If "responsible" breeders didn't exist, where would dogs come from?

[ContinentalOp]

Wouldn't all dogs then be born thanks to idiots who didn't have their pets neutered? Rather than attacking people who buy from breeders, shouldn't the priority be to enact some legislation that can help solve the issue? Shouldn't we be trying to:

- Shut down all puppy mills and allow only a small number of registered breeders that have to follow strict regulations.
- Require mandatory neutering of all cats and dogs apart from the registered breeders.
- Come up with some system to identify animals (DNA testing?) so that breeders or owners can be fined for any animals that end up in shelters?

Why is it still legal to keep pets that aren't neutered? It seems to me that if everyone boycotts breeders and rescues animals from shelters, then we'll all just be rescuing dogs brought into the world by irresponsible assholes who think their dog won't be a "man" anymore if they neuter it.

[Luminous Animal]

1. Spontaneous generation?

[GoesTo11]

2. I heard it was the stork.

[ContinentalOp]

3. Who breeds the storks? -nt-

[GoesTo11]

4. Damn, there goes my worldview

[notesdev]

8. The puppy fairy

third cousin once removed from the one that brings ponies to little girls

[semillama]

149. You know what's funny?

I always thought that dogs laid eggs.

And I learned something today.

[Heidi]

5. "Require mandatory neutering of all cats and dogs apart from the registered breeders."

So, in other words, allow certified breeders to have a monopoly? Not every person who allows his/her canine or feline companion to give birth is "an irresponsible asshole."

Here's an example: nine years ago, my mother-in-law had her female cat on birth control (you can get cat birth control pills in Switzerland) because she wanted to allow Minz to have one litter of kittens. When Minz was three years old, my mother-in-law discontinued the birth control tablets, allowed Minz to go into heat and get pregnant. When the three kittens were born, each already had a home: Ginger came to live with us, Tabitha stayed with my mother-in-law, and Barley went across the street to live with our goddaughters. The "kittens" were neutered/spayed before they were a year old, and they all are fast friends and part of our big family. Another aspect that made this situation very special is that the "kittens" were socialized to all of us at a very young age. As soon as Minz would allow us to be near the kittens, we all visited "our" kittens every day, and sometimes two or three times a day. When Ginger was weaned and came to live with us, he knew very well our scent, our voices, his own name and where his home was, and it was the same with Tabitha and Barley.

Had we gotten our cat from even a reputable breeder, it's unlikely we would have had the same opportunity to bond with him from very close to the beginning of his life.

[ContinentalOp]

25. Why should just anyone be allowed to do that?

If there is a problem with overbreeding and overfilled shelters, then amateur home breeders should be the first to go. It's irresponsible.

And how did you know exactly 3 kittens would be born?

[4 t 4]

125. Kinda like the way I feel about Humans. n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

128. Why shouldn't they?

Why should professional breeders have a monopoly?

[Heidi]

133. Why shouldn't just anyone be allowed to do that?

What you're talking about comes awfully close to eugenics for domesticated animals. Are you okay with that?

We knew there would be three kittens because we have a VETERINARIAN, just as any pregnant woman with resources would have an OB/Gyn. :sheesh: Anyway, if there had been six kittens, they all would have stayed within our family.

[ContinentalOp]

140. Haha,

so you knew there would be 3... AFTER she was pregnant! And yes, I'm OK with "eugenics" for animals. They're ANIMALS FFS!

[Heidi]

145. Look, not all of us feel about animals as you do.

How about if you not dictate your morality to others?

[Richard Steele]

6. The same place they've always come from. Your post is a silly thing. nm

[SoCalDem]

7. The same place MOST dogs come from NOW..

Random hook-ups between dogs who are allowed their "freedom"..*


freedom, being the freedom to try to avoid being hit by cars, tormented by bigger dogs, mean kids, and the occasioanl run in with the dog catcher..and the freedom to eat garbage, drink anti-freeze laced runoff, and catch any number of infections/diseases/parasites..

[ContinentalOp]

26. Right, it's those "random hook-ups" that need to be stopped, not the breeders. -nt-

[TwilightGardener]

9. I buy my dogs from breeders. Better than irresponsible-backyard-accident pups

and roll-of-the-dice shelter dogs, as wonderful as they may be, for my family. I like BREEDS. I don't want a dog-world of mutts.

[DonEBrook]

10. I guess you're not much of an Obama fan then.

:eyes:
(I think your position is fucked up beyond description)

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Oops, I guess the mods found my post to you offensive. I hope you remember it, though.

[uppityperson]

108. Obama is not a pet dog. Fail.

I won't write more so my post won't be deleted.

[DonEBrook]

110. Were you intending to reply to -me- there?

Just checking...

[uppityperson]

115. Yes. that is why I replied-there.

[DonEBrook]

151. Okay. Why? Aren't you aware of the fact Obama called himself a mutt?

???
:wtf:

[uppityperson]

153. Yes, I am aware of that. However, Obama is not a dog.

"I don't want a dog-world of mutts."
" I guess you're not much of an Obama fan then."
Obama is not a dog.

A person can not want a DOG WORLD of mutts, yet still be a fan of the President Elect, who happened to call himself a mutt. Obama is not a dog.

[LWolf]

150. I'm not any kind of Obama fan,

and have never pretended to be.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, though.

As someone who has had dogs all her 48 years, from the pound, from irresponsible backyard breeders, from responsible breeders, and, yes, from a puppy mill (a rescued puppy,) I loved them all.

I do know that responsible breeding that controls for excessive inbreeding and genetic defects results in healthier, better-adjusted dogs who live longer, healthier lives.

I love dogs, so I'm in favor of responsible breeding.

[DonEBrook]

152. Did you magically morph into weinerdoggie?

:eyes:

[uppityperson]

154. Are you calling a poster a sock monkey since they chose to add their opinion in?

See, this is a forum, and people jump into the middle of conversations. Unless you now think I am a sock monkey also.

[LWolf]

155. No, I'm still the lone wolf.

Of course, conversation on a public board is heard by many, and considered open to all.

:hi:

[undeterred]

17. Who you calling a mutt?

[TwilightGardener]

18. Cute puppy! Glad you found the right dog for your family.

[Solon]

20. Uhm, you do realize that most dog breeds are breeds only because...

some people took a few features and bred them into mutts, right? I mean, a breed is still a mutt, in a general sense, just an inbred version of one.

[TwilightGardener]

21. People selected for certain qualities. People will continue to select

for certain qualities. I don't find that an intrinsically bad thing. I do find the notion that mutts (meaning, dogs of unknown/unintended ancestry) are somehow superior to a dog whose ancestry can be definitively traced is just silly. I don't place a value on a dog's background, except in terms of how they fit in to my family and my needs and wishes for a pet (which is why I seek certain breeds--I like to know what I'm getting, and I like to find a good example of a breed I admire. People who don't care about that, well, good for them--more power to them). Other people want to make dogs an indicator of values and moral righteousness (witness the argument about breeders vs. rescue vs. puppy mill), and there's some merit to that, but some get weirdly judgmental over where your dog came from and whether or not it's a purebred.

[Solon]

22. I generally look down on purebreds because they are bred for human needs, or worse, vanity...

instead of being bred for the dog's health or a stable temperament. Certain breeds can't even breathe properly through their noses, others are more susceptible to certain conditions or diseases because of inbreeding or anatomical defects. Others have behavioral difficulties, due to being bred for aggressiveness or neurological disorders that crop up more frequently due to breeding.

The same can be said for cats, though cats haven't been purposely bred for long, so such problems are less obvious. However, due to the increase in cat breeding as well, these problems are beginning to arise in them as well, an obvious example would be Persians, which, by the way, resemble nothing like Persians of 50 years ago.

[TwilightGardener]

24. Dogs and cats were both domesticated and bred for human needs.

As were all domesticated animals--cattle, sheep, horses, etc. Your problem is you don't like the results of some of that breeding. That's fine. I don't either. For example, I don't much care for some types of herding dogs, and some types of terriers. So I don't adopt them. But for the people who love them and admire them and breed them responsibly, hey--to each his own. Dogs who have features bred in that make them prone to problems (such as dachshunds, with their long bodies and subsequent back problems) are no less loveable or worthy as pets--they just require a certain type of care, or diet, or climate, or behavior training, etc. There is no perfect dog, just perfect dogs for individuals. And pet owners who find the right dog or cat for their situation are more likely to keep and take care of that pet.

[Solon]

31. First off, there's a debate as to whether they self-domesticated or not...

cats, we know, were self-domesticated, i.e. they did it themselves, more or less. Dogs, we are less sure of, and cats are only half-domesticated, even today.

But, and this is the big question, why breed dogs that suffer pain for vanity's sake? This is a question of suffering and health.

I had a dog who was an unfortunate crossbreed, his name was Lucky, we called him that because he was a rescue dog, found on the side of the highway. He was friendly and happy, but, he was a crossbreed between a dachshund and a much larger dog, I believe the vet said a lab. He had a long body, but short legs that had difficulty supporting his body, even though he had no fat on him.

He was a good dog, I loved him dearly, but for the last 5 years of his life, he suffered back problems and severe arthritis in his legs. Had to take pills everyday for those years, and sometimes I would see him, far too young to be struggling to walk, and trying to figure out who in their right mind would allow him to exist.

It probably sounds callous, even cruel, but I don't think he should have been born. Someone very irresponsible, we're not sure who, allowed it. I don't understand why breeds are bred for vanity purposes, the people may feel good about it, but the dogs suffer.

[TwilightGardener]

54. Well, to take a philosophical view of your pal Lucky--

lots of humans, too, suffer from terrible joint pain, degenerative diseases, etc. In fact, we all die of something. Dogs just live in fast-forward, but they all, too, will suffer and die of something--every breed, every single one. Should Lucky have been born? Sure, why not? You never know how things will turn out. Some dogs with his build have never have back problems. He drew a short straw in the musculoskeletal department, but we all (human and animal alike) draw a short straw in something--heart, kidneys, eyesight, joints, etc. The vast majority of us are still glad we're here, and adapt, and even find enjoyment in life, until it's over. That's the way of the world.

[Solon]

60. Your argument falls flat when you realize that...

humans aren't bred for certain traits, that are considered positive, while suffering negative health consequences as well. I realize that, when you roll the dice in the genetic game, that some will not be as lucky as others, however, for many dogs and cats, the game is fixed, and NOT in their favor. That is what I object to.

[TwilightGardener]

72. People who are responsible breeders try to breed out problems--

unfortunately, many dogs aren't bred with genetic/health issues in mind, or good intentions, or intentions at all. That's why I agree with the OP, I do think that allowing just anybody to breed animals for whatever motive is kind of dumb--seems like you should have to pay a pretty big price in terms of licensing, knowledge, or whatever to be able to breed dogs and cats (or just keeping unaltered animals). Aside from helping solve overpopulation, it might take some profit motive out of the dog-breeding business, thus leaving breeding to people who are primarily motivated by love and interest in the breed.

[Solon]

75. I understand that, but how far should it be taken?

Would you be willing to breed dachshunds out of existance? They have back problems because of an inherent problem with the breed itself, to breed that problem out is to fundamentally change the breed to such an extent it wouldn't exist anymore. The short legs and long body have to go, to put it bluntly.

I could say the same for pugs and their breathing and back problems, along with boxers and bulldogs.

[TwilightGardener]

92. Well, dachshunds don't automatically have back problems. My last weenie dog

had no problems with his back. Granted, he only lived to age six (died of septic shock from bacteria in his gut that got into his bloodstream), but I would guess the majority of dachshunds go through life with no problems, same as the majority of other breeds go through life with few problems, even though each breed may have a higher incidence of a particular flaw or disease--you learn how to watch for those problems and possibly head off trouble, or know that you might pay a price if they do develop them. English Springer spaniels have some brain and retina problems, so owners of that breed need to be forewarned, for example. So, no... I like the short legs and long body, and floppy ears, and pointy snoot, and bad attitude, so I wouldn't want them to be bred out of existence. I would like for them to be bred with a lower incidence of genetic spinal/disc problems that make back injury more likely in a long-backed breed.

[Solon]

97. As you said:

"I would like for them to be bred with a lower incidence of genetic spinal/disc problems that make back injury more likely in a long-backed breed."

That would involve practically breeding them out of existence, or, at the very least, breeding them with a shorter back. In addition, for some breeds, its not a minority that suffer said problems, but the majority, and in some cases, every single dog of that breed suffers certain problems. What do you do about that?

ON EDIT: Also, the disease we are talking about is called intervertebral disk disease, and it is, in large part, caused by a long spinal column and short rib cage.

[TwilightGardener]

101. I think you are confusing merely having a long back (proportionally speaking) with

the development of back problems. Just as with people, some dogs are prone to degenerative disc and vertebral problems, regardless of overall body structure--that's what I mean when I'm talking about breeding doxies to make them less prone to back injury. Or, breed in slightly longer legs (in other words, change the AKC standard a little). As for pugs/bulldogs and their breathing problems--if they have comparable lifespans to other dogs, and seem to have happy little puggy lives otherwise, I'm not going to judge. Great Danes have short life spans compared to other dogs--if their owners can accept that, then I can too. My doofus Weimaraner has no genetic/anatomical health problems that I know of, but his temperament (hyper) led him to bolt from our house into the street where he stopped an SUV with his head. See? They ALL have their issues.

[Solon]

109. Uhm, no I'm not, this is what those who diagnose it say, vets etc....

I think you have a huge problem distinguishing between random traits, such as displayed in humans with problems, and traits that are bred ON PURPOSE that also display problems. There is no comparison between a human with back problems due to a(most likely recessive) genetic trait, and a dog with the back problem practically bred into them.

Same for pugs and other dogs that have practically no snout, with the compressed mouth and nasal cavity, they have difficulty breathing, and sometimes require intervention just to swallow. Not to mention they cannot regulate their body temperature in 80+ degree heat, along with other problems. This isn't a case of animals having a few issues that are random, or even minor, its a case of breeding them with absolutely no care as to the consequences to their health.

[TwilightGardener]

118. If all, or most, wiener dogs succumbed to back problems before

they reached old age, then we'd have a case where the breeding was done without regard to health, and the breed would most likely have gone out of existence a long time ago (as many other dog breeds have), since it would not have been able to fulfill its purpose of hunting badger/vermin for more than a couple years. Again, most DO NOT end up paralyzed or crippled--therefore, the breed goes on, with just a greater likelihood of back problems than other breeds. Most pugs aren't keeling over from breathlessness, lying limp on the floor everyday--most are active, happy animals. In fact, both breeds are going strong, both popularity-wise and in terms of having been around a long time--the worst-case, most-severe problems either don't occur very often, or can be fixed or avoided. If you feel that all dogs should look and live like labs or whatever you have in mind as the ideal dog, that's fine--don't get a pug or dachshund.

[KittyWampus]

124. Are you willing to breed Downs Syndrome out of existance? Will you condemn those who abort a fetus

that has a birth defect?

[KittyWampus]

123. Humans most certainly ARE bred for certain traits. Couples want THEIR DNA in little Johnny.

They want the traits of little Britney to match theirs.

Using the argument so many zealots put forth on this issue:

Humans should just adopt since the earth is already overpopulated by humans babies born to those who can't or won't take care of their offspring.

And couples who insist on having a kid so they can perpetuate their own DNA are selfish.

[ContinentalOp]

141. Seriously, that's about 1000x more convincing.

I mean, I'll start to worry about shelter animals as soon as there are no orphaned children in the world. If buying an animal from a breeder directly causes the death of a shelter animal, then surely having your own child ensures that some orphaned girl in Ethiopia is going to end up in a life of prostitution on the streets and die of AIDS at a young age, right?

[yardwork]

34. How does anyone really know how and why cats and dogs were domesticated?

[Solon]

37. General theory is this, for dogs as hunting companions...

and this was before agriculture. After agriculture, cats just hung around farms and granaries to eat the mice, so eventually they were domesticated for pest control.

[yardwork]

53. That makes sense to me, but we don't know for sure.

I know that early agrarian humans built massive pits to hold grain. This was in the middle east, where the wild ancestors of domestic cats still live. I know from being around horse barns that rodents are bad pests anywhere grain is stored. Not only do they eat the grain, they mess up even more than they eat.

Any human storing grain is going to be very grateful to animals that control rodent populations, especially if those predators don't mess with the grain themselves. Cats and dogs would be natural allies. No wonder the Egyptians worshipped cats.

[Solon]

67. Well, cats are an unusual case, and dogs are as well...

Most domesticated animals are herbivores who are herd animals, cats and dogs are hunters. Dogs were easier to domesticate, being pack hunters, its easy enough for dogs to "adopt" a human community as its pack. Cats are barely domesticated to this day, if they don't bond with humans at an early age, they will never bond with humans. We do know, from genetic testing, where dogs and cats came from, but we can also extrapolate how they became domesticated, from the behavior of their wild relatives, compared to their behavior today, especially of feral animals.

For example, dogs still have the pack mentality, and with superior senses to humans, early hunter/gatherer tribes would have followed wolf packs around to track prey. There may have even been cooperation against larger game, wolf packs track them down, humans take down the prey with their weapons. Later on, humans most likely started to be wholly adopted by wolf packs, and they intermingled and humans started keeping them as pets, and/or humans stole wolf puppies to raise on their own, and train for hunting.

Cats domestication has sort of been recently turned on its head, with the discovery of a 9,500 year old grave of a man buried with his pet cat on Cyprus. However, most likely cats started hanging around granaries and farms, they were tracking mice and rats, and later on, humans accepted them into their homes and started using them for companionship. Evolution may have played a part in this, cats probably self selected for traits more amicable to human companionship, less aggressiveness, etc. without humans taking any direct part in their breeding. This, of course, would have given them an evolutionary advantage over their wild counterparts.

Do we know exactly when this happened? No, and we don't know the exact circumstances either, but this most likely happened in different places around the world, at different times, at least for dogs. For cats, it was more focused, on the cradle of civilization, and then they spread from there.

[GaYellowDawg]

99. I have to disagree with this.

early hunter/gatherer tribes would have followed wolf packs around to track prey. There may have even been cooperation against larger game, wolf packs track them down, humans take down the prey with their weapons. Later on, humans most likely started to be wholly adopted by wolf packs, and they intermingled and humans started keeping them as pets, and/or humans stole wolf puppies to raise on their own, and train for hunting.

No... very highly doubtful that any humans were ever adopted by wolf packs. What's a much more likely story is that humans saw how efficient that wolves were as hunters, discovered that if you capture wolf cubs early enough, they imprint on humans, and bred them for nonaggression towards humans. Even today, dogs "read" human expressions with extraordinary facility. Wolves didn't need cooperation from humans to capture prey; they are extraordinarily efficient hunters on their own, and they'd be much more likely to prey on humans than to adopt them. Intermingling as packs? Never.

Cats domestication has sort of been recently turned on its head, with the discovery of a 9,500 year old grave of a man buried with his pet cat on Cyprus. However, most likely cats started hanging around granaries and farms, they were tracking mice and rats, and later on, humans accepted them into their homes and started using them for companionship. Evolution may have played a part in this, cats probably self selected for traits more amicable to human companionship, less aggressiveness, etc. without humans taking any direct part in their breeding. This, of course, would have given them an evolutionary advantage over their wild counterparts.

I don't have a problem with the first couple of sentences, but your statement about evolution is way off; cats didn't "self select" for anything. More than likely, humans discovered that kittens, like dogs, will imprint on humans if captured early enough, and those cats that turned out overly aggressive were simply killed. Those who weren't as aggressive survived to breed. There was selection involved, but it was by humans, not cats. I don't know where you'd get the idea that cats would somehow, as a species, consciously "self select." It's a ludicrous notion, that cats were so smart that they decided to "self select" and join up with us humans. No, they weren't. Humans were the driving force in domestication, and cats aren't that smart, either.

[yardwork]

105. uh-oh

You just touched the third rail in DU by saying that, "cats aren't that smart, either."

LOL!

[GaYellowDawg]

113. Yeah, I know.

I'm bound to get a hundred different outraged screeds that will mostly consist of one of these themes:

a) some kind of assertion that cognition/intelligence/sentience is overrated
b) some kind of personal anecdote about a complete anthropomorphism of Fluffy that "proves" cats are smart/sentient
c) some kind of misanthropic rant about how all organisms, especially cats, are morally superior to humans
d) some kind of assertion about the deep spirituality/wisdom of cats
e) some kind of assertion that cats are smarter/better than dogs (even though I didn't compare the two)

I think that about covers it, although felineamentalists will probably come up with several more.

[yardwork]

114. And you deserve every one of them! LOL!

[GaYellowDawg]

117. Well, I don't think so.

I am that rare kind of person who likes both dogs and cats a lot. Were it not for allergies, I'd probably want to have both a dog and a cat. I've lived with both (which was how I found out my cat allergies). I get along very well with both dogs and cats, they've got different, funny, and endearing qualities, but you have to make an effort to understand them rather than expecting them to understand you. For instance, many people don't understand that direct eye contact is threatening to a cat. Or that when you reject a cat for kneading you with its claws, you're rejecting it when it is carrying out a nursing reflex and is really expressing love and affection, and that's a really rotten rejection for the cat that has to feel like emotional cruelty.

Both animals are wonderful, and both have developed a much better capacity for reading humans than most other animals... but neither species is (with, obviously, exceptions) too terribly smart.

[Solon]

111. Where did I say it was conscious in the case of cats?

Also, in the dog's case, I did mention that very possibility, but both possibilities may have been likely. Wolves would never have considered humans prey, by the time wolves encountered humans, humans already were in the stone age and organized, wolves would have found easier prey than humans.

Remember, this is well after the time that our human ancestors were prey, and well into the time of humans being hunters. What I was getting at was this, at first, humans and wolves, at least in some areas of the world, competed for food, they hunted most of the same animals, and therefore may have fought over territory and prey. However, in some cases, as recent studies have suggested, wild wolves, when exposed to humans for extended periods of time, may cooperate with humans in certain endeavors.

As far as cats, why would humans capture kittens in the beginning, why would they need to do that? Wild cats were perfectly capable of controlling the rat and mice population without any sort of direct human intervention. They just hung out near where the rats and mice congregated, no more, no less. However, there was another pressure on the cats as well, simply put, they had to get along with the humans, in addition, there is little evidence of forced breeding of cats in any early history, unlike dogs. Most cat breeds date back a little over a century, and some of the oldest breeds only date back to about 1000 years or so.

Self domestication doesn't involve consciously breeding, but rather evolutionary pressures to changing environments, cats that are more likely to STAY around humans had a better chance of survival than those who didn't. Hence they would breed with cats with the same temperament, no direct human involvement was needed. Indeed, this probably also explains the social nature of the domestic cat, that, while they hunt alone, that even when feral, they form colonies, which is unheard of in their wild cousins.

[GaYellowDawg]

116. Nope, I still disagree.

Also, in the dog's case, I did mention that very possibility, but both possibilities may have been likely. Wolves would never have considered humans prey, by the time wolves encountered humans, humans already were in the stone age and organized, wolves would have found easier prey than humans.

Oh, come on. Humans have been prey to wolves ever since the two species encountered each other. A human with weapons is definitely prey to a hungry pack. Ten humans might not be, but one sure as hell is. Wolves are opportunistic hunters.

Remember, this is well after the time that our human ancestors were prey, and well into the time of humans being hunters. What I was getting at was this, at first, humans and wolves, at least in some areas of the world, competed for food, they hunted most of the same animals, and therefore may have fought over territory and prey. However, in some cases, as recent studies have suggested, wild wolves, when exposed to humans for extended periods of time, may cooperate with humans in certain endeavors.

Which studies? References, please. And without weaponry, humans are still prey today. If either one of us encountered a hungry wolf pack in Siberia, unless we had a firearm and plenty of ammo, we'd be wolf food in short order.

As far as cats, why would humans capture kittens in the beginning, why would they need to do that?

For the same reason that humans domesticated cows instead of killing them, and invented agriculture (as opposed to foraging): convenience. Why wait for mousers to come around if you can own them?

Self domestication doesn't involve consciously breeding, but rather evolutionary pressures to changing environments, cats that are more likely to STAY around humans had a better chance of survival than those who didn't.

That is no more/no less than selection. No "self" to it.

Hence they would breed with cats with the same temperament, no direct human involvement was needed. Indeed, this probably also explains the social nature of the domestic cat, that, while they hunt alone, that even when feral, they form colonies, which is unheard of in their wild cousins.

Ever hear of lion prides? The most simple conclusion is that cats were felines that, like lions, were social, and therefore would imprint on humans. If no human involvement was needed for domestication, and it was simply a matter of advantage, why weren't lynxes, bobcats, or weasels ever domesticated? Why not martens? Mongooses? There are all kinds of small predators that never associated with humans even though that might have conferred an advantage. Humans had to take an active role in domesticating animals. None of them just came on their own.

[Solon]

119. Wolves only attack people when they have a lack of a natural food source...

are sick, rabid, have humans intrude on their territory, or are habituated with humans who feed them. And almost never in packs, these are usually isolated wolves.

Back 10,000 years ago and more, there were a LOT less humans around, they always traveled in groups, and there was plenty of game for them and wolves. Why would wolves have viewed humans as a food source? As you said, wolves are opportunists, and they would not have risked a pack on a tribe of humans, too risky. They would only do it out of desperation.

As far as cats are concerned, humans wouldn't have known about their mousing properties until after they built their farms and granaries. In addition, we know the EXACT species that cat's evolved from, the Arabian Wild Cat, oddly enough they are from the same area that the first farms were tilled in.

In addition, African Lions are the ONLY felines, except for domestic cats, that are social, and the social groups between the two aren't even comparable. Lion prides are composed of one(or, rarely two) male lions and several females. Only the females hunt, the males guard the territory. Feral cat colonies do not follow this structure at all, indeed, they don't have a discernible structure as such. From what limited studies have taken place on such colonies, the cats all hunt and eat individually, however, they socialize in a single location, which may change depending on weather, human activity, etc.

They may disperse for days, weeks, even months, but always congregate again, readily changing members within the colony itself. This bears no resemblance to any social structure in any wild cousin of theirs, including their closest living relative.

There is something else that's involved in domestication that partly explains why only a few animals on this planet are domesticated as companion animals. Temperament, such an animal has to be curious, inquisitive, somewhat attractive to our perceptions, provide some sort of useful service to humans, that was demonstrated, and also, this is key, at least a few members of the species has to display a lack of fear in humans. There's also another factor, size, large predators are less likely to be domesticated because they are harder to control and train.

Oh, and many animals that do display most of these characteristics, except the usefulness part, some end up as pets, even though this is rare, but most of the time they are called something else, pests. Racoons, weasels, squirrels, rats and mice, etc. fit this category.

[GaYellowDawg]

130. Sigh...

Wolves can eat us. Therefore, we are a natural food source. We may not be their first choice, but we're edible. Humans are not always in groups 100% of the time.

Your original thesis is what I disagree with. It's much more likely that humans saw wolves as very efficient hunters and found, quite by accident, that they could be raised as long as they were captured as very young pups. Much of their aggressiveness was bred out.

As for cats - once again, my point of contention is that humans did the domesticating - that someone decided they wanted a cat as a pet, captured kittens, and those that were too aggressive were simply killed. Feral Felis catus may congregate because a tendency towards sociability has been artificially selected for over thousands of years of domestication. Sorry, but I don't buy into the idea of self-domestication. Richard Wrangham can be somewhat of a crackpot.

[GaYellowDawg]

136. ALL dogs are bred for human needs.

If not, they'd still be wolves.

[DustyJoe]

28. Breeders

I agree, I wanted a purebred Golden Retriever because of their inbred non-aggression and gentleness because of my toddler grandchildren. I looked at the local shelters and online rescue orgs with no luck. Drove 90 miles to get one from a couple that only had a male/female purebreed and was not a puppy mill. Wonderful dog and I don't regret my choice. Even tho he is AKC purebred, had him neutered because he is a family dog, not a show or stud.

[TwilightGardener]

106. I went to the website of a local dachshund rescue organization, but

found they would only adopt out to prospective owners who had a fenced yard. So, apparently, a type of dog who could live very happily inside an apartment is suddenly not suitable for me, a gal who already owned a dachshund and who also owns a house with a big yard, because I don't fork over thousands for an ugly-ass chain link fence to keep him outside in the elements all day (where he could dig under the fence anyway, as wiener dogs do). Made no sense--they reject people for the stupidest reasons. So, I went with a breeder.

[Greyhound]

30. Why does this come as no surprise at all? n/t

:eyes:

[RobinA]

131. You're In Trouble Now

The puppy police are gonna be on you!!!

[AngryAmish]

12. Sometimes a mommy doggy loves a daddy doggie very, very much....

Honestly, I think you should ask your parents these things.

[DonEBrook]

13. And very, very long too

:evilgrin:

[ContinentalOp]

27. Do they have to be married first? -nt-

[Critters2]

121. LOL!!

:rofl:

[michreject]

15. I've never seen a Yorkie at a shelter

Oh that's right. I shouldn't be allowed to choose the dog I want.:sarcasm:

[lukasahero]

19. Funny, I found lots of them on Petfinder

http://www.petfinder.com/search/search.cgi?pet.Animal=Dog&pet.Breed=yorkshire+terrier&pet.Age=&pet.Size=&pet.Sex=&location=waterford%2C+mi

Good grief, there's even a Yorshire Terrier rescue group in your area: http://www.petfinder.com/shelters/MI116.html

FTR, you guys don't even try to make it difficult any more... :eyes:

[greguganus]

78. bada bing!! n/t

[michreject]

146. Maybe you should try and read

You just might get somewhere in life............maybe.

The subject was SHELTER, not rescue.

[lukasahero]

148. Aw, so you gotta go with the insults

Whatever. There are plenty of Yorkies out there in need of homes in a town ~5 freakin' miles from the one you list in your profile. But that's ok, you hold dear to your semantics and leave the welfare of living, breathing Yorkies to those of us who actually care about them.

Your attempt at insult is laughable.

[LostinVA]

40. Do you have any idea how many Yorkie rescues there are???

[michreject]

147. Do they have newborns?

Where I can inspect the parents?

[undeterred]

16. They would all be clones of the Platonic dog.

[riqster]

23. I get mine from farmers whose dogs get knocked up by

...'traveling salesmen'. :D

[hfojvt]

29. "Why is it still legal to keep pets that aren't neutered?"

Maybe because we live in a country where we don't want our lives micromanaged by busybody control freaks and because a pet that isn't neutered doesn't bother most people.

[ContinentalOp]

35. So I guess you're totally anti-regulation?

We should be allowed to keep dangerous wild animals as pets, endangered species, etc? I guess you don't think that dog & cat overpopulation is a problem or that the euthanasia of millions of animals is a problem, and that's fine. I'm not really sure how I feel about the issue myself. But I'm talking to the people who DO have a problem with it, and who think that shutting down breeders is the answer. It's not the breeders that are the problem, it's the "random hook-ups" as somebody upthread put it. If some of these people got their way and breeders ceased to exist, what would be the logical end result?

[LostinVA]

43. I think you should get a huge fine for not neutering or spaying your animal

Certain regulations and laws that improve the quality of life for the animals themselves isn't "micromanaging." :eyes:

[ContinentalOp]

47. Me too. I don't know why this isn't priority #1 rather than browbeating everyone...

into boycotting breeders and rescuing dogs. Even if everyone rescued animals, there would probably still be millions that need to be euthanized.

[LostinVA]

51. I know some nations are VERY strict about this

And, getting a breeder's license is very, very difficult.

[ContinentalOp]

59. As it should be. I know that in China it's really expensive to even own a dog...

not that I think we should emulate China in this regard. I just think it's kind of crazy that it's completely legal for people to allow their dogs to breed like crazy and then those animals all end up at the pound.

[MyNameGoesHere]

95. My dog told me it was inhumane to

cut his nuts off. He asked me how would i like it if someone did that to me. I just looked at him dumbfounded and asked him how long has he been smoking for?

[hfojvt]

127. I already have to pay double for the city tags

I currently have two non-neutered animals. I don't see how
a) that is anybody else's business
b) how that harms either the animals, or society

So, butting into people's lives for things that don't affect you certainly seems like totalitarian overkill to me even if micromanaging is the wrong word. Further, neutering all males seems like double overkill to me.

[FloridaJudy]

129. My local animal control

Charges a heckuvalot more for a tag for an unneutered animal. While you can't get fined for not neutering your critter, you can for keeping a pet without a tag. Works out to the same thing I guess. Breeders should be willing to pay more, since they're making money off of the beasts.

[yardwork]

32. Are cat people allowed to post on this thread?

[ContinentalOp]

41. No, there's not really much controversy with cats...

obviously no cats should be allowed to breed, period. :P

[yardwork]

55. Gasp!

:o

[slackmaster]

143. I was going to call you a worse asswipe than the person who started this thread

Then I noticed that you are that person.

[GaYellowDawg]

139. No. You got space on the DU calendar...

...so keep your privileged butt off of a dog thread. :P :P :P :P

[Book Lover]

33. Here's a really crazy thought

(Yes, Gilligan, I'm finally posting this in GD!)

Maybe we should rethink why we, as a society, have pets. Perhaps it is a good time to think about stopping pet ownership as a cultural good. I suggest we as a society discuss the benefits and drawbacks to the breeding and selling of animals as playthings and mere companions. Perhaps more of the results of animal ownership are negative than positive.

[yardwork]

36. The cats are still going to hang around the back door when the weather turns cold.

I didn't have a lot of say in whether or not I had cats.

[Book Lover]

39. I think you are being facetious?

Of course you could choose to feed and shelter those cats, or not.

I'm not saying what I propose is practical or even desireable. But I think it's a useful conversation to have.

[yardwork]

45. I'm being facetious, yes, and pointing out that it's a complex issue.

I agree with you that we need to rethink our relationship with animals. I'm not keen on breeding animals, especially for vanity. Some people buy animals that match their home decor. I find that offensive, but others will say it is their right.

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that animals are playthings for human amusement.

On the other hand, there's no way to stop people from having pets. Nor is there any way to stop animals from adopting humans.

[Book Lover]

50. Your point about this being a two-way street is well taken

I've never had that experience myself, but I am sure you have, and others. If my point boils down to my thinking that nonhuman animals have a right to self-determination, they can determine that they want to live in your house and munch on your kibble. And why stop that? How could one, even?

[yardwork]

56. The benefits to both humans and their pets are well-documented.

The animals - and dogs are pack animals, so they particularly need companionship - get love, companionship, food, shelter, protection, and vet care.

Humans get lower blood pressure, reduced stress, relief from chronic pain, relief from loneliness, boosts to their immune system, a sense of being needed, and a host of other beneficial results from caring for pets. It's been shown that people's blood pressure can go down just from petting an animal.

[Book Lover]

64. Agreed

But I think we should at least articulate the possibility of there being a downside. If the downsides, though, are merely philosophical, I don't have very much of a case, do I?

[yardwork]

66. No, I agreed with you about the downsides, too.

I don't like animals being used as home decor props or vanity toys. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of pure breeds. I've always had rescued animals.

[Solon]

57. Well, there is a problem with that...

I would be all for self-determination if cats and dogs had natural habitats to live in, without human encroachment. However, they don't, we took them away from those habitats, thousands of years ago, and their nearest living wild relatives already have those habitats occupied.

So, we have a choice to make, find a way to make sure these particular domestic animals can live healthy, happy lives, or let them live feral lives, breeding out of control, usually on the fringes of human civilization, and being sick and dying young. There's no "let nature take its course" here anymore, these animals don't have any habitat, but the ones we create for them, to live in.

[yardwork]

61. Very good point. There's nothing natural about a feral cat or dog.

They don't belong in this habitat, their original bodies and minds have been domesticated, and they are now dependent on humans for care. The fact that they can scrounge a living in the wild is no excuse.

Furthermore, feral cats and dogs do a lot of damage to wildlife in their unnatural habitats.

Humans made domesticated cats and dogs, so now we're responsible for them.

[Solon]

73. Heh, that actually reminds me of the Discovery Channel show, "Life after people"

Basic premise was that one day, every single human being on the planet disappeared, and left everything behind. One interesting section of the show involved what would have happened to our pets after we are gone. Of course, for those trapped in houses, they would starve to death. For those that got out, well, it depended on the breed, at least for dogs, those that have severe disadvantages wouldn't survive, those who could most resembled wolves, at least in body shape and mass.

Fast forward about a century, and the Great Plains would be dominated by Bison, former Cattle, and Dogs, which, by this time, would more resemble Wolves than dogs. What was left of the cities, particularly sky scrapers, which would still be standing, as steel frames overgrown with foliage, cats would be the apex predator, hunting mice and birds who made their homes 1000 feet high off the ground.

Some scientists even speculated that if cats were to live in such structures, a subspecies may arise, having an adaptation similar to flying squirrels, to glide from one building and structure to another, hunting prey.

Of course, this is just idle speculation, but I thought it was a pretty cool show, so I had to mention it. :)

The thing about feral animals today is that it isn't ideal for them to live on the fringes of our civilization, our pets can and do revert to wild behavior everyday, but there is no habitat, no place, for them in the wild, and as long as we exist, no such place will exist for them.

[yardwork]

85. That's so interesting! I play that daydream game too, only I think about plants.

I'm even more of a plant person than an animal person, so I like to imagine what would happen on Earth if people disappeared. I once saw an old highway that had been abandoned when a new one was built a little ways away. After less than a decade it was almost completely overgrown with trees, shrubs, vines, and low plants.

[ContinentalOp]

88. I saw something like that on a Nova episode I think...

I can't remember exactly where. But there is a stretch of freeway in Manhattan that has been unused for only a few years. Maybe 5 years or something? And there is an entire ecosystem growing there. It doesn't look like much, just a bunch of weeds and stuff, but a scientist went through and showed all of the different varieties of plants growing there, including a little apple tree! It was another one of those "life after people" shows and they basically said that most traces of mankind would disappear within a few decades.

[Solon]

90. Oh, they covered that too...

Within five years, highways and roads would be indistinguishable from the rest of the countryside or woods they are next to. They were showing vines pulling apart buildings, plants breaking up concrete, etc.

Even the skyscrapers I mentioned weren't untouched, the windows were blown out, and in a century, they were green, covered in vines, flowers, etc. The special effects made it seem so real, and it even looked pretty.

They even showed a real life example of a modern city that was abandoned to the wildlife around it.

Here's the trailer for it, and it was on the History Channel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VofSKYLMfe8

The whole show is on youtube in 9 parts, if you want to watch it.

[yardwork]

103. Thank you! I will watch that.

[FloridaJudy]

132. That reminds me of a fascinating book

I recently finished "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. He came to similar conclusions: most dog breeds would rapidly become extinct, since they depend on humans for most of their needs. Cats - on the other hand - would do just fine. We haven't succeeded in modifying them much since the first kitty found human structures great places to stalk small rodents.

[Book Lover]

62. Understood

I only mostly, not completely, agree with your point that there is hardly any such thing as an untouched natural habitat anymore. But essentially, I do agree that humans made the problem and so should make the solution. If that means lots of plump and happy pets, I can hardly argue that their lives are miserable!

[Solon]

44. Well, cats are desert animals, specifically related to the Arabian Wild Cat...

Hence why cats huddle near homes in winter. In a sense, its cruel that we took them from their natural habitat, however, they are already here, and they breed like crazy, so there is a horrendous overpopulation problem of both them and dogs. We have to take care of the human created problem ourselves, we can't just let them be.

[yardwork]

49. I agree. Humans brought cats all over the world. Now we have to take care of them.

[ContinentalOp]

38. So that's the actual end goal of the "rescue only" people?

The point of doing away with breeders is to ultimately do away with all domesticated dogs in the U.S.? I'm actually OK with that in theory but there's no way in hell it will ever happen.

[Book Lover]

42. I can speak only for myself, a member of no organization whatsoever

I have no idea what "rescue only" people think.

[LostinVA]

48. No, it isn't at all

Every rescuer I know (and I know alot) ALL love animals and have many pets.

[LostinVA]

46. You have to be fucking kidding me

[Book Lover]

52. Well, thanks for the input

All of those disclaimers I put in my OP were for my health, I'm sure.

[ContinentalOp]

58. It's interesting because I'm hesitant to get a pet for those reasons.

I love wild animals and think that animals should be wild. And yet people who don't have pets are often looked down upon as though they are somehow animal hating weirdos. :shrug:

[Book Lover]

65. Really?

I would have said that it's because they're renting!

[yardwork]

70. Don't worry about what judgmental people think.

You're not under any obligation to get a pet. They are a huge responsibility - expensive and time-consuming.

If you like wild animals and want to support them, donate to organizations that protect habitat.

You sound like a kind and good person. Don't let anyone pick on you for your choices.

[ContinentalOp]

79. I will wind up with a dog sooner or later...

because my wife and daughter want one. Luckily my wife and I both work at home so I don't feel too bad. I have always felt bad though for dogs who sit at home alone all day while their owners are off at work. My parents did that to their dog for years before they retired and he always seemed so lonely and depressed.

My mother also used to keep birds and I had some birds myself in my room when I was a kid. I love birds so much though that now the idea of keeping them in a cage seems so incredibly cruel. So now I just feed the wild birds and give them names and pretend like they recognize me. :P

[Solon]

82. They should be wild, but as I've already stated, they have no place to go....

Similar to many animals in zoos, that, due to our own actions, cannot find a place to survive in the wild because we destroyed their habitats, cats and dogs are in the same boat. The difference is that cats and dogs are domesticated already, and can live in our homes with few restrictions in their own lives.

There's an overpopulation of both groups of animals, many are living "free" lives, but what quality of life is it when they feed on our garbage because they have no place in the woods and plains in our countryside?

We need to find a way to reduce the feral population, and to foster responsible animal fostering and adopting. Make sure you neuter your pets, make sure you keep them in stable homes and can feed them and take care of them. Perhaps someday, if we are smart enough, we could responsibly introduce them into a wild habitat of some sort, but until that day comes, we have millions of pets to take care of in the meantime.

[ContinentalOp]

91. True, it's not that I think that dogs should be "wild"

but that like wild animals they do have some instincts and needs that are sadly stifled in too many situations. Like people who keep a herding dog inside so that it goes kind of crazy and herds people around the house all of the time, or people who keep Huskies in a warm environment.

[TwilightGardener]

63. "Playthings and mere companions"? Here's the thing--dogs and cats

are opportunists. Dogs, in particular, learned that survival was more likely if they hung around the fire for warmth and meat scraps, so they did so--and humans discovered that dogs could serve various purposes, too. Domestication was a mutual-benefit relationship. They didn't start out maybe as "mere companions", but what's wrong with having primarily-companion relationships with animals who are by nature companionable? Dogs are pack animals--they LIKE companions. They feel a bond with their owners. Owners feel a loving bond to their pet. Pet is cared for and fed and eats cooked, worm-free table scraps and kibble, and sleeps on a sofa instead of a den in subzero weather. I'd say both parties benefit.

[Book Lover]

68. To play devil's advocate with you, because I understand you are a breeder

Is it beneficial to choose an animal's mates in order to pursue your goals which have very little to go with the dog's goals? Maybe I'm anthropomorphizing, but I would imagine that a happy dog is a dog that fucks whoever she/he wants to. Or do dogs really not care about anything like that?

[TwilightGardener]

80. Actually, I'm not a breeder--

but to answer your question: I don't know that a dog cares about whom it mates with--any bitch in heat will do. However, a good breeder who seeks to improve the breed won't allow two dogs to produce puppies if either of them have, say, hip dysplasia or some other genetic defect or temperament problem. I have a puppy that came from a pretty good breeder--most of her pups are "pet quality"--in other words, they do not conform to the breed standard enough to make them good breeding stock, but are still healthy and are from healthy parents, so she makes pet owners sign a neuter contract. If her adult breeding dogs and/or pups started showing some health/temperament problems, she wouldn't breed those particular dogs. The dogs themselves don't really have "goals", beyond eating, sniffing butts and crotches, staying warm, pooping, chewing, barking at trucks, etc.

[Book Lover]

96. I quickly misread an earlier post of yours - my apologies

and thank you for your insights. I can't lie - the language used bothers me, and if we talked about improving the breed when it comes to humans, that would be called immoral and unethical. I think part of my distaste of the whole situation comes from use of language like this.

[TwilightGardener]

104. That language does make thinking people cringe, but domesticated

animals are at our mercy in terms of breeding for our purposes, whether pet or livestock or working animal--best to do it with as much knowledge and compassionate motivation as possible, rather than leave it to the animals, who STILL need to be cared for by humans--or they become pests. I mean, we don't want a bigger feral dog and cat population, do we? We can't even manage wild horses on protected lands very well, it seems. Apparently wild pigs are a problem in some areas, too.

[yardwork]

71. I benefit when my cats curl up against me in bed.

[TwilightGardener]

81. I do too--my kittehs purr and lay on my chest. I suppose I should feel guilty...

[yardwork]

84. I don't!

In fact, if they're not around I'll go hunt them up and bring them to bed with me!

[lukasahero]

76. "Perhaps more of the results of animal ownership are negative than positive."

You might want to ask these guys what they think about that:









These are stray dogs who were "allowed" their "freedom" on the island of Puerto Rico. They have since been "rescued" by their human overlords and I suspect they would have an interesting answer to your question of animal "ownership".

[Book Lover]

98. Thank you for your point

That is why I said "perhaps."

[fed_up_mother]

120. I don't see more negatives than positives

And I'm very glad that I'm free to have a companion dog, and free to - gasp - purchase my dog from a very responsible breeder. :) He's precious and probably has a better life than anyone in this family. :)

[slackmaster]

144. Get yourself a nice pet rock

And stay the heck out of other peoples' business.

[yurbud]

69. what's wrong with mutts? I'd rather put breeders out of business.

[TwilightGardener]

74. Nothing's wrong with mutts. Nothing's wrong with breeds. As long

as someone's dog is wanted and loved and kept, and as long as neither the pet or its parents are being mistreated or neglected in the breeding or sale process, and are having all their needs met throughout their lives, why would anyone feel the need to pass judgment on someone else's preferences?

[fed_up_mother]

122. Nothing wrong with mutts

At my age, I've had my share.

However, I wanted a dog that was generally hyperallergenic and had certain personality traits and behaviors, so I chose a pure bred dog from a very reputable breeder who only breeds two to four litters a year. I inspected the place carefully, and it was obvious that her dogs lived better than a lot of humans. :)

[ContinentalOp]

83. The problem is not with mixed breeds, but with how they come about...

through random, indiscriminate, irresponsible breeding. Doing away with breeders and relying solely on amateur breeders, random accidents, or feral dogs to keep up the dog population seems to be a totally backwards way to go about it. Why not license and regulate breeders, encourage them to mix breeds rather than only breeding purebreds, and require all other animals to be neutered?

[yurbud]

86. don't purebreds have those genetic disorders like hip dysplasia from inbreeding?

I've seen several purebred dogs with those kinds of problems and can't remember any mutts that have.

[ContinentalOp]

93. Yes, that's why I said that the problem is not with mixed breeds...

and that breeders should be encouraged to mix rather than focusing on purebreds. Still, I would rather have a purebred from a good breeder, with all of its problems, than have a dog that is the offspring of some inbred puppy mill lab and an inbred puppy mill cocker spaniel, who weren't neutered and were allowed to run free in the streets by their irresponsible owners.

To me, the ideal would be a system of good, licensed, heavily regulated professional breeders who breed "mutts".

[yurbud]

112. difference between purebred & mutt is like difference between motorcycle & horse

one is predictable and the other is fun, but with an element of surprise (like when a horse decides he wants to go a different direction than you do).

[flvegan]

77. Why not do both?

Some of us already support initiatives to shut down puppy mills and raise spay/neuter "awareness" programs. We also support the abolishment of breeding companion animals right now.

As to breeders, here's what I'd like to see, and I think it's very fair to everyone. First, revamp all of APHIS. Matter of fact, just end their involvement with registering breeders, and revoke all the licenses. Bye bye puppy mills. Pet stores are now out of business as well. Then create a new registry of accepted breeders. Now, invoke a moratorium on breeding for three years. Then a one year window to keep the breeder lines alive. Then another moratorium for three years. Repeat over and over, and lets see where we are in 15 years or so and revisit.

As long as pets are property, you'll have a tough time legislating any mandatory across the board spay/neuter of owned animals. It's been done, but it's extremely difficult. What has been successful is that 25 or so states mandate that any animal adopted from a shelter must be spayed/neutered. That's been a big help.

I think that pets are an important part of peoples' lives, and I don't wish to see the species extinguished, but 5 million euthanized in shelters each year is pretty pathetic for such an alleged forward thinking country.

[ContinentalOp]

87. Those sound like reasonable suggestions.

I don't know that much about the issues involved though. Would these have to be state or federal issues? Is there any hope of real progress, or is the current system too well entrenched?

It seems to me that the problem is overbreeding, and adopting shelter dogs, while it's a great thing to do, is putting a small band-aid on the symptom rather than attacking the source of the problem. I don't buy this idea that one dog purchased from a breeder equals the death of one shelter dog. I hate to say it but I'm reminded of that stupid anti-gun-control saying... "If breeders are outlawed, only outlaws will breed dogs."

[flvegan]

100. "We're not going to adopt our way out of this."

I forget who coined it, but it was pretty brilliant. The key is to aggressively pursue spay/neuter programs, first. That's the most important part of the overpopulation problem.

As it stands now, I'm afraid that the laws of supply/demand support that the purchase of a dog kills a homeless one.

I think that the current system is a big problem. It's like the rest of the state of agriculture in this country. Deregulation and failure to enforce rules are overwhelming. Seriously, these puppy mills exist in all their deplorable glory as puppy factories operating with violations that should forever shut them down. They have a license from APHIS (arm of the USDA) to operate. Problem is, APHIS hasn't got the inspectors to go look at the places. Ever. These are dogs and cats, most likely the most well protected (by laws here in the US) animals on the planet. Yet these mills operate like this.

Here's how I'd fix the mill problem. Deputize animal welfare organizations like the Humane Society of the United States. Give them police power to enforce the laws on both the state and federal levels at these mills. If a place is suspected, reps of that organization could obtain a warrant and execute a raid on the facility. I'm not saying give every animal rights wacko license to raid the places, but a responsible group would not only do it well, but would fund it themselves (and by victories, generate donations). Thus would end the puppy mills in this country.

[GaYellowDawg]

89. Sometimes people who work at shelters can be real assholes.

My sister tried to go through a shelter in Atlanta to get a dog, and the worker was pretty awful to her. The worker was requiring that the entire family meet with the dog, and requiring that each child be alone with the dog, and wanted her to build a fence as a contingency for being considered for adopting a dog, and made her feel like considering adoption while she had 3 kids and/or a 4 year old kid was somehow bad. Then after all that, the worker got mad when my sister wouldn't immediately take the dog home without considering the decision. So this worker blew the chance to place a dog with a 2-income, loving family, where one of the parents works out of the home. I know it doesn't have that much to do with the OP; just that there are some shelter workers who can drive people to breeders for their dogs.

My sister ended up going to a shelter in a different county, because she believed in rescuing a shelter dog, but she could very easily just have said the hell with it and gone to a breeder. I wouldn't have blamed her if she did. I would have blamed that shithead of a shelter worker. I encouraged my sister to write a detailed letter to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and she's going to.

By the way, I agree on shutting down puppy mills, agree on mandatory neutering, but I'm not sure about automatically fining breeders/owners for animals that end up in shelters; each case is different. What if, for instance, an elderly couple has a dog, one of the couple dies, and the remaining person has to be placed in assisted care living and can't physically take care of the dog and has to have it taken to a shelter?

[ContinentalOp]

94. Yes, I've heard stories like that from friends that went the shelter route.

And in the end they got a dog with a ton of medical problems anyway.

Good point about the fines. I'm sure the idea would be impossible to enforce anyway.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

134. They do that to ensure assholes don't dump dogs back at the shelter

I have no problem with any of the things the shelter required of your sister.

[GaYellowDawg]

135. Then apparently, you're a big fan of euthanasia.

Okay, so you have no problem with the shelter worker getting all sniffy about prebuilding a wooden rather than chain link fence, and requiring two parents with very different schedules to find a common meeting time while pulling their kids out of school in order to satisfy some asshole who's making them jump through every hoop she can think of and make them feel the whole time like she thinks they're not good enough to adopt... and then getting all pissy when the parents actually say they will have to sleep on the decision after all these meetings to make sure that they are sure the dog is right for them.

Well, most people aren't going to put up with that kind of shit, and will go elsewhere for a dog. Fortunately, my sister had the good conscience to go to another shelter instead of a puppy mill or a breeder. Many people wouldn't. Good intentions can be taken too far. If families are coming out of shelters feeling the way my sister did, then lots of animals are going to get gassed. Oh, well. At least people like you can stay all highbrow about the issue, and lots of anatomy & physiology students will have something to dissect (you might even consider buying stock in Carolina Biological Supply Company).

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

137. I personally don't think fences are necessary

However, I do think that it's important that the whole family is met. Sometimes not all adults in the family want a dog, and that's why they're not going to meet the prospective dog. Some kids can't be trusted with animals, especially four-year-olds. That's often not the fault of the kids, but of the parents.

Then, when the dog bites the kid for doing something stupid, the dog pays with it's life. Most Border Collie rescues won't adopt to homes with kids under 12. I'm fine with that. They're not a suitable breed for small children. Lots of them end up dumped off, because people with small kids got them and shouldn't have.

[GaYellowDawg]

138. I don't have that big a problem with fences...

My childhood dog was killed by a car, so I can get on board with that. What I didn't like about that was the shelter worker lecturing my sister on what was the best kind of fence (naturally, the most expensive one). I can also get on board with the age requirement with border collies. They are pretty much canine OCD and are not generally a friendly breed.

We got our dog when my sister was a baby. I was 4. We never hurt the dog, and none of us ever got bitten. Several families in our neighborhood had dogs with young children, and I never heard of any of them getting bitten. It's funny - I've seen dogs brought into elementary school classrooms and even the most rambunctious kids generally are very careful and gentle with dogs. I think abusive kids are the exception rather than the rule, and no parent should be made to feel that their 4 year old is somehow not good enough for a pet. If the dog can't be around children, don't call it a child-friendly dog. Most kids and dogs will adapt to each other and love each other. I don't think this worker is suitable for being in an animal shelter. I'll bet she's unnecessarily driven off a lot of good people who would make wonderful owners and has condemned a lot of animals to death unnecessarily.

[CitizenPatriot]

102. I thought this post

was going to be about people.

Responsible breeders. Mandatory hysterectomies.

I got all the way to the end before I realized my hopes were dashed.


:hide:

[ContinentalOp]

107. LOL. After I wrote it I realized that it could be read that way. -nt-

[KittyWampus]

126. It's actually very insightful if you DO theoretically apply opinions given on pets to people though.

Trying to eradicate over populated humans by saying we should all adopt babies already born to irresponsible breeders.

Too many human couples insist on having children with very specific DNA and traits- those that match theirs.

[slackmaster]

142. Both of my fur monsters were given to me by people whose cats had one litter of kittens...

...and were subsequently spayed.

As much as I abhor the fact that large numbers of kittens and puppies are euthanized or abandoned because irresponsible people allowed pets to breed out of control, the age-old practice of having family pets reproduce provides a great deal of education and joy for people.

I know families who have kept a familial line of dogs or cats going for multiple human generations, and have done so responsibly. Keep government out of proples' private lives.

Why is it still legal to keep pets that aren't neutered?

It's called freedom.