# Just bred my female



## lovinmylab (Mar 31, 2010)

Hi im new here i have one dog. A female black lab we just had her bred for the first time.. she is currently working in field trails. and her stud is finshed and we are his last litter. any others expecting a litter?


----------



## pandora (Mar 19, 2010)

Can I just ask ..why did you breed her?


----------



## spotted nikes (Feb 7, 2008)

Maybe because there aren't enough black labs in shelters...


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

:-/ you aren't going to find many people here that approve of breeding dogs that are already mass produced...for example there are 462 labs (and lab mixes) that need homes in a 100 mile radius from my area in CA. This is on petfinder.com. 

Not trying to be rude, and you very well might feel like I am, but I am also curious why you decided to breed her.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

well well, all the anti breeders love to jump on the bandwagon, don't they?

Do you people read?

The sire of this litter is a field CH, and the dam of the litter is working on her title.

How does breeding dogs who not only can DO what they were bred for, but are proving it in a controlled trial situation contributing to the load of shelter dogs bred by ignorant fools?

OP: Not expecting a litter anytime soon. My bitch missed her final breeding, and I am not breeding her back. Best of luck with your litter upcoming. When is it due? Hope you post lots of photos.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> well well, all the anti breeders love to jump on the bandwagon, don't they?.


Just as much as the pro-breeders love to jump on band wagons. I guess we are all entitled to our opinions.

OP, as far as you breeding your lab, I really do wish you the best with it.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

If no one breed dogs, guess what happens in about 10 years?

*No dogs.*

There is absolutely NO reason why responsible people should not breed dogs who are typical healthy representatives of their breed.

The above people who attacked this OP with absolutely no justification shows just how far the Animal Rightists have infiltrated our psyche. Now anyone who breeds dogs, no matter how outstanding the stock is, is lumped in with those careless people who cause the shelters to be filled.

People who breed dogs are sneered at by those holier-than-thou individuals who feel that no breeding should happen.

It makes me angry and frustrated to read this stuff.


----------



## infiniti (Mar 19, 2010)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> If no one breed dogs, guess what happens in about 10 years?



Well, this isn't exactly true ... there will always be irresponsible backyard breeders, hapless strays that were never altered that will reproduce on their own. I doubt dogs are going to become endangered anytime within the next few decades. 

However, with that said. While I am completely against backyard breeding, puppy mills and irresponsible "purebred" breeding, I totally understand and support professional champion bloodline breeding such as what you and others like you do, Redyre.

In the original post, as I read it, I noted that the dam and sire were field trial dogs, and was immediately confused by the subsequent posts inquiring as to why she was bred. These obviously will not become shelter dogs.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Nope no litters here. My only bitch is spayed because of bad head cnformation (and I mean BAD she's got a narrow muzzle, and crooked and missing teeth, not good for a cow dog) although her body conformation is near perfection and her gait is to die for not to mention her temperment and instinct and near perfect, But that darn head.

I hope to see pics of your girl and pics of the sire would be great too! I have a friend with field Labradors one of her's is sired by "Five Star General Patton" the other is a granddaugher of Patton.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

> These obviously will not become shelter dogs.


You can't know that, and even if they don't, why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia? 

Champion lines or not, I really don't get it.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

Paula, why should I not pass on the outstanding qualities of my dogs? I have worked for 20+ years to get to where I am. So I should just not breed my beautiful titled health tested correct temperament dogs because other irresponsible people have filled the shelters with who-knows-what?

BALONEY!!!

People should STOP blaming responsible breeders for the mess out there in the shelters, and lay the blame where it belongs: At the feet of the pet breeders and the big commercial breeders who sell to anyone who has cash.

I am so sick of hearing AR anti breeding rhetoric come from the keyboards of so many people who have no clue what they are talking about.


----------



## infiniti (Mar 19, 2010)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> You can't know that, and even if they don't, why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia?
> 
> Champion lines or not, I really don't get it.


Typically, in the professional breeding arena, pups are reserved before the dam is even bred, very often to those in showing and competition who plan to raise their pup to compete.


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> You can't know that, and even if they don't, why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia?
> 
> Champion lines or not, I really don't get it.


 i think those that show and have dogs that are up to standard for the breed and know what they are doing are not the ones who contribute to the dogs ending up in the selters. Its the irresponsible owners who contribute to the dogs in the shelters. 

Most responsible breeders that I know will take back the dogs if the new owners can no longer do so. 

Do not confuse responsible breeders with the back yard breeders and the puppy millers. BYBs and puppy millers dont care where their pups end up. They dont take the time to health test their dogs, or title them or any of the other things that responsible breeders do.


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Paula, why should I not pass on the outstanding qualities of my dogs? I have worked for 20+ years to get to where I am. So I should just not breed my beautiful titled health tested correct temperament dogs because other irresponsible people have filled the shelters with who-knows-what?
> 
> BALONEY!!!
> 
> ...


Red I think you are one of the most responsible breeders I have ever come across.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> You can't know that, and even if they don't, why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia?
> 
> Champion lines or not, I really don't get it.


It's not about champion lines, it's about champion parents. champion lines means zip if the parents arn't titled in something.

Instinct and health and structure are hereditary, most dogs in shelters were bred by ignorant money grubbing people who didn't care about these things. Most shelter dogs make wonderful family pets, but when it comes to performance it takes a much higher toll on the structure of the dog and I for one want to see good structure behind my dog and stand a higher chance that they are not going to break down early.

Also instinct, there are many Labradors in shelters who lack proper instinct for hunting. If you go with a pup from parents who are both hunting dogs who stand a better chance of getting a great hunting partner.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Paula, why should I not pass on the outstanding qualities of my dogs?


I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm asking this out of curiosity. What do you do to help the overpopulation problem? Do you do rescue as well as breed?


----------



## misty073 (Mar 31, 2009)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> Paula, why should I not pass on the outstanding qualities of my dogs? I have worked for 20+ years to get to where I am. So I should just not breed my beautiful titled health tested correct temperament dogs because other irresponsible people have filled the shelters with who-knows-what?
> 
> BALONEY!!!
> 
> ...


While I know nothing about breeding (well I do know it takes a male and female) I agree with you. If the good breeders who do the proper testing and breed to better the breed stopped breeding we would be over come with mutts and designer dogs...I love mutts but eventually no would be able to say what a gorgeous (insert purebred).

And I doubt that if good breeders stopped breeding there would be any less mutts in the shelter (or purebreds) because usually the people wanting the well bred dogs want them for a reason and go to a responsible breeder. The problem lies in the back yard breeders, opps litters and puppy mills. That is where peoples energy on disagreeing with breeding should go, not to those doing it responsibly.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Eris13021 said:


> Its the irresponsible owners who contribute to the dogs in the shelters.


I'd say it's mutual fault. 

I don't have a problem with _truly _responsible dog breeders, but my experience has been that those that really do fall into the category of responsible are few and far between.

I'm not saying anything at all about anyone *here*, just an observation I've made.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

and Paula don't you think the owners of the dogs should be held responcible for ditching them in shelters? Why do you think that the breeders are to blame? The breeders arn't the ones putting dogs in shelters it's the people who buy a dog and then toss them out with the trash that are responcible for sheltr dogs.

and BTW there is no overpopulation problem of dogs in the USA. There are more than enough homes avaliable for the dogs in shelters. It's more of an unwanted dogs problem. How do we make the people who only want a pet go to the shelter where there are many pet quality dogs insted of buying from BYB and pet stores.

Oh and this


> why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia?


was a very general comment directed at anyone who read it.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

I did say I thought it was mutual fault.

Yeah, it's irresponsible owners that dump the dogs, but if it weren't all too easy to get a dog from a breeder in the first place, they might actually put some value on the animal and not dump it when it becomes inconvenient.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with dog breeders that are truly responsible, but they (in my experience) are few and far between.

Personally, I can't justify getting a dog from a breeder (responsible or otherwise) while I know there are so many awesome dogs available in shelters facing the possibility of euthanasia. Call it an overpopulation problem, call it an unwanted dogs problem, there are still millions of dogs euthanized every year and I think that's a shame.



> Oh and this...was a very general comment directed at anyone who read it.


What?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I did say I thought it was mutual fault.
> 
> Yeah, it's irresponsible owners that dump the dogs, but if it weren't all too easy to get a dog from a breeder in the first place, they might actually put some value on the animal and not dump it when it becomes inconvenient.
> 
> ...


Do you do any performance activities with your dogs? If you don't I can understand wholeheartedly why you want shelter dogs, and I think people like you who just want a family friend and companion are perfect places for shelter dogs.

But for people like me it would almost be cruel to take a dog of questionable structure from a shelter and subject it to the activities I do with my dogs. I have seen what can happen to a structurally deficient dog in the elder years after a long life of performance activities, and it's very sad to watch.


----------



## Eris13021 (May 16, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I did say I thought it was mutual fault.
> 
> Yeah, it's irresponsible owners that dump the dogs, *but if it weren't all too easy to get a dog from a breeder in the first place, *they might actually put some value on the animal and not dump it when it becomes inconvenient.
> 
> ...


Its not that easy to get a dog from a responsible breeder. Most have waiting lists for their puppies. And they dont just breed willy nilly they are selective with their breedings.

They are easy to get from bybs and craigslist, freecycle. free ads in the papers...most of the ads on CL are not breeders..those are individual owners rehoming their dogs, same with freecycle. I see tons of BYBs in our local paper and we even have a puppy mill a couple towns over.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Keechak said:


> Do you do any performance activities with your dogs? If you don't I can understand wholeheartedly why you want shelter dogs, and I think people like you who just want a family friend and companion are perfect places for shelter dogs.


"People like me." 
How nicely condescending. 

No, I just want a companion dog, hence the reason it's less important to me to have a purebred and more important to rescue instead. 

I CAN understand that there are people that need dogs bred for certain traits - I really can, and for that reason I don't have any problem with breeders that really do fall into the classification of responsible. 

The problem is that there are a great many people who want THAT type of dog as a family companion and will seek out a breeder to get it while countless others sit in shelters. I hope that makes sense.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Paula, you are not alone in the way you feel, believe me!


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> "People like me."
> How nicely condescending.


It wasn't meant to be condescending, if you noticed I said "people like you" when talking about you and "people like me" when talking about me.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Keechak said:


> It wasn't meant to be condescending, if you noticed I said "people like you" when talking about you and "people like me" when talking about me.


I think you made an edit while I was posting. No worries, really, and I do understand your point. I hope you also understand mine.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I think you made an edit while I was posting. No worries, really, and I do understand your point. I hope you also understand mine.


Yes completely.

Oh and for the record despite the fact that I get my dogs from breeders I also volunteer for a local human society, I walk and train their dogs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> The problem is that there are a great many people who want THAT type of dog as a family companion and will seek out a breeder to get it while countless others sit in shelters. I hope that makes sense.


and its a rare thing for most of the really good breeders i know to sell to a strictly pet home. when i start my program i will not be placing dogs in pet homes. period. now if they wash out of agility or tracking work or whatever and become a pet afterwards, that's fine.

i have nothing against strictly pet dogs but there is no real reason to get one from a breeder IMHO. i am getting into working dogs..i will be getting that dog from a breeder.


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

All I'm going to say on this matter is that most of the people who sounded off directly at the beginning of this post... aren't you the same people that say "if you're going to breed them make sure your dog is health cleared and titled in something"? Well this person is working on his titles on the bitch, the sire is already granded, and obviously these are working field dogs and you STILL jump him. 

To Paula... this is America...land of the free and home of the quick fix... a land of opportunities which means that being in a "free" society we can do as we like. Unfortunately the idiots out number the intelligent here but that's a sad fact of life. I offer a program that is rescue rehab and rehome (which takes long term shelter dogs and rehabs them to make them better for adoption) plus we offer a breeder locator rescue assistance program as well which helps place dogs with people based on their wants and needs etc. Some prefer shelter dogs and don't care about an unknown history where as other RESPONSIBLE first time dog owners want a pure bred puppy from a breeder where everything is known and predictable because they might have kids or allergies or whatever. Sometimes a shelter dog is just NOT an option. I foster, I rescue, and would I breed? Yes IF it was with certified stock and a full wiating list.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Keechak - Out of curiosity, what is it that you do with your dogs? Agility training or something else? (I really am just curious).


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Out of curiosity, what is it that you do with your dogs? Agility training or something else? (I really am just curious).


Agility, tracking, herding, and dog sledding are the performance things we do (i've also touched on flyball but not much) we also do obedience and conformation for non performance stuff.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i have nothing against strictly pet dogs but there is no real reason to get one from a breeder IMHO.


Yes, in my opinion too.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I'm asking this out of curiosity. What do you do to help the overpopulation problem? Do you do rescue as well as breed?


1) I contribute to breed rescue and volunteer for fund raisers often. 

2) I spend an extensive amount of time both in public and on the net offering education to people who need it.

3) I control the reproduction of every puppy I sell.

It is not an overpopulation problem, it is an ignorance problem with the general public regarding responsible breeding. *I am NOT responsible for breeding decisions that other people make.*

I have NEVER had one of my puppies end up in a shelter. My puppies are sold after extensive screening and the notarized signature of a binding legal contract.

Why are people who responsibly place well bred puppies liable for or responsible for the stupidity of those who continue to breed indiscriminately, place puppies with no screening, and only cash as a sales criteria?

It is NOT a crime to breed animals. It is my RIGHT to breed my dogs if I see fit, as it is the right of each person who owns an animal if they choose to do so.

You need to stop preaching to the choir, because breeders like me are NOT part of the problem, we are part of the solution.


----------



## pandora (Mar 19, 2010)

I was the first to ask why..
and I will explain...
I asked because many people simply think they have the right to..
Many people think they can make a fast buck..
and many people just cant be bothered to keep inseason bitches indoors..

I see that this is a champion dog, that does not 100% guarentee that its a healthy one.. See KC in England, pedigree dogs exposed did a lovely programme about sick dog making champ and being breed whilst the owners knew the dog was sick.

Are you going to be as fussy about who the pups go to as you are about the sire? Many people want the good name just so they can get more money...

If you are truely breeding a sound dog a working dog who will fulfill a purpose that cant be filled by any other dog around then fine..
If you truely intend to vet new owners to within an inch of their lives fine..

But is these are just more black labs intended as pets to owners who will get bored after a year then No..Regardless of how impressive their breeding..

and Yes I do think there should be restrictions on breeding on numbers and on quality, plus on the sometimes limited blood lines used within a breed ie a sire could only be used X amount of times and a bitch could only have X litters. This would prevent much of the inbreeding faults seen in some breeds.

Basically when it comes down to it I love dogs and I hate to see them exploited and abused or dumped ... regardless of our standpoint on other things I think everyone of us agrees on that.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

> Some prefer shelter dogs and don't care about an unknown history where as other RESPONSIBLE first time dog owners want a pure bred puppy from a breeder where everything is known and predictable because they might have kids or allergies or whatever.


The problem with that is that not everything can be known and predictable, necessarily, as much as people would like it to be. I also think it's unfair to put a dog that's bred to work into a home where s/he would "only" be a pet and something that contributes to animals being dumped - be it in a shelter or back to the responsible breeder it came from.

I agree with the point that there are more idiots than there intelligent folks. There are also more selfish people than there are responsible people, and in many, many cases, it's the pet that pays the price for that idiocy and self-serving behavior.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Yes, in my opinion too.


you did catch that i am aspiring to be a breeder right? 

i would just ask that before you jump on someone for being a pooch pimp (my new word for BYBs) find out what their practices are unless they are just glaringly obvious they dont know what the heck they are doing like "how long is she supposed to be pregnant?" kinds of questions.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I think what people have to remember here is that there are 2 different choirs here. Or more. Those who are against any breeding, & those who are for responsible breeding (which IS subjective), & those who are in between. 
The first few comments made to this post were basically questions to the OP - first post, who knows - questions were asked.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

Breeding restrictions, limit numbers, requirements for breeding are all tools for the ARists to restrict, reduce, and eventually eliminate breeding.

You assumed that the poster is irresponsible. Most people who take the time to acquire a bitch who can compete at field trials, train her to that level, are actively competing, and send their bitch to a finished dog are, IMO, usually pretty well educated, and are not going to place those well bred puppies in homes where they will be abandoned in a year's time.

My bet is the OP has homes lined up, a good mentor, and knows more than a little about dogs, LRs, breeding, and whelping. Just my take from reading thousands of posts on BBs the last 15 or so years.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RedyreRottweilers said:


> You need to stop preaching to the choir, because breeders like me are NOT part of the problem, we are part of the solution.


I'm sorry that you feel the need to be so defensive. I wasn't even addressing you when I posed my original question and the follow up question was one I asked out of curiosity. The fact that you feel the need to jump in and defend something that was never really put into question is your business, but you say I'm "preaching to the choir," and I think you're going a little overboard. If you don't think you're part of the problem, fine, but jumping down my throat to tell me that isn't necessary.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> you did catch that i am aspiring to be a breeder right?


Are you trying to start a fight? I said I agreed with a comment you made. Why point out - again - that you want to be a breeder? Whoopee, good for you? 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i would just ask that before you jump on someone for being a pooch pimp (my new word for BYBs) find out what their practices are unless they are just glaringly obvious they dont know what the heck they are doing like "how long is she supposed to be pregnant?" kinds of questions.


Uh, I didn't jump on anybody. I made a comment to someone else who made a comment that there's no guarantee the OP's dogs won't end up in shelters. There isn't. I also noted that there's an overpopulation problem, which many chimed in to say it's an unwanted dogs problem or an ignorance problem. Call it what you want, it's still a problem.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Well, this turned pretty nasty pretty quick. 

I'd just like to say I agree with Redyre here, and I hope the OP has a good time with her litter. 

to the OP; I don't breed, so I don't have a litter, but I would love to breed later in the future, when I'm financially stable and have decided upon what breed I'd like to breed, and find a good mentor.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

DJEtzel said:


> Also, I don't mean to hijack.. (but since it's already sort of been hijacked for the worse..) What made all of the breeders from this thread decide to breed that specific breed?


maybe you should start your own thread, not trying to be rude but I think intentionally hijacking a thread might be against the rules I'm not positive tho


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Uh, I didn't jump on anybody. I made a comment to someone else who made a comment that there's no guarantee the OP's dogs won't end up in shelters. There isn't. *I also noted that there's an overpopulation problem, which many chimed in to say it's an unwanted dogs problem or an ignorance problem. Call it what you want, it's still a problem.*


So you'd rather breeders stop breeding, so that, what, there are no purebred dogs or healthy dogs alive anymore and everyone can rescue from shelters? That completley goes against what dogs were adapted for; a purpose. If you don't have dogs that clearly represent a certain breed, then the purpose of having dogs goes away, and they may as well not even be dogs anymore, since they aren't serving a purpose. 

I'm not saying that dogs as pets aren't good, I love my dogs as my pets, and I love my mutt, but there is a need for purebred dogs too, and without breeders, those would cease to exist as they are meant to be. 

The problem does not lie within breeders. It lies within ignorant individuals that let their dogs reproduce, etc. If you're going to pick a fight, I'd pick it with them. You might actually be able to win it, and it'd accomplish more.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Keechak said:


> maybe you should start your own thread, not trying to be rude but I think intentionally hijacking a thread might be against the rules I'm not positive tho


Haha, good idea. I just wanted to do this somewhat discretely where there were already a lot of breeders, but I will start my own thread. I'm going to edit that out of my post.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Are you trying to start a fight? I said I agreed with a comment you made. Why point out - again - that you want to be a breeder? Whoopee, good for you?


Why would i want to start a fight? it was just a little poke poke kind of joke. 



> Uh, I didn't jump on anybody. I made a comment to someone else who made a comment that there's no guarantee the OP's dogs won't end up in shelters. There isn't. I also noted that there's an overpopulation problem, which many chimed in to say it's an unwanted dogs problem or an ignorance problem. Call it what you want, it's still a problem.



There can be a guarantee that they wont end up in a shelter. depends on how you work it out, the laws in your state and how well you utilize them as well as how vigilant you are. all it takes is a well thought out contract and keeping in touch with the people you place your puppies with.

and an overpopulation problem is very different from an owner retention issue. an overpop issue is too many dogs. a owner retention issue is lack of education and perserverance on the part of the owner. i think its more the owner retention issue leads to the overpop issue...there wouldnt be a shelter overpop problem if people would quit dumping their dogs for dumbass reasons like "i just got him but he pees all over the carpet" . ive worked in rescue long enough to hear that and similar excuses a thousand times over. people think of dogs like they think of ornaments...disposible if defective. now if there were MORE reputable breeders educating their puppy people and providing support for them like many do(i know quite a few breeders that if you get a dog from them you can call them up at any time and pester them with dog questions. i also know at least one breeder who has been known to help pitch in on vet bills in emergencies)...maybe people would be dumping their dogs less.

none of this was meant to jump on you. never was. i tend to be a rambling mind sometimes and go off on tangents lol.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> So you'd rather breeders stop breeding, so that, what, there are no purebred dogs or healthy dogs alive anymore and everyone can rescue from shelters? That completley goes against what dogs were adapted for; a purpose.


That's not what I said. You need to go back and read my actual comments.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Why would i want to start a fight? it was just a little poke poke kind of joke.


I really don't have a problem with dog breeders that are legitimate and *truly *responsible. But, like someone pointed out, the definition of that is highly subjective.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I really don't have a problem with dog breeders that are legitimate and *truly *responsible. But, like someone pointed out, the definition of that his highly subjective.


it is and it isnt subjective imo. the particulars are VERY subjective...but the requisite mindset is not.

id bet money that if i were to make an attempt to get someone like Redyre talking about her breed and time the conversation to see how long i could get the talk to stay on rotties...me and red would be sitting there for hours straight. 

i know whenever someone says "pit bull", they tend to have a hard time getting me to shut up lol. if i never had to do anything but talk about pits, interact with pits and just generally spend every ounce of energy i have doing something related to helping my beloved pit bulls, then i would be truly satisfied with my life. 

I think anyone and everyone can agree that the one thing that you find in every really good breeder is an obsessive love of the dogs. they dont do it for the money. they do it for their beloved dogs.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> I think anyone and everyone can agree that the one thing that you find in every really good breeder is an obsessive love of the dogs. they dont do it for the money. they do it for their beloved dogs.


I don't think there's any question that the folks posting here genuinely love dogs. But genuine love for the animals is not uncommon and it's certainly not the only thing that makes one a responsible breeder. It's a number of other things, that ARE very subjective.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

To the OP, congrats on your litter! Sounds like some thought went into it 



> why breed more while there ARE already so many in shelters facing euthanisia?


I have very specific requirements for my dogs, which is why I purchase from a breeder. The criteria set forth is highly unlikely to be met by a shelter dog. There are no promises that the dog from the breeder will be up to par, but I need to stack the odds in my favor.

That said, when my husband and I have more room, time, and money, not only will there be a rescue in the house, I'll be doing some rescue work myself


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Xeph said:


> I have very specific requirements for my dogs, which is why I purchase from a breeder. The criteria set forth is highly unlikely to be met by a shelter dog. There are no promises that the dog from the breeder will be up to par, but I need to stack the odds in my favor.


What are the specific requirements? Again, I ask because I'm curious.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I don't think there's any question that the folks posting here genuinely love dogs. But genuine love for the animals is not uncommon and it's certainly not the only thing that makes one a responsible breeder. It's a number of other things, that ARE very subjective.


my point was that you cant be a responsible breeder and be breeding to make money. that would be the pooch pimps pimping out their dogs over and over. Making money and breeding responsibly are mutually exclusive because the cost of breeding with the well being of the dogs in mind far far exceeds what one can reasonably expect to get for a litter.

like Redyre...just curious...three questions.

how much can one expect to pay for a well bred Rottie?

What's the average litter size for a healthy Rottie bitch?

What's a rough estimate of the total cost of whelping a litter, including health tests, titling, prenatal care, etc etc....?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> What are the specific requirements? Again, I ask because I'm curious.


I'm getting a new service dog candidate so my current boy can retire in a couple of years.

I require a puppy largely so I can mold it the way I need it to, and not have to "undo" any bad habits that may have already been acquired (such as begging or innapropriate barking). I need to have a dog that I know is socialized to anything and EVERYTHING (bomb proof dog is very important for SD work), and I need a dog that is structurally sound.

At a shelter I am unlikely to find a dog with these traits, as most are BYB dogs that were bred with "just pets" in mind. They lack the drives, nerve, and structural integrity needed for the type of service dog work I use the dog for.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

The word _responsible_, in itself is VERY subjective. Some pro breeders are SO far against any kind of legislation that it leaves it very open & nearl anyone can say they are "responsible - just depends on the individuals def of that word.
There really is nothing in that op that indicates to me that the breeder is a responsible 1 or not, not enough info there for me to determine that.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DJsMom said:


> The word _responsible_, in itself is VERY subjective. Some pro breeders are SO far against any kind of legislation that it leaves it very open & nearl anyone can say they are "responsible - just depends on the individuals def of that word.
> There really is nothing in that op that indicates to me that the breeder is a responsible 1 or not, not enough info there for me to determine that.


i made a thread about that a while back...about how much i hate the terms "responsible breeder" and "reputable breeder". they fail to accurately define what they are trying to define. i only use them because they are common usage. breed steward fits better imo but that's just a personal opinion.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i made a thread about that a while back...about how much i hate the terms "responsible breeder" and "reputable breeder". they fail to accurately define what they are trying to define. i only use them because they are common usage. breed steward fits better imo but that's just a personal opinion.


I agree. That's exactly why it bothers me when people get SO defensive & immediately jump on it whenever someone does question someone breeding a dog. ... and I know it does go both ways. But I do think it is good to question someone when they say they are breeding their dog.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

DJsMom said:


> I agree. That's exactly why it bothers me when people get SO defensive & immediately jump on it whenever someone does question someone breeding a dog. ... and I know it does go both ways. But I do think it is good to question someone when they say they are breeding their dog.


i think its good to question. but i also think BOTH sides of the debate get defensive when there's really no need. its totally understandable but there's really no need...im guilty of being too defensive on both sides of this argument lol(my opinions on breeder vs rescue kind of fall smack in the middle of the two extremes) 

i also think its good to question shelters and rescues because they too reap in their fair share of undesirable and shady characters...

and i think the real solution to the whole shebang lies in the rescue camp and the good breeder camp working together. 

anyways...


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i think its good to question. but i also think BOTH sides of the debate get defensive when there's really no need. its totally understandable but there's really no need...im guilty of being too defensive on both sides of this argument lol(my opinions on breeder vs rescue kind of fall smack in the middle of the two extremes)
> 
> i also think its good to question shelters and rescues because they too reap in their fair share of undesirable and shady characters...
> 
> ...


Very well said!


----------



## lovinmylab (Mar 31, 2010)

I am choosing to breed my female for the following reasons.. i will be keeping one to start in FT and my family members will also be doing field with thier pups. Stud is taking pick of the litter so i know that pups is in good hands..My dog is a excellent example of the breed standard.she comes from working and show lines.im breeding to better the breed.. and yes I aslo rescue and` do `flyball with my rescue's.. currently i have no rescue's they were all adopted to great family's and i hope to get some more from the shelter very soon.I know that i am not a BYB. i will be screening homes like i always do.. depending on how many pups she has..if its a small litter may not have to. my family may take them all. yesterday was her first breeding. and i will do it again thursday. but she will be due end of may early june! cant wait to post some pics.and i forgot to ad my dofg is OFA cert.. and has had all the proper health testing for her breed.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Glad you're still around ;-)


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

I'm glad you're still around too & thanks for posting more info. I'm sorry your thread took a bit of a turn, but most people here are very passionate about their feelings & state them.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> So you'd rather breeders stop breeding, so that, what, there are no purebred dogs or healthy dogs alive anymore and everyone can rescue from shelters? That completley goes against what dogs were adapted for; a purpose. If you don't have dogs that clearly represent a certain breed, then the purpose of having dogs goes away, and they may as well not even be dogs anymore, since they aren't serving a purpose.
> 
> I'm not saying that dogs as pets aren't good, I love my dogs as my pets, and I love my mutt, but there is a need for purebred dogs too, and without breeders, those would cease to exist as they are meant to be.
> 
> The problem does not lie within breeders. It lies within ignorant individuals that let their dogs reproduce, etc. If you're going to pick a fight, I'd pick it with them. You might actually be able to win it, and it'd accomplish more.


Many rescue dogs are healthy, in fact, I've pulled very few from the shelter that have had health issues; please don't perpetuate the stereotype that there is always something "wrong" with rescue/shelter dogs.

That said, I work in animal rescue in Missouri (aka puppymill capital of the US) and yet, I have no problem with responsible breeders who test their dogs, breed for proper form and function and who screen the homes that their puppies go to. Now, the byb's and the puppymillers, I have a problem with. However, the OP is breeding responsibly so I fail to see an issue with it.

I personally do not feel the need to purchase a purebred, but anything that I want to do with them would only be for fun and I can do that with mutts. I can certainly understand, however, that those who want to compete/work want a dog bred to do those things.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Whoa. Now I know how to get blasted on this forum. This is almost as bad as the kibble vs raw debates. I'm surprised the OP wasn't scared off by the BYB witch hunt going on.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> Many rescue dogs are healthy, in fact, I've pulled very few from the shelter that have had health issues; please don't perpetuate the stereotype that there is always something "wrong" with rescue/shelter dogs.
> 
> That said, I work in animal rescue in Missouri (aka puppymill capital of the US) and yet, I have no problem with responsible breeders who test their dogs, breed for proper form and function and who screen the homes that their puppies go to. Now, the byb's and the puppymillers, I have a problem with. However, the OP is breeding responsibly so I fail to see an issue with it.
> 
> I personally do not feel the need to purchase a purebred, but anything that I want to do with them would only be for fun and I can do that with mutts. I can certainly understand, however, that those who want to compete/work want a dog bred to do those things.


I am not perpetuating any stereotype. While some shelter dogs are healthy, the fact is that a lot are not and if there is no breeding going on via reputable breeder, some shelter dogs will end up reproducing for one reason or another, and there will end up being nothing but poorly bred, unhealthy dogs.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Xeph said:


> I'm getting a new service dog candidate so my current boy can retire in a couple of years.


See, and service dogs is something I can totally see a need for in terms of acquiring from a breeder, and a respectable one. 

The thing I wonder about is when people want to do agility training and things like that. Yes, I understand that those dogs need to be built for that type of work - but what's the point? Why do people *need* to do agility and similar things with their dogs? If it's just a hobby, I really wonder about it. And I don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers on this, but really, what is the *need *to have dogs running agility courses?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

brandiw said:


> Many rescue dogs are healthy, in fact, I've pulled very few from the shelter that have had health issues; please don't perpetuate the stereotype that there is always something "wrong" with rescue/shelter dogs.
> 
> That said, I work in animal rescue in Missouri (aka puppymill capital of the US) and yet, I have no problem with responsible breeders who test their dogs, breed for proper form and function and who screen the homes that their puppies go to. Now, the byb's and the puppymillers, I have a problem with. However, the OP is breeding responsibly so I fail to see an issue with it.
> 
> I personally do not feel the need to purchase a purebred, but anything that I want to do with them would only be for fun and I can do that with mutts. I can certainly understand, however, that those who want to compete/work want a dog bred to do those things.


the problem in wanting to get a performance/show dog from a shelter is that some of the events require the dog to be intact, which is not something you will get from a rescue or shelter.


----------



## lovinmylab (Mar 31, 2010)

I have had in the past 5 years 87 shelter dogs that made great pets some small health issues but they overcame them. did flyball with most and they were fabulous at it. not all shelter dogs are damaged. yhis is my passion dogs has been since i could talk. i used to bring home any dog i found on the street either found its owner or got it a new home. and kept a few myself.. im 26 i have worked with the shelter and rescues since i was 18 and i couldnt imagine my life without all those lovable mutts in it.. but yes i do own and co own purebreds that i do field with and my females have 1 litter in thier life thats it! i would never put a animal thru countless litters knowing the danger of over breeding her


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I don't think there's any question that the folks posting here genuinely love dogs. But genuine love for the animals is not uncommon and it's certainly not the only thing that makes one a responsible breeder. It's a number of other things, that ARE very subjective.


IMO the things that make a breeder responsible or not is NOT variable at all but quite set in stone and ALL breeders must meet that basic COE before being considered Reputable in my book. 

Things like:

Dogs must be finished (or working on finishing with good credits so far). I breed and show netherland dwarf rabbits in competition. All conformation tho. I can understand the value of finishing a rabbit (or a dog) to their grand championship before ever considering one for my breeding program. There are certainly pets that come out of show litters but at least with breeding rabbits if they don't show there are other avenues available aside of pet homes for unuseable rabbits. 

Totally clear medically and all appropriate health testing is done. Says it all honestly. If they don't do med clearances, RUN. 

Must have a legally binding contract that is in contrast with the laws of their state and includes health guarantees thru the age of final testing (like 3 yrs for hips elbows etc.), return policies, and breeding restrictions. Some breeders throw what ever junk they want into their contracts but if it goes against state law then it is NOT ENFORCEABLE. Subject comes to mind. Don't feed our dogs what we do and your health guarantee is void. Can't do that. 

CLEAN FACILITY! Can't say this one enough. If it smells like crap then guess what... it's likely crap. Go figure. Seperate whelping facilities in a weatherized temperature controlled room away from the general population of the kennel that is monitored also is the hallmark of a good facility imo. 

Lastly... HAPPY DOGS. If the dogs look healthy, good weight, and are happy and well adjusted I would absolutely consider a pup from a breeder like this.

All breeders who consider themselves "reputable" and any person looking for a reputable breeder... these 5 things shound NEVER be variable and subject to debate.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Dog_Shrink said:


> IMO the things that make a breeder responsible or not is NOT variable at all but quite set in stone and ALL breeders must meet that basic COE before being considered Reputable in my book. .


I think everyone pretty much agrees with what they define as responsible, but sadly, not all do. I think MOST of us do know what responsible should mean.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

the reason i want a bred dog is because i want to raise a Search and Rescue Pit Bull with a Superdog title.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> really, what is the need to have dogs running agility courses?


This is how a lot of people deal with dogs that have a lot of drive to work. My breed is the German Shepherd Dog. They are notorious for being "too smart", high energy, and extremely drivey. Teaching sit, down, stay, and shake is generally not sufficient for this breed. But the majority of us don't have schutzhund clubs nearby or a herd of sheeping lounging in the backyard.

So what do we do? We play agility, competition obedience, rally...something to keep our dogs entertained and intellectually satisified. Just happens to be a huge bonus that it's fun for us too xD!


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> See, and service dogs is something I can totally see a need for in terms of acquiring from a breeder, and a respectable one.
> 
> The thing I wonder about is when people want to do agility training and things like that. Yes, I understand that those dogs need to be built for that type of work - but what's the point? Why do people *need* to do agility and similar things with their dogs? If it's just a hobby, I really wonder about it. And I don't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers on this, but really, what is the *need *to have dogs running agility courses?


It's just a good, fun, competitive sport to compete in. What is the need to chase people up and down a court with a rubber ball and throw it through a hoop? 

Breeders obviously want to further their dog, and the more their dog competes in shows them at their best, and makes them worthy dogs of breeding, they're making their breed better.

Trainers need experience to continue training and making money. What better way than show that you have the ability to teach a dog to run a serious of obstacles at voice, hand, or body signal, successfully?

In addition, dogs love the physical and mental stimulation they get when doing sports.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

infiniti said:


> Well, this isn't exactly true ... there will always be irresponsible backyard breeders, hapless strays that were never altered that will reproduce on their own. I doubt dogs are going to become endangered anytime within the next few decades.


For people who are passionate about a particular breed, if _that breed_ goes extinct, it would not be much of a consolation to know that random mixes and poorly-bred BYB dogs are still being born. 

'Dogs' as a species won't go extinct, of course, but healthy, purposely-created _breeds_ certainly can. For the people who love those breeds, that would be no less of a tragedy.


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

Pai said:


> For people who are passionate about a particular breed, if _that breed_ goes extinct, it would not be much of a consolation to know that random mixes and poorly-bred BYB dogs are still being born.
> 
> 'Dogs' as a species won't go extinct, of course, but healthy, purposely-created _breeds_ certainly can. For the people who love those breeds, that would be no less of a tragedy.


Do you think any breeds are currently in danger of going extinct? I feel like society does a pretty good job at keeping the population of all purebreds at a comfortable level. Personally, I've never liked the notion that just because a dog is purebred it is also going to be healthy. I worry more about the purebred dogs I treat than the mutts. I don't doubt that certain lines are just as healthy as can be, but, as a whole...


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Xeph said:


> This is how a lot of people deal with dogs that have a lot of drive to work. My breed is the German Shepherd Dog. They are notorious for being "too smart", high energy, and extremely drivey. Teaching sit, down, stay, and shake is generally not sufficient for this breed. But the majority of us don't have schutzhund clubs nearby or a herd of sheeping lounging in the backyard.


It still isn't something there's a bonafide need for. Honestly, what would happen if there were no GSDs available? It's not like it's a physiological need to have a dog that does the things you describe. It's something people want. Which makes me wonder how necessary it really is to have a breeder breeding them so that people can do such things with them.

Service dogs, search and rescue dogs, etc., are a different story, I understand.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Honestly, what would happen if there were no GSDs available?


I wouldn't have a dog 


> It's not like it's a physiological need to have a dog that does the things you describe.


No, it's a psychological need. It gives the dogs something to do, and the owners a way to learn how to work with their dog.

The litter my puppy is coming from is likely to be medium-high drive. Not every dog will "make it" as a service dog, schutzhund dog, agility dog, etc, but these are dogs that need "jobs" and need to be mentally stimulated. The breeder is not breeding FOR agility dogs, but it is a very good outlet for those dogs that do not quite make the grade for schutzhund or service dog work. Understand?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Mr. V said:


> Do you think any breeds are currently in danger of going extinct? I feel like society does a pretty good job at keeping the population of all purebreds at a comfortable level. Personally, I've never liked the notion that just because a dog is purebred it is also going to be healthy. I worry more about the purebred dogs I treat than the mutts. I don't doubt that certain lines are just as healthy as can be, but, as a whole...



Despite what one might think considering the numbers...Pit Bulls.

BSL, poor breeding practices, negative public opinion...the real APBT is disappearing in favor of big headed big boned badly bred bullies who are being bred away from the True Pit Bull.

a breed isnt just dogs of a particular family so to speak. a breed is members of that particular family that are correct, stable, healthy and temperamentally sound.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Xeph said:


> No, it's a psychological need. It gives the dogs something to do, and the owners a way to learn how to work with their dog.


An owner who wants a dog to compete in agility work does not NEED a dog who competes in agility work. That's my point. 



Xeph said:


> The litter my puppy is coming from is likely to be medium-high drive. Not every dog will "make it" as a service dog, schutzhund dog, agility dog, etc, but these are dogs that need "jobs" and need to be mentally stimulated. The breeder is not breeding FOR agility dogs, but it is a very good outlet for those dogs that do not quite make the grade for schutzhund or service dog work. Understand?


Yes, I do, but it's a different situation than the one I presented. What do you think of people who would acquire a dog for no other reason than to have it do such work/courses/training?


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Despite what one might think considering the numbers...Pit Bulls.
> 
> BSL, poor breeding practices, negative public opinion...the real APBT is disappearing in favor of big headed big boned badly bred bullies who are being bred away from the True Pit Bull.
> 
> a breed isnt just dogs of a particular family so to speak. a breed is members of that particular family that are correct, stable, healthy and temperamentally sound.


Gotta quote this because it IS the truth. The TRUE APBT is very VERY low in numbers and could very soon be gone. We will be left with Bullies and Amstaffs instead of the true APBT.

There are many rare breeds out there that need to be protected. 

The issue isn't the good breeders like Red and appears to be the OP, it's your neighbor, the guy down the street, and that jerk in front of Walmart trying to sell their puppies. These are what causes the overpopulation you see in dogs. People that couldn't care less about where their puppies end up in 7 to 18years, only that $$$$ that is in their hand.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> An owner who wants a dog to compete in agility work does not NEED a dog who competes in agility work. That's my point.
> 
> Yes, I do, but it's a different situation than the one I presented. What do you think of people who would acquire a dog for no other reason than to have it do such work/courses/training?


i wouldnt consider it bad. it really depends on the person and the dog.

if someone is obsessed with just winning and not giving a hoot about the dog...like if the dog isnt into it and they are being forced...then id have an issue with it.

but if someone just wants a dog and wants to compete with it thats cool because like i said...you pretty much have to get a dog from a breeder depending on your local venue...like if you just want to show for fun...you cant show an altered dog. its not allowed in most venues. and you pretty much cant get an unaltered dog from a shelter.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Jul 25, 2009)

Keechak said:


> But for people like me it would almost be cruel to take a dog of questionable structure from a shelter and subject it to the activities I do with my dogs. I have seen what can happen to a structurally deficient dog in the elder years after a long life of performance activities, and it's very sad to watch.


This is exactly why I would not look for a shelter dog to do frisbee/agility with. They may seem healthy but many end up getting genetically predisposed problems, luxating patella, hip dysplasia, etc. further aggravated by the extreme sports that the owners ask the dogs to do a few years down the line.

I know many shelter dogs are perfectly fine, but I'm not sure if I feel comfortable pushing a shelter dog that I have no history of to do extreme sports. 

For hunting, herding, etc. I wouldn't be looking for a shelter dog at all.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Yes, I do, but it's a different situation than the one I presented. What do you think of people who would acquire a dog for no other reason than to have it do such work/courses/training?


Much more highly than a person who acquires a dog and keeps it indoors 23 hours a day except for the 1 hour walk.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> It still isn't something there's a bonafide need for. Honestly, what would happen if there were no GSDs available? It's not like it's a physiological need to have a dog that does the things you describe. It's something people want. Which makes me wonder how necessary it really is to have a breeder breeding them so that people can do such things with them.
> 
> Service dogs, search and rescue dogs, etc., are a different story, I understand.


For me doing things like agility and obedience is as much a psychological need for the dogs as it is for me.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

For my dog, Priscilla, to not have a outlet for her hellbent drive to work, is the same as being dead. You'd have a hard time finding a shelter dog that had remotely the same amount of drive as her. 

Maybe you should see the dogs who do Agility, Flyball, Schutzhund before you start knocking it. These dogs are incomparably happier than dogs that stay home and do nothing but sit, look out the window, until their owner decides to take them for the same boring walk they had all 10 years of their life.

EDIT: And for the record, I know everyone likes to use that against me. But every single one of my dogs, except Priscilla, have been rescues. So na na nah! You don't get that excuse!


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Much more highly than a person who acquires a dog and keeps it indoors 23 hours a day except for the 1 hour walk.


So then is it your position that people who choose not to do such things with their dogs simply shouldn't have them?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> It still isn't something there's a bonafide need for. Honestly, what would happen if there were no GSDs available? It's not like it's a physiological need to have a dog that does the things you describe. It's something people want. Which makes me wonder how necessary it really is to have a breeder breeding them so that people can do such things with them.


Then breeding dogs to be 'pets' is equally as unjustifiable. You might as well get a cat or a rabbit, so why even breed pet _dogs_ in particular? Because PEOPLE WANT THEM. There is really no other reason, nor does there NEED to be any other reason. Domestic dogs themselves are a _human_ invention, bred according to human desires. _All_ domestic animals are. That doesn't mean we can be irresponsible with their lives, but it does mean that they don't exist for any reason except for the fact that _people want them to._ And there is nothing wrong with that. That's the very definition of a 'pet' animal.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Maybe you should see the dogs who do Agility, Flyball, Schutzhund before you start knocking it. These dogs are incomparably happier than dogs that stay home and do nothing but sit, look out the window, until their owner decides to take them for the same boring walk they had all 10 years of their life.


Maybe you shouldn't assume that I haven't. 

And it would be nice if you weren't simply presuming and asserting as fact that dogs who AREN'T worked in some way are unhappy dogs that live boring lives dictated largely by their owner's desires with little consideration given to their needs.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Right, it all comes down to a *wan*t thing, rather than a _*need*_ thing.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> So then is it your position that people who choose not to do such things with their dogs simply shouldn't have them?


No, I think it is good that they have them. But to sit in the peanut gallery and knock people who have purebreds and breed them is petty. Removing breeding altogether is not going to fix the overpopulation problem. You're fighting the owners that are doing their best to allow their dogs to have the best times of their lives. That's incomprehensible to me.

Your time is better spent on people who don't care about their dogs and actually DO contribute to the overpopulation problem.

I, for one, highly respect all of those who do Agility with their mutts or purebreds, because these dogs are far happier than most dogs on this planet.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Maybe you shouldn't assume that I haven't.
> 
> And it would be nice if you weren't simply presuming and asserting as fact that dogs who AREN'T worked in some way are unhappy dogs that live boring lives dictated largely by their owner's desires with little consideration given to their needs.


Then maybe you should stop presuming that stuff like Agility is only for the owner's benefit. It benefits far more the dog than the owner, and these are the people who you should support, not criticize. The ones you should criticize is the people who do not care about the dogs dying in shelters.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Pai said:


> Then breeding dogs to be 'pets' is equally as unjustifiable.


You're absolutely right, it is completely unjustifiable. 



Pai said:


> You might as well get a cat or a rabbit, so why even breed pet _dogs_ in particular? Because PEOPLE WANT THEM. There is really no other reason, nor does there NEED to be any other reason. Domestic dogs themselves are a _human_ invention, bred according to human desires. _All_ domestic animals are. That doesn't mean we can be irresponsible with their lives, but it does mean that they don't exist for any reason except for the fact that _people want them to._ And there is nothing wrong with that. That's the very definition of a 'pet' animal.


What a very selfish vantage point. Perhaps what you should do is sit in on a euthanasia of a completely healthy, loveable and gentle dog every bit as worthy of being a pet whose only crime is not being wanted. 

If it were a perfect world, and everyone who got a pet kept the pet for the duration of its life, and every person who wanted a pet was put through some sort of extensive screening process, and every person who chose to breed an animal did extensive health testing on that animal before doing so, then fine, it's perfectly wonderful to be breeding them because people *want *them. As it is, that is absolutely no valid justification and it disgusts me to know that there are people who share that particular take on the situation.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> You're fighting the owners that are doing their best to allow their dogs to have the best times of their lives. That's incomprehensible to me.


I'm not fighting it, I'm asking what the point of having a dog is if the only reason you want a dog is to do agility work with it. Yes, I certainly realize it benefits the dog. But if a person "needs" a purebred dog simply so that they can have a dog that performs well in said activities ... whose needs are being served?


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

DJsMom said:


> Right, it all comes down to a *wan*t thing, rather than a _*need*_ thing.


The very idea that any pet needs a 'justification' to exist is a fallacy by itself. MOST people don't 'need' a lot of the things that they own and like. People do 'pointless' things out of pure enjoyment all the time. There's nothing _wrong_ or unethical about that.



> If it were a perfect world, and everyone who got a pet kept the pet for the duration of its life, and every person who wanted a pet was put through some sort of extensive screening process, and every person who chose to breed an animal did extensive health testing on that animal before doing so, then fine, it's perfectly wonderful to be breeding them because people want them. As it is, that is absolutely no valid justification and it disgusts me to know that there are people who share that particular take on the situation.


*
We will never live in a perfect world.* By your same logic, nobody should have a _baby_ either until the world is a utopia, because somewhere out there, there is someone doing something horrible to another person or neglecting a child. 
Amazingly, there IS also good in the world, and positive things, and the lives of most pets in America is _not_ some horrific misery like you seem to believe. All you seem to want to see is the ugliness and pain, so of course anyone who claims anything good comes out of the existence of pets 'disgusts' you.

Personally, I choose to support breeders who DO all the things that ensure they are being responsible for their animal's lives. I won't make every decision in my life based around whether or not there are crappy people out there doing the wrong thing, because crappy people will ALWAYS EXIST. All I am responsible for is MYSELF and MY OWN DOGS. It's not my job to 'make up for' the evils of the worst dregs of society by trashing what I love in order to make people like you feel better. 

To demand that other people live their lives according to _your_ value system and that the existence of pets should depend on when YOU deem it justifiable or not (which would be _never_, since a utopia will never happen), is incredibly arrogant and irrational.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Perhaps what you should do is sit in on a euthanasia of a completely healthy, loveable and gentle dog every bit as worthy of being a pet whose only crime is not being wanted.



Wow, now you're presuming she hasn't?

I have had to watch a perfectly healthy dog that my rescue adopted out, get returned some time later as a completely and utterly fearful dog due to severe abuse in such a short time. I took care of this dog to the best of my ability, there was nothing physically wrong with her. Weeks of heartbreak and rehabilitation later, I had to hold this dog in my arms and watch her pass away, because some selfish sub-human monsters used her as a stress relief outlet and beat her nearly to death multiple times, hanged her, dragged her, and more.

I know what it is like. So don't be a hypocrite. I know who the real monsters are.



> I'm not fighting it, I'm asking what the point of having a dog is if the only reason you want a dog is to do agility work with it. Yes, I certainly realize it benefits the dog. But if a person "needs" a purebred dog simply so that they can have a dog that performs well in said activities ... whose needs are being served?


The dog's, obviously.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Then maybe you should stop presuming that stuff like Agility is only for the owner's benefit.


No, the activity is not for the owner's benefit, I realize. 

Having a dog for no other reason than to have it perform and participate in such activities is for the owner's benefit.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I am not perpetuating any stereotype. While some shelter dogs are healthy, the fact is that a lot are not and if there is no breeding going on via reputable breeder, some shelter dogs will end up reproducing for one reason or another, and there will end up being nothing but poorly bred, unhealthy dogs.


"A lot" aren't healthy? How did you obtain that information? Of all the dogs that I have seen run through the rescue I volunteer with over the years, I don't recall one that had any genetic defect or problem. Sure, some of them had some medical problems like heartworms, kennel cough, etc, but not anything that couldn't be cleared. We primarily work with mixed breed dogs, though we have had a number of purebreds, and all of them have been sound. Actually, when mixed breeds breed, they bring more genetic diversity to the gene pool, it is more likely that they will not have some of the genetic problems that purebred dogs have. That certainly wouldn't result in a world full of unhealthy dogs. (please note, I'm not advocating breeding mixed breeds).

Besides, I never said I was against responsible breeding of purebred dogs.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the problem in wanting to get a performance/show dog from a shelter is that some of the events require the dog to be intact, which is not something you will get from a rescue or shelter.


And that is why I said that I understand that some people need/want a dog that is purebred from good lines. I have no problem with responsible breeders. I was saying that if I want to do agility through the AKC, for instance, I can do that with my mutt now, and that is fine for me. For me, personally, it is just for fun.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Pai said:


> There's nothing _wrong_ or unethical about that.


I totally agree with that. But some people really DO like to mince words.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> Having a dog for no other reason than to have it perform and participate in such activities is for the owner's benefit.


Nope, if the owner did not have a dog she could do the activity with, she would not have a dog at all. 

SO it's only for the dog's benefit, the owner's benefit is just a side effect.

I could be an ass and use your argument about shelter dogs against you. Whose benefit is that for? The owner's, they are the ones who want companionship. The dogs do benefit, but it's primarily for the owners. Blah blah blah. Sorry, complete fallacy either way.


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

Personally I have nothing to do with most of the things you guys do, such as breeding, agility, showing etc. I have a mutt yes. And I love my mutt. My dog enjoys camping, hiking, swimming, and bike runs, I have never taken agility lessons because I can't afford it but I know it would be something Ava would LOVE.

My concern about the OP was that she had a reason, and a plan. Its none of my business what she does with the puppies or the mother. As long as she is responsible (which obviously she is) than that's what matters. The reason why I posted was because there are a lot of lab breeders in CA and whether or not they are legitimately good breeders is unknown to me. To be honest I would much rather have a breeder like the OP! She sounds like a wonderful person, and I wish that more labs were breed with such high expectations. 

I was simply unaware if she was another BYB considering I didn't know what this: "she is currently working in field trails" meant. And before anyone jumps on me for making a post before knowing what it meant, I was curious why she wanted to breed her lab, I wasn't jumping on her!

Besides why is everyone arguing? Nothing we say to each other is going to change anything  we all love our dogs and that's what matters! Right?


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> No, the activity is not for the owner's benefit, I realize.
> 
> Having a dog for no other reason than to have it perform and participate in such activities is for the owner's benefit.


So, I'm a bad person because when I was looking for a dog, I wanted a dog that had the drive to do Agility, Weight Pulling, and maybe Therapy work and Search and Rescue work? This is how I based my decision on what dog I brought home. So now I'm a bad person because I wanted a dog for these things?

Hey guys! Did you hear? Nubs is an abused dog because I do Agility and weight pulling with him! Never heard that one before.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Darkmoon said:


> So, I'm a bad person because when I was looking for a dog, I wanted a dog that had the drive to do Agility, Weight Pulling, and maybe Therapy work and Search and Rescue work? This is how I based my decision on what dog I brought home. So now I'm a bad person because I wanted a dog for these things?
> 
> Hey guys! Did you hear? Nubs is an abused dog because I do Agility and weight pulling with him! Never heard that one before.


Hmmmm ... somehow I just didn't get the same thing out of what she said. Messing with words a little, possibly?


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> I could be an ass and use your argument about shelter dogs against you. Whose benefit is that for? The owner's, they are the ones who want companionship. The dogs do benefit, but it's primarily for the owners. Blah blah blah. Sorry, complete fallacy either way.


Interesting take. In the case of shelter dogs, many of them are facing death if they don't find homes. I'd say life is a pretty compelling benefit for the dog in that case.

Also, the dogs in shelters haven't been created merely for the sake of a person who wants them, which is the case for bred dogs that are bred for an owner who wants to have a dog that works. There really is a difference.


----------



## Darkmoon (Mar 12, 2007)

She said:


> Having a dog for no other reason than to have it perform and participate in such activities is for the owner's benefit.


This is the main reason why I adopted the dog that I did was for these activities. If I didn't want to do Agility or Weight Pulling, I would have brought home a totally different dog. So in her view, Having a dog to only preform in these activities is only for my benefit. I don't get much out of doing agility or weight pulling except seeing my dog have a blast at doing it. Sure I get to visit with people who enjoy the same things that I do, but if Nubs didn't like it, we wouldn't do it (Which is the reason why we don't do Rally. Nubs HATES anything that keeps him still)

So for it to be only for my benefit must mean I'm a bad person for owning a dog. There is no way in her mind that Agility could be good for the dogs, or that the dogs would want to do it. I guess She has never seen a dog that as soon as they see Agility equipment get the zoomies out of shear happiness or on the other end of a Pit Bulls lead when they decide "Forget about that jump, I want to run that tunnel again!" And then runs through the tunnel about 10 times in a roll with the biggest grin ever.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

Darkmoon said:


> So for it to be only for my benefit must mean I'm a bad person for owning a dog.


Sorry, but I just think that's kind of a stretch on your part. Please, I don't think anyone is calling anyone bad for owning a dog here. I don't even know how this thread got so twisted around to that 
But really, I haven't seen anyone calling anyone "bad" here.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Interesting take. In the case of shelter dogs, many of them are facing death if they don't find homes. I'd say life is a pretty compelling benefit for the dog in that case.


Life is a compelling benefit for purebred dogs too.



> Also, the dogs in shelters haven't been created merely for the sake of a person who wants them


Completely and utterly false. The vast majority of them have been created by BYB's and given to people who "think" they want a dog but don't really want one. Then they get dumped at shelters, or in farms, or driven to another part of the city and dumped.

Contrarily, the vast majority of responsible purebred breeders litters go to homes who DO want them, and keep them for the duration of their lives, and are given the best possible lives.

The latter, I think is an amazing and wonderful thing, a example that everyone in the world can learn from. Not the part where they have a purebred, that's merely a detail. But the love, loyalty, and work they put into their dogs is something I strive for.

The former? Mandatory spay and neuter of humans who think that's a-ok.

There's no possible good reason in existence to blame responsible breeders or responsible owners of purebreds for anything. There are people to blame, millions of them, who breed irresponsibly. The good owners are completely faultless.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wow that was a read, lol. I'll just say I agree with RBark.

To the OP (if you're still around) I'd love to see pics of mom and dad and the pups when they're born. I grew up with a FT line black labrador named Pete and he was an amazing dog. My dad had him as a hunting partner, they never competed but he came from a pretty well known FT kennel. He was a really good dog.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Darkmoon said:


> So, I'm a bad person because when I was looking for a dog, I wanted a dog that had the drive to do Agility, Weight Pulling, and maybe Therapy work and Search and Rescue work? This is how I based my decision on what dog I brought home. So now I'm a bad person because I wanted a dog for these things?
> 
> Hey guys! Did you hear? Nubs is an abused dog because I do Agility and weight pulling with him! Never heard that one before.


No, Paula's not saying you're _abusing_ him, she just thinks you're selfish. She has decided that pet ownership is supposed to exist only as a selfless act of charity. Any other reason to get a dog is 'disgusting'. And until _all evil_ disappears from the planet, nobody should ever bring an dog into the world _on purpose!_ Because _responsible_ people need to pay for the sins of the irresponsible ones. That'll really make a difference! .

75% (or more) of shelter dogs aren't purebred. So please tell me, Paula, why responsible purebred dog breeders and owners should be held accountable for shelter populations to the point where they deserve to be blasted for daring to breed (or own) their dogs?

Around 160 million cats _and_ dogs are owned in the United States. 4 million cats and dogs die every year in shelters (around half are adopted out of the 8 million total that end up there). Please tell me how those facts support your belief that shelter populations are so huge that responsible breeders and owners have no right to have the specific types of dogs that they want. In 1970s, shelter death tolls were _23 million._ Yet you seriously think there is no reason to justify bringing more pet animals into the world, even in the light of the huge improvement that has happened in the past 40 years. Or most likely, you never bothered to actually educate yourself on the actual scope and demographics of the shelter population problem before launching self-righteous tirades at strangers on the internet.

The homeless pet population will _never_ be '0'. Because we don't live in a perfect Lala-land where nobody is ever irresponsible or where no animals will ever be in need of a home. I am 100% behind promoting adoptions, but I will also respect people's right to get a specific dog from a responsible breeder. There's room for both kinds of pet owner in this country, regardless of what extremists like Paula might believe.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Darkmoon said:


> This is the main reason why I adopted the dog that I did was for these activities. If I didn't want to do Agility or Weight Pulling, I would have brought home a totally different dog. So in her view, Having a dog to only preform in these activities is only for my benefit.


I might be wrong but it doesn't sound to me like the only reason you opted to get the dog you did was for his abilities in agility and weight pulling.



Darkmoon said:


> So for it to be only for my benefit must mean I'm a bad person for owning a dog. There is no way in her mind that Agility could be good for the dogs, or that the dogs would want to do it.


Wow, you're putting a number of words in my mouth. I've actually said that I completely understand that such training IS good for some dogs. Repeatedly, I'm fairly sure. But that doesn't change the fact that having a dog for *no other *reason than to have a dog that can perform well in such things is for the owner's benefit. Infer what you will.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Life is a compelling benefit for purebred dogs too.


Except that they are lives being intentionally created while countless others die. And so we're clear, I haven't the first problem with "purebred" dogs. 



RBark said:


> The vast majority of [shelter dogs] have been created by BYB's and given to people who "think" they want a dog but don't really want one. Then they get dumped at shelters, or in farms, or driven to another part of the city and dumped.


Yes, they have. And it's because people (extremists like me, I guess) are willing to give THOSE dogs a second chance that more aren't killed in shelters. 



RBark said:


> Contrarily, the vast majority of responsible purebred breeders litters go to homes who DO want them, and keep them for the duration of their lives, and are given the best possible lives.
> 
> The latter, I think is an amazing and wonderful thing, a example that everyone in the world can learn from. Not the part where they have a purebred, that's merely a detail. But the love, loyalty, and work they put into their dogs is something I strive for.


You do realize that the same love, loyalty, and work can be put into a shelter dog and that it's no less of an accomplishment to give a mere mutt an outstanding home for the duration of its life, yes? 



RBark said:


> There's no possible good reason in existence to blame responsible breeders or responsible owners of purebreds for anything. There are people to blame, millions of them, who breed irresponsibly. The good owners are completely faultless.


I'm pretty sure I said I don't have any problem with dog breeders that are actually responsible.


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

<applauds for Paula> You have handled yourself well! Articulate, cool, calm, and collected under all the pressure. 

You rock!


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Pai said:


> No, Paula's not saying you're _abusing_ him, she just thinks you're selfish. She has decided that pet ownership is supposed to exist only as a selfless act of charity. Any other reason to get a dog is 'disgusting'. And until _all evil_ disappears from the planet, nobody should ever bring an dog into the world _on purpose!_ Because _responsible_ people need to pay for the sins of the irresponsible ones. That'll really make a difference! .


You do entertain. To clarify, I think that when it comes to owning a pet there should be a healthy balance of selfless charity and one's own desire to own a pet.



Pai said:


> 75% (or more) of shelter dogs aren't purebred. So please tell me, Paula, why responsible purebred dog breeders and owners should be held accountable for shelter populations to the point where they deserve to be blasted for daring to breed (or own) their dogs?


I think keeping the supply of purebred dogs in a healthy number might be part of the problem. If someone opts to get a purebred dog whilst completely overlooking numerous other worthy candidates because they are NOT purebred, that's the problem. 

The issue doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not _purebred _dogs are in shelters - it's that there ARE dogs in shelters that are every bit as deserving of a home despite not being a purebred. And as long as there is a constant supply of breeders to create said purebreds, dogs will continue being euthanized. 



Pai said:


> Please tell me how those facts support your belief that shelter populations are so huge that responsible breeders and owners have no right to have the specific types of dogs that they want.


Please point out where I've said that's my belief. And I don't mean your interpretation of my words. Show me where that's exactly what I've said.

Question for you - why is it okay that there are animals being killed while others are being created so that some may have the type of dog that they want? 

It's life we're talking about here, and the fact that you don't seem to value a shelter dog's life as much as a purebred's life doesn't mean it really is any less important. 



Pai said:


> before launching self-righteous tirades at strangers on the internet.


I suppose you'd be the expert, eh?



Pai said:


> The homeless pet population will _never_ be '0'.


Yeah, you're right, so why bother trying to make a difference. Let's just all do what we want because we want to do it and damn everyone else. I like it. 



Pai said:


> There's room for both kinds of pet owner in this country, regardless of what extremists like Paula might believe.


I'll thank you not to your own twisted version of my words and purport them as what I believe.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Except that they are lives being intentionally created while countless others die. And so we're clear, I haven't the first problem with "purebred" dogs.
> 
> Yes, they have. And it's because people (extremists like me, I guess) are willing to give THOSE dogs a second chance that more aren't killed in shelters.


Uh what's extremist about giving shelter dogs a chance? Millions of people do it. I have rescue dogs, all but one of them were rescues. I got a purebred because I knew exactly what I wanted and wanted to make the best bet for that. If I couldn't get that, I wouldn't have adopted. So I didn't pass over a dog. I would not have gotten a dog at all and stayed at 2 dogs.

Many people would not get dogs at all if they could not get purebreds.



> You do realize that the same love, loyalty, and work can be put into a shelter dog and that it's no less of an accomplishment to give a mere mutt an outstanding home for the duration of its life, yes?


No, it can't always do that.




> I think keeping the supply of purebred dogs in a healthy number might be part of the problem. If someone opts to get a purebred dog whilst completely overlooking numerous other worthy candidates because they are NOT purebred, that's the problem.
> 
> The issue doesn't have anything at all to do with whether or not purebred dogs are in shelters - it's that there ARE dogs in shelters that are every bit as deserving of a home despite not being a purebred. And as long as there is a constant supply of breeders to create said purebreds, dogs will continue being euthanized.


No it's not the problem. If anything, there are TOO FEW purebred breeders. There's not a healthy number of them, many of them are having issues because there's too few variety in genetics.

With a purebred dog with a controlled history, you have a VERY good chance of what kind of drive and temperament you're getting. With shelter dogs, it's the roll of a dice.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

except that there are people that a shelter dog CANNOT meet all their requirements. Myself included. 


and wants are IMPORTANT as ess aytch eye tee. because if you dont get a dog you can live with...its going to end up being rehomed. and for some people like myself...i dont want just a pet...that may be fine for you but for me i dont see the point of owning a dog without the working/high training aspect. its not worth it to me to have just a pet. every dog i have had so far has been an "unadoptable" case. i either have rehab cases or working dogs. That is what makes dog ownership worth it to me. and i CANT get the kind of dog (working/showing/competition..yes all three) i want in a shelter. That's where i get the basketcases(dog aggression, ferals, fear problems) that nobody will take.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

and what if the owner cannot meet the shelter/rescue requirements?


I was turned down multiple times when looking for a pug to adopt


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Uh what's extremist about giving shelter dogs a chance?


Nothing, and that's exactly the point. Thank you for illustrating it.



RBark said:


> No, it can't always do that.


Why not, in your view? Honestly, in what ways can it be rewarding to give a purebred a home for the duration of its life that doing the same for a mutt can't? 



RBark said:


> No it's not the problem. If anything, there are TOO FEW purebred breeders. There's not a healthy number of them, many of them are having issues because there's too few variety in genetics.


On this, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. 



RBark said:


> With a purebred dog with a controlled history, you have a VERY good chance of what kind of drive and temperament you're getting. With shelter dogs, it's the roll of a dice.


Hey, you're right. Let's not do anything at all to help the shelter dogs. We didn't create the problem, so it's not ours to fix. Let's keep on doing exactly what we want because we want to do it. Lovely.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

pugmom said:


> and what if the owner cannot meet the shelter/rescue requirements?
> 
> I was turned down multiple times when looking for a pug to adopt


Maybe you should consider the reasons you were turned down and make changes accordingly. And apparently, there isn't a "responsible" breeder you could get a pug from either, because they'd likely turn you down, what with being so responsible and all.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and wants are IMPORTANT as ess aytch eye tee. because if you dont get a dog you can live with...its going to end up being rehomed.


But there's nothing to say a person couldn't find what s/he wants in a shelter if s/he bothers to look. It might require some patience, but what is there in life that's worth it that doesn't?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Maybe you should consider the reasons you were turned down and make changes accordingly. And apparently, there isn't a "responsible" breeder you could get a pug from either, because they'd likely turn you down, what with being so responsible and all.



Pugmom is a VERY responsible dog owner.

and rescues turn people down for things like having kids, not having a fence, being a renter...all kinds of stuff that doesnt nessecarily make you a bad dog owner. 


and it seems like you are getting upset at the people here for not caring about rescuing...which is not the case. most of us rescue.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> But there's nothing to say a person couldn't find what s/he wants in a shelter if s/he bothers to look. It might require some patience, but what is there in life that's worth it that doesn't?



i know for a fact i cant for my performance dog. there are others who are the same. How long do you expect people to look? Honestly?


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and rescues turn people down for things like having kids, not having a fence, being a renter...all kinds of stuff that doesnt nessecarily make you a bad dog owner.


I agree that none of those things makes a person a bad dog (or other pet) owner, but if these breeders are as responsible as has been claimed, wouldn't they likely also turn down for the same or similar reasons a rescue would? 



zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> and it seems like you are getting upset at the people here for not caring about rescuing...which is not the case. most of us rescue.


I'm not getting upset. I respect and understand that everyone has a right to their opinions, as I do to mine, whatever the reasons. I find it bothersome that stating such on my end earns me a label of "extremist," but hey, se la vi.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> How long do you expect people to look? Honestly?


I think it would be a great start if there were more people that looked at all.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Why not, in your view? Honestly, in what ways can it be rewarding to give a purebred a home for the duration of its life that doing the same for a mutt can't?


Because when I get a rescue dog, I look for certain traits. A good companion, healthy. Temperament is not a big issue because I enjoy training. I look for a companion dog.

When I want a competition dog, I look for a dog more suited to it. There are, indeed, some shelter dogs who might be suited to it, but *I have no way of knowing that* because as a shelter dog, his history is unknown. I need a dog with a known history, a known temperament, a known genetic line, and a known drive. You can't get that out of a shelter dog.

It's a fantastic accomplishment to do competitions with mutts. Shaina (on this forum) is a spectacular example of this. But there are *still* reasons to get a purebred of known origin. Despite having 2 shelter dogs with more titles than most purebred dogs, she still got a dog from a breeder for entirely different reasons than she got a shelter dog.

That you are unable to see it means you should accept it, and fight the REAL problem in shelter overpopulation. This is not it.





> Hey, you're right. Let's not do anything at all to help the shelter dogs. We didn't create the problem, so it's not ours to fix. Let's keep on doing exactly what we want because we want to do it. Lovely.


Uh, you're the only one who said that.

Again, maybe you're not listening to me. Hello, my name is RBark, I have fostered multiple dogs for Norsled Siberian Husky Rescue of California. I have had two rescue dogs, my mother has had 5 rescue dogs. I encourage everyone I meet to rescue dogs from the shelter. I volunteer at rescues, give training advice on a daily basis to people who adopt from us.

I was about to rescue a German Shepherd but that fell through. The only dog I have purchased is Priscilla vom Grunenfeld. Despite her being a purebred with a notable history of Schutzhund titled dogs that I paid $2,000 for, my heart dog is Ollie, the rescue boy you see in my sig and avatar, that I paid $250 for. 

You can tell me I don't care about shelter dogs all you want, but that's completely false. I'm doing PLENTY to help the shelter dogs. Here's the FACTS though. Ollie and Kobe, my rescue dogs, could not do the work I wanted out of Priscilla. Many of the shelter dogs could not do the work I asked of Priscilla. That is a fact. That does not make shelter dogs "lesser" dogs, or less loved than Priscilla. 

One of the many ways to fix the shelter problem is to tear down BYB's and Puppy Mills. Not the people who get purebred dogs for a purpose.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I agree that none of those things makes a person a bad dog (or other pet) owner, but if these breeders are as responsible as has been claimed, wouldn't they likely also turn down for the same or similar reasons a rescue would?


no. some might...others have different criteria,

my favorite example of a APBT breeder is here.

and their requirement is that you apply and be accepted into "the family".

meaning he will both work with you and give you what support he can. he wont give you a dog(yes GIVE. he doesnt sell them.) unless you make a serious effort to show you deserve it.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

> Hey, you're right. Let's not do anything at all to help the shelter dogs. We didn't create the problem, so it's not ours to fix. Let's keep on doing exactly what we want because we want to do it. Lovely.


If you think that believing there is a place for responsible breeders means I don't think nothing should be done to help shelter dogs, you're reading words I've never typed.

I've owned a total of ten cats and dogs total in my life. Six of them have come from shelter or rescue. This belief you hold that people who get purebred dogs and defend the right for them to be responsibly bred means they have no interest in helping homeless pets or have never adopted one is completely false. You frankly have no idea what you're talking about.

There is no 'zero sum' here where every dog that is born kills a shelter dog. Such a belief is completely unfounded and isn't supported by any of the WELL-KNOWN pet population and shelter data in this country. People like you who demand other people have to 'justify' their choice of a dog or be ashamed of breeding/buying it (however responsibly) or else submit to being bashed by total strangers who don't even know _them_ OR any _actual facts_ about responsible breeders or shelter populations, ARE judgmental extremists.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

I think my bottom line point here is this. If there were a solution that could mean an end to senseless deaths and stupid people breeding dogs for whatever reasons that also meant I couldn't have a dog, despite the fact that a large portion of my identity is wrapped up in having a dog, I would choose that option. I think it's a very selfish tack that people take that says "hey, I want a dog and since it's what I want and I'll give it a good home, I needn't worry so much about the unwanted dogs out there." I get the impression (and it's only my impression) that a number of people would be fine with letting things spin out of control so that they can continue to have what they want. I find that shameful. 

I don't have a problem with the notion of a "responsible" dog breeder who takes great care and pride in what they do and places dogs in homes with tremendous caution. It's just that -- as I've said all along -- I think such people are few and far between.

I think it's fabulous that folks here rescue, I really do. But I personally will never be able to understand the desire that people have to get dogs with "proven drive" only so that they can have a dog who does agility, weight pulling, etc. while another dog that may have the same drive (just not "proven") might be facing euthanasia across town. That's me. It's not something I expect tons of people to agree with, and that's okay. It's not meant as an insult or to diminish what anyone has done. It's simply not something I agree with and it's not something I'm ever likely to agree with. 

And the plain and simple truth of the matter is that regardless of how much bickering and arguing we do here, it doesn't amount to much real change. Which I think it's safe to assume we're all doing our own parts to effect.




> This belief you hold that people who get purebred dogs and defend the right for them to be responsibly bred means they have no interest in helping homeless pets or have never adopted one is completely false. You frankly have no idea what you're talking about.


Likewise, actually, because you're ascribing beliefs and thoughts and all kinds of things to me that I've never stated. I'm not sure what that's about, but it's completely unnecessary.


----------



## RBark (Sep 10, 2007)

> But I personally will never be able to understand the desire that people have to get dogs with "proven drive" only so that they can have a dog who does agility, weight pulling, etc. while another dog that may have the same drive (just not "proven") might be facing euthanasia across town.


Complete and utter logical fallacy. Do you really think you can just pick up a shelter mutt with the same drive for herding as a dog that has been bred for hundreds of generations to have the height and perfection of that drive?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

because if that rescue dog turns out not to be what im looking for...it would not be fair to me to keep him.

and its selfish to want a dog period. for any reason. nobody NEEDS a dog. but i am willling to offer my home to specific classifications of dogs...working dogs or unadoptable rejects. that is what i can live with and i dont go to a shelter for a working dog because it WOULD BE selfish to adopt a dog for a purpose only to have to try to find him another home. id rather him be there for the right person...because that is typically not me(except for my beloved misfits)

and its kind of insulting to call me selfish when all im trying to do is NOT BE SELFISH.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

RBark said:


> Complete and utter logical fallacy. Do you really think you can just pick up a shelter mutt with the same drive for herding as a dog that has been bred for hundreds of generations to have the height and perfection of that drive?


*I* think it's more important to give a good home to a good dog than have a dog that will do exactly what you want it to do in some training regimen.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Likewise, actually, because you're ascribing beliefs and thoughts and all kinds of things to me that I've never stated. I'm not sure what that's about, but it's completely unnecessary.


Saying you're 'disgusted' by people 'selfishness' if they don't always adopt a dog tends to incite an argument, whether in real life _or_ online.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Pai said:


> Saying you're 'disgusted' by people 'selfishness' if they don't always adopt a dog tends to incite an argument, whether in real life _or_ online.


First of all that isn't what I said and secondly it still doesn't explain why you're attempting to put words in my mouth. 

I'm also confused as to why you seem to be taking my general comments so personally. I never called anyone _here_ selfish and I never said I was disgusted by any member of _this _forum. Why the need for such defensiveness, then?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Omg on my other forum we had this thread yesterday. Same old same old. 



Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Maybe you should consider the reasons you were turned down and make changes accordingly. And apparently, there isn't a "responsible" breeder you could get a pug from either, because they'd likely turn you down, what with being so responsible and all.


Actually I was repeatedly turned down for rescue dogs I applied for. Why? College student, renter, no yard... All but one dog I was denied, actually, who I considered and opted against adopting. He had a long bite history and I wasn't in a position to take a dog like that on. I could have gotten one from the shelters here but they did not have a dog that was what I was looking for.

All my dogs are purebreds from reputable breeders. You assume that people who get dogs from breeders don't also work in rescue too. I have worked at a high kill shelter for over 2 years now. Also, many reputable breeders I know in my breed work in breed rescue. The local chapter of the national breed club rescue is run by show breeders.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I agree that none of those things makes a person a bad dog (or other pet) owner, but if these breeders are as responsible as has been claimed, wouldn't they likely also turn down for the same or similar reasons a rescue would?


Not in my experience. In my experience breeders are more willing to bend rules and look at an individual's situation as compared to a rescue. I had no problem getting either of my two from good, reputable breeders even though I'm a student who rents an apartment with no yard. They had concerns (well one didn't because she knew me well) but gave me a chance to prove myself. In rescue I was turned down on the spot when I failed the applications.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> "A lot" aren't healthy? How did you obtain that information? Of all the dogs that I have seen run through the rescue I volunteer with over the years, I don't recall one that had any genetic defect or problem. Sure, some of them had some medical problems like heartworms, kennel cough, etc, but not anything that couldn't be cleared. We primarily work with mixed breed dogs, though we have had a number of purebreds, and all of them have been sound. Actually, when mixed breeds breed, they bring more genetic diversity to the gene pool, it is more likely that they will not have some of the genetic problems that purebred dogs have. That certainly wouldn't result in a world full of unhealthy dogs. (please note, I'm not advocating breeding mixed breeds).
> 
> Besides, I never said I was against responsible breeding of purebred dogs.


Personal experience. Over half of the dogs that come into the Humane Society I volunteer at are unhealthy. We can't treat HW there for various reasons, so the 10 or so dogs that come in every month or two either have to be adopted quick or PTS, which is difficult to do when we're a no kill shelter. Along with a lot of HW, many puppies come in with parvo, 99% come in with worms (which isn't a big deal most of the time), some have to be amputated because of leg problems, some are missing eyes, and every once in a while a kennel cough outbreak occurs. Some get better, and some don't, but the fact still stands, they're unhealthy, and it's sad.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> First of all that isn't what I said and secondly it still doesn't explain why you're attempting to put words in my mouth.
> 
> I'm also confused as to why you seem to be taking my general comments so personally. I never called anyone _here_ selfish and I never said I was disgusted by any member of _this _forum. Why the need for such defensiveness, then?


You posted unsolicited opinions against breeding in a thread of someone who appears to be responsibly breeding their dog, as if it's your 'right' to go off about 'how disgusting and selfish it is when people breed and/or buy a dog instead of adopting every time' in a thread about BREEDING, in a forum where many people have bought purebred dogs for various reasons. How you'd think that kind of derailment could _not_ be considered personally offensive by anyone is beyond me. 

You walked into (the online equivalent of) a crowd of people, made a judgmental statement that YOU KNEW applied to them, and then claimed because you didn't _mention specific names_ that you're weren't actually referring to anyone in the group. Seriously now.


----------



## pugmom (Sep 10, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Maybe you should consider the reasons you were turned down and make changes accordingly. And apparently, there isn't a "responsible" breeder you could get a pug from either, because they'd likely turn you down, what with being so responsible and all.


(thank you Zim!)

I don't think I will be giving up my CHILD anytime soon 

and Yes my breeder was responsible...she took the time to meet me and my child and decided that we were what she was looking for in buyers 

its not a knock on shelters...I know they are lacking in time and funds ...so I went to some one that could give me the time and consideration that I needed


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> *I* think it's more important to give a good home to a good dog than have a dog that will do exactly what you want it to do in some training regimen.


This is likely the dumbest thing you've said in the arguement thus far. Dogs were bred to do a job. ALL DOGS originally worked for a living and there was no such thing as a pet... even the darling little yorkie and chihuahua had a job... verminator. Lap rat was just a plesant side effect. so what I gather from your posts is that all pets should be obtained from shelters and they should be just that ... pets... no job, no bonding or training experience with their handlers, just a pile of fur taking up space in your house eating your food and living for what??? the next time you decide to play or pet him? I don't think that would be a very fufilled dog at all. 

Those "training regimines" were established to mimick the work that these dogs did in the field before their jobs got downsized then eliminated from modern machines. Even people realized 50 years ago that their dogs would stagnate (thus resulting in a less than pleasant dog) if they didn't have something to keep their work drive satisfied. Dogs NEED to feel like they serve a purpose. Some are happy satisfying the purpose of lap rat or floor mat, others aren't. Look at all the dogs in shelters that are there because they were too much to manage, too active, to prey driven... all those dogs would benifit from a JOB. They're to intelligent to be so complacent and just be happy being a house pet. Just think if their owners gave them some menial job like agility or earth dog trials they likely wouldn't be there.

Man I certainly don't want to be a dog in THAT world.


----------



## CoverTune (Mar 11, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> i have nothing against strictly pet dogs but there is no real reason to get one from a breeder IMHO.


How about for the relative predictability of size, temperament, and health?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

CoverTune said:


> How about for the relative predictability of size, temperament, and health?



err...grey area. something about it makes me feel funny. I dont know. requires more thought.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> err...grey area. something about it makes me feel funny. I dont know. requires more thought.


Why not? Companionship is the most important role dogs fulfill these days. Choosing a dog from a good breeder with qualities that fit your lifestyle is about the best way to ensure you're not ending up with a dog that is too much for you and you end up having to put into the shelter system.

My dogs are pretty much 'just pets' at the moment. Besides most 'working dogs' I see are not doing NEEDED jobs. Hence they are actually sports dogs, which is no more justification imo than companionship in general.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Pai said:


> You posted unsolicited opinions against breeding in a thread of someone who appears to be responsibly breeding their dog, as if it's your 'right' to go off about 'how disgusting and selfish it is when people breed and/or buy a dog instead of adopting every time' in a thread about BREEDING, in a forum where many people have bought purebred dogs for various reasons. How you'd think that kind of derailment could _not_ be considered personally offensive by anyone is beyond me.


1) It's a public forum, so the implication that I don't have just as much right as anybody else to state my opinions - solicited or not - is perfectly asinine. 

2) More of what I _didn't_ say. Your interpretation of my words are not a suitable fill in for my actual words.

3) It's beyond me that anything I've said would be so upsetting to anyone who claims NOT to be doing the things I've called out here. For example, it's been strongly implied that I'm not giving my dog the best life he could have and that he's not as happy as he could be if he were doing agility work. You don't see me tossing a fit over it. You know why? It isn't true. So why would I bother on something I know isn't true? Therefore, I don't see any reason anyone here would be taking something so personally if they don't believe what I'm saying has any merit.

4) As for the derailment, I made a simple comment and from there it was a *number* of people jumping in to tell me how stupid I am. So, blame me if you wish, but the thread wasn't derailed by me any more than the things you've said I said are things I actually said.



Dog_Shrink said:


> This is likely the dumbest thing you've said in the arguement thus far. Dogs were bred to do a job. ALL DOGS originally worked for a living and there was no such thing as a pet...


Good tactic. Don't agree with something? Call it dumb. It's great, really.

And, yeah, I know that all dogs were originally bred to work. But, as you said, there's no need for dogs to do such jobs anymore ... yet we still have breeders making the dogs. If we were talking about a piece of farm equipment that was no longer necessary, what would happen? They'd stop making it. That's not what's happened with dogs. So, I'm sorry, but wanting to do things with them like agility isn't something that makes much sense to me, because it isn't necessary. 

And I'm sorry, but the fact that we want to and we still can isn't really an answer that satisfies for why we're still doing it.



Laurelin said:


> My dogs are pretty much 'just pets' at the moment. Besides most 'working dogs' I see are not doing NEEDED jobs. Hence they are actually sports dogs, which is no more justification imo than companionship in general.


I agree 110%, thank you.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Why not? Companionship is the most important role dogs fulfill these days. Choosing a dog from a good breeder with qualities that fit your lifestyle is about the best way to ensure you're not ending up with a dog that is too much for you and you end up having to put into the shelter system.
> 
> My dogs are pretty much 'just pets' at the moment. Besides most 'working dogs' I see are not doing NEEDED jobs. Hence they are actually sports dogs, which is no more justification imo than companionship in general.



Err...this would take way long to explain so i would just say that i agree and disagree. Im not against or even dislike the idea. It just doesnt sit right with me. I have this really dog nerdy ideal about the place of dogs in society as a whole and it jars with that. But that would be a long long novel of a post.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> 1)
> And, yeah, I know that all dogs were originally bred to work. But, as you said, there's no need for dogs to do such jobs anymore ... yet we still have breeders making the dogs. If we were talking about a piece of farm equipment that was no longer necessary, what would happen? They'd stop making it. That's not what's happened with dogs. So, I'm sorry, but wanting to do things with them like agility isn't something that makes much sense to me, because it isn't necessary.


no. the farm equipment would still be used by those who prefer it



> And I'm sorry, but the fact that we want to and we still can isn't really an answer that satisfies for why we're still doing it.



you still have pets? you have a dog? you have the dog that you WANT...right?

why are you better than me because you got the dog you want and i got the dog i want and its still all wants. just because you want a dog doesnt mean you should have one.


----------



## railNtrailcowgrl (Jul 24, 2008)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> So then is it your position that people who choose not to do such things with their dogs simply shouldn't have them?


Forgive me for skipping over the next 3 pages of thread here but to quote you...

What is the NEED to have a dog? You don't really NEED a dog any more than I NEED to complete CGC certification, agility training, tracking...with my dog. Get the point? Sorry for being a bit snarky but you've hit a nerve. Just because something is doesn't mean that their is a 'need' for it. Some people truly enjoy spending the time with their pets in a more constructive outlet than walking around the block. Really why is what we want to do and accomplish with our dogs matter anymore or less than the lack of what you with yours??? My dog is miserable just to sit around the house and do nothing all day. She is a terrier, and yes she was a rescue, but to see her really think and use her brain when training, doing obedience, or working on agility she GLOWS from the inside out! She thrives on that mental stimulation so who am I to deprive her of that???

By the way my next dog will NOT be a rescue. It will be from a reputable breeder, breeding for the characteristics I WANT in my next dog. Most importantly who has a long history of knowing their dog's mental and physical well being. I love my current dog to death and their is no doubt she is my heart dog. However, the time, money, tears, and emotional distress that both of us went through to get there was unbelievable. She suffers from separation anxiety and has a thyroid problem as well. And while NOW that is not big deal, both are very well controlled. I do not wish to go through that again. Thus, acquiring a dog from a breeder greatly reduces the chances of having to go through that all again.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> And, yeah, I know that all dogs were originally bred to work. But, as you said, there's no need for dogs to do such jobs anymore ... yet we still have breeders making the dogs. If we were talking about a piece of farm equipment that was no longer necessary, what would happen? They'd stop making it. That's not what's happened with dogs. *So, I'm sorry, but wanting to do things with them like agility isn't something that makes much sense to me, because it isn't necessary. *
> 
> And I'm sorry, but the fact that we want to and we still can isn't really an answer that satisfies for why we're still doing it.


Why do you keep dogs as pets? Because you want to? Because you can? Because you love them? Because they're something you can spend time on, enjoy, and spend money on, that satifies your personal interest? They certaintly aren't necessary.

It's for the same reasons that people play sports with their dogs. It gives them something to do that they both enjoy, are good at, and excel in. That goes on to be a good reason to breed a dog. 

Personally, I think people should have to title themselves before they breed to put in into perspective. I know it couldn't work, and I'm really just being silly, but why not make people actually DO something for society, prove their worth, and their genetics with health tests before making kids? Could cut down on a lot of the cancer rates, and random other diseases that i'm not too familiar with rates. People get spayed or neutered if they have a history of such things in there family(I would definitely get spayed). Obviously this would never happen, and would be messed up if it did, but you know what I mean, I hope...


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I agree 110%, thank you.


I know a lot of people seem to downplay companionship or dogs that are 'only' companions. To me that is the dog's most important calling. 

Just to clarify though, I do know some people that need their working dogs. I'm on a border collie forum and there are a number of people who require the dogs for their ranch work and living. There are a lot of working stockdogs in the US still (not talking about trials but day in day out work).

I do sports with my dogs... or well, I did. I have not found a training club here though so have been out of agility about a year. It is a fun thing to do, great way to bond with your dog and spend time with them. To me it's a side benefit. I go out getting a dog with companionship the primary focus. But my girl absolutely loved agility and I can't wait to get into agility with my younger dog. She is very high energy and high drive so i think she'd be good at it. 



> Err...this would take way long to explain so i would just say that i agree and disagree. Im not against or even dislike the idea. It just doesnt sit right with me. I have this really dog nerdy ideal about the place of dogs in society as a whole and it jars with that. But that would be a long long novel of a post.


Fair enough, I suppose. But now I'm curious. 

My ideal is where people get dogs from either a breeder or a rescue and put time and thought into the decision, therefore likely getting the dog that suits their lives and hopefully reducing the number of dogs ever entering the shelter system. I have no problem with people obtaining dogs from either rescue or a reputable breeder for whatever reason.

I also have a very very narrow definition of a 'working dog' though compared to most people. Weight pull, showing, trialing in whatever is not work to me.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Fair enough, I suppose. But now I'm curious.
> 
> My ideal is where people get dogs from either a breeder or a rescue and put time and thought into the decision, therefore likely getting the dog that suits their lives and hopefully reducing the number of dogs ever entering the shelter system. I have no problem with people obtaining dogs from either rescue or a reputable breeder for whatever reason.
> 
> I also have a very very narrow definition of a 'working dog' though compared to most people. Weight pull, showing, trialing in whatever is not work to me.



i dont consider weight pulling, agility etc to be work either.

the word i tend to use the most is performance dog. dog performs either work or sport.

and my dog nerdy ideal is a grand scheme to firmly integrate dogs so deeply into the economy as to make them absolutely indispensible to all mankind and not just dog people....o please dont break my new dog shaped pocket protector please?!?)


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Why do you keep dogs as pets? Because you want to? Because you can? Because you love them? Because they're something you can spend time on, enjoy, and spend money on, that satifies your personal interest? They certaintly aren't necessary.


They aren't necessary, and it's for that reason that I've chosen to get dogs from rescues and shelters rather than having one custom created for me.



DJEtzel said:


> It's for the same reasons that people play sports with their dogs. It gives them something to do that they both enjoy, are good at, and excel in. That goes on to be a good reason to breed a dog.


No, it's not, because those desires, specialized as they may be, are as unnecessary as *my* desire to spend time on, enjoy, and spend money on my dog. 



DJEtzel said:


> Personally, I think people should have to title themselves before they breed to put in into perspective. I know it couldn't work, and I'm really just being silly, but why not make people actually DO something for society, prove their worth, and their genetics with health tests before making kids? Could cut down on a lot of the cancer rates, and random other diseases that i'm not too familiar with rates. People get spayed or neutered if they have a history of such things in there family(I would definitely get spayed). Obviously this would never happen, and would be messed up if it did, but you know what I mean, I hope...


I do know what you mean, and I couldn't agree more.



Laurelin said:


> Just to clarify though, I do know some people that need their working dogs. I'm on a border collie forum and there are a number of people who require the dogs for their ranch work and living. There are a lot of working stockdogs in the US still (not talking about trials but day in day out work).


I understand, and I don't have the first problem with people who _need _certain dogs to do certain things. Agility courses and weight pulling aren't needs.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

its not about having a dog custom made for you. its about making dogs better as a whole. genetically healthier dogs produce genetically healthier dogs. Breeders breeding for a purpose are generally aiming for that goal. they are trying to decrease the occurance of debilitating disorders and some of the temperament issues that can get a dog landed in a shelter. that's the ideal anyway. and there are those that are doing it and will keep doing it. its the whole reason i went to college. to be a better breeder and to make a future for the breed that i love, that has been closely tied with every aspect of my life...the thing that gave me motivation to get clean from drugs..the dogs that if they hadnt been there, people that i love wouldnt be here now. its about keeping them safe from the world and keeping them true to themselves by giving them a niche and a unique purpose.

selfish. right. whatever...


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Let's look at it this way, paula...

You WANT a dog, so you NEED dog food. You happen to get a great dog food that you love because it's good for your dog. GREAT!

Someone else WANTS to play agility, so they NEED a sound dog. Their dog ends up loving agility because it's great exercise and they get to spend time with their owner. GREAT!

How much clearer can it get? People play agility because they want to; the same reason you have a dog; because you want one.


----------



## Equinox (Nov 11, 2008)

Though this thread seems to be full of conflicting comments and disagreements, I actually find myself agreeing to a majority of what has been said. Rbark said it well, Pai's posts were informative, but Paula has brought up many great points as well.

There are many dogs in shelters needing and deserving of good homes. And they aren't any less deserving of such a home than a dog from a breeder... nor does that mean all dogs from breeders should be looked over for a dog in a shelter or rescue. I've done work with rescues and/or shelters. Helped out at adoption events, and even donated a large sum of money left behind by a relative to helping dogs in need. I've played with dogs that were put to sleep the next day, because his owner gave him up when the family had a baby, and there was no one to adopt him afterwards. 

But I still chose to purchase my dog from a reputable, responsible breeder. I had no intentions for personal protection, no need for a watch dog, and no plans for Schutzhund or agility. What I wanted was a stable, healthy German Shepherd with strong nerves. I could have gotten a dog like that from a shelter, maybe. And for the record, I don't even believe many dogs bred for Schutzhund as "working dogs" are, in fact, working dogs. Especially among the West German working lines, breeding for sports dogs is far too common. Breeding for excessive prey drive and that "nerviness" and using that as justification for breeding instead of good old working drive and strong nerves and a certain hardness and fight isn't what I see as ideal.

When I bought my pup from the breeder, I was supporting a breeder of working German Shepherds, breeding responsibly, for health, for temperament, and for true working ability in his dogs. Breeding for the valued traits that the irresbonsibly bred GSDs of today often lack. Buying from a breeder is more than getting a puppy you want, it's about supporting a breeding's pratices and goals. 

My dog's breeder has dogs involved in personal protection, police work, drug detection, and Schutzhund. He is a working dog judge and his training courses are DPSST certified and has been training K-9 units for a long, long time. I personally believe he is a responsible, knowledgeable breeder and person who knows a great deal about GSDs and how to improve the breed as a working dog. All of his dogs are sold initially on Limited Registration, as pet/companions, I suppose many would put it. Only after one of his dogs are titled, health tested, and evaluated by him, will he lift that and give breeding rights. Note that this is an example of him selling dogs as pets/companions, but not necessarily to homes where the dog will not be competing or training in working trials or a performance sport. 

If it weren't for the reputable breeders, the police wouldn't have their police dogs, the SAR teams wouldn't have dogs to do the search and rescuing, the army and our troops wouldn't be very well off, farmers wouldn't have dogs to help them herd, and our world wouldn't be much better off. And Paula, I know you've already said you believe in responsible, reputable breeding. But what I want to highlight is that there IS a reason to buy from those breeders even if all you want is a pet dog. Because even pups out of a VPG3 IPO3 high drive, hard sire and a SchH1 KKL1 high drive, focused dam with Lord and Troll and Crok in their backgrounds may result in a pup with lower drives than desired in a working dog. And I want that type of pup AND I want to support a breeder who continues to contribue positively to our world, to people, and to dogs.


----------



## pittsabowawa (Jul 26, 2009)

Wow.. this is a lot if information to process at 2 am. I can't believe the turn this thread has taken.



pugmom said:


> and what if the owner cannot meet the shelter/rescue requirements?
> 
> 
> I was turned down multiple times when looking for a pug to adopt


I can't even get Boxer Rescues to email me back about QUESTIONS



Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Maybe you should consider the reasons you were turned down and make changes accordingly. And apparently, there isn't a "responsible" breeder you could get a pug from either, because they'd likely turn you down, what with being so responsible and all.


Like Laur previously said.. I guess I should drop out of college, buy a house with a fenced yard, get rid of my cats and current dog.. oh and I need to age about 5 years because rescues look down on people age 18-22 IMHO. Its not going to stop me from trying to get a rescue but if the time comes that I'm ready for a dog and no rescue will take me I will turn to breeders.

My dog is a shelter mutt and anyone who has read my posts about her knows how much I love her. BUT I also want a pure bred dog.

Why? Because I want to have a dog that I don't have to constantly worry about blowing a ligament in their knee every time they run for their ball or jump off the couch. There is NO way of knowing the genetics behind a shelter dog so your taking a big chance. I would never want to replace Bella, but it would be nice to have a dog I know has a much lesser chance of blowing a knee or having hip dysplasia because I got the dog from a breeder with healthy stock.


I don't see the problem with wanting a dog of a certain breed? I don't see how going with a breeder over a shelter is a bad thing.


When it comes down to it penalizing responsible breeders and owners that keep dogs from breeders is not going to solve the unwanted pet population problems. Educating about the responsibilities of keeping pets and about spaying and neutering your pets is the only way to cut those numbers.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Personal experience. Over half of the dogs that come into the Humane Society I volunteer at are unhealthy. We can't treat HW there for various reasons, so the 10 or so dogs that come in every month or two either have to be adopted quick or PTS, which is difficult to do when we're a no kill shelter. Along with a lot of HW, many puppies come in with parvo, 99% come in with worms (which isn't a big deal most of the time), some have to be amputated because of leg problems, some are missing eyes, and every once in a while a kennel cough outbreak occurs. Some get better, and some don't, but the fact still stands, they're unhealthy, and it's sad.


That is from someone's neglect, not that the dog is inherently unhealthy. I'm sorry, but there is a difference. Heartworm is a parasite that any dog not on preventative can get, including all those extremely healthy purebreds, not some proof of the unsoundness of rescue dogs. When I am talking about health, I am not talking about things that can be solved with a trip to the vet and medication, I am talking about genetic issues like hip dysplasia, luxating patellas, and heart conditions. All responsibly bred purebreds are not healthy; the decrease in genetic diversity over the years has harmed many breeds. Look at the cavalier spaniel, for instance. 

Anyway, it is clear that many here see rescue dogs as inferior in some way. To me, they are all just dogs, but clearly people see more value in a purebred. As the owner of two dogs adopted off of death row, I find that sad.


----------



## DJsMom (Jun 6, 2008)

This thread has been twisted around SOOOOO far from the OP & gone sooooo far off topic that it's nuts! It started out to be about some one proud to be breeding her dog. She was questioned by some as to why she would do that. It was the OPs very first post - she could have been ... Joe BYB as far as anyone here knew. So she was questioned.
Then THIS STATEMENT was made:

*People who breed dogs are sneered at by those holier-than-thou individuals who feel that no breeding should happen.

It makes me angry and frustrated to read this stuff. * 

That statement is just plain assuming, offensive & very, VERY defensive. It got worse from there when ALL of the PRO - BREEDING ACTIVISTS jumped all kinds of guns here!

No one said no one should have a dog. No one said NO dogs should ever be bred


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> That is from someone's neglect, not that the dog is inherently unhealthy. I'm sorry, but there is a difference. Heartworm is a parasite that any dog not on preventative can get, including all those extremely healthy purebreds, not some proof of the unsoundness of rescue dogs. When I am talking about health, I am not talking about things that can be solved with a trip to the vet and medication, I am talking about genetic issues like hip dysplasia, luxating patellas, and heart conditions. All responsibly bred purebreds are not healthy; the decrease in genetic diversity over the years has harmed many breeds. Look at the cavalier spaniel, for instance.
> 
> Anyway, it is clear that many here see rescue dogs as inferior in some way. To me, they are all just dogs, but clearly people see more value in a purebred. As the owner of two dogs adopted off of death row, I find that sad.


Quite frankly, I do not care what health problems you are talking about. These all still cost money, which is an added reason to why people do not want to adopt from shelters all the time; they have to pay just as much in vet bills as the would have to pay for a purebred dog from a breeder. 

btw; many large breed dogs that come in do have hip dysplasia as well, we just don't get many large breed dogs. We've also had a litter with a pup that had 5 legs. Eyes missing is also common, and that isn't something that you can fix with a vet visit. 

Personally, I don't see shelter dogs as inferior. If I could adopt from a shelter, I would. But until then, I'm buying mine from breeders or finding them.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

brandiw

nobody here thinks purebreds are better than rescues! As someone who takes in dogs that arent even going to shelters...as in they have such serious behavior problems their owners are forgoing the shelter and just putting the dogs down themselves....and who rehabs those dogs and puts them in suitable homes...i find that SERIOUSLY insulting.

We are saying that the suitability of a rescue or the suitability of a purebred is dependant on the individual situation. Once a person has decided to take on the responsibility of a dog, its important to shelter dogs that owners do their research and get the right dog for them. that is how you keep dogs OUT of shelters. teach people to make the right decision for them and yes for some...a rescue doesnt work. 

Im so done with this bs..g'night y'all


----------



## Dog_Shrink (Sep 29, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> I understand, and I don't have the first problem with people who _need _certain dogs to do certain things. Agility courses and weight pulling aren't needs.


For most dogs they actually ARE needs. Some dogs who aren't permitted to do the job they were bred for, because ALL dogs were originally bred to be working dogs, (even tho is might be a century old instinct or more) are horribly depressed with out being able to perform a job. Arguing that dogs should just be a house pet, why don't you get a cat or a house plant. ALL dogs need a job. 98% of behavior problems are because of lack of mental stimulation. IMO it's the irresponsible owner that doesn't do anything with their dog. It doesn't have to be organized performance events but you gotta do something aside of letting your dog be a weight that holds your couch down.

Not everyone (dog or human) wants to be a huge sloth who just bums around the house and yard all day.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

They may not be needs but they make the dog and human so much happier on so many different levels... my dog was NOT purchased from a breeder but I know that her life would be a whole lot less enriched without all of the agility things we've done. Any one who knows her says it.. agility changed my dog's life. For the better. My dog, the dog who cowers from people on the streets, who tries to flee when she hears anything that remotely sounds like a firework, LIGHTS UP on the agility course. Jumps up to greet people at agility practice. Runs her little heart out. Why? Because she is having fun and forgetting about her worries.

So yeah.. maybe it's not "necessary.." but it opened my dog up to a whole new world and I'm sure can do the same for a LOT of dogs, whether purebred or rescue, whether unsocialized or model citizens.. because it gets to them on a mental and physical level like not much else I have experienced before does. Now, anyone forcing a dog to do something they don't want to do is cracked up, IMO.. but for a dog who needs something to do to keep it happy, who needs to mingle with other people/dogs to stay well-socialized and well-behaved.. well, why can't we use a dog show as the medium for that happening?


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Let's look at it this way, paula...
> 
> You WANT a dog, so you NEED dog food. You happen to get a great dog food that you love because it's good for your dog. GREAT!
> 
> ...


You should win a prize for this. It's simultaneously highly entertaining and completely idiotic. Needing to feed an animal you choose to have does not equate to wanting an animal because you want it to be good at certain things. But, hey, it's the first thing that's made me lol, so thank you.



DJEtzel said:


> If I could adopt from a shelter, I would. But until then, I'm buying mine from breeders or finding them.


Ha, I guess someone's holding a gun to your head and preventing you from getting a dog from a shelter by insisting you get a dog from a breeder. Tragic.



Dog_Shrink said:


> For most dogs they actually ARE needs.


Oh, okay, I think I understand now. Because I want a dog that's primarily a companion animal, it's merely something I want. When you want a dog to run agility and do whatever else, that's a need. Makes perfect sense now. 



Dog_Shrink said:


> Arguing that dogs should just be a house pet, why don't you get a cat or a house plant.


I haven't ever argued that dogs should "just" be a house pet. I honestly don't know where you people are getting this stuff. I don't mean to call anybody stupid, but God, can you not read or are you just choosing not to so that you can bolster your own arguments? 



Dog_Shrink said:


> IMO it's the irresponsible owner that doesn't do anything with their dog. It doesn't have to be organized performance events but you gotta do something aside of letting your dog be a weight that holds your couch down.


Where has anyone said leaving your dog to be a lazy oaf is the way to go? Honestly, is this really the only way you have to argue my assessment that dogs used for sporting activities are not things anyone actually needs, but rather what they want, just the same as someone who wants a dog that's primarily a companion animal? 

I don't expect to sway anyone here especially after all the crocks of justification I've heard for doing exactly what you want to do, but the points I've made warrant being heard just the same. Continuing to breed, for animals people merely want, is not something I'm ever going to agree with. And you can call it a need until you're blue in the face, it's still something you want, and as long as there are breeders willing to supply animals for that purpose, and that purpose alone, there will be more and more shelter dogs dying. And I suppose there will always be people proudly proclaiming that it's their right to breed because they want to, and well, they can. Fine. But it's also MY right to voice opposition to it and point out the cruelties therein, like it or not.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

So, do you think it's better for there to be no breeders, and have the world's supply of dogs come wholly from shelters and the people who populate them (BYBs, pet stores)?

I guess I'm just missing your point. So many animal advocacy groups talk about spaying and neutering your pets. Well, if we have no breeders, and we S/N all our pets and follow the (smart) recommendation that you don't breed a dog whose genetic history you do not know (ie. almost all shelter dogs), then, hypothetically, the population of dogs would eventually be nonexistent.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

MissMutt said:


> So, do you think it's better for there to be no breeders, and have the world's supply of dogs come wholly from shelters and the people who populate them (BYBs, pet stores)?


No, that's not what I think. Maybe you should go back through and read the entire thread. 



MissMutt said:


> I guess I'm just missing your point.


You aren't alone, as it seems there are quite a few people who are also (intentionally) missing my point. Way it goes. I'm certainly not losing any sleep over it.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I really have better things to do than read nine pages of a redundant thread, but thanks for your suggestion. I am asking you a legitimate question, but I guess getting snarky is the way it goes. I should know better.. I've been on this board a long time.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Wow, knee-jerk central!


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

MissMutt said:


> I really have better things to do than read nine pages of a redundant thread, but thanks for your suggestion.


I just don't see a reason to state --again-- a point I've noted time and time again in this thread only to have it twisted and confused and distorted seven way to Sunday so that more people can jump in claiming I've said things I haven't said so that they can put a spin on it that makes them feel like they've made a more valid or more important argument than mine.

And in any case, my point has been pretty clearly stated throughout, and it probably would only take as much effort to find as it does to reply asking me what my point is.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> brandiw
> 
> nobody here thinks purebreds are better than rescues! As someone who takes in dogs that arent even going to shelters...as in they have such serious behavior problems their owners are forgoing the shelter and just putting the dogs down themselves....and who rehabs those dogs and puts them in suitable homes...i find that SERIOUSLY insulting.
> 
> ...



I certainly didn't mean to offend, and quite frankly, it wasn't you I was refering to. I read that you work with shelter dogs and I find that amazing. It is hard to find someone to work with those that have behavior problems. However, some of the discussion on shelter animals in this thread I find insulting. They are not all sick, unsound, unsuitable companions. In fact, based on my experiences, that is the minority. I'm sorry, but I do take issue with characterizing shelter/rescue dogs as basically unhealthy, while extolling the virtue of purebred dogs, of which many breeds suffer from genetic defects due to the lack of genetic diversity.

That said, I still don't mind breeding by responsible breeders and I don't mind people buying a dog from a responsible breeder when they have specific goals in mind for themselves and the dog. I completely agree that decisions should be made based on individual situations. I never said otherwise.


----------



## brandiw (Jan 20, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> Quite frankly, I do not care what health problems you are talking about. These all still cost money, which is an added reason to why people do not want to adopt from shelters all the time; they have to pay just as much in vet bills as the would have to pay for a purebred dog from a breeder.
> 
> btw; many large breed dogs that come in do have hip dysplasia as well, we just don't get many large breed dogs. We've also had a litter with a pup that had 5 legs. Eyes missing is also common, and that isn't something that you can fix with a vet visit.
> 
> Personally, I don't see shelter dogs as inferior. If I could adopt from a shelter, I would. But until then, I'm buying mine from breeders or finding them.


All dogs cost money, it doesn't matter where you get them. Besides, most all rescues and many shelters treat the dogs before they are adopted out, so if one wants to adopt, they can definitely find a place that has already taken care of any medical issues that they may have. I know the rescue I work with always treats any medical issues and the adopter pays none of the cost over the small adoption fee ($75).


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

brandiw said:


> I certainly didn't mean to offend, and quite frankly, it wasn't you I was refering to. I read that you work with shelter dogs and I find that amazing. It is hard to find someone to work with those that have behavior problems. However, some of the discussion on shelter animals in this thread I find insulting. They are not all sick, unsound, unsuitable companions. In fact, based on my experiences, that is the minority. I'm sorry, but I do take issue with characterizing shelter/rescue dogs as basically unhealthy, while extolling the virtue of purebred dogs, of which many breeds suffer from genetic defects due to the lack of genetic diversity.
> 
> That said, I still don't mind breeding by responsible breeders and I don't mind people buying a dog from a responsible breeder when they have specific goals in mind for themselves and the dog. I completely agree that decisions should be made based on individual situations. I never said otherwise.


+ one or two bazillion

[story]Good dogs come from good choices.[/story]


----------



## Mr. V (Jan 28, 2010)

HAHA! this whole thread is a riot

Is it just me, or are most people on here actually agreeing with each other on the underlying concepts but just stubbornly pulling out minor details to disagree and fight about? 

I'd love to see everyone here be put in a room so they could have this discussion in person. Nothing better than someone who gets tough behind a keyboard...


----------



## Active Dog (Jan 18, 2010)

And neither does this argument.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

Mr. V said:


> Is it just me, or are most people on here actually agreeing with each other on the underlying concepts but just stubbornly pulling out minor details to disagree and fight about?


I think it's been made pretty obvious that that's EXACTLY what's going on. Thank you for pointing it out. 



Mr. V said:


> Nothing better than someone who gets tough behind a keyboard...


Precicely my thought. Thank you again.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

The heart of the matter for me is this. If I want to play dog sports with a dog...I'm going to a breeder. I'm not going to the shelter to pick out a mutt that may or may not be exactly what I'm looking for, because I am going to be beyond disappointed, and I cannot enjoy a dog I'm disappointed with.

I've had "just pets" since I was a little girl, and now that I'm all grown up and I have a titled dog that is also a real life working dog...well, quite frankly I don't want to go back to having "just pets". An animal I get up, feed, walk, and play fetch with. I want to accomplish more than that.

That may be enough for many people, but not me. Jon is happy with "just a pet", and so for such a task as companionship, we'll go to a GSD rescue (I personally cannot own a mutt....I need predictability. LOVE to work with them in training, but couldn't own one because I struggle with things that "aren't the norm").

Otherwise? I'm stacking the odds in my favor, not just for service dog work, but for sports too. And I make no apologies about that.


----------



## RedyreRottweilers (Dec 17, 2006)

The other thing to consider if one wants a dog for a particular purpose is health. Hip or Elbow Dysplasia, inherited eye or heart defects, luxating patellas, etc etc can all trash a good dog's working career, whether it be a dog sport, or a service or search and rescue or law enforcement dog.

Responsible breeders of pure bred dogs pay close attention to health and health issues in the pedigrees of the dogs behind them. Without these records we cannot move closer to breeding the healthiest dogs.

It costs thousands of dollars and many many hours to get dogs ready to serve, whether it is in the obedience ring or as a personal service dog. Most people are not willing to gamble on health when there is this sort of investment required.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Mr. V said:


> HAHA! this whole thread is a riot
> 
> Is it just me, or are most people on here actually agreeing with each other on the underlying concepts but just stubbornly pulling out minor details to disagree and fight about?


Yes that's what I'm getting at. We're down to splitting hairs now...


----------



## GroovyGroomer777 (Aug 21, 2008)

I <heart> Paula. 

Y'all are so silly. 

This has been great, thanks. <Takes a long drag off her cigarette>


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

Paula_in_Oregon said:


> Ha, I guess someone's holding a gun to your head and preventing you from getting a dog from a shelter by insisting you get a dog from a breeder. Tragic.


You're so ignorant. 

I CAN'T adopt from a shelter because A. I'm not 18 and B. Most shelters/rescues I've gone to won't accept an application from me once I turn 18 me because I'm moving in the near future and am "unstable" which I completely understand. There are a few dogs at the local Humane Society that I really want to adopt, but can't. 

Breeders on the other hand, care more about my situation and my dedication than my age, and follow up with all of their dogs to ensure that they are in a good home. Therefore none that I have contacted have turned me down. I can purchase from a breeder, but not a shelter. 

Tragic, indeed. You should probably figure out what someone's talking about before you spout off.


----------



## DJEtzel (Dec 28, 2009)

brandiw said:


> All dogs cost money, it doesn't matter where you get them. Besides, most all rescues and many shelters treat the dogs before they are adopted out, so if one wants to adopt, they can definitely find a place that has already taken care of any medical issues that they may have. I know the rescue I work with always treats any medical issues and the adopter pays none of the cost over the small adoption fee ($75).


Our shelter only gives them distemper. 

No rabies, tags, chips, or treats any major health problems. (except for broken bones) 

They only cost $75, but if I adopted a semi-healthy dog, it'd still cost me close to 200 or 300 dollars in vet bills directly afterwards. For a dog whose health in compromised, and might actually have more health problems than thought; they don't test for anything besides heartworm, which they don't treat.


----------



## Paula_in_Oregon (Feb 13, 2010)

DJEtzel said:


> I CAN'T adopt from a shelter because A. I'm not 18 and B. Most shelters/rescues I've gone to won't accept an application from me once I turn 18 me because I'm moving in the near future and am "unstable" which I completely understand. There are a few dogs at the local Humane Society that I really want to adopt, but can't.


I can hardly imagine the "responsible" breeder who would adopt to a minor either, unless of course you've got a way to pay for the dog's vet bills and all necessary care. 



DJEtzel said:


> Breeders on the other hand, care more about my situation and my dedication than my age, and follow up with all of their dogs to ensure that they are in a good home. Therefore none that I have contacted have turned me down. I can purchase from a breeder, but not a shelter.


Yeah, cause all the breeders are so responsible. 



DJEtzel said:


> Tragic, indeed. You should probably figure out what someone's talking about before you spout off.


Likewise. And before pointing the ignorant finger, take a long hard look in the mirror.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Ok, well now I'm getting annoyed and this does not please the ban hamster.


----------

