The all too common blind and deaf Great Dane, a victim of callousness and stupidity.
Animal companionship has numerous documented mental and physical health benefits for humans, and in moderation, there is little harm. But moderation is illusive and harm comes when animals are valued for their misfortune and dysfunction and what being the care-giver of such a poor soul gains their owner. Caring for a special needs animal is daunting and some degree of satisfaction in the task is natural and apt compensation for the difficulty of the task. Alas, some find greater social and spiritual rewards are garnered for owning an animal with greater impairments and thus some seek out or even create such animals.
The dog world is conspicuously filled with unhealthy relationships between people and dogs. Nearly every famous dog memoir is a testament to clinically dysfunctional owners and their impossibly quirky dogs and it’s almost always the dog who suffers–often severely–before the epilogue tries to put a revelational and uplifting spin on the disaster: usually the untimely death of the dog. Any number of well received dog blogs are written by people I wouldn’t trust with the safety of a stuffed animal, but their hand-wringing and bottomless bewilderment at why their high-minded plans keep failing and posts documenting how they almost killed their dog again this week get views and accolades. Many of these idiots hope their diaries of defect will get them the next big book deal with a Hollywood movie to match.
It’s not just the high profile individuals, it’s also the culture. The used dog market has been rebranded “rescue” so people can pretend to be moral crusaders and put mawkish bumper stickers on their Honda Elements so everyone behind them in traffic can appreciate just how wonderful they are. These “Who Rescued Who?” zombies will tell you all about how their dog was “abused,” is fearful of all men and blondes and people with glasses, and explain away any and all faults with this excuse (their abuser must have been a roid-raging myopic Swede), even their dog’s lack of basic training and manners 5 years since their “got you date.” Apparently the “Savior Complex” doesn’t include miraculous cures for dogs, or even a modicum of socialization or any sign of basic progress. All the miracles were done when the people bought the dog at a discount walked on water and raised the dead and the only thing that need be done after is auto-adulation, advertising, and self-promotion.
It’s not uncommon for people going through emotional or psychological distress to turn to animals for comfort. The “crazy cat lady” is a familiar staple and animal hoarders are common enough to get their own TV show where they always document the psychological break which lead to the mass acquisition of animals in an attempt to fill an invisible void. On a smaller scale, it’s not uncommon for people going through personal turmoil to turn things like animal rescues as a diversion: death, divorce, and disability seem to be apt kindling for a voracious rescue/foster career and dogs that don’t get new “forever” homes so often end up filling up the volunteer foster home until city ordinance or covenant by-laws put an end to the cycle.
Sometimes the sheer volume of blood gushing from the fragile over-worked hearts of these crusaders deprives their brains of oxygen and mental retardation ensues. They start to believe the hype. Not only do they believe that used dogs are better than new (never mind the litany of insurmountable problems they’ll regale you with should you find yourself in their proximity at the dog park), they fetishize the obvious faults of the dogs and rebrand them as features.
A recent conversation concerning my essay on the ethics of breeding Harlequin Danes produced this amazing comment on the DOL forum:
Blindness is a virtue now?
Bringing up ethics in this discussion is really interesting and could take us into an entirely other direction
Anyone who has been around or a part of the human deaf culture knows that many deaf people do not feel they have a disability, a problem, or are lacking in anything. For many in the deaf community deafness is treated as a difference in importance of sensory input and a difference in the way life is experienced, but not necessarily a difference that has a negative connotation. As an owner of both a deaf and a hearing dog I can say that Monroe is as capable of being a well behaved animal, a productive member of our household, and a companion as Bailey is. He is capable in both the arenas of instinct and learned behaviors.
So is it unethical to breed if you know doing so will produce him? I’m not so sure about that. His capabilities are no more or less than another dog, they are just achieved in a different way.
My next great dane will be deaf. I have a strong feeling that every great dane I own from now on will be deaf. As an owner, I appreciate my dog’s deafness as some others appreciate their fawn coat, or their nice headline or their great confirmation.
Do I believe that deafness should be the next breeding fad? No. But I also don’t think it is unethical. I think it is a game of weights and balances when choosing which two dogs to breed.
Beyond the earlier comments which make some bold claims about my post but provide no actual details on why my facts are wrong, this comment is particularly troubling.
First is the implication that if we simply avoid talking about ethics we can avoid having to face the ethical implications of our actions. This is a common theme in the breeding community where the going culture is that breeders should not criticize other breeders, even in the face of real questions of ethics, lest we sully the great sport of dog breeding in the eyes of the public and invite activist lunatics to burn it all down. This is group think nonsense and standing silent in the face of abuse is to tacitly condone and support it.
Second is the conflation of dogs with humans. Deference toward an individual’s desire to define themselves in their own terms and perhaps a good dose of political correctness does not change the obvious and substantial truth of disability. To be blind or deaf in some measure is a problem and by definition to be deaf is to lack hearing, to be blind is to lack sight in full or in part. That sight and hearing are assets and deeply valuable is without question and that life can continue in their absence does nothing to diminish their value.
In humans, where we have highly adaptive and sophisticated means of communicating and comprehending, we can mitigate the impairments of blindness and deafness and our abundant self-awareness allows the blind and deaf to process and move beyond their condition. That some may choose to dis-empower the terms “blind” and “deaf” completely by professing their indifference or denying a “negative connotation” to them is admirable, but to do so universally is dangerous and the implications terrifying.
If blindness is the equivalent of sight than to intentionally blind another causes them no harm. Should we then say that to blind another be it by a hot metal rod or the intentional choice of breeding known to produce blindness with abundant chance is thus the equivalent and simply different than to preserve one’s sight and to make breeding decisions that do the same? This comment suggests as such. Is the ethics of creating blindness and deafness intentionally in animals that have no ability to fully process and move beyond this impairment ethical? Balanced against what, a coat color one finds fashionable?
There are deep questions of ethics here, ones that remain unanswered, but if we are to have an honest and rational debate we can not allow people like “jimsjer” to place vision and hearing on one side of the scale and claim that it balances against blindness and deafness on the other side. They are not equivalents, they do not balance, and to be denied an ability is not superior to enjoying its fruits.
Breeding animals might be seen by some as a sport or even a game, but when the wages are the lives and well being of another sentient soul, we can not be so flippant and callous in how we weigh assets and balance our selection. Look into the hollow and dry eye sockets of the Harlequin Great Dane at the top of this post and tell me if you think that’s ethical.
* * *
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.
* * *
A feature just like a fawn coat.
“It’s okay to produce dogs like this. I’ll take them.”
The problem is all dog breeding is eugenics.
If you’re breeding for this sort of crap, we have question the “eu” in eugenics.
It’s more like malgenics.
Retrieverman recently posted..Tin can reel fishing
The only ‘positive’ I can imagine that results from owning a deaf dog is that perhaps they don’t bark as much since they can’t hear anything.
It seems like some people feel that as long as a breeder is ‘willing to do the work to find their disabled pups homes’ they get a free pass to create as many disabled pups on purpose as they want.
*but only if they also win ribbons with their healthy pups.
What I cannot understand is the mental contortions that people go through to make doing a breeding that has a good chance of producing defective pups acceptable in some instances but not acceptable in others, or acceptable if it is done by some people but not by others.
I don’t get it.
Jess recently posted..Sunset Snapshots
The Collie and Dane people regularly deny that it happens with reputable breeders. Then I showed that the top Harlequin Dane and the top Collie were both the product of this unethical breeding paradigm. Oh, but that’s ok. They win ribbons! Ethics don’t apply to gods, everything they do is moral by definition.
The thing I find interesting is that this (showing) cancels out that (breeding defective dogs.) It is like the people that insist that it doesn’t matter how carefully bred the dogs are, or the ethics of the breeder if you don’t show, or cross-breed, or breed for the pet market, all of those things are by default unethical. Let’s not think too much, that would lead to self-examination.
Jess recently posted..Sunset Snapshots
Chris called “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”. If my research is correct current harlequin and double dilute breedings as they cross bloodlines will cease to exist in three generations. Degenesis …a decreation. Extinction. They are like a fish in a pond with two dimensional vision of only a water world for air.
I wish they’d do away with merle x merle and harlequin x harlequin. You can have a Harlequin dog, HhMm without breeding Harlequins together. Harleys certainly wouldn’t go extinct under a more outcross breeding plan either. Harlequin x Mantle produces Harley puppies and avoids double merles.
To the owner of this blog….you are an IGNORANT dick. Screen shot my reply on DOL. Oh wait, you were banned :o)
To michele: You are an idiot and your 11 year old son is probably one too if he has any biological relation to you.
(1) I am not ignorant, I one of only a few people on the planet who has written about the genetics behind the vast numbers of blind and deaf Great Danes due to the ignorance of people like you who continue to breed within the approved color guidelines and color “families” which perpetrates the creation of these disabled dogs.
(2) Here’s the screenshot of your reply. This must be disappointing to you.
Michele is an idiot, the screenshot!
(3) I was not banned and have no connection with the user Wolfcat87, like you claim.
Going by that screenshot I was right: the disabled dogs are perceived to have ‘fewer behavior issues’ so the sensory defects are considered a plus.
While you’re busy making my blind and deaf Dane, could you lop off the tail and legs too? I don’t want my vases knocked off of my tables, and I’m lazy. I’d rather just take my dog for a drag.
No jumping or pulling. SO much better behaved.
No he is a straight A Honor Roll student-definitely much smarter than you. :o)
Get back to me when he gets a full ride to the #1 college in the country, gets perfect scores on 8 AP exams, perfect scores on all his SAT IIs, and near perfect scores on his ACT and SAT taken his sophomore year, is a National Merit scholar, AP Scholar, finishes Calculus as a junior, is a Mensa member and gets their scholarship, wins the state math contest, gosh I could go on.
Heck, get back to me if he ever gets one of those. Then I’ll congratulate you on proving that not all intelligence is genetic, because if he ever does get there, I doubt it’s coming from your genes.
So what exactly is your username on Danes Online?
Statcounter shows me where my traffic is coming from. I click the links. This isn’t rocket science.
I don’t breed idiot. I am involved in rescue. BTW, I know about stat counters-don’t assume you are the only smart person on the planet. I figured since you were doing screen shots and talking about the members of DOL that you were either a member or troll. Get a life…I’ve never bred a dog in my life. Actually I have never bred any animals.
Well congratulations. So you only support people who breed Harlequin x Harlequin and Merle to Merle by taking the puppies they intentionally breed that turn out disabled and unsellable?
Not only do you support and approve, you laud these breeders in public because their dogs have champions in their pedigrees! Amazing.
You enable cruel breeding.
Those breeders are supplying her demand for the sensory-defective dogs she prefers, so if she didn’t suck up to them they might stop supplying her with their discards and she might have to resort to rescuing a gross BYB-bred deaf/blind Dane (rather than one with CHAMPION AFTER CHAMPION in it’s pedigree).
Would you also say the same of rescues that take in breeder dumps? Some rescues will not; they only take dogs from shelters. The theory is that by giving the breeder an “easy out” they encourage the chances that the breeder will repeat the bad behavior.
Just discussed this recently with a collie rescue volunteer – a breeder was producing dogs with terrible demodex. Not just one litter, either. It wasn’t long after they cleaned up the first mess that the breeder was selling another crop of sickly puppies from the same bitch.
Of course the volunteer was angry – and she’s one of many who are strongly in support of laws to limit breeding. Any breeding.
Absolutely. The people who do these sorts of things find many ways to rationalize it. “They’ll live a happy life because these people will take care of it for me” is one more rationalization.
Rescues are in a hard position, trying to solve a problem for the dogs while making a problem go away for the producers. Same with shelters, in a manner they support the over-breeding of pit bulls, etc. by doing the hard work of disposing of them: either into new homes or early deaths.
I think that there is a great deal of difference between a breeder who touts themselves as ‘responsible’ (shows, health tests, ticks all the ‘responsible’ boxes) and yet still does breedings that produce defective puppies and depends on rescue or kind people to place those pups, and a breeder who views the dogs as money machines and dumps unsaleable pups on rescue.
The second type of breeder has nothing to do with me, as a breeder. We are not anywhere on the same level in regards to how we see dogs. The first type of breeder, the one who says ‘responsible’ while producing defective dogs, is what confuses the issue. The enablers who continue to call this ‘responsible’ breeding and provide an easy out for the breeder in regards to the defective pups are part of the problem in conflating the two types of breeders.
Jess recently posted..Fuzzy and Brindle Dogs in Indian Paintings
So, instead of adopting a deaf Dane, should I have taken her out and put a bullet through her head?
“Should” implies a moral imperative on adopters, which I don’t support, you can do whatever you want. If you want to buy into a dog-lifetime of someone else’s mistake, by all means enjoy.
The moral imperative I support is not making these dogs in the first place. It is fundamentally immoral to risk a 25% chance per dog to have severe defects, even higher chance when you combine in the Harl gene.
I also believe that it is reprehensible to make these dogs someone else’s problem. I would cull any and all that happened under my watch. I would not karma whore them out by playing on people’s emotions and get someone else to do the hard work for a decade or more.
It’s not just breeders. A lot of folk feel that it’s inhumane to “put down” (ie, kill) a defective puppy. This applies to those that occur because “*#$@ happens” as much as for breeding animals carrying defective genes. (an example would be a two headed cat). Somehow, putting these animals down is equated with putting a human down — on the principal, I suppose, that all animals are “equal”. Since it is accepted by some that there is no such thing as a “handicap”, this is transferred to animals.
I’ll note that in the not so distant past, the dog in the photo would not have lived past early puppyhood — the minute it was discovered the dog had no eyes, it would have been put down. I’m not supporting Harle / Harle breedings — IMO, there is no reason to breed Harlequins at all. If one must have spotted Danes, using Dalmatian spotting (yes this can cause deafness too, but it is less extreme than Harle/harle or merle/merle) would be a better method.
I think the “Munchausen by proxy” theory has a lot of validity. A lot of those with dogs with “special needs” do act as if they should be accorded special appreciation for their efforts with such dogs. Sometimes the most humane thing one can do for a dog is to end its life — and its suffering.
Yes, you’re right. There are a lot of people who are horrified by the idea that a dog like this would be put down near birth. I personally find this attitude troubling. My goal as a breeder is to produce quality stock and this is not quality stock. This is not an improvement to the breed, nor to the community who are the supposed beneficiary of this work.
Dogs like this are a burden and the idea that “finding them a loving caring appreciative forever home” makes up for the sin of their intentional creation does not balance with me. I actually see this as a weakness: the inability to make the humane decision by coddling the animal along until any number of congenital defects work their dark magic.
I go out of my way to not produce puppies like this and there is nothing that I can think of that balances the risk. If I produced a litter that had such disabled puppies they would not leave the vet’s office, I would not solicit funds for their care, write boo-hoo posts seeking sympathy, and try to emotionally guilt people into a lifetime of caring for them.
“I go out of my way to not produce puppies like this and there is nothing that I can think of that balances the risk. If I produced a litter that had such disabled puppies they would not leave the vet’s office, I would not solicit funds for their care, write boo-hoo posts seeking sympathy, and try to emotionally guilt people into a lifetime of caring for them.”
This.
I have talked before about the puppy I had that had a persistent right aortic arch. The only male in the litter and the only puppy Brett had named at that point. He was diagnosed at about four weeks old and he never came home from the vet. There is a surgery for the condition, however, it must be done by a cardiac specialist, is very expensive, and there is no guarantee that the puppy will be normal, that the surgery will reverse any changes that have occurred (megaesophagus, a lifelong management issue which requires special care and feeding and predisposes the dog to respiratory problems.)
I posted about it at the time:
http://cynoanarchist.wordpress.com/2009/02/22/random-doggage-pups-four-weeks-old/
Have to disagree with you about the boo-hooing and self-aggrandizing of rescue people. It’s not the dog’s fault; it is careless breeding as you have mentioned. I have a deaf Dane and she’s a nice individual and deserves a home as much as any screwed up hyper Yorkie or any psychologically challenged dog you care to mention.
“Rescue” …. Tell me about the burning building you ran into to rescue that dog. The name rescue itself is self-aggrandizing and karma whoring.
Karma whoring. LOL
Well, I’ll still use the term “rescue” with my pup, and if it’s just because I lack a better word for it in English. 😉
Why not “Certified Pre-Owned”? It works for Lexus.
Because she didn’t have an owner before me, she’s a street-born mutt. I found her in a temple, more dead than alive and took her with me.
Well, you can use the language. Suburbanites who pay for their dog at a shelter or breed “rescue” don’t get to claim they rescued anything. They bought used.
The thing is, I feel okay with using the “rescue” term in English, but I’ve never used the word rescue in my native languages (German & Rumantsch).
I thought about this while walking the dog this morning.
In German speaking countries, we don’t have animal rescues. We only have animal shelters. We also don’t use the term rescue to describe if someone got a dog from a shelter. We say adopt.
I’m not sure if this is only grammatically nitpicking, or if this might be a sign people have a different look on this issue in German and English speaking countries, or Europe and the US.
But I fear this is slowly changing.
We don’t have HS, but PETA is gaining ground in Germany, though I believe most people still see them as extremists fighting for a vegan diet, which puts them off, for the time being. They’re not very popular in Switzerland, because we have very strict laws concerning farm animals and they’re usually kept in a nice way. Pictures of Swiss cows generally don’t sell well enough for PETA.
We have a problem with organizations importing dogs from the “poor” European countries (with big dog overpopulation problems) to the “rich”. It’s gotten to the point, where some people feel bad if they get a temperamentally sound, healthy, non-disabled dog from a Swiss shelter, instead of ordering a disabled, unsocialized dog from Spain or Bulgaria.
The interesting thing is that Germans are also applying for hunting licenses more than they have in many decades:
http://www.dw.de/hunting-in-germany-stealthily-gains-in-popularity/a-2335758
retrieverman recently posted..How soft is a golden retriever’s mouth?
Bill Burr said he got a free dog. He didn’t rescue it.
His wife said she rescued it, and he said, “You mean you charged through a burning building to save it?”
retrieverman recently posted..After the rain
That the pibble mixed with a pibble? lol
I wish there were a better, more punchy phrase than “karma whoring” for karma whoring. Mostly because I think that it gives an undue bad name to whores.
What about Karma canvassing?
You can’t give politicians a worse name than they get themselves.
Troublesome (though not surprising) to read the comments of what is clearly a perplexed person. Honestly, one wonders if it bears consideration.
It isn’t clear to me what your characterization of “rescue” minded people has to do with this sort of ethical confusion though. My experience leads me to think your observations are often correct, however, as a blanket representation it reads as both snarky and foolish.
You’re right Hwylo, this is an unusual post. Normally I tackle more concrete errors such as basic and blatant misrepresentation of genetics or probability. This is an issue of ethics and opinion, so the positions taken are more abstract than concrete, more subjective than objective.
You’re also right that the internet is filled with stupid comments and that most of them should probably be ignored. Yet in this particular comment I see a pattern of behavior that’s not limited to the fringe or wack-jobs, I see something that is more common and integrated into the culture.
Yes, it is snarky, as I find the particular evangelism of the “rescue” mantra to be obnoxious. Blanket? Not particularly. I tend to keep the some-all fallacy in mind and limit my comments to where they apply. I don’t see this as a mass condemnation of the used dog market or the people involved therein. It applies where it applies, and given that it’s an observation of a holier-than-thou or messiah-complex attitude, it applies to those people who practice these behaviors. If you haven’t seen what I see, then I don’t think you’re looking very hard, I would not classify this behavior–in varying degrees–as rare.
Well, it is YOUR blog and I enjoy reading it very much, so thank you for that. Apologies to you for my comments, that when I re-read, are perhaps ill-mannered in light of the context. I simply think that many involved in “the used dog market” who involved for reasons outside of fulfilling an emotional/psychological shortcoming, tend not to blab about it so much and are usually less apparent. Of course, the used dogs don’t seem to care what the motivation is behind not being destroyed.
I appreciate your point. I think that in some sense, this blog is about the issue of the most visible and most vocal members of any group NOT being the only ones setting standards and establishing a culture: a recognition that dog owners are not monolithic but still appreciating that there are major driving forces in the dog culture that are worthy of criticism.
Most people in my opinion that get a dog from a shelter or a rescue are not deeply invested in the culture of blame and victim-hood that I see from some of the more impassioned people. But I do see this, I see a lot of finger pointing and blaming and outright hatred for breeders and owners of purebred and designer dogs. And I see this rhetoric growing and I think it’s not only directed at the wrong source I think it’s dangerous and ultimately destructive for all animal ownership.
I’m sure it’s not an uncommon experience for people to have a friend or a relative have some epiphany and then become incredibly preachy and judgmental against their family and friends, condemning them to hell should they not join the same religion or eat the same diet or fight for the same political cause. I see the rescue culture actively pushing a similar judgmental mantra as part of their operating strategy.
I learn a lot from your blog and I agree. There is a sub-culture, if you will, within the group of us who get our dogs from rescue or shelter that is exactly like that, completely against all breeding, which makes no sense if you want to own a dog at all.
My own dog is from a shelter, we got her as a fat little 8 week old pup. Her litter was brought in together. Most likely someone’s Border Collie got loose in heat, or sneaky neighbor dog got through the fence. I’m grateful the very healthy pups were brought to the shelter and we got one. I started feeling like we had cheated getting a young, healthy puppy with no issues instead of a dog in real need, after reading a lot of dog forums. But we got the dog we needed and wanted. I was shocked when I started seeing the anti-breeding mentality in some pet forums though. Puppy mills are horrible, but I see a mentality that is anti-breeder and even anti-companion animal in general.
“dangerous and ultimately destructive for all animal ownership.”
As I am sure you know (but I thought it would be educational to remind your readers) the culture of rescue is rapidly being coopted by radical animal rights activists whose agenda is exactly that – to end all animal ownership.
Here in Oklahoma, we do still have an animal overpopulation problem (Because OK is 25 years behind the times), and rescue is by and large incompetently run. However, we have great success in shipping unwanted animals to different parts of the country that really do NOT have an animal overpopulation problem (Florida, Colorado, the NEast) and rescues are booming there.
I read somewhere (I’m sorry I don’t have a citation) that speculates the animal overpopulation problem will no longer exist in another human generation – because of restrictive sterilization and licensing laws being pushed by organizations like the HSUS and the culture change against breeding. I wondered what you thought of that idea?
I am glad you posted. I wondered where you were.
When I was growing up country, incurably disabled animals were disposed of.
I remember crying about it when I was tiny. The folks said- ‘those are animals, not people’. People are not obligated to care for disabled animals, in fact, every disabled dog should be put down. If it was a poor breeding decision, or just a genetic sport, most humans who NEED dogs, need able-bodied and intelligent animals.
To care for the bad specimens, especially with a major handicap, is pure ego. An ego trip which leads to an insufferable self-sanctimonious ego-tripping around others. To me, this is no better than evangelism- it is evangelism- of an unsupported, nutso point of view which gives the owner bragging rights. To whom? Not to any genuine animal lover. It is NOT a kindness to keep a dog as disfigured as the one above.
Kate Williams recently posted..Itzquintle and Techichi
As someone with obviously a lot of investment in the animal rescue community, the problems you’re talking about also drive me nuts.
I can understand a little where some of these people are coming from- I’m the one who took in a 3-legged, working-bred border collie to be a pet, after all.
Not all “defects” are created equal. If you bring a life into the world, it’s unethical to simply kill it if there are other options available. Case in point: there was another breeder I met who had a puppy break a leg; they chose euthanasia because any treatment costs would mean they wouldn’t make a profit.
THAT made me mad.
The ones that Chris is talking about, who “adopt” out their defective dogs instead of dealing with them, are even more infuriating, in a way.
And the people who “adopt” from them are difficult to deal with (and I’ve met a lot of these types through work and rescue). All of them think they’re sincerely doing a good thing. And as a rescuer you don’t want to discourage them too hard because they’re usually involved in other volunteer rescue endeavors that you need them for, like foster or transport. I still don’t know how to gently get the message across to these people that they’re doing more harm than good, all for the sake of a quick ego fix.
Suzanne recently posted..Teifa has gone home! (and other updates)
There’s another comment on that thread where this Harl x Harl show breeder is PRAISED for adopting out these defective dogs!
Pics or it didn’t happen.
Raegan recently posted..Adam’s Task II: Preface
http://www.border-wars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/praise_breeder_for_harlequin_to_harlequin_breeding.png
Disgusting. How can you be both shocked and amazed at how many Great Dane rescues there are and then support the breeders who are filling them with near-albino dogs?
“I did a google search for “Great Danes” and was shocked to see how many Great Dane Rescue websites were on the search results.”
So, you’re reputable if you produce defective dogs and then just give them away? To the ‘right’ people, of course.
I am thoroughly confused. I’m going to go consult that chart I sent you earlier today to clear up my confusion.
Jess recently posted..A Dog Story: Brunhilde, Alien Dog Hybrid
Charts like that are known to cause brain hemorrhages. Then you can think just like that wack job.
Don’t forget, they have CHAMPION AFTER CHAMPIONN too! If they didn’t it’d be terrible that they breed MxM!
One can respect animals, firmly believe that while in your care, they should be properly fed, cared for, etc and still have the view that if the animal in question is no longer functional, euthanasia is the correct answer. That is not an immoral view.
The more one views an animal as separate from a human, the less likely that “what if it were me” will play a part in such decisions. It is not immoral to decide that one can’t or isn’t interested in spending thousands of dollars to fight cancer in a dog in order to keep that dog alive another few months or a year. It’s immoral to let the animal SUFFER from cancer, if the cancer causes suffering. It may be immoral to cause the animal to suffer by treating for the cancer as well.
I’ve seen rescues spend thousands of dollars to salvage a dog that was severely crippled either by birth or because of “hit by car” or other accident. They struggled to save the dog and to place it. Then they had no funding for a number of other dogs that were perfectly sound. They had spent the available funds. Like triage, sometimes the resources simply don’t allow for “life no matter what”.
Does the Harle Dane pictured above know it is blind & deaf (and whatever other faults it has. The muzzle looks deformed too)? No. But is it normal? No. Is it likely to require special care and maintenance? Yes. An individual deciding that this is what *they* want to do – fine. But it isn’t deserving of any special appreciation for their efforts nor does it indicate any special nobility. It is inappropriate to expect an animal this defective should be saved on the chance that somewhere maybe there might be a home for it. If one wants to salvage such a dog, fine. Requiring others to do so is not. Asserting that somehow these dogs are “special” and thereby deserve preservation even more than normal dogs (yes, I’ve heard that one) is total irrationality.
I’m human. I can make my own choice about whether life is worth living when and if some inescapable suffering from injury or illness comes my way. I won’t know what my threshold is until I get there.
But every day HUMANS, more than many righteous factions would admit, would gladly say “Life no matter WHAT? Bull – SH*T! Call Dr. Kevorkian!”
Equating animals to humans IS a problem in a lot of these situations. Humans should be so lucky as animals for the options they have that we deny ourselves. Why are we now denying animals the mercy they so deserve? It’s not as if they understand what is coming at the vet’s office with the lethal dose. Only WE have that burden.
Hmmm. I certainly agree with you that some people go too far in preserving the life of animals that are disabled, injured or ill.
I also agree that the things that you say about rescue are true in _some_ cases. Not always. I also know plenty of sane, sensible, non-mawkish people involved in animal rescue!
I’ll hold up my hand here. One of my two rescue dogs is a nightmare. To the casual bystander it would certainly _look_ as if I’d done no work with him over the last three years. I also confess I do use his background as an excuse sometimes, usually when complete strangers are telling me what I am doing wrong. (I don’t use myopic Swedes though, he was feral so I can blame everything on lack of early socialisation.)
Maybe he should have been put down, maybe my ego is at fault, but… he is a young, healthy dog, I am working to desensitise him to the big wide world. He is happy and safe and has human and canine companionship. Is that really a bad thing to do?
Basically I think you are being rather unkind to pathologise the behaviour of wanting to look after things and make them better. I actually think that’s a very strong instinct in humans, applied indiscriminately to humans, animals, plants, even vintage cars! Apologising is also an instinctive human behaviour, and one that often involves fooling yourself as well as the person you are talking to. We all do it.
Finally, you seem to be implying that it is for some reason wrong to take in a rescue animal and morally better to pay money for a pedigree puppy. I don’t really understand why.
I think it comes down to the difference between normal behavior and pathological behavior. The key is moderation and connection to reality. Pathological behavior is often excessive expression of normal behavior or behavior that is dishonest and removed from reality. To steal a quote from the internet: “A pathological personality has no respect for honesty and loyalty. They are able to dramatize an incident to a proportion completely out of intent or context.”
I’m not criticizing people going to a shelter or rescue and getting a pet, I think the used market is a very important part of dog culture and many of these dogs deserve new homes and make great pets. As you say, rehabilitation and preservation of life is a natural and healthy impulse.
I don’t think it’s wrong to take in a rescue. I think it’s wrong to further victimize already marginalized animals by adopting too many of them to properly care for, to fetishize their status, to acquire them but fail to train them and socialized them, and especially to demonize everyone else in companion animals as an excuse for poor performance.
Nor am I making a moral argument for buying a dog here; hell, this blog is filled with documenting the vast immorality some breeders perpetrate against their dogs. I have written about buying a dog being a moral choice in the past, but that’s not really the point of this post.
As the former owner of a blind dog, I found this particularly interesting. I didn’t get her because I wanted to be some sort of hero; truthfully my handsome perfect, wonderful dog had just passed away, and I felt empty. I was feeling sorry for myself, and sorry for the puppy (the breeder had just posted on an email list about the blind halfsize pup; most of the responses were to euthanize it at once).
The first year was kind of rough, but after that things smoothed out and she was a great companion and a therapy dog beloved by many.
Should she have been put down? Probably. But it’s not like she was taking a home away from a better bred dog, or even a shelter dog.
There are only a few things that irritate me about rescues (I’ve been involved for over 15 years in various ways). First are the “Who Rescued Who” bumperstickers, because they’re grammatically incorrect.
Next are the ones that squander untold amounts of money and effort on marginally saveable dogs. Healthy seniors yes; they’re fairly undemanding. Blind, deaf, yes if they’re well adapted to the condition. Temperament – that’s my limit. There really isn’t room in the world for snappy, shy, unstable dogs. But I believe in capitalism – it’s their time, love, and money and they’re free to waste it as they see fit. The rescues who get my donations are the practical ones, the ones I agree with.
My own dog had puppies about a week ago – there was a weak 4-ouncer that the mother ignored totally. The puppy was wrapped up snugly and allowed to pass away.
The first instinct was to warm her up, stimulate her back to life, and tube feed. I’m just slopping over with unspent maternal energy : ) But mom dog knew something was “wrong” and I trust her judgement.
I agree with much of your analysis. I believe that part of being a breeder is taking it upon yourself to make difficult choices. I’m not behind a breeder who would never euth a puppy for any reason simply out of inability to do so. I don’t think that leads to humane treatment. There ARE cases when euth is a valid choice and perhaps the best choice. Sometimes extraordinary measures are simply excessive and selfish.
This is still a hot issue in humans, where we don’t even have the right to end our own suffering in most states, so I can see that people are passionate about life and reserving it and maybe even so fearful of death that any option that leads to death is off the table. Some vegans are driven by this impulse, no? This is also part of the anti-war movement and the anti-abortion movement. These are highly divisive and intractable, so I don’t expect them to be easy to solve in dogs.
I’ve thought to myself, if I accidentally produced a very disabled dog that it would not leave the Vet’s office. Then I asked myself, what if one of the Vet techs wanted to adopt the dog, would I still put it down (that sort of reads like the villain in a kids’ story). I think yes, I would still have it put down. But of course, this really depends on weighing the disability vs. my commitment vs. the future owner’s commitment vs. quality of life issues for all involved. Man, that gets complicated.
What if the disability is small… like a missing toe. What if it’s just deafness that isn’t easy to catch until the dog is older? What if it’s a hernia issue that has a 90% success rate with surgery. What if that rate is only 40%? What if it’s a crippled limb? Two? What if it’s neurological? Gosh, the hypotheticals can get very complicated and I can’t say that the same answer is right for all of them. I am adamantly opposed to culling puppies that are perfectly healthy but fail to meet a conformation standard such as not having a ridge or being an unshowable color or for gender selection.
I do agree with your logic of practicality, efficiency, optimization. There is a balance here and things need to get weighed to reach an answer. I don’t believe every disabled dog should be culled on site, nor do I think the world should stop to find them all appropriate homes and that all are even appropriate to be rehomed. Especially, as you say, ones with issues that could likely endanger other people, other dogs, and the animal itself.
I was lucky with Celeste’s litter and we had 6 healthy puppies and no stillbirths or runts or anything marginal. If the litter were small and I wanted to increase my options I might be tempted into the extra care, which is somewhat selfish, but after I watched the neonatal triage videos and read the book about all the crap that other breeders do because they have sickly breeds, I was actually pretty shocked that the state of breeding had gotten so dire that such extensive care was needed. That instilled in me the same steel you had, let nature work.
It really has to be a case-by-case basis. I wouldn’t put a puppy to sleep because it’s blind or deaf. I *would* take all possible steps to avoid producing such a defect, but if the pup were born like that, I’d give it a chance. I’ve seen too many blind dogs who were excellent pets – well behaved, friendly, healthy.
If it were something like a cleft palate, a liver shunt, or a heart defect – something that needed expensive surgery simply to stay alive – I’d be more likely to euthanize. But I wouldn’t be too hard on someone who decides to do the surgery – their choice.
Jackied said: …the behaviour of wanting to look after things and make them better. I actually think that’s a very strong instinct in humans, applied indiscriminately to humans, animals, plants, even vintage cars!
==yes. And on an individual basis, “whatever floats your boat”. My objection starts where such individuals expect to be praised for their efforts, or that someone else should fund their efforts on a non voluntary basis. It shares some religious overtones — “I’m more moral than you therefore I am entitled to …” — and includes being exempt from laws, rules, etc that others must comply with. (There are actually several scientific studies on this type of behavior).
I don’t really care if someone wants to have a rescued dog vice a “purebred bought from the breeder”. You get good dogs and trash from either source. It depends on what you want, and I have no quarrel with anyone’s individual choice. I object to those who make choice A implying that choice B is somehow evil or bad.
If this Harle dane had been the result of an unintended breeding, I would have had no problem with the breeder putting it down as soon as the defects became apparent. I have a problem with deliberately breeding such a dog (ie, Harle/harle or merle/merle).
Yes, the “I’m taking the moral high ground so I get to be an asshole” effect.
This comment isn’t about the defence of blindness and deafness in dogs, and generally breeding policies that degenerate pets – I am totally with you on all that.
But I disagree with your crusade against dog rescue… I think you are painting an unfair profile of person who chose to buy a second-hand dog or foster care homeless dogs. The culture profile and motivations you outline probably exist, but I don’t think they are the norm.
I think I have met one person of that type, in a dog park. I told her to put her dog on a leash because was harassing my dog – and she excused the dog with being a rescue, having being abused in the past, needing to learn to socialise by playing with other dogs et.c. She seemed to think the dogs status as ‘rescue’ meant that she had no responsibility for controlling its behaviour.
My dogs are rescues too, both bought from foster carers. One is an ex-Australian camp dog (outback aboriginal village dog) and the other an ex-poundie. I would like to explain what our reasons were for choosing rescue, because I think you are too narrow minded in your assumptions about motivation for buying second-hand dogs.
We bought second-hand dogs for many good reasons, and of course one is ethics: when we buy a dog from a foster carer who care for homeless second hand dogs, then the space becomes available for a new homeless dog. If we buy a dog from a breeder instead, then the breeder will breed more puppies and no homeless dog has been helped out. And this is Australia, where there are lots of dogs in need of a good new home, and it does feel good to help out a needy dog when you like dogs:-)
But another key reason was the quality of the new-dog supply here in Australia, where regulation of the dog breeding industry seems extremely haphazard compared to where I come from (Scandinavia). For example, large scale kennel breeding, ‘puppy mills’, is allowed and a strong player on the dog-supply scene, and these enterprises supply pet store sale of puppies (which is sadly allowed here in Australia) and also distribute puppies via newspaper ads and online.
We wanted to avoid buying a kennel-bred dog, because that’s an psychologically unhealthy environment for a puppy to start life in which may impact/shape the dog’s personality for life. Both due to the lack of stimulation and normal interaction but also through the influence of other dogs that live their life in an unnatural barren environment. Plus, of course, the puppies’ parents have not been selected based on their flair for being good family pets.
We preferably wanted a mutt, partly because of the use of linebreeding and silly breed standards and breed objectives in pure breeding. I don’t like the ‘genetic silos’ of pure breeding, I think the lack of genetic diversity hamper their mental and physical vitality, so I would prefer either a mix breed or if a pure bred then one from one of the big volume breeds – like Labrador (incidentally one of my favourite breeds;-) but even there, the breeds probably evolve around a limited number of popular sires and lines (just guessing – that’s how it is with breeding industries of other domestic animals).
So, when wanting to buy a puppy, sourcing a good one with a well known quality background wasn’t actually that easy.
We actually found rescue to be the safest option because, while a poundie may originate from the same dubious type of source originally, when buying from a foster carer we at least know we buy from an experienced, passionate dog lover who isn’t in it for profit or weird personal breed standard fetishes, but to help dogs into good new-home matches. We had thorough descriptions of the puppy’s personality and issues, aimed at making a good new-home match, rather than being sales pitches: because rescue dogs are sold with a 3 – 6 weeks full return policy (all your money back) here in Australia plus lifetime take-back guarantee, foster carers have no interest in selling a dog that isn’t a good match for its new home.
The foster carer will also have worked with the dog’s possible behavioural issues and can advise us in that regards, although we obviously aimed for a dog without issues.
Our first rescue-puppie, the ex-camp dog, comes from a known background in a specific location, and we know a fair bit about her puppyhood, transfer to Sydney and life in the Sydney foster carer’s place. We had observed many puppies from the same source in countless photos and videos – both down from NT where they come from and in the Sydney foster carer’s place, playing with other puppies, adult dogs, toys, kids, cats, on the beach, walking on leash et.c.
While our dog may be a dingo hybrid;-) and her genetic make-up is unknown, she has with guarantee never been in a kennel. She has interacted with lots of people, kids and other dogs from an early age and been taken well care of from the point of being taken in by the rescuer in NT as a small puppy. She is the offspring of dogs that bred at will, whose patents also bred at will et.c. through generations, so there is selection for (probably) health in the face of harsh adversaries, intelligence, survival instinct and ability to get along, and not for weird fancy exaggerated breed characteristics.
With the ex-poundie, we wanted a playmate to our first pup, and the camp dog rescue didn’t have a puppy that suited us at the time, so we bought our second rescue via the major Australian pet rehoming website Petrescue.com.au. She was described as well mannered, gentle, kid friendly and dog social and advertised with lots of photos and a video showing her with other dogs. She isn’t an angel, but the purchase process was perfect. The purchase contract says that we can never sell her or surrender her to a pound, we have to deliver her back to the organisation if we can’t have her any more.
My point is, with a second-hand dog follows an admirable amount of services and security before and after the sale that wouldn’t be included with a standard dog purchase from a breeder, at least not here in Australia. It really is a very good deal! due to all the things that are included for free through the work of volunteers for these organisations.
So, as you can see there are many good reasons to choose rescue. Some which are charitable and some which are just rational selfish reasons. There are probably more reasons that I mentioned here – People have all sorts of individual reasons for doing the things they do. These were just our reasons.
Mados recently posted..The Camp Dog and the Poundie
fantastic blog post. this might be my favorite to date.
As a lifetime boxer breeder, I have seen my share of defective puppies born. I have always made the decision to have them put down. I am not one to try and save each and every puppy born, it is not reasonable. As a breeder, you sometimes have to take tough decisions, otherwise you will only extend suffering and costs (all kind of costs).