- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
Yes! I'm very interested in shelter medicine and currently my goal is to eventually work in a municipal shelter.
Adopting Animals with or without Health Problems
- Thread starter Kota1000
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 17,287
A good place to start is for everyone to acknowledge when a group presents a valid concern or idea without turning it into a personal attack. There's a loud chunk in to breeding world that screams, "Traitor!" when someone within says, "So we need to start regulating because of puppy mills". Acknowledging valid points as well as the negatives for that matter, would put everyone on even ground.
A good example in my opinion is Illinois HB2824/SB1882. These bills are making it so that pet stores in Illinois have to buy from breeders with a clear record. It acknowledges that not all pet stores are bad, it acknowledges that the ones who are need to be taken out (via their product source). Maybe that's my bias coming out, though.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
A city my boss used to work in once passed legislation that required a breeding license in order to sell pets in the city. Made it really easy for everyone because the city could easily identify who wasn't licensed (these breeders tended to be closer to puppy mills in character and welfare provided to the animals) and confiscate their animals, while the breeders themselves in the city also got behind the licensing requirement as a way to report unscrupulous breeders and put a lot of collective work into reporting anyone the city had missed. It really helped cut down on backyard breeding and the city's stray animal population.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 17,287
I wish more cities (Aurora, Denver, etc) would actually enforce this. Aurora has a breeding license requirement if you have 3 or more intact females. But judging from the classifieds in the newspapers, it goes unenforced.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
Yeah, the city required the license number to be posted in all sale ads, including online, so a lot of their initial enforcement was going out to visit and possibly ticket people who were licensed but refused to stay in compliance with the licensing laws re:sale of animals. I like licensing laws like that but unfortunately they work best in a large city with good animal control resources so you can actually send officers out to enforce and check for compliance. No enforcement = law doesn't do jack
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,549
- Reaction score
- 6,300
There has been talk about forcing breeders to register in my area, but the general consensus I have heard from the vets I work with is that there is no one to actually enforce it.
That being said, we don't have *as much* of an issue with puppy mills since pet stores can only contain rescue animals (for cats/dogs, pocket pets are fair game).
The backyard breeder who does a litter or two a year with their bad genetic quality dog and not ideal prenatal care drives me insane, and are much more common.
That being said, we don't have *as much* of an issue with puppy mills since pet stores can only contain rescue animals (for cats/dogs, pocket pets are fair game).
The backyard breeder who does a litter or two a year with their bad genetic quality dog and not ideal prenatal care drives me insane, and are much more common.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 154
A lot of times it really is an easy fix if you know dog behavior. It took me maybe a month to break it in the dog I have now and I have never had another issue with him.
I will admit, I'm speaking more emotionally as I have worked with rescues for a very long time but have never been on the side of owning or directing one. I have only worked with no kill rescues, and they have seemed to do just fine with pulling a balance of easy to adopt dogs, and those that need work. But no one gives up on the dogs that may sit in our shelter for years before the right person comes along. I am saying that I get the point that money/time/space is an issue, but it seems like you start to get into an ethical grey area when you start deciding the worth of one life over another. You can say you might be able to save the life of 10 dogs in the time it takes to break one dog's food aggression and make him adoptable, but what if you did work with that dog and adopt him out and he ends up saving his family in a house fire, or having an incredible bond with an autistic child? Obviously you never know what might happen, and I know the reality of it is playing your odds with the resources you have, but part of me still feels like there is something wrong with that. No wonder people in animal rescue suffer from compassion fatigue.
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
Good points.
There's a lot of opposition to that bill near me, and I think the intention is good but the execution is lacking. It relies on USDA breeder inspection records for compliance, but since the Trump administration made USDA records unavailable, it's impossible for any pet shops to be out of compliance. USDA standards are pretty minimal anyway, and the bill also makes it so that individual cities and municipalities can't use different standards, so it would actually role back other legislation. Seems like a step back to me, but I do like the bit about microchipping.
I like this a lot but as you mentioned, I can see enforcement being a big issue.
@vetmedhead and @batsenecal what do you know about/think of breeders self-regulating? I am pretty far removed from the breeding world, but it seems like it would help responsible breeders and potential owners while hopefully pushing others to adopt better practices.
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 3,549
- Reaction score
- 6,300
I think it really depends on the shelter style where you live.
In my area we don't have kill shelters, and the adoption rate is extremely good, so there are funds/time available to work with those dogs.
In areas where the shelters are completely overwhelmed and high kill, the best overall rescue rate you will get is by focusing your efforts on the immediately adoptable animals. It doesn't make sense in those cases to spend the extra funds on a "risk" dog and instead euthanize 2 immediately adoptable dogs because there are no more funds available.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 154
That's a good point!
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
I don't see any real issue with it beyond the fact that these things tend to get fragmented easily (so instead of something like a national or state breeding board or something you would see it fragment by city, breed, size, etc. so standards are impossible to keep track of). Self regulation is awesome, but in my mind that also means self enforcement unless egregious acts were being committed (e.g. cruelty), while in my experience a lot of these things turn into "I don't like Sally so I'm going to report her". This results in our resources getting tied up in what are essentially nuisance reports and the burden of enforcement still lies with us, so we'd still run into adherence problems if there's no way to self enforce.
If they're well organized and well run, and have enough buy in from the breeding community, I can see them working well. I think the initial set up of their standards may need some input from veterinarians and animal control officers, but mainly to clarify roles and goals as well as making sure their standards are actually in alignment with our own. As an example, if a hypothetical breeding regulation board says it's fine to perform at-home ear cropping with scissors and no analgesia (lord knows no breeding board would ever actually say this but bear with me here) but I know that is 100% illegal where my agency operates, then we're out of alignment and the breeding regulations aren't helpful for my agency when it comes to trying to streamline the process of identifying people likely to be unscrupulous breeders.
The thing is these guidelines have to be mutually beneficial for both groups to work well. I want good breeding standards so I can find people harming animals and cut down my stray populations, but also so breeders can maintain their business and have good reputations with the public. When it starts to serve one side over the other these things tend to break down.
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
If you're talking about a month one-on-one in a home environment, you're talking about requiring long-term foster care with an experienced dog person. That's not something animal control facilities have an abundance of volunteers for. They can't just snap their fingers and send the dog home with someone who will then bring it back good as new.
Isn't the rescue "deciding the worth of one life over another" by pulling some dogs from shelters but not others?
But what if the dog bit an autistic child? Or set his family's house on fire?!? 😱
You're criticizing shelters for saving some animals but not others, while rescues do the same thing. They both have limited resources. They both do the best they can.
You say you get the limited resources thing, but I don't think you do. I highly recommend getting experience outside no-kill shelters and rescues. I have nothing against those organizations (I volunteer with one, as well as with an open-admission shelter), but they don't give you the full picture. If you don't, that's okay too, but please try to keep an open mind and challenge some of your assumptions about other shelters.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
Oh man, this reminds me of the time we had a lady foster a litter of puppies for us and she STOLE THEM AND SOLD THEM TO PEOPLE WHO LIVED HOURS AWAY
We had to send officers to reclaim all the animals, I think file some sort of an arrest warrant for her, and also field angry calls from her "adopters" who had paid her exorbitant amounts of money to adopt the puppies from her (like, easily 2-3x what our adoption free would have been). Also, she had managed to give all of the dogs scabies in her nasty house before she sold them. That whole situation was a huge headache.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2016
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 100
I'm starting vet school in the fall but I've spent the last 15 years as a dog trainer. The last 10 years of my career has been spent working with a non-profit that brings in rescue dogs for training as service dogs or adoption as companion pets with obedience training. During my 10 years, I've evaluated hundreds of shelter dogs and kept extensive statistics of what dogs different shelters, rescues and other groups have.
As many have stated, the field of rescue is a very complex one and highly dependent on the region. Statistically, dog overpopulation isn't the same problem as it was 10 - 20 years ago. What we have more now are areas with more demand for rescue dogs than the supply provides and areas with more supply than the demand. Here in the Pacific Northwest, the intake numbers in shelters are way down and dogs are adopted extremely fast! (10 years ago, our local shelter had about 120 dogs on any given day; this year, about 20). In fact, at least half of the dogs in shelters in our area are brought in from other states and countries just to meet the demand. Our local "county kill shelter" hasn't euthanized a dog for space / overpopulation reasons for at least 8 years. Behavior, yes. Medical reasons, yes. There are regions that are still struggling with the problem, though.
The above, I should preface, primarily applies to dogs. Cats are a different story. Even in our area, we still struggle with overpopulation of cats.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the demographics of dogs in shelters and rescues are shifting and not necessarily towards the 'easier family dog'. This is the result of several factors: craigslist and media options for private rehoming, successful spay and neuter programs and the shifting perceptions of county/municipal shelters that can't be no-kill. The end result is that shelter dogs from regions with lower intake numbers are more likely to have behavior and/or medical concerns. Simply because those that don't have those issues are rehomed through other channels and the shelters have an older population of harder-to-adopt dogs. Regions with high numbers still have a wider variety of dogs and a lower concentration of special needs dogs. But, they can't be no-kill. You just can't make kennels magically appear.
As others have said, getting a dog through a breeder is no guarantee as well. However, there is more of a degree of predictability if you know the genetic source of the dog (whether it's purebred, random mixed breeds or a purebred, designer mix). You can get great dogs out of rescue - I've seen and placed hundreds (about 550 over the last 8+ years). You can get great dogs from breeders. You can get dogs who have special needs from both sources.
In each instance. the more you educate yourself about the source and the dog, the less likely you are to encounter surprises. Where does the shelter get their dogs and how much time do they spend with them before adopting? What type of behavior assessment do they conduct? Where did the dog come from and how many owners / how many times has it been returned to the shelter? Really, many of the same questions you might ask a breeder can be modified for a shelter.
As many have stated, the field of rescue is a very complex one and highly dependent on the region. Statistically, dog overpopulation isn't the same problem as it was 10 - 20 years ago. What we have more now are areas with more demand for rescue dogs than the supply provides and areas with more supply than the demand. Here in the Pacific Northwest, the intake numbers in shelters are way down and dogs are adopted extremely fast! (10 years ago, our local shelter had about 120 dogs on any given day; this year, about 20). In fact, at least half of the dogs in shelters in our area are brought in from other states and countries just to meet the demand. Our local "county kill shelter" hasn't euthanized a dog for space / overpopulation reasons for at least 8 years. Behavior, yes. Medical reasons, yes. There are regions that are still struggling with the problem, though.
The above, I should preface, primarily applies to dogs. Cats are a different story. Even in our area, we still struggle with overpopulation of cats.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the demographics of dogs in shelters and rescues are shifting and not necessarily towards the 'easier family dog'. This is the result of several factors: craigslist and media options for private rehoming, successful spay and neuter programs and the shifting perceptions of county/municipal shelters that can't be no-kill. The end result is that shelter dogs from regions with lower intake numbers are more likely to have behavior and/or medical concerns. Simply because those that don't have those issues are rehomed through other channels and the shelters have an older population of harder-to-adopt dogs. Regions with high numbers still have a wider variety of dogs and a lower concentration of special needs dogs. But, they can't be no-kill. You just can't make kennels magically appear.
As others have said, getting a dog through a breeder is no guarantee as well. However, there is more of a degree of predictability if you know the genetic source of the dog (whether it's purebred, random mixed breeds or a purebred, designer mix). You can get great dogs out of rescue - I've seen and placed hundreds (about 550 over the last 8+ years). You can get great dogs from breeders. You can get dogs who have special needs from both sources.
In each instance. the more you educate yourself about the source and the dog, the less likely you are to encounter surprises. Where does the shelter get their dogs and how much time do they spend with them before adopting? What type of behavior assessment do they conduct? Where did the dog come from and how many owners / how many times has it been returned to the shelter? Really, many of the same questions you might ask a breeder can be modified for a shelter.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 17,287
The two bolded points are the biggest issues, I agree. As far as the USDA records, I think the way we're (general pet store 'we'; my grandpa and I may try to introduce something like this over the summer in Colorado) going to try to get around it is that I think the state department of ag can access the federal department of ag records and point us in the right direction. Sort of, "Hey, how's Sally Joe's kennel doing?" and state vet would be like, "Nah, bruh". But we'll have to see. I haven't had the chance to talk to my grandpa about it yet.
Enforcement is always the biggest issue, for sure. It really grinds my gears that there's not enough enforcement in some areas and a disproportionate amount in other areas (see my above diatribe about Aurora/Denver breeding license problem).
That leads right into my concepts for self-regulations. I feel that we failed on this immensely back in the 80s when the puppy mill thing became a big deal due to PETA and such. Those of us who didn't associate with those breeders pretty much stuck their heads in the sand and said, "They're the department of ag's problem, not ours". That attitude has directly helped with the decline of the retail pet industry, in my opinion. Had the leaders of the industry at the time sat down and said, "We're going to take care of this in house," then I think my family and the pet industry as a whole would be in a different position at this moment.
Going forward, I think if we're going to have self-regulation of breeders (and those they sell to like my family), there's going to have to be a bonding together on a lot of things. As an example, my grandpa helped write PACFA for Colorado, and one of his attempted contributions is that puppies should be two pounds when purchased at 8 weeks. This was fought almost universally by dog breeders because some toy breeds can have a random tiny pup that won't hit two pounds until 10 weeks or so; and then there are those that fed into the 'teacup' situation, which the two pound rule would have destroyed. In the end, that wasn't added to PACFA; it was changed to kittens instead. That sort of infighting has to stop if we're going to have any sort of self-regulation. Like VMH said, if there are strong leaders, it could definitely happen. I'm curious to try to get involved in Colorado this summer (if it can even happen; we'll see). I agree that having a national presence would be far more beneficial than the current situations with counties and cities controlling everything.
Like I said earlier, I have a lot of problems with the pet industry and it stems from the (in my opinion), immature behavior that prevents self-regulation.
The bolded are problems that I hate. There's so much pettiness in some pockets of the industry, nothing gets done.
The first bolded point is so important to me. Of Colorado's 101,000 shelter dogs, 25% of them are brought in from OOS and Colorado still maintains a 93% success rate. It's become less of an over all overpopulation issue to a distribution issue.
The second bolded point is having a lot of effects everywhere. Shelters push for the spay/neuter thing, and then turn around and wonder how pet stores can be doing better, not worse as adoptions rise. It's because the pet store's main competition is no longer the backyard breeder. At least that's the case for my family's stores. For the first time since 2001, my family's stores are doing better. If the trend continues, my aunt's store will earn more than any store we have previously own, even those during our "hayday" so to speak.
That last point is pretty on point.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2016
- Messages
- 69
- Reaction score
- 100
Rereading the original post, a couple other thoughts came to mind. I also wanted to make sure I answered the OP's original questions.
This, actually, is no longer even true. Because of the shift of demand for adopting dogs, there are some rescues that charge as much, if not more, than some breeders. In our area, I can think of several rescues that charge as much as $750 for adoption fees.
Neither is better or worse. Not to mention, there are lots of purebreds available for adoption and a lot of breeders selling really expensive mixed breeds. Highly depends on what you're looking for. The more specific your needs, the more you may want to know about the background of the dog (parents, breeding, socialization during formative years, number of littermates and age at which the pup was separated from mom and littermates.
As to getting healthy vs problematic, that also depends on the person's needs and expectations. We currently have a dog available for adoption - typical sighthound (very vision oriented, not the most trainable and cute as a button). He came to us with a deformed back leg. X-rays showed an old dislocated hip that was never set and is scarred. Barry gets along great and has a great personality. He'd be a great dog for someone, though probably not for someone with limited finances or who keeps chickens.
What is worse: getting a dog you aren't prepared for or have the skills to handle. The no-kill movement has resulted in a lot of dogs being adopted with people who lack the ability or skill to handle the dog. This helps no one and, usually, it's the dog that gets the short end of the deal.
This, actually, is no longer even true. Because of the shift of demand for adopting dogs, there are some rescues that charge as much, if not more, than some breeders. In our area, I can think of several rescues that charge as much as $750 for adoption fees.
Neither is better or worse. Not to mention, there are lots of purebreds available for adoption and a lot of breeders selling really expensive mixed breeds. Highly depends on what you're looking for. The more specific your needs, the more you may want to know about the background of the dog (parents, breeding, socialization during formative years, number of littermates and age at which the pup was separated from mom and littermates.
As to getting healthy vs problematic, that also depends on the person's needs and expectations. We currently have a dog available for adoption - typical sighthound (very vision oriented, not the most trainable and cute as a button). He came to us with a deformed back leg. X-rays showed an old dislocated hip that was never set and is scarred. Barry gets along great and has a great personality. He'd be a great dog for someone, though probably not for someone with limited finances or who keeps chickens.
What is worse: getting a dog you aren't prepared for or have the skills to handle. The no-kill movement has resulted in a lot of dogs being adopted with people who lack the ability or skill to handle the dog. This helps no one and, usually, it's the dog that gets the short end of the deal.
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
If you made a mandatory work-around for USDA inspection records and didn't prevent cities from introducing stronger requirements, I would definitely support that 🙂 Currently, the bill in IL is a step back for animals (except for the microchip thing!) especially since a number of areas already have stronger legislation that would be repealed under the bill.
I can't remember the last time I went into a pet shop and am pretty clueless on how they function. Aside from ones that partner with shelters and rescues, are they doing any rebranding now that there's so much awareness of puppy mills and related issues? I'm just wondering if there's a movement towards stores choosing to market themselves as having high standards for breeders (and proving that to customers) and if things like genetic testing are used as a selling point.
Yep, it's definitely a distribution issue. I'd say that Colorado probably has a 93% rate in part because of the dogs coming in. In my area, we get a lot of puppies and in-demand breeds from out of state. If puppies are flying out the door, you can euthanize a decent number of dogs in the community and still have an impressive live release rate. Or to spin it more positively, if you have puppies flying out the door, you have more resources for less highly-adoptable dogs 🙂
I know we've had some of this conversation before, so sorry if I'm repeating myself. I got The Dog Merchants from the library and am looking forward to reading it (and will probably then pester you some more!)
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
I'm actually surprised the legislation would repeal more stringent legislation currently in place. Most laws (this is in general - ranging anywhere from workplace safety laws to healthcare laws to environmental protection laws) aim to establish a minimum and allow for more stringent regulations so long as they comply with the base law.
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
Yeah, it's weird. This is the wording of the bill:
It is recognized that the sourcing of dogs and cats
into Illinois is a matter of statewide interest to protect the
health and safety of both the animals and the citizens of
Illinois. A home rule unit may not regulate the sourcing of
dogs and cats sold by pet shop operators, dog dealers, or
cattery operators. This Section is a denial and limitation of
home rule powers and functions under subsection (h) of Section
6 of Article VII of the Illinois Constitution."
EDIT: This is purely speculation, but if I had to guess I'd say they wanted to repeal some local legislation that they either couldn't touch because it's the wrong jurisdiction or because it has too much public support (e.g., in some places pet shops can't get cats and dogs from breeders- only from shelters). Or maybe they were just concerned about future legislation in that direction.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2015
- Messages
- 13,407
- Reaction score
- 39,156
That's super funky and feels like a step in the wrong direction for the most part. Sneaking sweeping law repeals into your new law is rarely a good way to garner support with your base lol
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
Agreed. It's especially sneaky because the bill is being promoted as something that adds animal welfare regulations. But to be fair, I don't regularly follow IL bills and I don't know how common this is. For all I know, state legislators just want to be the ones with all the power and try this all the time.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 17,287
As far as rebranding, I wouldn't really call it that. I would consider it separating. Most of the stores I know (both owned by my family and those owned by people my grandpa knows) brand themselves as having been better than the stereotype. Like, we've always given out the mailing address/email to serious customers who want to communicate with the breeder. For curious minds, we'll give the name/USDA license number out (to avoid random animal rights activists from harassing the breeders directly). The marketing spin is that stores with nothing to hide won't try to hide anything. We'll offer health guarantees, vet visits, etc on the same competitive level of breeders. Things like that. Before the recession, grandpa and mom would do kennel visits of anyone new. Haven't done kennel visits in a long time, but haven't added anyone new either. Talking to my aunt, she's thinking of starting those up again. Does that make sense? I feel like I rambled there. Lol.
Totes let me know when you get through it! I want someone who's on the outside to read it and give their perspective!!
I would be willing to bet my vet school tuition that the bolded is exactly why that phrasing is in there. It was probably a concession to get the pet stores to agree with this while also making welfare/rights groups happy. My family has had to fight the same sort of legislation three times now within the last decade or so. As a pet store person, I would 100% make sure that an outside group could not dictate whether or not I have to sell shelter animals; I feel strongly that's a personal business choice.
With that being said, this also goes back to what VMH said about self-regulation by breeders: it's a pain in the butt when it's managed on the county/city level and would be better on the state/federal level. The same can be said here. It's way more efficient for the state department of Ag to control everything this way. I would have no problem with more stringent and fair regulations, however. Nothing pisses me off more than a bad pet store.
But that's assuming my assumption about the wording was really meant to prevent rights groups from forcing stores to only sell shelter pets is correct. In the eyes of Rights groups, selling only shelter animals is a more positive welfare law; to me, it's not. So it's definitely about perspective. Interestingly, the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association is in full support of this bill.
- Joined
- May 12, 2016
- Messages
- 831
- Reaction score
- 1,074
Definitely makes sense! As far as I can tell, the USDA info could prevent pet stores from using breeders who have been abusing animals, but that's about it. Hopefully kennel visits would do a bit more, but this still seems aimed more at avoiding puppy mills. What about trying to move towards ethical breeding? Breed-appropriate health testing would seem like a good start- is it commonly done by breeders who sell to pet stores?
I'll let you know when I'm done! I'm hoping there's info about this in there. My personal experience is all on the shelter/rescue side, but when I've tried to research anything about breeders, I can't find much about pet stores. (Besides that you should never buy a dog from one- that's a pretty ubiquitous viewpoint.)
Probably. I'd like to think that supporters of the bill really, truly do have animals' interests at heart, but if you look at who's pushing it, they have a pretty clear financial stake.
Sure, it's a personal choice for business owners to run their businesses how they want, but communities should have a say too- pet stores aren't the ones running animal control or paying for it. (And that's ignoring welfare issues.) If pet stores actually would self-regulate and set reasonable standards for themselves, that would be great. I don't see it happening, but I hope I'm wrong.
I should clarify that at least in Cook county, pet stores can get cats and dogs from shelters, rescues, or small-scale breeders. It's meant to stop puppy mills, not to stop pet stores or all breeders.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 154
Okay now it just seems like you're opposing everything I say for the sake of telling me I'm wrong and you know more. I have already stated that I understand the logic on both sides, I just have more experience with the "puts time into dog that others gave up on and dog successfully lives happy life" story. I also said that I get that you ultimately don't know for sure if that dog will be a hero or a hazard and most just play the odds and work with what they have because it makes sense. To tell me what you think I actually do and don't understand is pretty rude considering you have no idea who I am or what experiences I've had. I don't think there is anything wrong with sharing what I see on my end, just as there is nothing wrong with you sharing your side of things...let's not make this petty.
As a side note, I think a rescue pulling 5 dogs from another shelter because they have 5 open cages is a little different from actively choosing who they are going to kill or not kill that day. I don't see the first falling into the "ethical grey area" as much as the latter. I can see how you would say a rescue choosing who to pull and who to leave behind is choosing who lives and who dies, but you can't ignore the fact that there was someone else who decided all of those dogs only had 24 hours to live in the first place, and will be the ones to physically end their lives if they don't get out.
The thing about all of this is that neither of us are wrong, which is why the shelter/rescue field is so incredibly difficult.
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2013
- Messages
- 7,430
- Reaction score
- 17,287
I believe you are correct in your first sentence, and the number one reason for that is that there is no legal definition on what a puppy mill is. That fault falls on pretty much everyone's shoulders. That's what I wish got done in the 80s: the leaders of the pet industry or the USDA should have sat down and said, "We'll rate the breeders on a scale of 1-10; 10 is beautiful, 1 is straight up puppy mill. Leave those who are 8-10 alone; 5-7 need guidance on what/how to fix things; shut down anyone under 5." Inspections would increase and the sketchy people would be taken out. Oh, and anyone previously cited for subpar kennels cannot open/be associated with another one ever again. Big thing that last one there.
As far as ethical breeding, our breeders do test because they owe us a free puppy if any of them are diagnosed with a genetic problem after they come to us. Out of illness/deaths we have, probably less than 10% are from genetic disease (so maybe 2 or 3 puppies a year).
Definitely. When it's all said and done, it's about making money. The breeders want to make the money and so do the stores. With that being said, we also don't want to lose money on the puppies we buy. It's definitely in our interest to block out breeders so subpar we lose money and reputation due to their crappy breeding/husbandry quality. It's an interesting balance.
On the one hand, I agree with that. On the other, I don't. Fast food restaurants are probably a comparable example. They sell food not good for you, but that comes down to personal responsibility. The same could be argued here. People who own animals need to be responsible for them on every level. Fast food restaurants aren't held responsible when a person has a heart attack and goes to the hospital; a gun seller isn't responsible for someone shooting up a school. Do I think customers need to be worked with to see if they are an appropriate animal owner? Absolutely. It can be difficult, however. I legally cannot deny selling a customer a product without being sued for discrimination. The way I got around that for someone who seemed to want to buy a male, 4 month old Doberman for fighting was telling him the Doberman was $2,500 (when it wasn't that much). And we've already discussed how far over-vetting can go with some shelters.
And pet stores may contribute somewhat depending on where they are. We have to pay business licensing and PACFA licensing fees; the PACFA fee goes to the department of ag, but I'm not sure if the department of ag pays for animal control or not. Our business fee goes to the city, which also may pay animal control. I'm not sure on that point. I know we had retainment in first or second homes in the 90%, so we didn't have a direct impact on animals going to animal control (but that also doesn't take into account anyone we sell to becoming a back yard breeder). But then again, that's only 4 or 5 pet stores out of the 450 remaining in the country. I have no idea what kind of effect people like PetLand have on animal control has in their areas.
I honestly would like to do some sort of survey on the pet stores in the country to see how many dogs they sell, how many of them are retained in first or second homes or get sent to shelters. I would just like to know what the flow of dogs is through pet stores is in general. The largest supplier of dogs is Hunte corp, but they channel only about 45,000 dogs nowadays. That's fewer than the amount of dogs the state of Colorado adopts out a year.
Basically, what I'm trying to say with all this rambling (TLDR):
1) We definitely need to define puppy mill
2) We need to know what the flow of dogs through stores is
3) We need a combination of oversight and self-regulation (which the only way to get the second is to stop petty crap that happens within the industry; I definitely think pet stores are relatively bad at self-regulation as a general rule)
4) More working together!
Did I actually get to all of your points? lol.
