I agree that we need to embrace the nuance and complexity of this topic. I will admit that I do find it difficult to have positive feelings about people who get puppies from breeders that aren't ethical, but at the same time, I know someone who tried to adopt from various shelters in their area and were turned down because they have kids (not even young kids either). I adopted my own dog from a friend who bought her up from a backyard breeder / "my dog is so cute that she simply must have puppies" kind of person. One final thought: I wish there was more education around the idea that if someone adopts a pure bred dog, they'll know exactly what kind of behaviours/traits the dog will have. I think that does a disservice to dogs because they are all unique individuals, and if we are to be good guardians, we need to work/play with the dog in front of us, instead of the dog we think they are supposed to be based on their breed. I think if more people had that mentality going in to the process of getting a dog, they would be more open to adopting one from a shelter.
Wholeheartedly agree. I especially like “adopt or shop responsibly.” I say this as someone who expends a ton of energy, time, and money on my rescue dog. He is worth it, but also, it’s been extremely hard at times, and I wouldn’t wish this experience on those without the tools or desire to make it work.
What a cruel attitude! A million dogs are euthanized in the U.S. every year. There is NO justification for breeders to continue bringing more dogs into the world, many of which may undoubtedly end up in shelters as well.
Hi Kim! If you're open to a polite and respectful conversation, I'm happy to have one. Can I ask what specifically in this post you found cruel? I repeatedly acknowledge the importance of rescue and my own efforts to support local shelters/programs.
In regards to breeders bringing dogs into the world who end up in shelters, a key difference between ethical and unethical breeders is that ones truly in it for the good of the species we love will take full responsibility for their dogs at any point during their lives. The dogs they breed will never end up in shelters—but dogs bred unethically (or accidental litters, etc) certainly might. Together, shelters, rescues, and ethical breeders can work toward education and resource accessibility to mitigate that.
Say it any way you like, but the reality is that there are too many animals in shelters and it's OUR fault. We have a responsibility to look after these animals, to control their numbers - and that should not include euthanasia as some shelters unfortunately take part in. That being said, this will never be fixed. They will continue to suffer and die because people aren't united, because people are selfish, because legislation doesn't change and isn't enforced enough. We can sugarcoat everything all day long, but the reality is cats, dogs, bunnies, horses, etc. are constantly in danger or suffering and it is OUR fault. Animals are constantly bred for our entertainment, treated as objects instead of the wonderful companions that they can be - and then often discarded or abused. To support breeding, even by a breeder considered to be ethical, is irresponsible at this stage.
I agree with you so, so much here. And I can feel your passion through this comment, which is something we need more of: that genuine concern with non-human creatures and how our actions impact them.
I might diverge slightly on the bit about euthanasia (I just think there's nuance there—and the "no kill" vs "kill" shelter conversation can do harm when people choose not to support municipal shelters that are required to take in all animals they come across because there's confusion about what precisely the labels mean. But that's a whole other discussion haha). And also the final sentence about breeding. I do believe ethical breeders have a place in the larger goal of education and unity as animal lovers.
That is definitely a different discussion (the euthanasia part). For your last sentence as well - I'm not saying there shouldn't ever be a place for ethical breeders. However, right now, with the current state of things, continued breeding without change is irresponsible. In my opinion the only breeding that should be done, until numbers are under control, is breeding to maintain a breed. Maintenance only. And that seems like an impossible thing to regulate. I don't know how such a thing would even be done. The best idea I can think of is an ethical (preferably licensed breeder) filling a specific quota for say a 5 year period and not going beyond that quota. And becoming licensed should involve more than paying a fee. There should be an application and approval process, and check ins upon renewal or something like that. Paying a fee doesn't make anyone fit to be a breeder. Their site/base should be checked, refences should be checked, their background and income. If this situation were taken as seriously as I think it should be, only legitimate people would be interested and everyone else would be breeding illegally and would consequently be shut down, fined, arrested etc. depending on the situation. Sadly, none of this will ever happen. The same disgusting cycle will continue, and animals will continue to suffer at the hands of the human race.
You're right. We DO have to be kinder and that should include not buying the "perfect" pet when there are so many animals in need of a home. This is one of the most ridiculous and self-indulgent attempts at intellectual pontification I have ever read. Debating the lexicon of this phrase instead of promoting the integrity of the intended message is counterproductive and the arguments are illogical. I see no good reason anyone who wants a dog can't find one that meets their color, age, size, etc. requirements via rescue. The idea that we would waste time debating how to be more gracious towards people who are more concerned with image than empathy is absurd when so many creatures (human and furry) actually deserve our kindness and empathy.
Hi Lisa! Thanks for taking the time to comment—this is always a messy, heated topic, and I appreciate your voice here.
We might have to agree to disagree about the importance of phrasing. I tend to align with Anne Curzan as she writes on page 85 of Says Who?: "We can work on changing language ... and other problems in the real world all at the same time. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these efforts, and language is a fundamental part of our identities and how we understand the world." While I don't think the adopt don't shop wording is the largest issue in the pet dog space, I do think it's worth considering.
I'd also push back on the implication that anyone who gets a dog via a non-rescue avenue is "more concerned with image than empathy". Are some people? Unfortunately yes. The genuine snobbery among some purebred dog communities harms both people and pets, and it's one reason I'm more supportive of orgs like the functional dog collaborative than the AKC. But not everyone who gets a dog from a breeder they trust does it for shallow reasons—and I'd argue that nowadays, "shopping" is much worse for one's image than adopting is (as exemplified by comments on this post and any others I write on the topic, even though my own dog is in fact a rescue). I ultimately believe truly ethical breeders serve a purpose for the long-term, harmonic coexistence of humans and domestic dogs.
I agree that we need to embrace the nuance and complexity of this topic. I will admit that I do find it difficult to have positive feelings about people who get puppies from breeders that aren't ethical, but at the same time, I know someone who tried to adopt from various shelters in their area and were turned down because they have kids (not even young kids either). I adopted my own dog from a friend who bought her up from a backyard breeder / "my dog is so cute that she simply must have puppies" kind of person. One final thought: I wish there was more education around the idea that if someone adopts a pure bred dog, they'll know exactly what kind of behaviours/traits the dog will have. I think that does a disservice to dogs because they are all unique individuals, and if we are to be good guardians, we need to work/play with the dog in front of us, instead of the dog we think they are supposed to be based on their breed. I think if more people had that mentality going in to the process of getting a dog, they would be more open to adopting one from a shelter.
Wholeheartedly agree. I especially like “adopt or shop responsibly.” I say this as someone who expends a ton of energy, time, and money on my rescue dog. He is worth it, but also, it’s been extremely hard at times, and I wouldn’t wish this experience on those without the tools or desire to make it work.
What a cruel attitude! A million dogs are euthanized in the U.S. every year. There is NO justification for breeders to continue bringing more dogs into the world, many of which may undoubtedly end up in shelters as well.
Hi Kim! If you're open to a polite and respectful conversation, I'm happy to have one. Can I ask what specifically in this post you found cruel? I repeatedly acknowledge the importance of rescue and my own efforts to support local shelters/programs.
In regards to breeders bringing dogs into the world who end up in shelters, a key difference between ethical and unethical breeders is that ones truly in it for the good of the species we love will take full responsibility for their dogs at any point during their lives. The dogs they breed will never end up in shelters—but dogs bred unethically (or accidental litters, etc) certainly might. Together, shelters, rescues, and ethical breeders can work toward education and resource accessibility to mitigate that.
Say it any way you like, but the reality is that there are too many animals in shelters and it's OUR fault. We have a responsibility to look after these animals, to control their numbers - and that should not include euthanasia as some shelters unfortunately take part in. That being said, this will never be fixed. They will continue to suffer and die because people aren't united, because people are selfish, because legislation doesn't change and isn't enforced enough. We can sugarcoat everything all day long, but the reality is cats, dogs, bunnies, horses, etc. are constantly in danger or suffering and it is OUR fault. Animals are constantly bred for our entertainment, treated as objects instead of the wonderful companions that they can be - and then often discarded or abused. To support breeding, even by a breeder considered to be ethical, is irresponsible at this stage.
I agree with you so, so much here. And I can feel your passion through this comment, which is something we need more of: that genuine concern with non-human creatures and how our actions impact them.
I might diverge slightly on the bit about euthanasia (I just think there's nuance there—and the "no kill" vs "kill" shelter conversation can do harm when people choose not to support municipal shelters that are required to take in all animals they come across because there's confusion about what precisely the labels mean. But that's a whole other discussion haha). And also the final sentence about breeding. I do believe ethical breeders have a place in the larger goal of education and unity as animal lovers.
That is definitely a different discussion (the euthanasia part). For your last sentence as well - I'm not saying there shouldn't ever be a place for ethical breeders. However, right now, with the current state of things, continued breeding without change is irresponsible. In my opinion the only breeding that should be done, until numbers are under control, is breeding to maintain a breed. Maintenance only. And that seems like an impossible thing to regulate. I don't know how such a thing would even be done. The best idea I can think of is an ethical (preferably licensed breeder) filling a specific quota for say a 5 year period and not going beyond that quota. And becoming licensed should involve more than paying a fee. There should be an application and approval process, and check ins upon renewal or something like that. Paying a fee doesn't make anyone fit to be a breeder. Their site/base should be checked, refences should be checked, their background and income. If this situation were taken as seriously as I think it should be, only legitimate people would be interested and everyone else would be breeding illegally and would consequently be shut down, fined, arrested etc. depending on the situation. Sadly, none of this will ever happen. The same disgusting cycle will continue, and animals will continue to suffer at the hands of the human race.
You're right. We DO have to be kinder and that should include not buying the "perfect" pet when there are so many animals in need of a home. This is one of the most ridiculous and self-indulgent attempts at intellectual pontification I have ever read. Debating the lexicon of this phrase instead of promoting the integrity of the intended message is counterproductive and the arguments are illogical. I see no good reason anyone who wants a dog can't find one that meets their color, age, size, etc. requirements via rescue. The idea that we would waste time debating how to be more gracious towards people who are more concerned with image than empathy is absurd when so many creatures (human and furry) actually deserve our kindness and empathy.
Hi Lisa! Thanks for taking the time to comment—this is always a messy, heated topic, and I appreciate your voice here.
We might have to agree to disagree about the importance of phrasing. I tend to align with Anne Curzan as she writes on page 85 of Says Who?: "We can work on changing language ... and other problems in the real world all at the same time. There is nothing mutually exclusive about these efforts, and language is a fundamental part of our identities and how we understand the world." While I don't think the adopt don't shop wording is the largest issue in the pet dog space, I do think it's worth considering.
I'd also push back on the implication that anyone who gets a dog via a non-rescue avenue is "more concerned with image than empathy". Are some people? Unfortunately yes. The genuine snobbery among some purebred dog communities harms both people and pets, and it's one reason I'm more supportive of orgs like the functional dog collaborative than the AKC. But not everyone who gets a dog from a breeder they trust does it for shallow reasons—and I'd argue that nowadays, "shopping" is much worse for one's image than adopting is (as exemplified by comments on this post and any others I write on the topic, even though my own dog is in fact a rescue). I ultimately believe truly ethical breeders serve a purpose for the long-term, harmonic coexistence of humans and domestic dogs.