That’s right. I said it. Don’t “rescue” your next pet, buy one from a responsible breeder. The “shelter” establishment in this country is a disgrace, filled with wack-job people who kill animals to “save” them. Animals that are only killed because the shelter industry is inept and has betrayed its founding mission to save and re-home animals.
They kill because they make the animals sick through sloppy cleaning and poor handling. They kill because they do not want to care for sick animals. They kill because they do not effectively use the Internet and the media to promote their pets. They kill because they think volunteers are more trouble than they are worth, even though those volunteers would help eliminate the “need” for killing. They kill because they don’t want a foster care program. They kill because they are only open for adoption when people are at work and families have their children in school. They kill because they discourage visitors with their poor customer service. They kill because they do not help people overcome problems that can reduce impounds. They kill because they refuse to work with rescue groups. They kill because they haven’t embraced TNR [Trap, Neuter, Release] for feral cats. They kill because they won’t socialize feral kittens. They kill because they don’t walk the dogs which makes the dogs so highly stressed that they become “cage crazy.” They kill them for being “cage crazy.” They kill because their shoddy tests allow them to claim that animals are “unadoptable.” They kill because their draconian laws empower them to kill.
Some kill because they are steeped in a culture of defeatism, or because they are under the thumb of regressive health or police department oversight. But they still kill. They never say, “we kill because we have accepted killing in lieu of having to put in place foster care, pet retention, volunteer TNR, public relations, and other programs.” In short, they kill because they have failed to do what is necessary to stop killing.
What allows them to continue killing without total condemnation for doing so is the religion of pet overpopulation. It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess. And, at its core, it is an unsupportable myth. The syllogism goes as follows: shelters kill a lot of animals; shelters adopt out few of them; therefore, there are more animals than homes. Hence, there is pet overpopulation.
– Nathan Winograd, Redemption p. 157-58
Don’t support these people with your donations. Even if you take one of those poor dogs home, you’re just allowing them to continue to kill thousands upon thousands of other dogs with the money they gain from your “adoption fee.” Rescuing a dog from such a situation is just as bad as “rescuing” a dog from a puppy mill by buying your dog at the mall. You might be removing one dog from a bad situation, but your actions are just enabling many many more to meet a worse fate.
Don’t support killing, buy a puppy from someone who has hand raised that dog in their home. Someone who has a name, a face, and a home that you can visit. Someone who loves the sire and dam and who has trained them to display their abilities and documented their physical and genetic health with x-ray exams and DNA analysis and by researching the pedigrees to discover other warning signs for diseases that don’t have tests.
Reward that person for being a resource to you before and after your puppy purchase. Reward that person for having a phone number that you can call with all of your seemingly stupid, but vital, questions. Reward that person for preserving the health and abilities of your breed for one more generation so that your children and their children can enjoy that breed’s companionship. Reward that person for their puppy contract that allows you and them to clearly express what is expected of both parties, and what needs to be done if you need to relinquish your animal.
Reward that person for socializing the parents and the puppies, mitigating the chances that small behavioral problems lead to animal abandonment. Reward that person for allowing you to see the dam and possibly the sire so you can judge what your puppy might grow up to be like. Reward that person for raising an animal in a home, just like the one where it will spend the rest of its happy life with you.
This is the propaganda put out by eco-terrorist radical groups like PeTA who at their core are against all animal companions:
As a supporter of adoption v buying (although not opposed to responsible breeders), this is pretty sick. Worst yet, I don’t think its even an effective way to encourage adoption. But of course, peta doesn’t really give a $hit about saving dogs/cats anyway…
The rhetoric of PeTA and the HSUS has really forced a wedge between and fractured many groups who care about animals. Partially because they’ll say anything to anyone to make money, so their real positions on issues are hard to pin down.
This might seem like a bold question, but is it possible to be both a supporter of adoption AND buying?
Need we chose one side of that debate or the other?
I personally don’t feel that adoptions are a threat to breeders nor breeders a threat to adoptions.
Here is some food for thought that I found on the ASPCA website:
“According to the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP), about 65 percent of pet owners acquire their pets free or at low cost.
The majority of pets are obtained from acquaintances and family members. About 15 to 20 percent of dogs are purchased from breeders, 10 to 20 percent of cats and dogs are adopted from shelters and rescues, and 2 to 10 percent are purchased from pet shops. (Source: Ralston Purina and NCPPSP)
At least 20 percent of cats are acquired as strays. (Source: NCPPSP) Many strays are lost pets who were not kept properly indoors or provided with identification.
More than 20 percent of people who leave dogs in shelters adopted them from a shelter. (Source: NCPPSP)”
That’s worth mulling over.
I have not watched the PeTA anti-breeder video. I’m sure it’s one of those things that will make me shout at the computer.
Breeders used to be the people who did rescue, for their own breeds. Now many rescue groups I run across are anti-breeder. I worked with Greyhound rescue when I lived in Florida, and a woman actually lifted her lip at me and turned away when I told her my Afghan Hound came from a breeder. You can lay that division right at the feet of PeTA and their AR cronies, just like you can lay the fact than many breeders now boast about how FEW litters they’ve bred. Both of ‘my’ breeds are fairly rare and to see breeders talk about three litters in thirty years is depressing, as well as showing little knowledge of preserving genetics. You can’t ‘better the breed’ if you don’t breed enough to keep the breed going.
Nathan has brought so much to light with his book. I admit, I haven’t read it yet – I don’t know that I’m ready, just yet. From what I have read about the book in blogs and on the Internet, confirms a lot of what I already knew, what I have been exposed to, and much of what I suspected.
I know that there are shelters out there like Nathan describes – far, far too many; but I also know that there are a few that do good work. I believe I was rescued by such a shelter.
I am a positive sort, optimistic and hopeful. It’s who I am. And it’s my hope that over time, sooner, rather than later, that Nathan’s book will bring about change, make an impact, and make a difference.
If my shelter wouldn’t have saved me from a life on the streets at 12 weeks, I wouldn’t be with my Mum. I wouldn’t be doing agility. I wouldn’t have changed my Mum’s life (for the better, by the way). I wouldn’t be a 2007 Cynosport World Games qualifier. I wouldn’t be doing my part to help ‘the cause’ where I can.
I am grateful to my shelter, I am grateful that Mum went there to adopt me.
No, the world isn’t a great place, no, it’s not ideal, no, it’s not perfect. Never has been, never will be. But there are people who care, people who tirelessly work to make a difference and we salute them. And always will.
By talking about Nathan’s book, Chris, you are sharing some valuable information. Thank you for that!
And when I finally have the courage to read the book myself, I too, am sure, that I won’t be able to hold back my feelings and my opinions.
Thank you!
Woofs, Johann
It would be a grave mistake to lump in all shelters with the killing centers PETA, HSUS and their ilk have supported. There are many shelters and sanctuaries dedicated to a true no-kill philosophy and more coming around all the time – places like Best Friends and North Shore have been no-kill since it was being used as a descriptor. Lumping places like that in with PETA is as much a disservice as lumping responsible breeders in with the filthiest of puppy mill operations.
Thanks for the comment J.
The title of the post is for shock value and mirrors the ridiculous demands of PeTA. I don’t believe PeTA’s demand, nor am I advocating that people should truly never adopt.
That’s ridiculous, as the outcome of never adopting would be the status quo that I’m against: lots of animals needlessly dying in shelters. If they aren’t adopted, then the choice is either some form of warehousing or death.
The points I make in favor of buying though are brutally honest and I believe accurate.
Shelters shouldn’t have to cripple and denounce breeders, they should have to compete with them honestly. And those shelters you mention that do the good work prove that it can be done.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply! We agree on far more than I thought.
i got your point here…
but there are other means of adoption, rather than solely from the shelter alone..
my current dog was adopted from an independant dog rescue group….they offer me a free puppy with no cost at all…
This article has to be a joke. Peta is a disgrace yes but this article is a shame! Someone had too big of a dose of Winograd for breakfast. He is not God. Overpopulation is NOT a myth and like any good lawyer his solutions seem so simple merely because he makes his arguments based on what supports his position and clearly omits and glosses over legitimate arguments as to why his No Kill movement is severely flawed and not based in reality. No one wants innocent cats and dogs dying but this article does nothing to help that at all. It just promotes breeding which we have enough of in this Country most irresponsible at that!
Yes, clearly too much breeding. I’ll be speaking to your parents about that. Pity they decided to contribute to the problem.
YOU’RE A FRICKEN IDIOT AND THIS ARTICLE IS PURE BULLSHIT!!
Your in depth analysis is staggering, comprehensive, and well structured. Very persuasive, indeed. I’m sure people will flock to buy a dog from you, being so level headed and polite.
Agree with you! The OP is a complete whack job.
Slowly the true humane animal communities are waking up to the scheme that is “NoKill” – and its numerous ties with breeders and animal use.
I am praying for that day to come soon.
I am starting to think Nathan Winograd actually has a point! I mean why is the animal welfare movement so entrenched in killing these animals?
The existence of pets at all is anathema to the animal rights groups. That’s why universal sterilization (which leads to extinction) has always been their goal, and they would rather remove animals than place them in homes and perpetuate ‘pet ownership’. The head of PETA has always described death as a gift she gives to these animals, which gives a hint as to the extremism of this mindset. Nothing is more evil than bringing more human-owned animals into the world (hence their mindless vitriol against ‘breeders’ as if they were disgusting criminals.)