"Cruelty by Breeders"

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I'm curious about why you say you wouldn't have been approved by rescue, but were approved by a breeder. To my way of thinking, that raises red flags about that breeder level of responsibility, and to support an irresponsible breeder just keeps the whole miserable cycle going.

I have seen some rescues requirements that the are very hard to meet.  I have seen where if you don't have a fenced yard or if you work during the day and there isn't someone home all day they won't adopt. 

 
This is a bad thing?  Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard.  Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors.  Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.
 
If the person in the scenarios you describe is turned down by a rescue, and they then go to a breeder who does place a dog with them, what does that say about the breeder?  To me it says that they really don't care about the dog, or it's future.
 
Rescues turn down people based on the rescuers own experiences and the odds that the adoption isn't going to become a lifelong home.  If they don't, then they should get out of rescue, because they are no better than just picking a dog out of the shelter with no screening at all.  Someone asked where I got my 99% return rate statistic.  It's from rescues who do screen thoroughly and place in homes that are capable of making a lifetime commitment, based not only on their past animals, but also on the probability of their current situation actually being able to work.

Dog Advocat, I do understand your frustration! It's just my opinion that some laws are very hard to enforce. You may shut your neighbor down, but will his "breeding stock" find a new owner that again wants to be a "breeder", or will he just take his dogs to the pound? I don't know where you live, but where I live a spay/neuter law would be a joke. Our small police force can't even keep up with the city leash laws, and city tags. The veterinarian fights a battle trying to get the poplace to do rabies shots. Our "humane society" is two, four foot by three foot, runs next to the fire station. Stray dogs are shot after three days! If a nearby metropolitan area were to make spay and neuter mandatory, it would just increase the number of "breeders" in our area that are out to make a buck. Those folks in the city that got citations would not pay up, they would just dump their dogs. Litters of pups would be dumped, pregnant females would be dumped. The ads in the paper might go down a bit, but only because those pups wouldn't have a chance of getting a home! The people we need to convince won't even do what we dog people consider the basic needs of pets, what makes you think they'll change because of a new law? I have talked at length to my irresponsible neighbor, but he thinks I'm a crazy person. I let dogs come in the house!! I pay money for veterinary care for my dogs! Even if it was against the law to have an intact pet, he wouldn't care, and how would anybody know, but me. If I turned him in, maybe he would be mean spirited enough to throw poisoned food over my back fence! I sure as heck don't have the answer, all I know is that the unintended consequences of many of these bills could be costly in the terms of even more animal suffering!

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

For instance, exactly how much education do you think would sway a puppymiller?

maybe you should target the buyers instead. people making a profit are not likely to cease what they are doing.

 
Been there, done that - it's not working.

it is my understanding that the proposed law in CA will not affect puppy mills anyways. am i misinformed? i keep hearing that breeders will still be able to breed so long as they buy a license.

 
I don't think this bill is aimed at the puppymillers.  It's aimed at the backyard breeders and irresponsible owners that let their animals produce litter after litter of unwanted animals.  I still have hopes that all of the breeders that keep decrying the fact that it doesn't address puppymilling, will propose a bill of their own, that they can live with, that will stop puppymillers.  I'm not holding my breath though.

This is a bad thing? Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard. Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors. Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.

 
Hey guess what.  I live in an apartment so I don't have a fenced back yard and I work all day.  I don't think that my dogs have suffered any because of that.
 

This is a bad thing? Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard. Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors. Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.

perhaps the person lives in an apartment? that wouldnt make him a bad owner. there are quite a few people on these boards who live in apartments and condos and manage multi dogs safely and effectively.

dogs can be contained even without a fence. our dogs are crated for their safety and the safety of our house while we are at work.

dopgadvocat,

i dont get where you are coming from. on one hand you say we need more education and on the other you say it doesnt work?

maybe it is your approach to the situation?

ORIGINAL: dstull

Dog Advocat, I do understand your frustration! It's just my opinion that some laws are very hard to enforce. You may shut your neighbor down, but will his "breeding stock" find a new owner that again wants to be a "breeder", or will he just take his dogs to the pound? I don't know where you live, but where I live a spay/neuter law would be a joke. Our small police force can't even keep up with the city leash laws, and city tags. The veterinarian fights a battle trying to get the poplace to do rabies shots. Our "humane society" is two, four foot by three foot, runs next to the fire station. Stray dogs are shot after three days! If a nearby metropolitan area were to make spay and neuter mandatory, it would just increase the number of "breeders" in our area that are out to make a buck. Those folks in the city that got citations would not pay up, they would just dump their dogs. Litters of pups would be dumped, pregnant females would be dumped. The ads in the paper might go down a bit, but only because those pups wouldn't have a chance of getting a home! The people we need to convince won't even do what we dog people consider the basic needs of pets, what makes you think they'll change because of a new law? I have talked at length to my irresponsible neighbor, but he thinks I'm a crazy person. I let dogs come in the house!! I pay money for veterinary care for my dogs! Even if it was against the law to have an intact pet, he wouldn't care, and how would anybody know, but me. If I turned him in, maybe he would be mean spirited enough to throw poisoned food over my back fence! I sure as heck don't have the answer, all I know is that the unintended consequences of many of these bills could be costly in the terms of even more animal suffering!

 
My understanding of the bill is that a "fix-it ticket" will be given that requires the person to spay/neuter, and at that time, low-cost alternatives could be offered, including free altering in some cases.  If a fine is levied, it will have to be paid whether they get rid of the animal or not, so there is no real point to dumping the animal.  AND, if they should dump the animal, then as rescue, I would much sooner take care of that one animal than the dozen potential puppies that animal could produce.
 
As for fear of reprisals for turning in a neighbor - would you feel the same way if a pedophile or a drug dealer lived next door?  To my way of thinking, I'd rather keep a tighter watch on my own animals - doing a yard sweep before they are allowed out - than to allow that kind of thing to continue.  Besides, when it comes to irresponsible and negligent breeding of unwanted litters, over and over again, I doubt that it's going to be clear who turned the guy in because it effects the whole neighborhood.
 
Yes, there could be unintended consequences that aren't foreseen right now, but couldn't that be said about any law - and surely you don't think we should be lawless.  The consequences of not having a law are already horrendous - both in animal lives lost and in taxpayer money spent.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

This is a bad thing? Lack of fencing not only risks that the dog will escape or be hit by a car, but it also risks that it will be attacked by other animals coming into the unfenced yard. Lonely dogs left alone all day can become destructive or annoying to the neighbors. Either way it often leads to disatisfaction on the part of the owner and then the dog is homeless again, or worse.

Hey guess what.  I live in an apartment so I don't have a fenced back yard and I work all day.  I don't think that my dogs have suffered any because of that.

 
That's nice.  I just got a call from a woman who wants to turn in a Rhodesian Ridgeback because it's too big for her apartment and because she works all day and doesn't have time for it.  She's just the tip of the iceburg.  It's a common story.  So the next time I am asked by someone who works all day and lives in an apartment, do you think I should remember you, or all the people that haven't been able to make it work?  Especially when I'm also presented with a home that has a fenced yard and someone who can be home more often?

homes are bought and sold very quickly these days. i wouldnt expect that a person with a fenced tard today will necessarily be in that same home or situation tomorrow. 

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

dopgadvocat,

i dont get where you are coming from. on one hand you say we need more education and on the other you say it doesnt work?

maybe it is your approach to the situation?

 
Ok, let me try it this way.  Here in California, there was a lot of education on the importance of not littering and of recycling.  But education alone wasn't getting it done.  So they passed a law saying we must recycle and not litter, and the education continued.  Having both is the way to go, IMO.  Education alone is simply someone's opinion that I don't have to follow.  As a law abiding citizen, I will comply with a law, but I also need education to explain how to comply with the law.  It takes both.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

homes are bought and sold very quickly these days. i wouldnt expect that a person with a fenced tard today will necessarily be in that same home or situation tomorrow. 

 
True, but then that can be handled by a contract requiring the level of care that a rescue or breeder expects for his/her dog, and a proviso that the dog will be reclaimed if the contract isn't followed.

there is no mandatory recycling  program here, but i see people lined up to recycle their waste daily. recycle bins are typically overflowing. (we have centralized drop off points for people outside the city limits).

education can be effective without legislation if present correctly and broadly enough.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

there is no mandatory recycling  program here, but i see people lined up to recycle their waste daily. recycle bins are typically overflowing. (we have centralized drop off points for people outside the city limits).

education can be effective without legislation if present correctly and broadly enough.

 
The question is, not how many comply, but how many don't comply? 

True, but then that can be handled by a contract requiring the level of care that a rescue or breeder expects for his/her dog, and a proviso that the dog will be reclaimed if the contract isn't followed.

so you would take back a dog just because someone moved from a home with a fenced yard to an apartment? but you just condemned a person for returning a dog because they moved into an apartment in a post above.

i dont get your point.

The question is, not how many comply, but how many don't comply?

that will always be in question even with laws on the books.