Buddy...wouldn't he be a wonderful dog for the White House!!

[Gempress]

Getting a pet is a PERSONAL choice and one that should NOT be made for you by ANYONE. PERIOD.

:hail: :hail:

AGREED 100%

When the Obamas get a dog, it will be *their* dog. A member of *their* family. It's up to them to pick the dog that's the best fit. I find it appalling that so many people (you're certainly not the only person/organization lobbying for the Obamas to get a certain dog/breed of dog) think they should have a say in what kind of dog the Obamas take into their family.

Good breeders and rescues both have their advantages. Especially considering the Obamas have very specific needs in regards to their lifestyle and their children. I wouldn't fault them either way they went.

Let them make their own decision. It's none of our business.

 

[PoodleMommy]

Not trying to go off-topic here, but my younger brother and his family just tried to adopt a GSD/Lab mix from the shelter and the shelter wanted a $350 adoption fee...for an 8 week old puppy that has only had a single set of shots. Seriously, you can get a purebred either one of the breeds from a byb for much, much less.

The money is an issue to some people, yes... but it goes even beyond that... there are so many rescues who turn people away for so many reasons... they have this perfect idea in mind of what a pet owner should be and it simply doesnt apply to many people... therefore, if those people try to get a dog from a resuce and cant for circumstances they cant easily change, they will find a dog elsewhere... look Im not saying open your doors and provide a free dog to anyone who walks in... but rescues should be more open to what constitutes a good pet home... there are many people on here who I consider to be good pet owners that I KNOW would be turned away from all the local rescues.

 

[scarediecat++]

Miakoda: If a ban was placed on breeding...why would only the "responsible breeders" be held to the ban???? I think they would be the easiest because they have all the paperwork to fill out to register their pups, etc. It's the mills and byb that would have to be fined when pups are found on the premises ...like taxing tobacco ...people don't want to pay the tax/fine they stop smoking or at least cut back.

 

[Miakoda]

Miakoda: If a ban was placed on breeding...why would only the "responsible breeders" be held to the ban???? I think they would be the easiest because they have all the paperwork to fill out to register their pups, etc. It's the mills and byb that would have to be fined when pups are found on the premises ...like taxing tobacco ...people don't want to pay the tax/fine they stop smoking or at least cut back.

Because the irresponsible breeders don't already adhere to the rules. They refuse to follow the breed standard. They could care less.

Not to mention how on earth would such a ban be enforced? AC officers cannot even enforce a simple leash law, much less go door to door and bust into people's homes scouring them for a hidden bitch with puppies.

So tell me: how would such a ban be enforced? What would the cost be? How much of our privacy would we lose?

 

[ACooper]

Buddy is only one choice of "rescued" dogs to choose from. Why are you ignoring the "meaning" of the first statement which is..."wouldn't it be nice if President Obama would adopt a rescue dog". I do have to wonder why you are making this into an issue over certain breeds, do I hate RESPONSIBLE breeders (which I don't - I just simply WANT to at least reduce the dog population in the US so that throw away dogs will be a thing of the past), etc. The issue is - President Obama says he is a common man for the common man! What is more common than a "pound dog". It would fit into his "persona" that he is pitching to the public.

So what if you hate labs!! Who cares? I'm simply saying that he has the personality of a lab!! Which is usually lovable and loyal. I have a short hair dog - rescue - that I could recommend to them as well. As a matter of fact I have contacts to almost every kind of dog there is known to man that I could put them in contact with so they could choose a "rescue" and put out the word to everyone that "if you are thinking of getting a dog, why not a rescue".

I have nothing against rescuing. I have TWO dogs, one is "officially" rescued, adopted from the humane society. The other is "unofficially" rescued from a horrid situation.

The point is, that was MY choice. Nobody came along and pressured me into it.

IT IS NOBODY'S BUSINESS WHAT DOG THEY GET. I can't say it much more plain than that.

He will be president 4 years, possibly 8............a dog is likely be with him longer than that. IT'S THEIR DECISION...........ONE THAT SHOULD BE MADE WITHOUT PRESSURE AND GRIPING FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES.

 

[Gempress]

Why are you ignoring the "meaning" of the first statement which is..."wouldn't it be nice if President Obama would adopt a rescue dog".

I think you're misunderstanding the intent of a petition. Despite what you say, I don't think there's really such a thing as a "friendly" petition. You're not saying, "wouldn't it be nice?"...you're saying, "We want this." You are formally putting pressure on him. And I don't believe that's anyone's right when it comes to making somebody get a certain type of dog.

If you want to give the president some friendly advice on the subject, that's great. Send him a letter outlining why he needs a rescue dog. But I think a signed petition is way overboard.

 

[ACooper]

I don't think you understand the impact of a petition. Despite what you say, there's really no such thing as a "friendly" petition. You're not saying, "wouldn't it be nice?" You're saying "We WANT you to do this." And I don't believe that's anyone's right.

If you want to give the president some friendly advice on the subject, that's great. Send him a letter outlining why. But a signed petition is a tool specifically designed to present the will of the masses to influence a person in power.

Yep, agreed.

And don't you all think President Obama is doing the *face/palm* for his daughter even MENTIONING getting a dog to the public? I bet you a million dollars he wishes they had kept it between themselves until they brought their new dog home.

What a freakin' mess........they have my sympathies.

 

[smkie]

SAd and a total waste of time. STart a petition against puppy mills. Start an education program for people on where is the best place to buy a dog...do anything but try to force a dog on the President. You can't seriously think that is going to work.

 

[vanillasugar]

:hail: :hail:

AGREED 100%

When the Obamas get a dog, it will be *their* dog. A member of *their* family. It's up to them to pick the dog that's the best fit. I find it appalling that so many people (you're certainly not the only person/organization lobbying for the Obamas to get a certain dog/breed of dog) think they should have a say in what kind of dog the Obamas take into their family.

Good breeders and rescues both have their advantages. Especially considering the Obamas have very specific needs in regards to their lifestyle and their children. I wouldn't fault them either way they went.

Let them make their own decision. It's none of our business.

This.

And to the OP: I own one dog, a rescue mutt. I have never bred and have no intentions of ever becoming a breeder. But as for a moratorium on breeding? I think it's a concept that is ill thought out and irresponsible.

It's something that grabs people's attention "Oh hey YA! Lets get all those breeders to stop making more puppies until all the ones in rescue have homes!" But rarely does anyone putting forth this concept think BEYOND that. Responsible breeders are NOT contributing to the pet overpopulation problem. That lies in the hands of BYB's and puppy mills, who won't be bothered to follow such a law anyways. So what would result? The quality lines of purebred dogs would suffer, and we would still have a massive overpopulation of ill bred dogs with the potential to suffer from health and temperment issues. Fantastic.

 

[Renee750il]

hhhmmmm...must be talking to dog breeders Good thing we all love dogs on this forum and only have their best interest at heart. The point is if he did adopt it would go with his "different approach" rather than the ol' way of doing things...Plus...it would open the public's eyes to the over population of dogs in the US. You have to agree with that at least???

And an American Eskimo for a man whose daughter is allergic...
If she is allergic then I guess there won't be any dog in the White House. Remember he is a mix...he sheds very little - even with that coat. No dog is completely dander free!

Yah. We all love dogs here. Most of us also love freedom.

We also have ARistas for breakfast with bacon and eggs.

Responsible, ethical breeders are NOT putting dogs into shelters and pounds. They not only screen the homes their puppies go to intensely, they also have clauses in their contracts with buyers that stipulates that if for any reason the buyer cannot keep the dog, it is to come back to them. Often they will microchip their puppies and register the microchip in their name to help ensure that none of their dogs end up in shelters.

Most breeders also rescue.

BYBs and puppymills are an entirely different matter, but legislation is never the answer. It hurts the ethical, legitimate breeders who are improving their breed and only producing a litter every year -- or even less -- and facilitates things for the big puppymill operators.

AND, may I add that choosing a dog for someone else is one of the best ways to ensure that dog ends up in a shelter.

 

[PoodleMommy]

Yep, agreed.

And don't you all think President Obama is doing the *face/palm* for his daughter even MENTIONING getting a dog to the public? I bet you a million dollars he wishes they had kept it between themselves until they brought their new dog home.

What a freakin' mess........they have my sympathies.

I dont think any of this stuff is reaching him... for a few days it was in the media or whatever because there was nothing else to report... now that he is in office and doing things to either agree with or disagree with or question, or whatever... I havent heard one person in the media even mention the dog... there are much more important things going on.

Im sure it will be a big deal for a few days again when he actually brings the dog home, which isnt going to be for awhile they say.

 

[PoodleMommy]

We also have ARistas for breakfast with bacon and eggs.

:rofl1: careful you might get reported.

 

[scarediecat++]

I try to rescue a dog once a month. I pay the adoption fee (usually around 100) that covers all the shots, heart worm test and neutering. I "give" my rescue away BUT it is on the condition that the new owner will return the dog to me if it doesn't work out. I have to go to their home and deliver the dog myself to make sure they have a fenced yard. I keep every rescue I get for at least a week to find out what their personality is like so that I know what questions to ask the new owners...if the dog doesn't like kids, I ask if they have kids. Common sense says you have to be somewhat selective for the sake of the dog and the family getting the dog. I give my dogs away because people with lower incomes can make just as good a home as people who can afford to pay 150 to 200 to adopt (which in my mind is ridiculously high). I don't want these lovable dogs to be killed just because some one got bored with them!!! Something has to be done, it can't keep going on like this. And when "breeders" get soooo mad when you even mention to them to help - that just makes me distrust them even more. And when you all want to fight about "to breed or not to breed" or "you are picking only on breeders" or some other off the subject excuse - it just shows that you are so focused on your "business" that you CAN'T get your mind around the fact that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE for the throw aways!!

So you keep breeding and we'll keep rescuing your dogs from euthanizia. You think your selling your dogs to the perfect home...how long has it been since you have walked through a dog pound. Every breeder should volunteer some time at a dog pound and not in the front office...in the back where the dirty work is done.

Personally, I don't care what kind of dog they get...it would be nice if it were a rescue!

If you haven't ever seen a “friendly petition†I don't want to run in the circles you run in! Have you never delt with cubscouts or children's baseball?

See this is exactly what I mean...rabbit trails...we have gone from one simple subject to me hating breeds, me hating breeders, me TELLING the Prez he MUST get this kind of dog, on and on....FOCUS PEOPLE. I can't help wonder why everyone is pulling out all these “rabbit trails†out of the hat instead of answering the simple question I'm asking. Are you honestly going to tell me that you would not be willing to stop breeding your dogs for 2 years if it would help in any way the over population of dogs in our pounds? THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. YES OR NO!

 

[ACooper]

Are you honestly going to tell me that you would not be willing to stop breeding your dogs for 2 years if it would help in any way the over population of dogs in our pounds? THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. YES OR NO!

You didn't answer the other questions posed to you.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ENFORCE THIS LAW............HOW WILL YOU MAKE BYBS AND MILLS NOT BREED FOR TWO YEARS?

The only people AFFECTED by laws are LAW ABIDING PEOPLE!

I TRULY believe if you could stop ONLY THE MILLS for two years, you would see many many many shelters and rescues empty.

PS, I don't breed dogs, never have and never will. Doesn't stop me from advocating responsible breeding practices though.

 

[PoodleMommy]

1. I have to go to their home and deliver the dog myself to make sure they have a fenced yard.

2. So you keep breeding and we'll keep rescuing your dogs from euthanizia.

1. yes, only people with fenced yards should have pets. Your making my point about rescues for me, thanks.

2. I would be willing to put money on it that the breeders I know of on this forum have never had a dog be PTS because their wasnt room in the shelter for it.

 

[vanillasugar]

So you keep breeding and we'll keep rescuing your dogs from euthanizia. You think your selling your dogs to the perfect home...how long has it been since you have walked through a dog pound. Every breeder should volunteer some time at a dog pound and not in the front office...in the back where the dirty work is done.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you would not be willing to stop breeding your dogs for 2 years if it would help in any way the over population of dogs in our pounds? THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. YES OR NO!

There is one, maybe two breeders (I haven't actually looked at who's posting too closely) taking part in this discussion.

Responsible breeders are not who you should be targeting with these remarks, that what we're trying to tell you. Responsible breeders are the ones who's dogs DO NOT end up at the pound. They do everything they can to prevent that. I know of a breeder who drove 3 hours to pick up one of her puppies (now two years old) that couldn't stay in that home anymore. She made SURE he never ended up in a shelter. She took RESPONSIBILITY for the life she created. That's what RESPONSIBLE breeders do.

Most of them also take part in rescue in some form or another... but you seem to be ignorant about what responsible breeders actually do. They just churn out puppies and fill shelters, right?

Puppy mills and BYB's are the problem, and unfortunately there isn't a quick fix type solution that will actually stop them without destroying dog breeds as a whole by stopping responsible breeders from doing the job properly.

 

[scarediecat++]

2. I would be willing to put money on it that the breeders I know of on this forum have never had a dog be PTS because their wasnt room in the shelter for it.

of course not...it's not the breeders who do it - it's the people who buy the dogs.

 

[Renee750il]

So, you went from a five year overall ban to would we be "willing" to stop for two years?

Hare tracks, maybe?

And, no. I have two rescues. I also have one rare breed bitch who I plan to breed within the next 12 months if all goes halfway well. I have people all across the country waiting for her pups. I WILL be founding my own line, mainly because there are rotten breeders out there who are ruining my heart-breed.

If ethical people don't work to improve their chosen breeds then even the mutts will suffer, as they'll all be coming from highly polluted gene pools, although, honestly, the chances of them coming from anything but are becoming fewer and fewer as dog owners become more and more educated and responsible with their dog ownership.

And the bottom line is freedom. We have way too much government poking around in our lives as it is. No more legislation. Enough is enough. We need to start taking laws OFF of the books, not adding more.

 

[RedyreRottweilers]

I try to rescue a dog once a month. I pay the adoption fee (usually around 100) that covers all the shots, heart worm test and neutering. I "give" my rescue away BUT it is on the condition that the new owner will return the dog to me if it doesn't work out. I have to go to their home and deliver the dog myself to make sure they have a fenced yard. I keep every rescue I get for at least a week to find out what their personality is like so that I know what questions to ask the new owners...if the dog doesn't like kids, I ask if they have kids. Common sense says you have to be somewhat selective for the sake of the dog and the family getting the dog. I give my dogs away because people with lower incomes can make just as good a home as people who can afford to pay 150 to 200 to adopt (which in my mind is ridiculously high). I don't want these lovable dogs to be killed just because some one got bored with them!!! Something has to be done, it can't keep going on like this. And when "breeders" get soooo mad when you even mention to them to help - that just makes me distrust them even more. And when you all want to fight about "to breed or not to breed" or "you are picking only on breeders" or some other off the subject excuse - it just shows that you are so focused on your "business" that you CAN'T get your mind around the fact that SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE for the throw aways!!

So you keep breeding and we'll keep rescuing your dogs from euthanizia. You think your selling your dogs to the perfect home...how long has it been since you have walked through a dog pound. Every breeder should volunteer some time at a dog pound and not in the front office...in the back where the dirty work is done.

Personally, I don't care what kind of dog they get...it would be nice if it were a rescue!

If you haven't ever seen a “friendly petition†I don't want to run in the circles you run in! Have you never delt with cubscouts or children's baseball?

See this is exactly what I mean...rabbit trails...we have gone from one simple subject to me hating breeds, me hating breeders, me TELLING the Prez he MUST get this kind of dog, on and on....FOCUS PEOPLE. I can't help wonder why everyone is pulling out all these “rabbit trails†out of the hat instead of answering the simple question I'm asking. Are you honestly going to tell me that you would not be willing to stop breeding your dogs for 2 years if it would help in any way the over population of dogs in our pounds? THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. YES OR NO!

One week is not enough to evaluate the temperament on any dog. There is a reason why most rescues foster a dog for a minimum of 30 days before placement.

If you are not having people sign a legal document before placing these dogs you have no way of enforcing anything. In addition unless they are permanently identified in some manner, with notation of this on the contract, you will also have great difficulty in enforcing any breach of said contract.

Giving dogs away with no monetary compensation is also not a good idea. Payment is imperitive to validate any legal contract or sale of property. If it is only a dollar, you should be selling dogs.

You will never rescue anything I have bred, nor will you rescue anything that the majority of caring breeders breed/place because they do several things to ensure you do not:

First, they screen homes carefully before placement

Second, they guarantee that any dog they breed and place can be returned to them for any reason at any time, no questions asked

and Third, they microchip or tattoo the dog, and register this with their own contact information so that if the dog is ever picked up it can be returned TO THE BREEDER.

People who want a dog from someone like me do not look to shelters or rescues for their dogs because they are looking for something specific. There is nothing wrong with this. No, I would not agree not to breed my dogs for 2 years time. It would accomplish NOTHING to minimize the numbers of dumped dogs in shelters.

 

[scarediecat++]

vanillasugar: have you even read any of my other post? I said "responsible breeders give their dogs down time before breeding again"...I said "I know they aren't putting out pups like the mills....

I also said...See this is exactly what I mean...rabbit trails...we have gone from one simple subject to me hating breeds, me hating breeders, me TELLING the Prez he MUST get this kind of dog, on and on....FOCUS PEOPLE. I can't help wonder why everyone is pulling out all these “rabbit trails” out of the hat instead of answering the simple question I'm asking. Are you honestly going to tell me that you would not be willing to stop breeding your dogs for 2 years if it would help in any way the over population of dogs in our pounds? THAT IS THE FOCUS OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. YES OR NO!