GO!

If everybody did the "right" thing . .. would we run out of dogs?

This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.

  
(Page 1 of 2: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2  
Augusta,- CGC, RN

Such a Good Dog!
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 10:03am PST 
I came to this thought after reading the fallout in comments on the Dogster article "If you bought your dog, I'm judging you" . . . . .

If, as is drummed into our heads by rescue, shelters and animal rights groups, everybody only adopted their pets and most definitely everybody spayed neutered so those pets couldn't reproduce. . . .

And if all "irresponsible" breeding was truly cut out and we were only allowed to have responsible breeding . . .

In this "utopian" fantasy scenario, would that leave us with (A) no more mutts? and (B) only a small group of purebred breeders who would be and could be very discerning about who they sell to?

Which would mean many ordinary people who would be wonderful dog owners, wouldn't have the ability to get dogs . . .. because adoptable mutts have gone extinct and there aren't enough purebreds to go around . . .


I know it's a crazy idea that isn't going to happen. . .

But taken to it's logical conclusion, I'm not sure I want there to really be a world with no more mutts or mixed breeds any more than I want purebreds to go extinct.

Yet is there any way to be politically correct about not condoning irresponsible pet breeding and keep some mutts too?

Edited by author Sat Dec 1, '12 10:05am PST

[notify]
Cobain ADC,- SGDC, CGN

More Bored- Collies
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 10:17am PST 
There would still be mutts as far as I'm concerned. It just wouldn't be as rampant and sensationalized as owning a "designer" dog is now.
There are many reputably bred mixes - the ones bred for certain purposes, better sled dogs, better herders, better for sports.

In this situation though, I wouldn't say potentially wonderful owners would miss out on an opportunity. However I would expect to see a vast decrease in poor ownership specifically.
People would think twice about buying that cute little dog for their kids.
(Although I do suppose that there could be a tendency for breeders to become more picky...shrug)

But even if this "right thing" stuff started right now, it would be YEARS before the thought of running out of dogs would even be an issue.
[notify]
Bunny

Black dogs rock!
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 10:47am PST 
The chance of *everyone* doing the 'right thing' are very small. If we went by the 70 percent rule explained below, we would not run out of dogs, but the problem could be solvedsmile The following rule is about spay/neuter but can be applied to what you are talking about as well:

"Seventy Percent (70 %) Rule, as described by Merritt Clifton, editor of Animal People magazine. This formula was developed
by Leonardo Fibonacci, a preeminent mathematician, during the Middle Ages to aid in agriculture productivity. Six centuries later, Louis Pasteur
used this model to accurately predict the percentage of population required to be vaccinated in order to control contagious diseases. The pet
overpopulation crisis is analogous to a contagious disease. Only when 70 percent of pets are spayed and neutered is critical mass reached and a
sustainable pet population attained. The Fibonacci Rule is unforgiving. Any rate of sterilization less than 70 percent equals failure and a
continuation of the killing in local shelters."

To apply to what you are talking about , all we need is 70 percent of the population to do the "right thing" and everyone could get what they want. Mutts would still exist, rescues/shelters would have a manageable number of dogs and reputable breeders would still be able to keep on improving their breedssmile


ETA where I got the info:

http://www.ftaspay.org/about.html

Edited by author Sat Dec 1, '12 10:50am PST

[notify]

Augusta,- CGC, RN

Such a Good Dog!
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 10:59am PST 
Of course I don't really think my hypothetical situation will come to pass . ..

If I get what you're saying, Bunny and Cobain, as long as we get mostly toward the goal . .. . 70%, we'll be better off.

If the problem were to get 100% fixed (pun intended), it would be unfortunatesmile


I'm particularly stymied by the catch-22 of being a mutt owner---the most responsible dog owner who adopted and takes good care of and loves the mutts would never be the one who breeds the mutts. Therefore, all mutts are primarily the consequence of irresponsible people, in other words, all the accidents that sometimes result in wonderful pets anyway, are the domain of the "unthinking" . . . . . . .

Wait that kinda sounds like the human population problem . . . . .laugh out loud
[notify]
Bunny

Black dogs rock!
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 12:00pm PST 
big laugh Gus

Considering that is exactly where Bunny came from, I do get what you are sayingsmile The one thing I feel no guilt over is no one made any money off of Bunny. I do sometimes feel a twinge of guilt about is that *someone* made money off of Princessefrown

Edited by author Sat Dec 1, '12 12:02pm PST

[notify]
Fritz

Fritz, cats are- fun when they- run
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 3:05pm PST 
If everybody did the "right thing" we would run out of kill shelters and no one would find a dog starving on the road.

The right thing means that people would get pets from responsible breeders.

A responsible breeder would be someone who only bred healthy, both mentally and physically, dogs, screened all potential owners, and made themselves responsible for the dogs they bred for the dogs lifetime.

It would me that I could maybe choose a good puppy from a breeder instead of taking in strays and lost souls. Maybe I would have 2 dogs instead of 6. 5 of which would have had a bad ending if I hadn't taken them in.

Too bad most people don't do "the right thing.
[notify]
Alva BH

I ordered the- best dog for me- & got her
 
 
Barked: Sat Dec 1, '12 4:57pm PST 
I live in a country where dogs are not sold in pet stores or ordered online. Enormous commercial kennels aren't common. Most or at least many puppies grow in someone's living room. There are puppy mills, too, and sadly their number may be increasing. People want dogs like having one was a fashion and some want them in an easy way from a breeder who doesn't ask too many questions. They don't get that responsible breeders ask questions to make sure their puppies find good homes. Especially if someone is buying a small mutt or some exotic big dog mix like catahoula x rottie or wants a breed pup for cheap and without registration shoud be cautious. Most of such advertisers are puppy mills or dubious people breeding only for money or the puppies are smuggled from another country where they are cheaper and they have no vaccines or documents that are required to enter this country. They risk us for rabies and parvo! What ever puppy one wants that one should check the backgrounds of the breeder or puppy seller.

Spay/neuter is not default. Even pure-bred pet dogs are sold in full register if it doesn't have some serious flaw like crooked tail. I've heard that we might have highest percentage of pure-bred dogs in the world. There are mixed-bred dogs. If someone's bitch gets pregnant accidentally that person is considered irresponsible or ignorant on a forum I read.

People who want a rescue travel to our neighboring countries to get their mutt because there either isn't suitable rescues here like they believe our "home-made" rescues are GSD-hound-rottie-hunt-spitz kind of mixes, or our rescues do not advertise that much. I've seen discussions on local forums about why they do not have so fine websites like rescues that import homeless dogs and that show homeless individuals on their websites. The local rescue says that they are not an online store and who wants a dog must be active and contact them for more imformation instead of just picking one from a catalog and haunting the shelter for it. I could ask them how crowded their shelter is.

I smell that we are having changes and not into a good direction. Some people seem to be more selfish than before and that is reflected in how we see having dogs. People who should never have dogs adapt this idea from other people via internet (like criminals having pit bull type of dogs to scare other people) or people who see an animal more as furniture than a creature that has their own feelings. They do not ask where their dogs are from and do not bother to keep their animals so that they do not harm others or themselves.

I claim that if most dog owners were sensible there would not be puppy mills or over-crowded shelters. Because everyone made sure that their dog is not on the loose when someone is on heat or bred without considering how to find good homes for the puppies and no one bought a dog in dubious circumstances or to be discarded as soon as it stops being amusing.
[notify]
Bunny

Black dogs rock!
 
 
Barked: Sun Dec 2, '12 7:52am PST 
I get where Gus is coming from regarding mutts. I have wondered the same thing myself. ie if everyone is breeding responsibly , then no one is breeding them. Which is why the 70 percent rule makes me feel better about mutts smile
[notify]
Duncan

Because I'm- Duncan, that's- why

moderator
 
 
Barked: Sun Dec 2, '12 8:08pm PST 
Gus, I'm by nature a big picture thinker, so I've contemplated this many times.

"In this 'utopian' fantasy scenario, would that leave us with (A) no more mutts? and (B) only a small group of purebred breeders who would be and could be very discerning about who they sell to?"

IMHO the answer is sort of yes, sort of no to both questions. There would be no more random-bred mutts because (as noted) all breedings would be planned and done by ethical breeders. There would not be any accidental litters, or unfixed dogs roaming around mating. So - the random mutt of unknown heritage would no longer exist. As a huge fan of mutts myself, I find that prospect sad; however, in the balance of guaranteeing a life of care for every dog born, what I would consider worthwhile.

The ethical breeders who would continue to produce dogs would not only plan breedings according to advance demand (they would have wait lists), but would ALSO take back any dog of their breeding, at any time during its life - thus providing the safety net and eliminating the need for shelters to exist.

Because they would have lifetime take-back clauses, they would probably be very discerning about who they sold to - yes. Not only because they care deeply about the welfare of each puppy they produce, but also because they don't want to end up with a bunch of returned dogs later.

Now, I see no reason (within the "utopia") that there will only be purebred breeders. Perhaps these ethical breeders will choose to outcross. Perhaps they'll decide to create more and more new breeds. Perhaps they'll keep making F1 mixes ("designer dogs"). If they are doing so only to meet the market demands, and are prepared to take back any dog at any time in its life, they will not be re-creating the shelter crisis. They might create genetic health and temperament messes, but that's a slightly different topic, I think.


"Which would mean many ordinary people who would be wonderful dog owners, wouldn't have the ability to get dogs . . .. because adoptable mutts have gone extinct and there aren't enough purebreds to go around . . ."

Most likely this is true. If, someday, the demand for dogs exceeds the supply, then dogs would be a commodity. By definition: everyone that wants a dog would not get to have one.

But who would not be able to have a dog? Well, that would be up to the breeders: people who care about each dog from the very beginning of its life. They would be the gatekeepers. So a person who yearns for a dog would have to impress a breeder, would have to show that he/she would be a good owner. If we are to imagine this as a real "utopia," then we would have faith that these ethical breeders would have good judgement on this. The puppy-seeker would probably have to at least demonstrate having put some research and thought into dog ownership and care.

I don't know that this would exclude many "ordinary people who would make wonderful dog owners." More likely it would exclude a great many people of the kind that currently own dogs and give them lousy unfulfilled lives.

Regarding costs of purchase - that would most likely increase, and be a barrier to some would-be owners. I don't think that would exclude most, however. It may mean - for example - for a lower-middle-class family, that a dog would be something to save up for. Aspire and strive towards. Plan and anticipate. And perhaps sacrifice some other luxuries in order to afford the dog. I do not think this would be a bad thing for dogs as a whole. And perhaps, even a very poor person could acquire a dog, if he were able to convince a breeder, over time, that he would make an excellent owner - the breeder, being in it not for money but for love of the dogs, might make an exception and give this special someone a dog for free.

That's what I imagine, anyway.
Bunny

Black dogs rock!
 
 
Barked: Mon Dec 3, '12 3:04pm PST 
Duncan said:

"Now, I see no reason (within the "utopia") that there will only be purebred breeders. Perhaps these ethical breeders will choose to outcross. Perhaps they'll decide to create more and more new breeds. Perhaps they'll keep making F1 mixes ("designer dogs"). "

The problem I see with this in regards to mutts is that there would be no more generic mutts with very mixed parentage, like the one I havewink

That said, it sure would be nice if *all* breeders did so responsibly and as Duncan said, take back a dog anytime . Then shelters/rescues would not need to exist.
[notify]
  (Page 1 of 2: Viewing entries 1 to 10)  
Page Links: 1  2