I kind of equate people who “buy” dogs from breeders with Trump supporters. Honestly it makes me so mad I can barely type anything.
This is honestly really odd to me.
I know it's not very popular to say here or talk about but my and I like hunting and bird hunting in particular.
Bird hunting with dogs is really fun and a great way to connect with nature, your dog and each other, but you need specific, well bred and well trained dogs.
You go to knowledgable and ethical breeders for this.
A few of my friends are also into other dog sports..they require certain breeds.
I realize this is niche but acting like they are Trump supporters is really..harsh lol. In fact its..quite the opposite?
Of course I care. I take care of my dog like I take care of my child and she is extremely happy and healthy. I also had her spayed at six months. It doesn’t change that she is my property though.
I wasn't talking about your dog. I was talking about the overall animal population and health. Because you know if one person has your attitude of "when and how I want it," more do. And unethical breeders like the one you went to (because no ethical breeder mixes breeds) only cares about getting your money. And we continue to have overpopulation and animals with genetic health issues.
Probably the best way to address that is by regulating and licensing both breeders and rescues to operate? As far as I know there are very few restrictions on either type of business at this time. That would still leave the problem of backyard breeders, who I think are horrible for the record, and people who simply don’t want to fix their animals. In those situations the best idea I have is some sort of legal penalty? A hefty fine might discourage a lot of people but it also might lead some to hiding the activity. I don’t think it helps if we ignore the fact that pets are legally property. I think of my dog as family on a day-to-day basis, but the fact that she is my property gives me rights that I wouldn’t have if she were human.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people. That was certainly my case. I did not want to obtain a pet, my property, and then have some nosy person come in randomly inspect my home a year later. That’s not OK and it’s an unreasonable demand but it’s one I encountered from several rescues and one I’ve had friends encounter as well. That’s not so much about wanting something when I wanted it. I didn’t want to get a dog from someone who wasn’t ethical about breeding them. So I chose someone who I thoroughly checked out, and had every reason to believe was not abusing their animals and was taking precautions to protect them and put myself on a waitlist. It is about wanting to maintain my privacy and not having my life disrupted after obtaining what is a piece of property no matter how deeply affectionate I am towards her or how I think of her.
I think it’s important to address that some people do want new puppies. This is another reason I think it would be in the best interest of the animals to regulate breeders and rescues, heavily. That demand isn’t going to go away.
They aren't just property. I was sad when a laundry basket I had since college broke, but I just bought a new one.
When Hudson died last year I cried for a week. When Molly died in 2012, I cried more than when my grandmother died.
Calling them property is so cold. It's easy to see why you don't care where dogs come from or how they are treated.
I am so sorry for your loss.
I do realize it’s a cold thing to say. But it is legally true, at least where I live. In my state when a couple divorces the person who gets the dog is the person who has a receipt for paying for it. On a day to day basis I think of my dog as my child, but at the end of the day my state considers her a piece of property like my car or my house.
I wasn't talking about your dog. I was talking about the overall animal population and health. Because you know if one person has your attitude of "when and how I want it," more do. And unethical breeders like the one you went to (because no ethical breeder mixes breeds) only cares about getting your money. And we continue to have overpopulation and animals with genetic health issues.
Probably the best way to address that is by regulating and licensing both breeders and rescues to operate? As far as I know there are very few restrictions on either type of business at this time. That would still leave the problem of backyard breeders, who I think are horrible for the record, and people who simply don’t want to fix their animals. In those situations the best idea I have is some sort of legal penalty? A hefty fine might discourage a lot of people but it also might lead some to hiding the activity. I don’t think it helps if we ignore the fact that pets are legally property. I think of my dog as family on a day-to-day basis, but the fact that she is my property gives me rights that I wouldn’t have if she were human.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people. That was certainly my case. I did not want to obtain a pet, my property, and then have some nosy person come in randomly inspect my home a year later. That’s not OK and it’s an unreasonable demand but it’s one I encountered from several rescues and one I’ve had friends encounter as well. That’s not so much about wanting something when I wanted it. I didn’t want to get a dog from someone who wasn’t ethical about breeding them. So I chose someone who I thoroughly checked out, and had every reason to believe was not abusing their animals and was taking precautions to protect them and put myself on a waitlist. It is about wanting to maintain my privacy and not having my life disrupted after obtaining what is a piece of property no matter how deeply affectionate I am towards her or how I think of her.
I think it’s important to address that some people do want new puppies. This is another reason I think it would be in the best interest of the animals to regulate breeders and rescues, heavily. That demand isn’t going to go away.
Good lord, you are KILLING me with your misguided ideas about rescues. Sure, they are some not good ones out there and some with overly onerous requirements. But most are NOT LIKE THAT! I’ve worked with several rescues, both to adopt and foster, and I’ve never run into what you’re describing.
You have to understand, you are the problem. You run into one rescue that doesn’t work for you and you throw up your hands. And also, there are PLENTY of puppies in rescues and shelters. Plenty. Meanwhile, a million dogs per year are euthanized. Because you want what you want when you want it.
I wasn't talking about your dog. I was talking about the overall animal population and health. Because you know if one person has your attitude of "when and how I want it," more do. And unethical breeders like the one you went to (because no ethical breeder mixes breeds) only cares about getting your money. And we continue to have overpopulation and animals with genetic health issues.
Probably the best way to address that is by regulating and licensing both breeders and rescues to operate? As far as I know there are very few restrictions on either type of business at this time. That would still leave the problem of backyard breeders, who I think are horrible for the record, and people who simply don’t want to fix their animals. In those situations the best idea I have is some sort of legal penalty? A hefty fine might discourage a lot of people but it also might lead some to hiding the activity. I don’t think it helps if we ignore the fact that pets are legally property. I think of my dog as family on a day-to-day basis, but the fact that she is my property gives me rights that I wouldn’t have if she were human.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people. That was certainly my case. I did not want to obtain a pet, my property, and then have some nosy person come in randomly inspect my home a year later. That’s not OK and it’s an unreasonable demand but it’s one I encountered from several rescues and one I’ve had friends encounter as well. That’s not so much about wanting something when I wanted it. I didn’t want to get a dog from someone who wasn’t ethical about breeding them. So I chose someone who I thoroughly checked out, and had every reason to believe was not abusing their animals and was taking precautions to protect them and put myself on a waitlist. It is about wanting to maintain my privacy and not having my life disrupted after obtaining what is a piece of property no matter how deeply affectionate I am towards her or how I think of her.
I think it’s important to address that some people do want new puppies. This is another reason I think it would be in the best interest of the animals to regulate breeders and rescues, heavily. That demand isn’t going to go away.
A home visit is absolutely not unreasonable. NOPE. NOT. NOPE.
I'm a trained home visitor for one of the largest Pet Rescues in New England (and not in the slightist bit nosy - thank you fucking much) and we are there to make sure that we don't put a dog into a shitty situation. Honestly I'm there to make sure you don't have other dogs/pets that are uncared for, a dog fighting ring in your basement, or a puppy mill in your back yard. Why would you think that's unreasonable?
We're there (the adoption coordinators and all of the other VOLUNTEERS) to make sure that the dog (or your new property item) and you have the best possible chance at a happy, healthy, long future.
Sorry that's too much of a hoop for you to jump through.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
I wasn't talking about your dog. I was talking about the overall animal population and health. Because you know if one person has your attitude of "when and how I want it," more do. And unethical breeders like the one you went to (because no ethical breeder mixes breeds) only cares about getting your money. And we continue to have overpopulation and animals with genetic health issues.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people.
This is wrong. It is the belief that a dog is property that is the justification that you give yourself to buy from a breeder. I think dogs are animals that deserve a safe, secure home and as a result I support rescues, particularly rescues that perform home visits and other reasonable restrictions.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
Probably the best way to address that is by regulating and licensing both breeders and rescues to operate? As far as I know there are very few restrictions on either type of business at this time. That would still leave the problem of backyard breeders, who I think are horrible for the record, and people who simply don’t want to fix their animals. In those situations the best idea I have is some sort of legal penalty? A hefty fine might discourage a lot of people but it also might lead some to hiding the activity. I don’t think it helps if we ignore the fact that pets are legally property. I think of my dog as family on a day-to-day basis, but the fact that she is my property gives me rights that I wouldn’t have if she were human.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people. That was certainly my case. I did not want to obtain a pet, my property, and then have some nosy person come in randomly inspect my home a year later. That’s not OK and it’s an unreasonable demand but it’s one I encountered from several rescues and one I’ve had friends encounter as well. That’s not so much about wanting something when I wanted it. I didn’t want to get a dog from someone who wasn’t ethical about breeding them. So I chose someone who I thoroughly checked out, and had every reason to believe was not abusing their animals and was taking precautions to protect them and put myself on a waitlist. It is about wanting to maintain my privacy and not having my life disrupted after obtaining what is a piece of property no matter how deeply affectionate I am towards her or how I think of her.
I think it’s important to address that some people do want new puppies. This is another reason I think it would be in the best interest of the animals to regulate breeders and rescues, heavily. That demand isn’t going to go away.
Good lord, you are KILLING me with your misguided ideas about rescues. Sure, they are some not good ones out there and some with overly onerous requirements. But most are NOT LIKE THAT! I’ve worked with several rescues, both to adopt and foster, and I’ve never run into what you’re describing.
You have to understand, you are the problem. You run into one rescue that doesn’t work for you and you throw up your hands. And also, there are PLENTY of puppies in rescues and shelters. Plenty. Meanwhile, a million dogs per year are euthanized. Because you want what you want when you want it.
No, I do get it. Of the four or five rescues I contacted several years ago, they all had home visit requirements (ETA: ranging from 6 months to 3 years after the dog was mine). Was that a thing your rescues required? In any case, I understand I'm part of what many people on and off this board consider a problem here. I just don't agree. I think the problem is that animals are bred carelessly. I think this is best regulated by law and penalties for not following that law. I'm very aware that not all rescues are bad. I believe you that most aren't. But there requirements for the ones I contacted were burdensome for what is an acquisition of property, and yes, I didn't want to deal with that. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong about the problem and how to best fix it. Regulation and legal penalties for bad actors would, in my opinion, cut down on both bad breeders, and the few bad rescues out there, as well as help prevent people from randomly deciding to not spay/neuter. Population control and reduction is what would relieve euthanization rates. Fix that and who cares where someone gets their dog as long as they love and care for it?
Probably the best way to address that is by regulating and licensing both breeders and rescues to operate? As far as I know there are very few restrictions on either type of business at this time. That would still leave the problem of backyard breeders, who I think are horrible for the record, and people who simply don’t want to fix their animals. In those situations the best idea I have is some sort of legal penalty? A hefty fine might discourage a lot of people but it also might lead some to hiding the activity. I don’t think it helps if we ignore the fact that pets are legally property. I think of my dog as family on a day-to-day basis, but the fact that she is my property gives me rights that I wouldn’t have if she were human.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people. That was certainly my case. I did not want to obtain a pet, my property, and then have some nosy person come in randomly inspect my home a year later. That’s not OK and it’s an unreasonable demand but it’s one I encountered from several rescues and one I’ve had friends encounter as well. That’s not so much about wanting something when I wanted it. I didn’t want to get a dog from someone who wasn’t ethical about breeding them. So I chose someone who I thoroughly checked out, and had every reason to believe was not abusing their animals and was taking precautions to protect them and put myself on a waitlist. It is about wanting to maintain my privacy and not having my life disrupted after obtaining what is a piece of property no matter how deeply affectionate I am towards her or how I think of her.
I think it’s important to address that some people do want new puppies. This is another reason I think it would be in the best interest of the animals to regulate breeders and rescues, heavily. That demand isn’t going to go away.
A home visit is absolutely not unreasonable. NOPE. NOT. NOPE.
I'm a trained home visitor for one of the largest Pet Rescues in New England (and not in the slightist bit nosy - thank you fucking much) and we are there to make sure that we don't put a dog into a shitty situation. Honestly I'm there to make sure you don't have other dogs/pets that are uncared for, a dog fighting ring in your basement, or a puppy mill in your back yard. Why would you think that's unreasonable?
We're there (the adoption coordinators and all of the other VOLUNTEERS) to make sure that the dog (or your new property item) and you have the best possible chance at a happy, healthy, long future.
Sorry that's too much of a hoop for you to jump through.
Before is no problem. Its the after the fact I take issue with.
Ignoring the fact that animals our property is part of what makes breeders attractive over rescue and adoption situations to many people.
This is wrong. It is the belief that a dog is property that is the justification that you give yourself to buy from a breeder. I think dogs are animals that deserve a safe, secure home and as a result I support rescues, particularly rescues that perform home visits and other reasonable restrictions.
Its not a belief. Its a legal reality where I live.
A home visit is absolutely not unreasonable. NOPE. NOT. NOPE.
I'm a trained home visitor for one of the largest Pet Rescues in New England (and not in the slightist bit nosy - thank you fucking much) and we are there to make sure that we don't put a dog into a shitty situation. Honestly I'm there to make sure you don't have other dogs/pets that are uncared for, a dog fighting ring in your basement, or a puppy mill in your back yard. Why would you think that's unreasonable?
We're there (the adoption coordinators and all of the other VOLUNTEERS) to make sure that the dog (or your new property item) and you have the best possible chance at a happy, healthy, long future.
Sorry that's too much of a hoop for you to jump through.
Before is no problem. Its the after the fact I take issue with.
Noted! My Adrenalin was flowing which leads to poor reading skills - sorry!
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
A home visit is absolutely not unreasonable. NOPE. NOT. NOPE.
I'm a trained home visitor for one of the largest Pet Rescues in New England (and not in the slightist bit nosy - thank you fucking much) and we are there to make sure that we don't put a dog into a shitty situation. Honestly I'm there to make sure you don't have other dogs/pets that are uncared for, a dog fighting ring in your basement, or a puppy mill in your back yard. Why would you think that's unreasonable?
We're there (the adoption coordinators and all of the other VOLUNTEERS) to make sure that the dog (or your new property item) and you have the best possible chance at a happy, healthy, long future.
Sorry that's too much of a hoop for you to jump through.
Before is no problem. Its the after the fact I take issue with.
They just wanted to make sure that you're caring for the animal. Most people can clean up their act long enough to do a home visit. The after the dog is placed visit is to make sure the people weren't just pretending to be nice. I actually have a lot of respect for rescues that do this, as it probably assures that the dogs are in good homes and that people really are committed.
Before is no problem. Its the after the fact I take issue with.
Noted! My Adrenalin was flowing which leads to poor reading skills - sorry!
No problem. I wanted to say just for the record. I do think of my dog like she's my child. I mean it. She is a spoiled rotten (though well trained) baby. She goes to work with me every day, has a special seat installed for her in the back of my car, and goes to the park almost daily (followed by a "pup-accinno" usually).
This is wrong. It is the belief that a dog is property that is the justification that you give yourself to buy from a breeder. I think dogs are animals that deserve a safe, secure home and as a result I support rescues, particularly rescues that perform home visits and other reasonable restrictions.
Its not a belief. Its a legal reality where I live.
It's a legal reality where most people live. The legality has nothing to do with the fact that dogs aren't property.
This is wrong. It is the belief that a dog is property that is the justification that you give yourself to buy from a breeder. I think dogs are animals that deserve a safe, secure home and as a result I support rescues, particularly rescues that perform home visits and other reasonable restrictions.
Its not a belief. Its a legal reality where I live.
Yeah, but there are lots of things that are legal realities that are also nuanced and conceptually sophisticated beyond the letter of the law. Yes, if I buy a dog, or pay an adoption fee, it's legally mine. But I also strongly believe that the 'product' deserves more than that - they deserve a safe and secure life. And that's what a good rescue strives to do.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
Its not a belief. Its a legal reality where I live.
Yeah, but there are lots of things that are legal realities that are also nuanced and conceptually sophisticated beyond the letter of the law. Yes, if I buy a dog, or pay an adoption fee, it's legally mine. But I also strongly believe that the 'product' deserves more than that - they deserve a safe and secure life. And that's what a good rescue strives to do.
I agree. I just meant that the argument for rescues, in my opinion, doesn’t help itself by denying or ignoring this. And by denying or ignoring it, I mean demanding home visits and rights to revoke the animal after the fact for extended periods of time. In my area, at the time I got my dog, that was very common. I didn’t just hear it from one rescue I heard it from 4 or 5. My XH got the same thing when he attempted to rescue a year later. At the time it seemed to be the common thing in my area. I do get that they were requiring this in an attempt to protect the dogs, but that crosses a line for me.
Good lord, you are KILLING me with your misguided ideas about rescues. Sure, they are some not good ones out there and some with overly onerous requirements. But most are NOT LIKE THAT! I’ve worked with several rescues, both to adopt and foster, and I’ve never run into what you’re describing.
You have to understand, you are the problem. You run into one rescue that doesn’t work for you and you throw up your hands. And also, there are PLENTY of puppies in rescues and shelters. Plenty. Meanwhile, a million dogs per year are euthanized. Because you want what you want when you want it.
No, I do get it. Of the four or five rescues I contacted several years ago, they all had home visit requirements (ETA: ranging from 6 months to 3 years after the dog was mine). Was that a thing your rescues required? In any case, I understand I'm part of what many people on and off this board consider a problem here. I just don't agree. I think the problem is that animals are bred carelessly. I think this is best regulated by law and penalties for not following that law. I'm very aware that not all rescues are bad. I believe you that most aren't. But there requirements for the ones I contacted were burdensome for what is an acquisition of property, and yes, I didn't want to deal with that. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong about the problem and how to best fix it. Regulation and legal penalties for bad actors would, in my opinion, cut down on both bad breeders, and the few bad rescues out there, as well as help prevent people from randomly deciding to not spay/neuter. Population control and reduction is what would relieve euthanization rates. Fix that and who cares where someone gets their dog as long as they love and care for it?
No, none of the rescues I’ve worked with have stipulated that. But my guess is that they include that language to scare off people who wouldn’t be good adopters. They probably rarely pay a post adoption visit unless they think there’s a problem.
And it makes sense. So many people surrender their dogs for bullshit reasons, rescues just want to be extra careful.
Before is no problem. Its the after the fact I take issue with.
They just wanted to make sure that you're caring for the animal. Most people can clean up their act long enough to do a home visit. The after the dog is placed visit is to make sure the people weren't just pretending to be nice. I actually have a lot of respect for rescues that do this, as it probably assures that the dogs are in good homes and that people really are committed.
I can understand your respect for that and respect their intentions myself, but I still think it’s overreaching.
Chuppathingy I would love to see your breeder’s site. I have seen maybe 2 reputable doodle breeders in the years I have been doing dog things. Most of the time they SEEM reasonable until you search their OFA or PennHip records and find out that they don’t actually have them. Or they have preliminaries and not full sets. Or they aren’t titling their dogs and they are just pets.
My next dog may possibly be from a reputable breeder, but years down the line. We have two rescues currently, a smooth collie and a lab/Aussie mix. My younger dog is my dog sports dog which has been a long time dream of mine. He is amazing. I want to continue to do dog sports, and while there are certainly rescue dogs that’ll fit the bill, it’s possible I may end up with a highly reliable sport dog breeder.
No, I do get it. Of the four or five rescues I contacted several years ago, they all had home visit requirements (ETA: ranging from 6 months to 3 years after the dog was mine). Was that a thing your rescues required? In any case, I understand I'm part of what many people on and off this board consider a problem here. I just don't agree. I think the problem is that animals are bred carelessly. I think this is best regulated by law and penalties for not following that law. I'm very aware that not all rescues are bad. I believe you that most aren't. But there requirements for the ones I contacted were burdensome for what is an acquisition of property, and yes, I didn't want to deal with that. I understand what you're saying. I just think you're wrong about the problem and how to best fix it. Regulation and legal penalties for bad actors would, in my opinion, cut down on both bad breeders, and the few bad rescues out there, as well as help prevent people from randomly deciding to not spay/neuter. Population control and reduction is what would relieve euthanization rates. Fix that and who cares where someone gets their dog as long as they love and care for it?
No, none of the rescues I’ve worked with have stipulated that. But my guess is that they include that language to scare off people who wouldn’t be good adopters. They probably rarely pay a post adoption visit unless they think there’s a problem.
And it makes sense. So many people surrender their dogs for bullshit reasons, rescues just want to be extra careful.
If I had encountered a more reasonable clause, like reserving the right to investigate if they think there’s a problem, a shorter review period, etc, I would have been more willing to rescue.
The problem is that any bernadoodle breeder IS a backyard breeder by definition since bernadoodles are not a real breed with actual breed standards and oversight (registration, showing). So anyone breeding a mixed breed and pretending they are good because of some self-imposed restrictions is still doing harm. And cannot guarantee the quality of their dogs, period.
No, none of the rescues I’ve worked with have stipulated that. But my guess is that they include that language to scare off people who wouldn’t be good adopters. They probably rarely pay a post adoption visit unless they think there’s a problem.
And it makes sense. So many people surrender their dogs for bullshit reasons, rescues just want to be extra careful.
If I had encountered a more reasonable clause, like reserving the right to investigate if they think there’s a problem, a shorter review period, etc, I would have been more willing to rescue.
Do you not have shelters where you live? I adopted two puppies and a cat from different shelters, and the process was similar in all of them - pick one out, meet it, verify that I owned my home or had permission from my landlord to have a pet, sign a few pieces of paper, pay ~$100, and take the animal home.
“With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,”
The problem is that any bernadoodle breeder IS a backyard breeder by definition since bernadoodles are not a real breed with actual breed standards and oversight (registration, showing). So anyone breeding a mixed breed and pretending they are good because of some self-imposed restrictions is still doing harm. And cannot guarantee the quality of their dogs, period.
Mine was definitely not. She had a very good recommendations, certifications, and was clear about the lack of guarantees. As I said before I had to wait almost a year for my dog. And I had to apply to be able to get one from her too. She did checked me out to make sure I was suitable to care for a dog. That wasn’t a problem I just didn’t want to be bothered after obtaining the dog. As I said before I had to wait almost a year for my dog. And I had to apply to be able to get one from her too. She did checked me out to make sure I was suitable to care for a dog. That wasn’t a problem I just didn’t want to be bothered after obtaining the dog.
If I had encountered a more reasonable clause, like reserving the right to investigate if they think there’s a problem, a shorter review period, etc, I would have been more willing to rescue.
Do you not have shelters where you live? I adopted two puppies and a cat from different shelters, and the process was similar in all of them - pick one out, meet it, verify that I owned my home or had permission from my landlord to have a pet, sign a few pieces of paper, pay ~$100, and take the animal home.
We do. They rejected me for the first dog I tried for because I had a 5 year old and was single. And yes that was the stated reason it is not an assumption on my part.
If I had encountered a more reasonable clause, like reserving the right to investigate if they think there’s a problem, a shorter review period, etc, I would have been more willing to rescue.
Do you not have shelters where you live? I adopted two puppies and a cat from different shelters, and the process was similar in all of them - pick one out, meet it, verify that I owned my home or had permission from my landlord to have a pet, sign a few pieces of paper, pay ~$100, and take the animal home.
I've only adopted one dog, but yes it was this easy! And she's one of the best decisions I've ever made.
Legally she may be my property, but definitely not morally/ethically.