In my recent correspondence with a pet rescuer who has yet to embrace No-Kill, I saw firsthand the phenomenon that Nathan Winograd discusses in Redemption: that we hear so much about pet overpopulation, but has anyone seen it?
The e-mailer wrote:
[Shelters] only kill the animals because THERE ARE TOO MANY! Hello? Have you heard of the overpopulation problem?
Why yes, I’ve heard of it quite a lot. I’ve also heard extensively about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. If the modus operandi of the shelters in this country were to throw dogs off cliffs because the Easter Bunny commanded it, there’d be an uproar. If you had to trade Santa Claus a euthanized shelter dog for each present, the tragedy of “Christmas Puppies” would have a much darker and more sinister outcome.
I’ve heard a lot about “pet overpopulation,” but I’ve never seen a feral dog colony or a single dog starving in the street. I’ve never seen a dog abandoned at the dog park. Every loose and stray dog that I’ve picked up has always had a tag and an owner. I’ve never seen a pet store going out of business. The breeders I got my dogs from two decades ago are both still in the breed with occasional litters. Every breeder I met in the last few years who are active in some aspect of the dog world are actually “growing” their business. They are all expanding their activities and having more frequent litters. The only breeder I know who is “getting out of the business” was paralyzed in an accident.
Last October I became a dog breeder and just a few weeks ago I became a dog seller. I certainly didn’t get any hint that there was a Border Collie overpopulation problem. I had to go out of state for both of my last two dogs, and I sold two of the four puppies out of state. If I were just out for money I could have sold my litter five times over in one week. That’s all it took to find really good homes. One week. And I’m only catering to a very small fraction of the dog owning and buying world. People who are interested in purebred Border Collies who have had the breed before, who have a good sized yard, who won’t have to leave the animal at home for long periods of time, who are active and healthy themselves, who are willing and able to offer vet care to a high standard to the pup, who are willing to sign a contract, who agree to spay and neuter their pets or who pay a premium to keep them intact, who are willing to pay a premium for pedigreed dogs, who are willing to pay a premium for extensively health tested dogs, who are willing to put up with my interviewing them, who are interested in dog sport, etc.
I found four really excellent homes for four really excellent puppies and a handful of other A+ to A- homes that I’d gladly sell a dog to, and by that I mean make a contractual and emotional commitment to for the lifetime of that dog. Around 10 homes that would probably make excellent homes for a Border Collie but who just didn’t outshine the best homes, or excellent homes who just weren’t ready for a Border Collie now (new baby or too many very young children which would mean little time to train the dog during the crucial early months, their current dog is old and infirm and probably wouldn’t appreciate a new puppy, excellent experience with other breeds but brand new to Border Collies, too many Border Collies already, etc.). And then a slew of people who may or may not be great homes but who were either too far away, too inexperienced with dogs or Border Collies, or who were uninterested in training for dog sports for me to take a chance and who would be better served by a breeder in their area or a different breed of dog. And that doesn’t count the legions of callers who just wanted a price quote on a puppy.
In other words, if an aspiring Breeder like myself, first time breeding, who is an elitist, ultra picky about where my puppies go, selling puppies in the $450-600 price range (unregistered BCs go for $100, average price for a papered dog off of a Ranch is probably $250-300, show quality pups being sold to show homes sell for $600 and up, and rare colors like Merles go for about twice the market price for each of those classes), selling dogs in a relatively unpopulated area of the country, can find homes and put people on a waiting list in only a week, I have no evidence of a pet overpopulation problem.
The very existence of all these new designer dogs speaks volumes against a pet overpopulation problem. If there are mutts overflowing our shelters, filling the streets, and bringing about their own destruction, why are people paying $1200 for “designer” mutts? Perhaps it’s a shelter advertising problem, not a pet overpopulation problem. If shelters have too many dogs coming in, why are they importing them from overseas, and across our borders?
If I had to go out of state for my last two dogs, and so did two of my puppy buyers and many of the potentials, that speaks to a greater demand than supply, not an overpopulation problem.
I’ve licked my finger and placed it in the wind, and every indicator tells me that dogs are getting more popular, more homes are opening up their doors to them every day, and as we grow as a society our animals are becoming even more significant and being given higher status at every turn.
If we wouldn’t throw dogs off cliffs for the Easter Bunny or sacrifice puppies for Santa Claus, why are we so accepting of killing dogs for another myth that there is little evidence for: the “pet overpopulation” problem?
The Myth of Pet Overpopulation“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity.”
— William Shakespeare (circa 1600)Sometimes the obvious eludes us. We are told something so often that we accept it a priori. We ignore evidence to the contrary, even overwhelming evidence. It is so because we believe it is so. And we believe it is so because we have been told it is so for as long as we can remember. Each time we say, read, or write it, we reconfirm it. It is so. It is so. It is so. But pet overpopulation is not so.
There is little reason why most people, your average animal lovers in the United States, would know pet overpopulation is a myth. The one fact that would dispel the myth is something they almost never see consistently because they do not go to shelters everyday. But animal rescuers see it. Animal activists see it. And others in sheltering do also.
They see it daily, but still believe in pet overpopulation. What do they see every time they go into animal shelters? They see empty cages. Shelters kill dogs and cats every single day, despite empty cages.The City of Los Angeles Animal Services Department kills every day despite empty cages. A veterinarian who tried to keep more animals alive by keeping the cages full was fired in 2005, in part, due to staff complaints of “too much work.” In September 2006, the Department killed twenty-five kittens because they had a cold, despite empty cages. In Eugene, Oregon, activists noted a high percentage of empty cages at their local shelter in the summer of 2006 due to killing that shelter management blamed on pet overpopulation and lack of a cat licensing law. The Lane County Animal Regulation Authority kept all but a half dozen cat cages empty at the height of the busy season, even though it killed approximately 70 percent of cats during the last year, many of them ostensibly for “lack of space.” According to local activists, doing so makes it easier for staff to clean. In Philadelphia before a new leadership team took over later that year, I counted over seventy empty cat cages in February of 2005 on a day they were killing “for space.” These are not isolated examples. They are epidemic–and endemic–to animal control.
Empty cages mean less cleaning, less feeding, less work. Some shelter directors simply don’t care and do it for that reason. Others do it because they falsely believe that no one will adopt the animals anyway. Still others kill because they believe the cages will get full. And others–such as Tompkins County before my arrival–require a certain number of animals to be killed in the morning to make room for the new animals they expect that day–animals who might or might not come, animals who might come after those animals killed could have been adopted, lost animals who might be reclaimed, thereby opening up space without the need to kill, animals who instead could have been transferred to rescue groups or placed into foster care.
There are many reasons why shelters kill animals at this point in time, but pet overpopulation is not one of them. In the case of a small percentage of animals, the animals may be hopelessly sick or injured, or the dogs are so vicious that placing them would put adoptive families at risk. (This killing is also being challenged by sanctuaries and hospice care groups, a movement that is also growing in scale and scope and which all compassionate people must embrace). Aside from this relatively small number of cases (only seven percent of the animals in Tompkins County), shelters also kill for less merciful reasons.
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. It is as faulty a syllogism and as untrue a proposition as exists in sheltering today. But people believe it, and because they do, local governments under-fund their shelters, appoint and retain incompetent employees in animal control, and give shelter directors the carte blanche they need to kill because the problem is portrayed as insurmountable.
This also begs the question of why pet stores and commercial breeding operations (sometimes referred to as “puppy mills” or “kitten mills”) are still in business. Hobby breed enthusiasts notwithstanding (since these groups often support No Kill and assist in animal rescue), pet stores and puppy/kitten mills are motivated by profit, and they would not go into the business if homes weren’t available. In addition, the more animals dying in a given community) which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which show homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals as this is usually accompanied with under-performing staff, poor customer servie, and dirty and unwelcoming facilities.
– Excerpt from Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America by Nathan J. Winograd
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
This is a very interesting article. The argument I was more familiar with is that there is an overpopulation problem of dogs who are dangerous to humans but there are not too many good dogs.
Your analysis is more complete. When my family went looking for a border collie when I was a child we always found that breeders would tell us that we could not touch the parents. Presumably this is because the breeders were afraid that we would get bit.
The border collies I have breed are not like this at all.
The only reason you should have been denied contact is if you had not washed your hands to prevent the transfer of Parvo before the puppies had their shots. Parvo can wipe out an entire litter.
My father gave me the opposite advice. Don’t pick the puppy, pick the best parents. If the Dam was nervous or flighty or mean, don’t get her puppies. Pretty much any puppy can melt your heart, but when you’re buying based upon if you’d take the parents home or not, we’ve never gotten a bad dog.
This is horrible. I am an animal control officer, and I deal firsthand with the pet overpopulation problem everyday. of all the dogs we get in, about 5 percent have tags. Half of the dogs we get in are starving. While ive never seen a feral dog colony, there are plenty of feral cat colonies. I think you should get your facts straight before writing a horribly incorrect article.
Horribly incorrect? How can my honest observations be incorrect? Nowhere did I say that because I don’t see something it doesn’t exist. I would expect a person tasked with rounding up strays to, in fact, see stray animals. But stray and abandoned animals do not make an “overpopulation” problem. They are only evidence that there are abandoned, stray, and feral animals.
Your particular selection bias doesn’t really put the size of the issue in perspective. Unhomed animals might make up the vast majority of dogs you come into contact with, but it’s still only 5% of the dog population. Only five percent. I, personally, don’t find that level of unhomed dogs to be horrific, even if some of the specific conditions of those animals is horrific.
the fact that we get in 100’s of animals each month, and that despite all of our efforts to rehome these animals, which our efforts are plentiful, we still have to euthanize over half of them, leads me to believe that there is a pet overpopulation problem. the fact that this is one medium sized town in the state of oklahoma, and knowing there are so many other towns all over the united states that have to euthanize this great number of animals as well, is a problem. and although a lot of the city shelters might not put much effort into finding these animals homes, mine does put a lot of effort forth and we still have to put down a good number of dogs every month. and cat overpopulation is ten times as worse.
If you don’t mind, why don’t you read that big quoted essay by Nathan Winograd and tell me how many of those issues are true with your shelter.
Do you have empty cages? Do you use the internet to promote your animals? Do you have volunteers? Do you have a foster care program? What are the hours of your shelter? Do you work with rescue groups? Do you walk the dogs?
What is the population of your town and how many dogs are there in those homes? How many pet stores are there and how many hobby breeders service the area? How active are the pet classifieds?
That you get animals in and that you can’t find homes for them all does not speak to a pet overpopulation problem any more than the existence of Good Will stores speaks to there being too many clothes. It certainly doesn’t justify shutting down The Gap and Eddie Bauer simply because sales aren’t as robust at the second hand store.
Do you have empty cages? at times.
Do you use the internet to promote your animals?yes, as well as paying for full page ads in every newspaper including sunday.
Do you have volunteers?yes we do,
Do you have a foster care program?yes we do
What are the hours of your shelter?11-7 monday thru saturday
Do you work with rescue groups?yes we do however all rescue groups in our area are generally full
Do you walk the dogs? yes we do.
What is the population of your town and how many dogs are there in those homes?17,000 on average 2 to 3
How many pet stores are there and how many hobby breeders service the area? quite a few hobby breeders, average amount of pet stores
How active are the pet classifieds? petfinder and craigslist are the most active.
Nathan is an idiot. Even Peta refused to back him on his proposed legislature, cause while what he says sounds nice, its horribly inaccurate.
Just bc maybe in his part of the country its not as bad as made out to be, doesnt mean its that way everywhere, being right next to missouri, the puppy mill capital of america, we experience firsthand the pet overpopulation problem.
So why do you keep calling it an overpopulation problem? If hobby breeders are doing robust business there clearly isn’t a problem with too many dogs and too few homes.
If the top reasons people ditch their dogs at shelters have nothing to do with there being too many dogs in the world, why do you keep calling it an over population problem? Why not call it what it is and then you might actually find solutions to the problems.
To my knowledge the puppy millers are smart enough to send their dogs to the big cities where they are sold. They might run their businesses in rural areas but the dogs don’t stay there. How many dogs to you send to partner shelters in big cities where demand is higher and supply lower?
No, hobby breeders are still in business because people dont think, they just see something cute and then realize they cant keep it and release it to us. Also , many of these “hobby” breeders release their puppies to us, the ones they cant sell, then will have another litter in a few months. They are also still in business because people like you and this nathan idiot go around telling people there isnt a pet overpopulation problem, so they buy from a breeder instead of rescuing a homeless dog. And the more people think there isnt a pet overpopulation problem, the more people that are going to go to a breeder instead, therefore contributing to the overpopulation problem, as the breeder is gonna have another litter as business is good for him.
We do try to send dogs where the supply is lower, but as there IS an overpopulation problem, the opportunity to do that is few and far between.
And your knowledge of puppy millers must not be very extensive, as they are not smart enough to send them to big cities. They send them to wherever there is a buyer.
I would like for you to try and run an animal shelter, and see firsthand the problem, so maybe instead of denouncing this problem which you have no idea about, therefore contributing to the problem itself, you could do something productive, like helping raise awareness to the problem and encourage owners to spay/neuter.
Hobby breeders are in business because they provide a service people want. 95% of dogs never see a shelter, so how could it be that you’re in any position to judge that there’s an overpopulation problem? Does a worker in a junk yard have any idea if there is a car overpopulation problem? Do divorce attorneys have any idea about human population? How about orphanages… do they know anything about global human numbers?
Looking at the numbers of mutts that go into shelters, I doubt that these “hobby” breeders you’re talking about are anything of the sort. The mere act of having ones dogs screw in the backyard does not make one a hobby breeder.
As for Nathan, he’s turned around and run successful shelters. It sounds like you have some sour grapes over your not-so-well run shelter. Sorry, I wish you the best.
As for puppy millers, it’s my understanding that they sell their dogs far and wide in more lucrative markets than the rural areas where they operate via dealers and brokers. If you have some published source that documents that they do their business locally, I’d be interested in reading it. It was my impression that puppy millers get away with what they do because of loose regulations and cheap land rates in rural areas and make a profit by selling their dogs where they can be sold for a much higher markup in urban areas.
No dog I’ve ever owned has ended up in a shelter and no dog I’ve ever bred has ended up in a shelter. Sorry, but I’m not part of the problem. I’m part of the solution, creating quality dogs and placing them in quality homes.
And I see no reason to promote lies and incompetence. There isn’t a pet overpopulation problem.
and the top reason people ditch their dogs are to buy a new one, 8 times out of 10. THey are desiring a purebred, so they release their mutt.
and owner release count for about 5 percent of the dogs we get in. the majority of them are found wandering the streets, HOMELESS.
Had you read my post: http://www.border-wars.com/2008/12/garbage-in-garbage-out.html
you’d know that the top 10 reasons for dog relinquishment at shelters are:
1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets at home
7. Pet illness
8. Personal Problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for littermates
This puts to rest most of the arguments against breeders being the source of the over-hyped pet overpopulation problem. Not one of the reasons on that list has to do with a big B Breeder, and only the last (no homes for litter mates) has to do with someone who breeds.
Those two things are not the same, any more than you’d call anyone who runs a Runner, anyone who swims a Swimmer, or anyone who paints a Painter. The big T Title implies a level of training, skill, and success not common in people who blindly attempt an activity. This isn’t a simple matter of existentialism, it’s a matter of professionalism.
Feral dogs:
1.http://www.straydogs.ro/
2. Studies on feral dogs in Italy: There are many studies of the feral dog colonies in Italy and how they compare to the Italian wolves.
Where I live, there would be a great many feral dogs.
And I have known packs of stray dogs to form for the sole purpose of hunting deer and killing sheep or calves.
The only thing that stops them from doing so is that landowners shoot stray dogs that hunt deer or stock on sight.
So dogs can indeed go feral and form colonies.
They don’t in part because human societies don’t tolerate them in the same way they do cats, and unlike cats, which operate mostly by instinct, dogs have to learn how to hunt.
And do not throw Raymond Coppinger “dogs are scavengers” nonsense at me.
Rman, just tried the link on your point#1 but it says “Be back online in a few days.” Has anyone noticed if the ferals that successfully formed and hunted and killed deer, have anything in common? Do they look similar in any way? As if in process of reverting back to a type you might see in dogs that have been living as ferals in human camps in third world countries for generations?
The number one reason for reason for homeless pets is ignorant pet owners. Where do they get their pets from? Everywhere. Good breeders. Bad breeders. Other ignorant pet owners that don’t spay or neuter their pets. Rescues. Shelters.
Of all of those, which one will take them back if the owner no longer can keep it?
Only a breeder that will unequivocally take back any animal for any reason (without refund) does not contribute to the unwanted pet problem. Once you drop “overpopulation” and substitute “unwanted pets”, then the problem is very clear. People get pets, people no long want pets, people “get rid of” pets. Some end up in n ew homes, some in shelters, some end up homeless, many end up dead – struck by a car, starved, sick, or shot.
The reason there are so few feral dog colonies is twofold: Most domestic dogs aren’t capable for fending for themselves. People find nothing cute or attractive about a roaming pack of dogs. Any that do survive are likely to be killed because people find them threatening.
Are breeders at fault? Definitely. If the industry as a whole (this means everyone) educated the buyers, had them sign contracts, followed every animal sold and would take every pet sold back if the owners no longer wanted it. Well, first – a lot of operations would immediately go under. Ah, well. Pity that. Then there wouldn’t be much of a need for shelters, rescues and animal control – because the breeders would be housing and rehoming all of the unwanted pets.
I can only wish.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Sure we’ll take in you christmas present puppy and find a good loving home for him. (but what I won’t tell you is it’ll be dead in 6 days).
Ask yourself, if you I were a puppy farmer who would I want a movement that relays dogs between cities and states to make sure as many as possible have a home, or the people who slaughter 4 million a year and constantly make room for more puppies on the market?
Gee, who is it that gets $1 mil a year as CEO? that would be the ASPCA. Use your head people. It is one giant assembly line and euthanasia techs across the country have had their conscience systematically revoked for the 6th largest marketin the world. The pet industry.
At the end of the day bickering over how to handle the problem is just a distraction to actually solving the problem. trying to say there is not an overpopulation problem as a means to not justify slaughtering millions of pets by means of statistical slight-of-hand does nothing at best and hurts the movement at worst. The bottom line is we wouldn’t have any shelters if there weren’t an overpopulation issue period.
now back to your regularly scheduled program….
“Bickering over how to handle the problem” is how you find new solutions and improve old ones when a problem still exists. Pushing the “overpopulation” myth hasn’t worked well at all and demonizing owners isn’t working either, it’s only giving bleeding hearts an excuse to pass judgement on others (for no benefit to the dogs) and to justify their horrible placement rates and high kill rates.
Nathan Winograd thoroughly dispels that bit of circular reasoning:
“It is the political cover that prevents even the animal rescuers and advocates from demanding an immediate end to the whole bloody mess.”
Well all I know is that members of my own rescue have attended more than one protest to end killing at shelters. And from my POV these types of protests are growing. But maybe there is a difference between “rescues.” A lot of the smaller ones are run by folks who are, at least, well intentioned. Now, HSUS is not what I would call one of those rescues supportive of ending mass kills.
I have thought about this alot & when I worked in rescue I noticed in western sydney it was not about pet over population but maybe over population of staffy looking dogs more than anything.
Kill day all dogs where back with their owners, re homed, in rescue etc exspect for a number of very similar types of dogs every week.
They generally fill in 1 of 3 types, staffies, working breeds sent totally mad living in town that no one felt up to re training or dogs with health issues.
If we where so over poulated why is their not a wider selection of dogs facing the kill day?
It depends heavily on where you live. I’m in a good-sized city with excellent animal-control facilities – one large no-kill and two medium-sized kill shelters. Both of the “kill” (or “open-door” as they prefer to be called) have high adoption rates and rarely have to euthanize for lack of space.
It’s worth noting that of the 60 dogs on one shelter’s website, 45 are pit bulls or pit bull mixes. According to shelter personnel, many of the small, appealing dogs are never even put on the website because they’re adopted so quickly.
The case is very different over the border in Ohio and West Virginia. Few pits (they are illegal in some parts of Ohio), lots of small dogs, few adoptions. Many of them end up getting transported to out-of-state rescues.
Jana recently posted..Defining a "Quality Dog"
I’ve come to realise the same thing. I think it’s really that dog ownership dynamics are VERY different in different parts of the country. The the NE, Florida, parts of California and the west coast, the shelter business is booming and turning over dogs more quickly than they can get them (except for certain unmarketable breeds that aren’t homed because nobody wants them not because there are too many)
The guy who posted from Oklahoma is right, though – there IS a pet problem here because the mores about pet ownership are massively outdated. Very few people train their dogs. Dogs are seen as disposable. Dogs quite often are KEPT OUTSIDE (a huge factor in creating aggression). People are too poor or don’t care enough to alter their pets because they are seen as being valueless (a very pastoral point of view that is slowly changing).
However, there are MANY groups now in Tulsa that transport busloads of dogs to areas of high demand. I’ve shipped many a pup to Colorado, Florida etc. Rescues from groups in these areas go for $350 a pop. In THOSE parts of the country, there really isnt’ an overpopulation problem.
The mentality of a “purebred dog” is a huge part of the problem. Thinking that shelter dogs are trash is horrible, but a very real mind set for a lot of people. Before you decide that you are doing the right thing, spend a week at a shelter. Realize that those shelters are everywhere, even in the states you are selling your dogs to, and that by every puppy you breed you are helping just one more dog die. If people didn’t have the option to turn away from a shelter dog, then more of them would be adopted. Most shelter dogs are purebreds, most were from breeders who “found them a good home.” Please, don’t be so ignorant. If you love dogs, realize you are hurting them. I HAVE seen starving dogs on the streets, they do exist.
> that by every puppy you breed you are helping just one more dog die.
That’s bullshit. Dog ownership isn’t a zero sum situation and no dogs are killed because others are bred. Dogs are killed because their owners ditch them and shelters suck at re-homing them.
> If people didn’t have the option
That’s the most pathetic, defeatist logic. I feel sorry for you that you think that way. “If people didn’t have freedom, they’d be forced to accept my mediocrity” yeah, no thanks.
> Most shelter dogs are purebreds
No, they’re not. 75% of shelter dogs are mutts, and the majority are all/part bully breed.
> most were from breeders
Again, this is false. Most dogs in shelters come from people who acquired them for little to no cost from friends or family. Those aren’t breeders in all but the most basic sense.
> you are hurting them
The only thing hurting dogs is ignorance, lies, and stupidity like what you’re offering here.
There is really no excuse for your ignorance, Addy. If you really care about needy shelter dogs, you should educate yourself on the facts about the issue (which are easily available from reputable animal welfare organizations like the ASPCA and National COuncil on Pet Population).
Until then, keep your hysterical PETA-esque dribble to yourself.
This article is just an excuse to give a better feeling to dog breeders and careless dog owners. I would suggest that you work at a shelter for a while, before you spread stuff like that.
If you like a certain dog breed so much, why not volunteering or open up a rescue organization for that certain dog breed?
I’m sorry, but reality doesn’t support your beliefs Blart. If you can’t be bothered to educate yourself, don’t go telling other people what they should or shouldn’t do.
I’ll weigh in, because I used to work for a shelter and I have bred litters of pups (and owned dogs I got from breeders and from rescue).
I can see both sides of things. On one hand the shelters are not doing a very good job, and this going after breeders smacks of a marketing ploy (and in a sense, the rescues/shelters are in direct competition with breeders for market share, so I think both are going to be biased in their assumptions). And the shelters are full of it, because rather than up their game it’s easier to get on some moral high horse and go after breeders (and I’m sure this helps them out with HSUS/PETA, so there’s that angle too — a lot of shelters are fine and dandy working lockstep this ideology).
On the other hand, a lot of breeders aren’t doing a very good job — there are far too many pumping out garbage. If you’re a breeder, and you’re ok with pumping out what you know to be a defective or substandard product because you can get people to buy it, then you’re a part of the problem (and some of these are big, successful show kennels who do all the right things — all you have to do is take a look at some of the rampant problems in some breeds of dogs…breeders put them in that position, everybody else supported those breeders, but the breeders did the breeding to put the dogs in that position).
So with that in mind, I’d say I’m very pro-NoKill, but with the caveat: it all depends.
Some of the dogs that come in have so many issues of such a magnitude, that it is truly irresponsible to put these dogs up for adoption to the unwitting public (and the public isn’t informed of what exactly is wrong with them and what exactly will be required to own them — and another factor is that most of the public that gets shelter/rescue dogs are novice or first time dog owners, so know you’re market and don’t stiff them). Probably the best thing to do would be to put those dogs down — so there goes the concept of no-kill out the window.
But if there was a better system for working with, housing, evaluating, and presenting the dogs that come in who don’t have issues which would preclude them, then hey, I’m all for it and would really like to see it done.
Just like I’m all for a way to put the hurt on what I see as irresponsible breeders while encouraging responsible ones.
And better education and evaluation of owners, that would be nice too (and both the shelters and the breeders have not been really diligent in that aspect either, not all of them, let’s be honest — it’s been about the money more than anything else).
Solve those problems, and I think we’d see fewer dogs meeting a bad end…– but it wouldn’t be an easy thing; it would take hard work and responsibility….I’m not holding my breathe.
We already see around an 80% reduction in pets meeting a bad end in this country, since the 1980s. 20 million dying annually in the 1970s down to 3 million today. This is with the total pet population in this country growing by leaps and bounds. A lot of people still in hysterics over ‘pet overpopulation’ have no clue that’s even the case (and it shows). This is why I have no patience for them.
How much more improvement is needed before people are willing to ‘allow’ breeders to exist without being the victims of blame for every unwanted mixed breed that ends up in the pound? There is a minority of people who are responsible for the majority of the shelter population, yet it’s EVERYONE that gets blamed by the bleeding-heart ARists and Rescue zealots. Their response is not even equivalent to the problem, nor is it even directed against the right problems.
Get back with me about how much more improvement is needed when the various breed associations finally decide to address rampant cancer, hip dysplasia, and other assorted conditions (including the need for C-sections) for their various breeds brought about by illogical fads and breed practices.
A lot of the purebred and crossbred dogs that I saw at the shelters which in all honesty shouldn’t have been made available to the public were so due to extensive health issues that were endemic within their particular breeds (or mix thereof).
It isn’t right in my opinion to allow conditions that can cost a mint for owners to (hopefully) stay on top of (not cure) and cause the dogs debilitation and early death — the breed associations could do better (it would help with abandoned dog situation, with better health overall for the dogs, and also is fitting and just that owners get to keep their companions and helpmates longer and more productively).
“Dog overpopulation” is regional and breed specific. Where I live it is mostly limited to pit bulls. It pays to remember that there are many breeds almost never end up in the shelter system. Try finding a purebred Irish Water Spaniel, Boykin, Small Musterlander, PWD, etc, at your local kill shelter. If there is one, it’s an anomaly.
So obviously, there are many breeders of purebred dogs who are not contributing to the problem of unwanted and abandoned dogs. This even extends to some popular breeds….if I put my zip code into Petfinder and try to find a purebred Golden Retriever, not one comes up in all of New England, (lots of mixes, many which don’t appear to have any golden in them), but no classic GTs. My regional Golden Retriever Rescue group doesn’t even post dogs, as they place from a waiting list and dogs don’t last long enough to be posted.
That being said, I prefer the term “limited admission” to “no kill”, because that’s actually what no kill is. They cherry pick the cute puppies and kittens and popular breeds, small dogs, and visually appealing mixes, and turn away the rest. The open admission shelters are left to deal with the old, sick, aggressive dogs, and whatever other animals no one wants, while having scorn heaped upon them by the fur mommies and the AR crazies for doing a dirty, thankless job no one else wants to do.
I think the “life at all costs” direction of “no kill” has a quasi-religious aspect to it that defies rationality and accurate measures of animal suffering. I see more cats being simply abandoned outside in my area, because unless you are planning to drive into Boston, there are no more open admission shelters in the suburbs to safely relinquish an animal, and all the “no kill” places are always full. I also see more people vowing never to adopt a rescue dog again after having a terrible experience……usually after adopting a dog with behavioral problems and aggression.
A better goal than “No Kill” would be to make sure that no dog with a wonderful temperament gets euthanized for lack of resources. That means dogs that are fine for novice owners, dogs that demonstrate high levels of sociability, make lots of gentle social gestures, soft eyes, etc.; are calmed by, and enjoy, physical touch and petting, have low to moderate prey drive, show NO resource guarding behaviors around food, toys, space, people, etc.; are not dog aggressive, and are NOT overly fearful. If rescue groups focused on dogs with these temperament traits, then families could trust that this would be the best place to obtain a safe family pet that will be easy to live with, instead of a nightmare and a legal liability.
But this would mean using an accurate tool to temperament test, taking emotion out of it, and making tough decisions based on what most adopters are actually looking for in a pet. Very few animal welfare advocates are willing to do this.
I agree that locality plays into this a lot — however, the shelter I worked for got a large number of purebred dogs in; they were usually of only certain, locally faddish purebreds, but nevertheless, they got them in — and some of them came from non-“backyard” and non-puppy mill homes. [although I’m not sure if a breeder who essentially operates like a backyard puppy mill should be allowed the title of “serious breeder” just because they’ve got enough titled, health certified dogs to brag about on their website]
Most of them were there for health related reasons; the owners had usually paid upwards of $600 ++ for them, only to get swamped with vet bills (granted, they should have kept them like responsible owners, but I think the shellshock of all those bills plus their dog’s fading health got to them…and it wouldn’t have happened if the dogs were sound or at least a lot less).
As for the shelters — LOL! yes, what you said was spot on. In my area too many sweet Lab, coonhound, and Aussie mixes (and even some decent pit bull crosses) who languish in the kennels. It’s a shame — and again, some of these mixed breeds might stand a chance if they were shown (but they will always lose out to the purebreds or designerbreds that show up…I like to think it’s because of the myth of the purebred dog).
I have nothing against purebreds mind you (we’ve bred a couple of litters ourselves) — but since when does a family pet have to have fancy breeding?
From what I saw the shelter did not allocate their time and funding wisely: from my own experience, this guy and myself asked to be kept with the dogs (we were dog fans and had trained dogs) and given more time with them, but no, no, you have to go work with the cats (while some people who were avowed cat fans had to go work with the dogs). That sort of thing goes on a lot; plus not encouraging or talking with the volunteers (who may spend more time with the dogs than the staff). Plus, and I’ll be brutally honest: a purebred or designer bred was going to get put out on the showroom floor even if it was three legged lame and would bite your face off; puppy mills were going to be taken in even if those dogs were never going to be healthy in any way and would make horrible pets….because that got the donations flowing, and that sold (the myth of the supremacy of the purebred dog once again).
…and I think I’m kind of on the same page with you (correct me if I’m wrong). I don’t necessarily see an overpopulation problem in general so much as way too many dogs are cropping up with issues that make them non-viable as pets.
Work on that latter problem, and I’d think we’d see the opposite of a general overpopulation problem (but that appears to be a big freaking hurdle — cognitive dissonance ahoy methinksy…and people have a hard time with cognitive dissonance).
Most shelters are run by incompetents and only perform as makeshift stray animal storage and slaughterhouses because they can’t be bothered to anything more. That’s the real issue that keep getting ignored in everyone’s eagerness to blame breeders.
If you read my comments, I do level part of the blame on the shelters — most of them do a very substandard job.
There’s plenty of blame to throw around however — what appears to be lacking is any motivation on either side to deal with it (it’s far too easy to point a finger at everyone else), which is a pity.
I agree with both Jennifer and Pai….the members of the general public, looking for a pet dog, have no idea what constitutes an ethical breeder….and many show breeders, despite the titles on their dogs, are not ethical. Anyone breeding animals for deliberate deformities, or who ignore genetic diseases that create pain and suffering, or that significantly reduce their quality of that animal’s life, (which also, as Jennifer pointed out, makes them too expensive for the average pet owner to keep) IMO, belongs somewhere in the fourth circle of hell. But since breed clubs won’t police themselves, how will this change?
Perhaps an educated consumer will become the unethical breeders worst nightmare; would it be possible for consumers to develop an “Angies List” for kennel? Testimonials regarding problems with their dogs health or temperament, that would identify which breeders were producing a defective product?
And perhaps the same for shelters and rescues? Which is already happening with some large shelters in my area, with Yahoo and Google reviews. I think shelters and rescues are all about pandering to their donor base, and many, unfortunately, are run be well meaning idiots and misanthropes. There is little to no real screening of dogs being done….my nephew told me the shelter he got his dog from would ONLY adopt out puppies to families with young children…obviously to avoid liability. I think that’s a shame, because I have met plenty of dogs that adore children, and their chance of finding a home would be greatly reduced if you eliminate all families with young kids.
So what we end up with in my area is a few open admission shelters filled with pit bulls, a few guarding breeds like Rotts and Shepherds, elderly dogs, dogs with health issues, virtually no puppies out side of pit bull puppies, with a scattered few great family dogs occasionally ending up there, that pretty much are adopted immediately. The lion’s share of resources end up going to training, promoting, and marketing all the pit bulls to convince everyone that comes through the door that what they really want is a pit bull.
The rest of the limited admission shelters travel to the south and even to Puerto Rico (where they import feral street dogs or SATOs) and cherry pick what they think will sell, and maybe a few pit bulls with interesting markings that they can pass of as a “Dalmatian mix” or a “pointer mix”. So we get a lot of cute puppies, retrievers and hound mixes, small dog mixes, Chi-mixes, etc. No real temperament testing, just what they think consumers will buy. Some will be great family dogs, some will be train wrecks whose owners will never get another rescue dog.
I’ve seen feral cats (UK, NY, TX), semi-feral dog packs (TX), abandoned animals (UK, most recently rabbits) and I don’t even work in a shelter, these things are just part of life in some areas. And yes, apart from the rabbits (who I saw through photos and was offered when my friend was trying to find a place for them), these are animals I’ve seen in person, not just heard about.
I’ve also seen “shelters” full of animals they’re not trying to find homes for and those that they’re only willing to give out to, ideally, retired people with no pets or children who live in the countryside, and that’s only after a house check. It was after being told that I’d need to move my ferret out of my bedroom into a large garden cage, and let the shelter have him for a week to introduce him to the ferret I wanted, that I decided to go for a “pet for sale” ad instead. The sellers, who apparently did get him from a shelter as one of them worked there, were horribly incapable (the ferret was clearly starved and they were clearly lying about some things) but at least they DID hand him on to me and he made a quick recovery (he’s now a cheerful bundle of joy, as ferrets should be, and his introduction to my other ferret had no problems at all). Obviously there’s lots of potential for problems/abuse with cheap/free animals being sold/given away through such ads, but at least they’re not permanently left in a cage too small/overcrowded out back where they’ll never be shown to the public, let alone considered for rehoming (I’ve seen it at shelters).
If anything I’d say shelters are at fault for having high standards for owners while they themselves offer poor-to-horrible levels of care. From what I’ve seen, most animals would be better off being put down than left in shelter conditions for any length of time.
I wish I could believe that I’ve just come across particularly bad shelters, but I fear that the good ones are the minority and the slovenly all too common.
I kind of agree and disagree here. I believe there is a “pet overpopulation problem” but I agree that it has nothing to do with purebreds OR crossbreeds. This summer (in Idaho, south west to be exact) the cats got so bad that you could only bring in your cat and have it put down, SNIP responded by releasing 250 spay and neuter vouchers for cats and dogs, and released another 200 more recently. I rescued two litters of kittens from a goat dairy in which the owner could care less about her goats or colony. The colony was starving to death, one mother so starving that she ate grain meant for the goats, out of a bucket. After that I started feeding her dog food out of pity and disgust, my boss wasn’t happy about that when she started suspecting it, though. This attitude is quite popular around here, don’t fix the cats, if you don’t feed them then the kittens die because the parents can’t provide for them, but some feel that is cruel (which, it is) and feed them, and then the population explodes to 30-some odd cats (and this is no exaggeration, my mom dated a guy and I got to see his boss’ colony) which then spill out into surrounding areas. All of the cats I own are from feral cat colonies, or were dumped off at farms and were in the process of starting their own colony.
Now, dogs… Indeed, I don’t see a problem with cross breeds or purebreds, but mutts, TRUE mutts (unknown parentage, not crossbred), which come from backyard breeders who can’t take care of them, are the ones who end up in shelters. I had my horse boarded on a lady’s property recently and she has an intact female border collie, and an old intact male border collie showed up and bodda boom botta bang, puppies! Except, she was trying to sell them at 4 weeks old, and hadn’t even started them on mush… She seemed intimidated by my knowledge, and flat out wanted me to leave once I started talking about the merle gene (not that I was saying anything offensive, she just thought blue eyes equaled merle and I talked about the different genes that can cause blue eyes but that the blue eyes in her puppies were most likely the recessive kind).
I do believe purebreds need to be bred more, particularly purebred cats, the only ones I see available in our area is Persians. Period. There are some other breeds here and there but they are not popping out babies like the persians are, and I hate persians, with a passion. I want a god damn Sphinx if that’s possible, but it seems I’ll have to go get it from another state… Japanese bobtails are virtually extinct, the breeders are so protective of their bloodlines and have their heads up their arses. I only found one that still has cats but is she about to let them go? Of course not! Same with Turkish Angoras. People also need to spay and neuter their animals IF they aren’t truly interested in breeding them or don’t want to show them (which requires they be intact, and then you better be damn responsible).
Oh, and she did sell all 8 puppies, at 4 weeks old, not even started on dog food, for $100 each. If she can do that, as a backyard breeder, I would say there is no over population of purebreds, at all.
I wouldn’t call this woman a backyard breeder — it would be more correct to call her an irresponsible owner.
The title “breeder” should probably be reserved for those who have dogs they purposely acquired for the goal of breeding (and from there you could separate them out into “good” breeder and “bad” breeder by how responsible their breeding program is) — doesn’t sound like this woman did that at all.
Thanks for relaying your experiences in selling a BC litter. They are very similar to my own experiences in selling border terrier puppies. I have 2-3 enquiries a week, and almost all of them are decent – you have to do a little bit of research to work out what a border terrier is to start off with, after all. I have people waiting up to 6 months or more for a puppy. Surely not indicative of an overpopulation problem.
Furthermore, through my rescue work, I have had dogs that have made my phone ring off the hook. Recently, I had two cocker spaniels surrendered, and I couldn’t wait to rehome them so that my phone would stop ringing! People were asking to go on wait lists in case meets or homes I had organised didn’t work out. Exhausting!
So, in my experiences of breeding and rescue, I concur with your experiences – there is no overpopulation problem.
Tegan recently posted..Desexing: It’s bad for vizslas, too
Gotta say I grew up in a semi-rural area and I have seen a feral dog colony: a very small one (mother and pups). I have occasionally seen dogs starving, but these are definitely outliers and all but one (whom we had room for) were due to extreme owner neglect, not overpopulation or even abandonment.
I’ve had beloved pet cats go missing twice in the last 5 years and just trying to find them was an absolute nightmare. You never know if your pet might die just because you didn’t case ALL of the local shelters thoroughly enough and anti-harboring laws make it somewhat unlikely that your pet stays near home. Both of our current local shelters have lovely buildings, and websites, but one merely posts a very brief description of stray animals (no pictures), and the other doesn’t even do that much. We live smack in between the two and visiting both every 2-3 days is a very significant hardship for anyone who has a normal job, even though they are both fairly close.
It is no wonder to me that so many cats never get home, even though they generally roam much less than dogs. We never found either of them… Taking a non-feral, healthy “lost” cat to a shelter is almost as bad as stealing them, it’s just legal.
There is another terrible by-product of this overpopulation myth and unfortunately also one of the more likely scenarios that happened to our cats. An well-intentioned person may sees an animal, apparently in distress, and take it home. They may look for the owner in a half-hearted way, but because of the myth they far too easily assume that no one wants it and rehome it independently of the shelter system because they really don’t want the animal to die there either. In effect, the owner loses his animal and the myth just gets more fodder.
Krisitn, I don’t know where you live, but in our area we have a lot of indoor/outdoor cats, and a lot of discussion about whether it’s polite for people to allow their cats to wander when dogs are not allowed to wander. Although we live in a city neighborhood, we DO have coyotes. There are also feral cats, and a number of busy streets. And we live relatively close to a large university.
It’s also just a fact that if you don’t LIVE with a cat, or don’t have cats, most short-haired black cats or short-haired brown tabbies are going to look the same to you.
Point is, if a cat gets out, or if it is allowed out, many people will not automatically assume it is an owned animal–and even if the owner posts flyers, people will not necessarily recognize the cat that they picked up and took to Cat Welfare as the one in the picture. And the chances of getting hit by a car, killed by a coyote, or attacked by a territorial feral cat and badly injured are pretty high.
Nora those are excellent points and I shouldn’t have been so general in my terms. As I said I grew up in a semi-rural area and the situations you are describing would definitely be applicable there; stray cats were common there, both feral and tame ones, as were coyotes. I guess I didn’t really think about this scenario because most people who live in this situation seem to understand it, and if the cat seems fine, they generally leave them alone, unless the cat is being a nuisance (in which case, taking them to the shelter may be an acceptable solution).
In my more recent suburban and urban homes, the attitudes are quite different. Any outdoor cat is often automatically assumed to be in distress, when this may not be the case at all. In trying to “help” the cat they may be in fact killing the animal instead.
Our most recent cat (indoor/outdoor for his own sanity) disappeared 2 months ago without a trace, so I’m still pretty emotional about it. He was microchipped and we posted flyers and ads in every venue a good samaritan could be expected to look. Even though a cat may be hit by a car or killed by a loose dog, the body does not just disappear in a relatively urban area. It isn’t eaten by a predator. If no foul play (intentional or otherwise) is involved it is picked up by some city worker, usually scanned for a microchip, and a brief description is written down, so the owner should be able to find a record of it… We were left with two possible scenarios: 1.someone deliberately stole him 2.some one tried to help him and didn’t look particularly hard for his owners.
There was a parallel situation here recently involving a stray dog, picked up by some “good samaritan.” After picking up the dog they drove it to their home, several hundred miles away, out of state, before even trying to find its owners…. The only really plausible explanation for this is they assumed no one else would want it. At least the owners did eventually get their pet back.