could use in their health and SS curriculums . . . Calgary had an admin that turned toward promoting dog licensing as a benefit and a plus, and had great success and that has been sustained for a decade. For other communities it will be different.

SOB


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> But, at least for me personally, given all the time, money, effort, and emotion that goes into having a dog, it's important that there be a clear delinination that it is in fact my dog and I can raise him how I think is right


So you don't think that the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of research, and years and years and years of learning a good breeder has done are worth anything? That they don't have a vested interest in the dogs they produce?

You are sadly mistaken.

If Mirada turns out and is of breeding quality, I will have been "in" my breed (German Shepherds) for 11-13 YEARS. I do a lot of reading, and pedigree research and studying. Sometime I like the look of a specific dog, but he may not be right for the bitch I have, but the lines are good, so I look for something more suitable. I do a lot of digging, and searching, and learning, and studying to make sure things get done properly.

I will not be controlling every little thing in regards to the puppies I produce, but I certainly am not just going to hand them over to the first person with cash in hand either! The very idea that the dog isn't mine after it is sold is RIDICULOUS! It certainly is (and you know darn well and good what I mean)! My blood sweat and tears will be in those puppies! Over a DECADE of hard work, and waiting, wishing, and wanting will be in those puppies!

YOU didn't spend the time and money showing, health testing, raising, and caring for the bitch and puppies! YOU didn't do the research! I did! YOU didn't whelp the litter! YOU don't know their personalities! *I* did and *I* do, and I'll be damned if I would just let a person swoop in and pick whatever puppy they wanted after knowing it for 8 minutes! I've known it for 8 weeks!

All I see you doing is making excuse after excuse as to why you happily supported (with another person's money in addition to yours) a crappy breeder. It's so YOU can have YOUR way, and it comes down to "Your dog be damned" because the dog is also affected.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I'd look for ways to mitigate the problem a little, help relieve the dog's pain and treat his symptoms. In the end, if there was really no way to do any of that and he was in such pain that he couldn't do what he needed to have a reasonable quality of life, then and only then, would I give some consideration to having him put down if the vet thought it was best, though that would only be an absolute last resort.


We did treat her symptoms. The vet did not recomend putting her to sleep. We did exactly what the vet recommended and avoided as many of the vet visits as possible. We did a lot of treaments at home most wouldn't do, they would go in for. The vet said there wasn't any more we could possibly have done and was amazing. She lived a year and may have lived more, but something pushed her over the edge to liver failure and at that point she was put down, but her life was happy and full 90% of the time with meds. To think a vet would allow monthly payments on med that cost what your dog did each month is crazy, and to not think there could be an illness that one visit alone costs over 1000 is silly. You have no plan and I feel sorry for your dog.



DogsRCool said:


> Another post from someone else called be deliberately ignorant. Maybe I am listening and have tried to inform myself, and just have a different point of view.


You are not listening. I was replying to your shelter comment about restrictions. The animals come to you already fixed usually and even if it's not, get over it. Find me ONE animal control that has ANY OTHER requirement from you that isn't a law the state would require of any pet owner and I will apologize. Humane Societies may have a couple, but you said shelter. AND these Humane Societies DO NOT Euthanise, so no, that isn't why. You REFUSE to listen to anything any one says even when it proves you wrong. You're the type of person who someone says the sky is a pretty blue today and you say no it isn't it's orange, and it doesn't matter what is said, done, showed, or anything else, you will never consider it could actually be blue. You say it's all of us when in fact, it is you, and the fact that you are arrogant in your wrongness, and act like my 6 year old saying you're right and sticking your tongue out. I looked at my contract and all it says is I have to send in the microchip paper withing 48 hours, and let them know if I move, and allow them to check before rehoming OR give her back to them. What is wrong with that?


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

SOB, The 'it is what it is' line of thinking really appalls me. If everyone in the past had used this instead of trying to change things this world would be a crappier place than it is. 
Change is made by educating and fighting for change. No one change a dam* thing by accepting that it just is what it is. Ugh. 
Where do you think the dogs sitting in kill shelters are from? Do you think the majority are from responsible breedings? Or are they from BYBs and Oops litters?

Dogs is happy because he got the dog he wanted. He cares for his dog. This one dog is in a good home but what about the rest of that litter and the litters before and the litters after? Should I be thrilled that he is happy with this 1 dog and just ignore the plight of millions of others bred in the same haphazard, careless way? 
Because he is happy I shouldn't give a rats arse what happens to the others? This is what he wants us to do. Forget about the millions and focus on his one dog because after all thats all that is important to him. And essentially this is what you are saying. 
It's one thing to do it and then realize maybe it was ill advised or you were ignorant to the plight or to not really think about what happened to the other pups from these 'breeders' and then realize that maybe they weren't good breeders. It is another to sit on a high horse, be upset because others don't pat you on the back for a job well done in this case. 
I try my best to educate but there are points when no amount of reasoning and information will ever educate someone because they don't want to know. They want to sit happy in their own little world and ignore the facts. This disgusts me!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> We're having a conversation on two different planes here Zim. I am looking at DRCs posts and reading what I know many think . . . . therefore trying to take from them a place to start in figuring out where the disconnect is in getting people to support emotionally invested breeders and trying to figure out if there ever can be a great change.
> 
> I have no interest in calling someone out over their choices at this point in the thread as it just serves no purpose . . . . minds are pretty much locked up all the way around here.
> 
> ...


i know about Calgary and i have a pretty damn good idea of what's going on elsewhere..

the thing is...breeders who commit unethical breeding practices are a HUGE part of the issue..its UNDENIABLE. because if you churn out litter after litter with no regard to health or temperament..and hand those pups over to whoever the heck decides to take one..then any can and does happen. sure it turns out ok sometimes...but it often does not..and people who breed for money are encouraged by the fact that their puppies sell. and then i have to hold another sweet dog who just needed a little training down while the tech kills him and yeah..that disgusts me. it hurts. i recognize the need for breeders. i dont recognize the need for me to have to be a party to the death of yet another perfectly decent dog. 

so that's one reason this whole thing upsets me.

the other reason is the time, the money, the effort im putting into my own breeding program...a description of it is a few pages back. people who patronize pathetic excuses for breeders..they make a mockery of what people like Xeph and Me are doing to try to fix our breeds..breed out the health and temperament issues through an understanding of how these things develop. who pour blood sweat and tears into their work..and he's calling US control freaks?!?

the problem as i see it goes like this...educate..do not support unethical breeders..strengthen fines and repair AC laws and offer programs and support for lower income families. that is a full assault on the problem. but it starts with people really understanding that it is a problem.

i have to go take a break from this thread and chop up some firewood or something before i fly through the internet and strangle certain people.

ignorance upsets me greatly.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

To the best of my knowledge, out of 9-10 puppies in his litter, Strauss is the only one left. The majority, if not all, were put down for temperament and health issues.

I don't know how my boy lucked out, but he did.

His "breeder" now breeds Cocker Spaniels.


----------



## spanielorbust (Jan 3, 2009)

MooMoosMommy said:


> SOB, The 'it is what it is' line of thinking really appalls me. If everyone in the past had used this instead of trying to change things this world would be a crappier place than it is. !


If that is all that you took in let me tell you that you missed/skipped over this part of my post following that statement.

"Since that is the case, then it should be acknowledged, *and worked on* but also worked around."

Both working ON the problem and working around it are important. My point is often too much concentration is ON it, and not on working AROUND it because it cannot be changed quickly and for some it will never be changed.

SOB


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

spanielorbust said:


> We're having a conversation on two different planes here Zim. I am looking at DRCs posts and reading what I know many think . . . . therefore trying to take from them a place to start in figuring out where the disconnect is in getting people to support emotionally invested breeders and trying to figure out if there ever can be a great change. Give me just an inch . . .


Good luck.

It takes a lot to change the behavior and thinking even a dog, much less a human.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

DogsRCool said:


> Another post from someone else called me deliberately ignorant. Maybe I am listening and have tried to inform myself, and just have a different point of view. That happens sometimes. Good people can both listen to each other, review the same information, and have different opinions. That's why most countries have several political parties, and the world has lots of different religions, some people prefer beer to wine or vice-versa, and so on and so forth. I don't know why we can't all respect each other's opinions and celebrate that we all have free will and the ability to choose for ourselves.


You are purposefully shutting your eyes to how your actions affect other human beings and dogs. 

You bought a dog from someone that would take your money and give you the dog. You say this is a good situation, because "I know I'm going to raise him right."

But the breeder doesn't. You've said yourself that ability to pay does not make a good dog owner. How can a breeder ethically let something they have produced go into a situation that they know nothing about? It is directly contributing to the shelter problem because there's no safety net. Contracts are not about limiting dog owners, they're not about the breeder keeping a grip on the dog's tail for the rest of his life, they're saying, "If something happens, I am here for you." It's about responsibility. 

It's not about whether you personally can give your dog a good home, I think this thread is a little past your ability as a dog owner. It's about how your actions affect the ability of other dogs to find and live in good homes. A lot of people get a dog and dump him in the shelter before he's two. Type in any area code in Petfinder and you'll find that most of the dogs range from six months to two years. By and large, these aren't bad dogs, most don't have any gross behavior problems. They might not be housetrained, or they might bark or jump on visitors, but that's because they're dogs and no one took the time to teach them skills to live with humans. People get in over their heads and bail out. Most of these dogs come from an owner who sold their dog's puppies without screening buyers or a contract of any sort. Purebred, designer, or accident, they were a business transaction. With one sentence: If something happens, the dog comes back to me, a good portion of the shelter population disappears. You ARE supporting that shelter population by buying a puppy from a breeder who does not keep track of their puppies. Breeders who don't show and health test are the ones making money on litters! They get a profit, and it encourages them to do it again. I'm not against breeders making a profit. I AM against them directly putting dogs in shelters because they aren't taking responsibility for lives they brought into existence.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

Laurelin said:


> How can you be a 'good intentioned' or 'caring' breeder without at least TRYING to safeguard your pups from that fate?


I think some of these breeders are of the opinion that no amount of safeguards can ensure that a pet will have a good safe home, but that some of these measures can something prevent a dog from going to a loving home that just doesn't quite meet some of the arbitrary criteria that might be in place. They are choosing to error on the side of placing more dogs in loving homes and giving people a chance to own pets who might make great owners but might not look super-great on the surface of things. I think that's a legitimate way to approach things. I'm thankful that such people exist, and I think my dog probably is glad he's with me rather than with someone who's more of a people person and has more money, but won't devote nearly the time or the love to him that I do.



MooMoosMommy said:


> This is the personal value issue I was talking about earlier in this thread. Dogs to some are just objects that were bought like you would say, a toaster. The toaster comes with instructions but you don't have to use them so you aren't being dictated to or controlled.
> To me a dog I purchase isn't an object. It's a living breathing life.
> Using the toaster again... In some area somewhere there may be someone whom doesn't know how to use a toaster. If the toaster comes with zero directions how do they learn to use it? Many people purchase a dog and don't know how to 'use' it properly. A breeder whom will support this person through all of the dogs life and teach them about every aspect is likely to keep that dog in that home. These people are given directions. The person that doesn't know how to utilize that toaster may throw it aside because they have know idea how to use it.
> Just because you and I know how to do something doesn't mean the next person does. Just because you know how to care for a dog and what to expect doesn't mean another does. These regulations and guidelines are in place for a very GOOD reason.


I've said it before in the thread, and I'll say it again. I think dogs probably lay somewhere in between being like human beings and inanimate thing. They have some rights, but not all the rights a person has. Subjectively, I love my dog more than most people, but that doesn't make him intrinsically more important than them, he is just more important to me. Now, I know some folks will say that I don't really believe what I type, but I don't know what would make you assume I'm a lair from a little interaction on a message forum. I know some people will say that dogs are absolutely on par with humans, but that's not a mainstream view -- they have the right to their opinion, but there is a broad concensus among even pet owners that dogs are at least a slightly different category.

And, by the way, if I had a child, I wouldn't want to sign a contract that forced me to raise him or her a certain way either, and I don't think many parents would. They feel they have a right to raise their children the way they were raised or how they think is best, within reason. And they do. So it's not just an issue of how important a dog is relative to a human, it's a more basic issue of free will, self-determination, and just basic freedom.



Xeph said:


> So you don't think that the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hours of research, and years and years and years of learning a good breeder has done are worth anything? That they don't have a vested interest in the dogs they produce?


I do think that time put in is worth something, and I emphasize with people who have an emotional attachment to the puppies they breed, I think I would have a similar attachment. Having said that, though, the only way to really keep a dog in the family is to keep the dog, or maybe to give it away to family or friends who you'll come into contact with often (Though even that isn't a sure thing, because sometimes people have fallings out with each other). When one sells a dog, for better or for worse, it is getting a new family.

When breeders charge big bucks for a puppy, that is what the money is for -- the time and money and energy the breeders invested in it. You can't have it both ways by saying "I deserve reimbursement for my time and energy" while also saying "I'm going to charge big money, but the $1,000 or whatever you're paying me doesn't count". If what one expects for one's time and trouble is pictures and to stay in the dog's life and to dictate what one is feeding it and so on and so forth, and one isn't willing to actually just keep the dog, then that to me is the reimbursement for the time and trouble -- someone taking care of it on your behalf. If you charge money, though, that's the reimbursement.

Now, people are welcome to charge money and impose conditions if they want, it's a free country -- just don't expect me to adopt your dog, and don't complain about me adopting from someone else.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> Now, I know some folks will say that I don't really believe what I type, but I don't know what would make you assume I'm a lair from a little interaction on a message forum.


I don't think you are a liar, I just think you're ingrorant as I explained in my post on the page before this at the end of the page.



DogsRCool said:


> And, by the way, if I had a child, I wouldn't want to sign a contract that forced me to raise him or her a certain way either, and I don't think many parents would. They feel they have a right to raise their children the way they were raised or how they think is best, within reason. And they do. So it's not just an issue of how important a dog is relative to a human, it's a more basic issue of free will, self-determination, and just basic freedom.


If YOU had a child you would not be able to raise it as you want necessarily. If you weren't with the mother you would have a court telling you, and if you adopted a baby you would also have a contract. My adoption contact stipulated that if something happened to my parents and their first choice to raise me couldn't I would be sent back to my birth family to be raised and they didn't even know each other, it was a closed adoption. You really need to get over yourself.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

by having a child in this country you agree to raise him/her with certain restrictions by default. your arguments are spurious. your refusal to acknowledge fact is ridiculous and the fact that you dont acknowledge reality is disgusting. you act like your actions dont have ramifications on others. that's disgusting. 

either that or you're a poe.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> Now, people are welcome to charge money and impose conditions if they want, it's a free country -- just don't expect me to adopt your dog, and don't complain about me adopting from someone else.


I can complain about you not adopting because your reasons are ridiculous. As I stated before, you are ignorant because you choose to ignore the fact that you don't have to agree to anything other than laws you would have to follow anyway if you adopted from Animal Control. They just want them out before they have to waste money to kill them. You didn't adopt from someone else you fueled the system by buying from someone who probably shouldn't be breeding and being part of the problem instead of the solution.


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

tskoffina said:


> You are not listening. I was replying to your shelter comment about restrictions. The animals come to you already fixed usually and even if it's not, get over it.


I don't have to, so I won't.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against neutering and am leaning towards neutering my puppy when the time comes. So, it's not really about that. It's about me having the freedom to make that choice and really weigh the options and make what I feel is the best decision for my pet. Even if I come to the same conclusion, it's important that I had the opportunity to go through the process.

If the dog has already been neutered, that's a different story, of course. One can't change the past. It's just that from the time a dog comes home with me, it's important to me that I have the freedom to make sure I do what I feel is best for him.



> I looked at my contract and all it says is I have to send in the microchip paper withing 48 hours, and let them know if I move, and allow them to check before rehoming OR give her back to them. What is wrong with that?


If you're fine with it, it's fine with me that you agreed to that stuff. I do think that as a pet owner I should have the freedom not to agree to that stuff, and I do have that freedom, so I didn't agree to it. I already talked about why it was important to me to have the freedom to decide to house my pet with relatives or friends if something happened to me, so I won't go into that here. I probably would be alright with microchipping, I might even microchip my dog eventually, but I do like having the decision. Having the ability to make choices is important to me. If it's not important to you, or your choice is to let someone else decide, I'm actually totally fine with that -- just don't try to force your viewpoint on me by making me go the same route. What's best for you and what's best for me may be two totally different things.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> just don't expect me to adopt your dog, and don't complain about me adopting from someone else.


More like, don't expect people to sell you a dog....

I can't stipulate everything a buyer does, but I sure as heck don't want a dog of mine going to a home where they're going to be tied in a yard and fed Ol' Roy >.<

Personally, I don't really even like the word "adopt" when it comes to dogs. No matter where it comes from....you're buying a dog.

But that's me.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogsRCool said:


> I don't have to, so I won't.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am not against neutering and am leaning towards neutering my puppy when the time comes. So, it's not really about that. It's about me having the freedom to make that choice and really weigh the options and make what I feel is the best decision for my pet. Even if I come to the same conclusion, it's important that I had the opportunity to go through the process.
> 
> ...


 
What you're NOT seeing is that it's not about taking your freedom as an owner away, it's about the breeder taking responsibility for what they are producing. Buy having puppy buyers be required to reurn the dog to the breeder they are insuring that their litters DO NOT contribute to the shelter overpopulation problem. By Having those puppy buyers that are not showing/ or working their pups to 'prove' breed worthiness spay/nueter they are insuring their breed is improved by preventing substandard dogs from procreating and those potential pups will again not end up in the shelters. By having a microchip registered in the breeders name they can be sure if the dog gets lost or stolen the dog will get back to them and the owner if found.

Your dog may have been lucky enough to end up in good hands, what about his siblings and the other dogs the breeder may produce? If the breeder isn't taking measures to make sure her pups don't end up in the shelters or producing more pups that could end up in shelter they are, in fact makiing the problem worse. I'll take a breeder that requires me to return the dog to them if I can't keep it FOR ANY REASON and has a spay/nueter (limited registration) clause over a breeder that doesn't because I know that breeder is being responsible for what they produce.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> I am not against neutering and am leaning towards neutering my puppy when the time comes. So, it's not really about that. It's about me having the freedom to make that choice and really weigh the options and make what I feel is the best decision for my pet. Even if I come to the same conclusion, it's important that I had the opportunity to go through the process.
> 
> If the dog has already been neutered, that's a different story, of course. One can't change the past. It's just that from the time a dog comes home with me, it's important to me that I have the freedom to make sure I do what I feel is best for him.
> 
> ...


Again, you are just being pigheaded about it. I said what happened with my dog. You could have chosen a shelter but chose instead to encourage more BYB and contributing to the problem.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Your dog may have been lucky enough to end up in good hands, what about his siblings and the other dogs the breeder may produce?


But they aren't HIS dogs, Carla, so who cares?


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

cshellenberger said:


> Your dog may have been lucky enough to end up in good hands, what about his siblings and the other dogs the breeder may produce?


I doubt his will end up any better off. The first time his dog gets really sick it'll be in the shelter when he finds out what it costs to put the dog to sleep, and / or the vet refuses to because it's not sick enough, he just can't pay the bill, *OR* he'll find a crappy vet who'll put him to sleep anyway.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Which is why I said 'may have been'. Seems he's trying to bait you guys though.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Which is why I said 'may have been'. Seems he's trying to bait you guys though.


I was being moderately facetious xD


----------



## DogsRCool (Jul 13, 2010)

I've had enough of this.

Some folks here have been nice and constructively disagreed, and that's fine and all part of a web forum. I have no problems with those people.

Some other folks have been really mean-spirited and name-called and told me I was fit to be a dog owner and so forth. I think those folks need to get a life and learn how to live and let live a little, and remember that humans are a type of animal, too, and also deserve some respect and consideration, even the ones who aren't "special" enough to agree with everything you say. 

I also think it's worth remembering that in the long-run, much as we love our dogs and are attached to them a lot, and as much as they deserve good care and respect, that ultimately they exist for us more than we exist for them, and that it's not an absolute horror if a dog who is a loving part of a family for many years can't get chemo towards the end if the owner moves heaven and earth and can't manage it. If not for human beings, dogs would have short brutal lives as wolves running around in a forest somewhere with no shelter and an inconsistent food supply. We've improved their lives, and they do mostly live good lives with us -- full of climate controlled environments, good food, good exercise, good companionship, good health care, and without some of the pitfalls of living in the wild like the risk of being eaten by a bear or freezing or starving to death. Some perspective is important.

I've spent a lot of time arguing and going back and forth with people, and it's not a constructive use of my time, and it isn't exactly helping my mood either. Honestly, I'd rather play with my dog -- I strongly prefer the occasional bite to constant heavy criticism.  He's doing great, by the way, we took a nice long walk last night, and I sat on the floor and played with him for a long time, and he's getting a lot of food and water and has toys to play with, and got to see a vet and get all his vaccines a couple weeks ago, and he's had a grand old time romping with the neighbor's dogs and getting petted and visiting family and such. I know to some people, I'm the devil incarnate, but I sure do sacrifice for my pet and give up things I want to do or buy so that he has a good life. If hell were as good for humans as my place is for my dog, I don't think people would fear winding up there so much. 

Anyhow, I think I'm through with this thread, at least for now.

Have fun all agreeing with each other and trashing people you think you're better then, and lamenting how we awful people are such a waste of space and just for some strange reason don't want to hang out here with people who call us names and insult us.

By the way, is there any rule against calling people assholes or telling them to go **** themselves? Just wondering.  A lot of the stuff on this thread has really affirmed why I like dogs so much -- not because I emphasize with my fellow dog owners, but because they are demonstrating to me once again how human beings can be real jerks sometimes, and that makes the dogs look pretty good by comparison.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> and that it's not an absolute horror if a dog who is a loving part of a family for many years can't get chemo towards the end if the owner moves heaven and earth and can't manage it.


What about if they just eat something or have a stomach thing and they need a visit, hospitalization and xrays? 800-1000. Put it to sleep instead. Enjoy.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Yeah, in summation, we're the jerks. Since the emoticons are a bit sketch: EYE ROLL.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

> I think some of these breeders are of the opinion that no amount of safeguards can ensure that a pet will have a good safe home, but that some of these measures can something prevent a dog from going to a loving home that just doesn't quite meet some of the arbitrary criteria that might be in place. They are choosing to error on the side of placing more dogs in loving homes and giving people a chance to own pets who might make great owners but might not look super-great on the surface of things. I think that's a legitimate way to approach things. I'm thankful that such people exist, and I think my dog probably is glad he's with me rather than with someone who's more of a people person and has more money, but won't devote nearly the time or the love to him that I do.


You're giving people too much credit imo. I don't look like a very good owner on paper to be honest. I am a student renter. Enuff said for many people. However I have had no problem getting dogs. Why? Because I spent time to TALK to the breeder and explain myself and my situation. I showed them I was capable of taking care of dogs in this situation and ensured them I had thought through everything. Neither of my breeders had arbitrary requirements I must fit! They did have rules about whether or not the dog was neutered and what happened to the dog if I could no longer care for it. These are there for the dog's sake.

The breeders you are talking about either don't care or don't know better. There is NO way that they are " choosing to error on the side of placing more dogs in loving homes " when they know NOTHING about the home. How can you know the home will be a loving one if you know nothing about them? I realize people lie but it's really not worth it to most people to go through a good breeder's questions and lie. In your mind it seems that people that don't want to be questioned and don't have as much money always equals someone more loving and more appropriate to own a dog. This is laughable. 

If a breeder cares for the dogs they're producing then they will care where they place those dogs. They will do what is necessary to best assure their dogs end up taken care of for life.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Yeah, in summation, we're the jerks. Since the emoticons are a bit sketch: EYE ROLL.


Lol Yup. It's everyone else who has the problem, not him.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Good Riddance to bad rubbish. 
Some people just don't care and apparently never will. As long as you are happy with your one dog and YOU have ALL the control what do you care about the rest of the dogs? Yeah and I'm a jerk because you don't care about anyone but yourself and your dog! I'd call you names back but I don't think they're allowed on this forum. 

Oh and as far as the rehoming fee goes I agree that it is to deter bunchers (supposedly) but mostly its to recoup money. Lol.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

It's "cognizant", not "cogniscent", so now I know that your faux-intellectualism has fallen completely apart.

"I could just as easily turn it around and say "Well, if these kill shelters let people adopt more easily, not as many animals would have to be put down.". "

And you would be lying your ass off, because *WE HAVE TOLD YOU THAT THIS IS NOT THE WAY KILL SHELTERS WORK*. ANY JOE CAN GO INTO A "KILL SHELTER" AND ADOPT A DOG, USUALLY AT A LOW, LOW PRICE ($5, $10 w/o neutering costs, usually $50-80 tacked on for adoption + neutering). But you're not listening because you're a remorseless asshat who wants to politicize everything and make this about Big Government or Big Brother stepping on your neck when You Just Want to Be You.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

*sings* Don't bring me down! No, no, no, no, no! I'll tell you once more, before I get off the floor, don't bring me down!


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

DogsRCool said:


> My dog means a lot to me in a subjective sense. He is quickly becoming my best friend, and in many ways is a like a son to me. My childhood pet was my best friend. I actually get along with dogs better than people a lot of the time. That's the subjective emotional part of it. When I look at things more logically and objectively, though, I have to acknowledge that dogs aren't quite as important as human beings. At the same time, logically and objectively, they are more important than a non-living thing. So, there's sort of a middle ground there -- not quite human, not quite a thing. They're their own category -- I would say dogs are both possessions *and* family members, in a sense.
> 
> I'd do my best to raise the money, borrow the money, or set up a payment plan. I might even have to look into other vets who'd consider doing it on a payment plan or more cheaply if my vet wouldn't. In the end, I couldn't be as sure that I could do it as someone who makes more money could, of course, but I'd make my best effort. If there was no way to do any of that, I'd look for ways to mitigate the problem a little, help relieve the dog's pain and treat his symptoms. In the end, if there was really no way to do any of that and he was in such pain that he couldn't do what he needed to have a reasonable quality of life, then and only then, would I give some consideration to having him put down if the vet thought it was best, though that would only be an absolute last resort.
> 
> Now, I know, some people will say that makes me unfit as a dog owner, but the fact of the matter is that even dog owners who can afford thouands of dollars worth of treatment a lot of times won't pay it, or will at least hesitate. In my case, I'll do the best I can to find a way. In both cases, there are some things that aren't quite optimal, but I don't see it as a real bar to dog ownership. I think sometimes we have to acknowledge that not everyone is going to take their 10 year old dog to chemo for thousands of dollars so it can live an extra year or two, and that doesn't make them bad people. In many cases, they've given the dogs a long almost full and very happy life, much happier than what many dog owners do, and much longer than they'd have as wolf-like scavengers or whatever dogs were before they were domesticated.


1) No one here really cares for your anecdotal philosophical b.s. We're talking practicality and common sense.

2) Again, you ignore very pointed questions in favor of rehashing the same old bs.s. philosophical anecdotes.

3) You are VERY IGNORANT and naive about the way the world works if you think it's going to be THAT easy to find a veterinarian who will bend over backwards for you unless you're a family member or you have really, really tight connections. Even with my financial situation in a fixed-income bracket, we STILL have to pay up front. Our cat was only 7 years old when he put us into a nice, whopping $4,000 financial debt (and we're still paying it off). 

4) Selfish is what you are. Selfish and STUPID (almost wrote ignorant, but one can be cured of ignorance...and we have tried to do that with you but you refuse to even learn anything). Whatever situation you are in socially/emotionally is of your own doing, not the Evil Corporate/Governmental World's. YOU have helped facilitate suffering in the world by supporting a backyard breeder. Stick that in your Marxist hat.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Xeph said:


> *sings* Don't bring me down! No, no, no, no, no! I'll tell you once more, before I get off the floor, don't bring me down!


Brrrrruce!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Hahaha! OMG I was just reading about the song the other day, and the "word" is actually "Groooss" xD!!! It does sound like Bruce though...which makes me wanna play neopets.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

What? No way! 

(Dude what's your username I'll neofriend you XP )


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

djaro098, but I only hop on Sporadically. My pets are SUPER old. I remember when it first started and the Bruce was a human with a moustache. He looked like a sleazy waiter, LOL


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

OMG OMG I just logged into my Neopets account for the first time in YEARS the other day!! My pets are now 9 years old! :O I feel so old.. hey PM me you guys' neopets username so I can neofriend you!! HEE HEEEEEE


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

spanielorbust said:


> Ethics simple cannot be legislated and as we all think differently what is right by one cannot be forced on others about most things. Since that is the case, then it should be acknowledged, and worked on but also worked around.
> 
> SOB


Except that ethics are legislated every single day.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Xeph said:


> Hahaha! OMG I was just reading about the song the other day, and the "word" is actually "Groooss" xD!!! It does sound like Bruce though...which makes me wanna play neopets.


Seriously? Darn, I've been singing it wrong all this time.


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

WTH LOL

I logged into Neopets last year and found that a bunch of crap I had in my vault was retired. So I made many thousands of coins on bread alone. I was an early adopter, I think...when the Bruce was still in the form of a gay man (before they changed him into a penguin). I still have the graphic somewhere on my computer.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> when the Bruce was still in the form of a gay man


nono! Sleazy waiter! Sleazy waiter! LOL!

Or a silent movie villain.....



> Seriously? Darn, I've been singing it wrong all this time.


Most people do xD


----------



## JohnHouse (Jun 17, 2010)

LOL, I actually wrote to them after they changed him to the penguin to complain. I liked my gay Bruce! I made a banner for my donut shop that has him in a super duper Pride outfit.  But I guess they figured they'd get in trouble/it's a "kid's game" or something and then they made him in to the super fugly FAT penguin (that was before they redesigned it to what it is now).

I used to make a LOT of money on donuts. And seafood (when they had the underwater area). People were viciously competitive re: shop food back when I was actively playing and you could actually BUY food instead of jumping through hoops to buy food. I should probably log in again to see how my pets are doing....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

They don't die, if that's your concern.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Neopets! I've been playing for (eep) 9.5 years. Aaand that's all I have to add to this thread.


----------



## lucidity (Nov 10, 2009)

Haha, no I just meant holy cow I feel so old! I've added you guys! Cran, PM me your username and I'll add you too  My poor pets are starving hahaha but I'm too lazy to buy food for them.. 

Btw, did any of you guys ever had your accounts hacked?? Cause mine got hacked once.. and the idiot stole all my money!!!


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Nope, never had the issue


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

What the flap is Neopets and how did they get in this thread? lol



Xeph said:


> Personally, I don't really even like the word "adopt" when it comes to dogs. No matter where it comes from....you're buying a dog.


Have to disagree.

My mom didn't have to "buy" Wally. No money was exchanged at all. My mom has been wanting a dog for a long time and her friend got sick of her "breeder" friend mistreating Wally so she asked if my mom would take him (the two met since the friend's son was in her 5th grade class, my mom's a teacher), and when she looked up Coton's and asked about Wally's personality - she brought him (*gasp* home visit lol) and both felt it would work, saw she already had a crate, and Wally is here.

I would call that an adoption. My mom's friend rescued Wally's mom as well and her son got the other dog that's Wally's littermate (both were left behind and neglected because they couldn't be sold)- so she couldn't be bred anymore - basically putting her "breeder" friend out of business.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

Speaking of rehoming fees, how much would you guys pay for Jonas? I got a new pair of shoes that I wore on our walk. We get back, I go take a shower, and he's pooped ON said shoes. So, highest (or lowest) bidder gets him.


----------



## MooMoosMommy (May 23, 2010)

Twab, Awww... Poor wee little Jonas. You and I both know he's priceless to you! And you can't 'sell' him after all this is a 'rehoming' thread. You have to have a 'rehoming fee'.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> Speaking of rehoming fees, how much would you guys pay for Jonas? I got a new pair of shoes that I wore on our walk. We get back, I go take a shower, and he's pooped ON said shoes. So, highest (or lowest) bidder gets him.


You've got four dogs and you still don't keep your shoes in the closet or in a shoe rack?? 

I think we need to rehome your poor accessories! Hehe


----------



## Reiko89 (Jul 2, 2010)

Didn't read all the pages, just the first and last, but I did want to pop in and say my local craigslist has a VERY tight definition of a rehoming fee. 

For dogs, they usually start flagging after 100 or 125 if the dog comes with a LOT of extras.
For cats, there usually isn't an issue because there's rarely anyone rehoming cats for more than 50.
For exotics, the animal by itself can be up to about 125 and with complete supplies or at least LARGE cage, up to 200 is usually accepted.


Any other amount is pretty vociferously flagged off immediately.


----------



## tskoffina (Jul 23, 2010)

Reiko89 said:


> Didn't read all the pages, just the first and last, but I did want to pop in and say my local craigslist has a VERY tight definition of a rehoming fee.


You'd have to read the whole thread to really get it. There was ALOT more to it than that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogsRCool said:


> By the way, is there any rule against calling people assholes or telling them to go **** themselves? Just wondering.  A lot of the stuff on this thread has really affirmed why I like dogs so much -- not because I emphasize with my fellow dog owners, but because they are demonstrating to me once again how human beings can be real jerks sometimes, and that makes the dogs look pretty good by comparison.


 
Actually yes there is, which is why the bann hammer is falling on your face now...


----------

