Buddy...wouldn't he be a wonderful dog for the White House!!
- Thread starter scarediecat++
- Start date
One last time, in big, bold letters: 
MOST OF US TAKING PART IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT BREEDERS, NOR DO WE EVER PLAN TO BREED. MANY OF US ALSO OWN RESCUE DOGS, CONTRIBUTE TO RESCUE CHARITIES, VOLUNTEER WITH RESCUES, AND/OR FOSTER.
We're not disagreeing with you because we're guarding our evil, puppy milling pocketbooks. We're disagreeing because we think that ending breeding for 2-5 years will HURT dogs. Not help. Here are my main reasons:
--No good way to enforce it. What are you suppossed to do, round up everyone with a puppy and water-board them until they tell where the pup came from?
--Unethical breeders and lawbreakers will go right on churning out puppies, and selling them as "rescues."
--What about service dogs? Working dogs? Where are they going to come from while breeding isn't allowed? Contrary to what some believe, it's extremely hard to find a good working prospect in a shelter. Those dogs almost always need to come from good working lines. And take livestock guarding dogs....their training usually requires them to be raised with with the animals they're suppossed to guard. From puppyhood. How's that going to work?
---Under such a law, the only animals bred will be "oopsies." You know, when one stray dog meets another stray dog, or something similiar. So the only increase in population will be in the number of dogs with NO testing or screening for genetic diseases, health issues, or temperament problems...all of which can be passed to the puppies. On the other hand, the number of dogs who have been carefully screened and cleared of health and temperament problems will decrease--they won't be allowed to breed. How in the heck does that help domestic dogs as a whole??
---Theoretically, no person in the country would be able to smell puppy breath. For at least two years. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We're all for helping dogs on this forum. But ending breeding for a few years does NOT help dogs.
MOST OF US TAKING PART IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT BREEDERS, NOR DO WE EVER PLAN TO BREED. MANY OF US ALSO OWN RESCUE DOGS, CONTRIBUTE TO RESCUE CHARITIES, VOLUNTEER WITH RESCUES, AND/OR FOSTER.
We're not disagreeing with you because we're guarding our evil, puppy milling pocketbooks.
We're disagreeing because we think that ending breeding for 2-5 years will HURT dogs. Not help. Here are my main reasons:--No good way to enforce it. What are you suppossed to do, round up everyone with a puppy and water-board them until they tell where the pup came from?
--Unethical breeders and lawbreakers will go right on churning out puppies, and selling them as "rescues."
--What about service dogs? Working dogs? Where are they going to come from while breeding isn't allowed? Contrary to what some believe, it's extremely hard to find a good working prospect in a shelter. Those dogs almost always need to come from good working lines. And take livestock guarding dogs....their training usually requires them to be raised with with the animals they're suppossed to guard. From puppyhood. How's that going to work?
---Under such a law, the only animals bred will be "oopsies." You know, when one stray dog meets another stray dog, or something similiar. So the only increase in population will be in the number of dogs with NO testing or screening for genetic diseases, health issues, or temperament problems...all of which can be passed to the puppies. On the other hand, the number of dogs who have been carefully screened and cleared of health and temperament problems will decrease--they won't be allowed to breed. How in the heck does that help domestic dogs as a whole??
---Theoretically, no person in the country would be able to smell puppy breath. For at least two years. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We're all for helping dogs on this forum. But ending breeding for a few years does NOT help dogs.
Last edited:
One last time, in big, bold letters:
MOST OF US TAKING PART IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT BREEDERS, NOR DO WE EVER PLAN TO BREED. MANY OF US ALSO OWN RESCUE DOGS, CONTRIBUTE TO RESCUE CHARITIES, VOLUNTEER WITH RECUES, AND/OR FOSTER.
We're not disagreeing with you because we're guarding our evil, puppy milling pocketbooks. We're disagreeing because we think that ending breeding for 2-5 years will HURT dogs. Not help. Here are my main reasons:
--No good way to enforce it. What are you suppossed to do, round up everyone with a puppy and water-board them until they tell where the pup came from?
--Unethical breeders and lawbreakers will go right on churning out puppies, and selling them as "rescues."
--What about service dogs? Working dogs? Where are they going to come from while breeding isn't allowed? Contrary to what some believe, it's extremely hard to find a good working prospect in a shelter. Those dogs almost always need to come from good working lines. And take livestock guarding dogs....their training usually requires them to be raised with with the animals they're suppossed to guard. From puppyhood. How's that going to work?
---Under such a law, the only animals bred will be "oopsies." You know, when one stray dog meets another stray dog, or something similiar. So the only increase in population will be in the number of dogs with NO testing or screening for genetic diseases, health issues, or temperament problems...all of which can be passed to the puppies. On the other hand, the number of dogs who have been carefully screened and cleared of health and temperament problems will decrease--they won't be allowed to breed. How in the heck does that help domestic dogs as a whole??
---Theoretically, no person in the country would be able to smell puppy breath. For at least two years. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We're all for helping dogs on this forum. But ending breeding for a few years does NOT help dogs.
MOST OF US TAKING PART IN THIS DISCUSSION ARE NOT BREEDERS, NOR DO WE EVER PLAN TO BREED. MANY OF US ALSO OWN RESCUE DOGS, CONTRIBUTE TO RESCUE CHARITIES, VOLUNTEER WITH RECUES, AND/OR FOSTER.
We're not disagreeing with you because we're guarding our evil, puppy milling pocketbooks.
We're disagreeing because we think that ending breeding for 2-5 years will HURT dogs. Not help. Here are my main reasons:--No good way to enforce it. What are you suppossed to do, round up everyone with a puppy and water-board them until they tell where the pup came from?
--Unethical breeders and lawbreakers will go right on churning out puppies, and selling them as "rescues."
--What about service dogs? Working dogs? Where are they going to come from while breeding isn't allowed? Contrary to what some believe, it's extremely hard to find a good working prospect in a shelter. Those dogs almost always need to come from good working lines. And take livestock guarding dogs....their training usually requires them to be raised with with the animals they're suppossed to guard. From puppyhood. How's that going to work?
---Under such a law, the only animals bred will be "oopsies." You know, when one stray dog meets another stray dog, or something similiar. So the only increase in population will be in the number of dogs with NO testing or screening for genetic diseases, health issues, or temperament problems...all of which can be passed to the puppies. On the other hand, the number of dogs who have been carefully screened and cleared of health and temperament problems will decrease--they won't be allowed to breed. How in the heck does that help domestic dogs as a whole??
---Theoretically, no person in the country would be able to smell puppy breath. For at least two years. That's just wrong, wrong, wrong.
We're all for helping dogs on this forum. But ending breeding for a few years does NOT help dogs.
muahahahahaha :rofl1:
funny..if a person post something about a woman rolling up her sleeves and starting a spay and neuter blitz for an over population problem, it gets next to no attention. BUt let someone come on here and post something as rediculous as this and the replies just go on and on. I don't think i will ever understand.
I believe President Obama has already stated that ideally, he would like their new dog to come from a shelter or rescue, but due to his daughter's allergies, this may not be an option. Would it send a good message if the Obamas adopted a shelter dog? Sure. It would also send a good message if they obtained a dog from a responsible and reputable breeder. In any case, President Obama has bigger fish to fry at the moment than appeasing the whims of uneducated dog "rescuers."
I've owned all sorts of dogs throughout my life...shelter dogs, mixed-breeds, purebreds and all but one---a Gordon Setter that came from a horrible BYB---were teriffic dogs. My current dog came from a wonderful Labrador breeder who has spent the last 25 years working to advance the breed, and I am quite sure she is not getting rich off this operation. Her dogs do NOT end up in shelters. With the explosion of the Labrador's popularity, people like her are needed more than ever. How would shutting her down help anything?
I don't know what else to say except...what everyone else said. It seems fairly obvious that you aren't paying any attention to the content of any of the responses, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to post this *sigh*
I do wonder though what you meant by saying your rescue dog has "the personality of a Lab." Not all Labradors have the same personality, nor are they an appropriate breed for everyone, including the Obamas. In my opinion, it's this sort of mentality that is hurting my breed.
I've owned all sorts of dogs throughout my life...shelter dogs, mixed-breeds, purebreds and all but one---a Gordon Setter that came from a horrible BYB---were teriffic dogs. My current dog came from a wonderful Labrador breeder who has spent the last 25 years working to advance the breed, and I am quite sure she is not getting rich off this operation. Her dogs do NOT end up in shelters. With the explosion of the Labrador's popularity, people like her are needed more than ever. How would shutting her down help anything?
I don't know what else to say except...what everyone else said. It seems fairly obvious that you aren't paying any attention to the content of any of the responses, so I don't know why I'm even bothering to post this *sigh*
I do wonder though what you meant by saying your rescue dog has "the personality of a Lab." Not all Labradors have the same personality, nor are they an appropriate breed for everyone, including the Obamas. In my opinion, it's this sort of mentality that is hurting my breed.
I think its been said
President Obama has stated he would prefer a shelter or rescue dog, but the well-being of his daughters (and the suitability of the dog for their family and the White House) comes first. I hope he gets a rescue. I will understand if he does not.
This is a board of dog lovers, some of whom are responsible breeders. Many of us have rescues, purebred or otherwise. We fully support rescue, and many are actively involved in rescue.
Responsible breeders do not cause dog overpopulation. Irresponsible breeders do. A 5 year moratorium will not only greatly reduce the gene pools of many lines and breeds and be the death of some dog sports, such as beagling, basseting, and fox hunting, it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work because responsible breeders are law abiding citizens . . . and all too many irresponsible breeders are NOT law abiding citizens. Therefore, they would break the law and keep breeding, further encouraged by the premium price they could charge for purebred and designer puppies once you had created a shortage. So, you'd put the good breeders out of business, drive many good lines into extinction, encourage poor breeding, crime, and cruelty. Wonderful.
President Obama has stated he would prefer a shelter or rescue dog, but the well-being of his daughters (and the suitability of the dog for their family and the White House) comes first. I hope he gets a rescue. I will understand if he does not.
This is a board of dog lovers, some of whom are responsible breeders. Many of us have rescues, purebred or otherwise. We fully support rescue, and many are actively involved in rescue.
Responsible breeders do not cause dog overpopulation. Irresponsible breeders do. A 5 year moratorium will not only greatly reduce the gene pools of many lines and breeds and be the death of some dog sports, such as beagling, basseting, and fox hunting, it wouldn't work. It wouldn't work because responsible breeders are law abiding citizens . . . and all too many irresponsible breeders are NOT law abiding citizens. Therefore, they would break the law and keep breeding, further encouraged by the premium price they could charge for purebred and designer puppies once you had created a shortage. So, you'd put the good breeders out of business, drive many good lines into extinction, encourage poor breeding, crime, and cruelty. Wonderful.
My first thought here - working lines.
Farmer needs a working dog, no, most shelter dogs are NOT going to cut it, they want something proven, this is their livley hood. Its how they run their property. What if something happens to their old dog, they need another one and they can't get it for 2 years?
My next dog will be from a responsible breeder, but I will also rescue mutts throughout my life aswell.
Farmer needs a working dog, no, most shelter dogs are NOT going to cut it, they want something proven, this is their livley hood. Its how they run their property. What if something happens to their old dog, they need another one and they can't get it for 2 years?
My next dog will be from a responsible breeder, but I will also rescue mutts throughout my life aswell.
