Chocolatelover

Most of it, actually. I didn't actually say "your limited life experiences blinded you" - I said I thought you needed to see places with more than 2 dogs before you criticised. Now, what are the laws you would like to see enacted? Thanks for your concern but I have seen plenty of places with more than two dogs. You just made that assumption and I couldn't be bothered to correct you. I have many ideas for what I think should happen - but I will undoubtedly get flamed for any comments I make and will be accused of being brainwashed by PETA. You have a vested interest as a breeder - you don't want anything to get in the way of that. I have no hidden agenda - yes I love having pets as part of my family but if left with the options of "my right to own an animal" or to "end the suffering and misery and senseless killing" I would pick the later every time. And I make no apologies for that. "end the suffering and misery and senseless killing" Straight out of the PETA manual on how to end pet ownership. They kill 95+% of dogs that come into their care to end their suffering. They even had a mobile killing squad ending dog's suffering. PETA, R$PCA, HSUS, Animal Liberation, they are all after one thing ending pet ownership, to end their suffering. I am not advocating PTS or the end of pet ownership - I love my dogs too much and the fact that they don't leave when the front door is open would indicate to me they are happy being where they are. And I don't really know much about PETA other than they sound extreme. I think all breeders and pet owners should be made to take responsibility for their animals and meeting all of their needs. Don't know how to implement it but I'm sure improvements could be made in small steps. Why that is so bad, I have no idea. And if this scares you so much then maybe you have something to hide. Just because we can't stop child abuse - does that mean we abolish the laws because they can't always be enforced? At least when someone is caught doing the wrong thing there are avenues in place for them to be punished accordingly. I can't work out why people I would assume are dog lovers are not hell bent on improving the quality of all dogs lives, no matter what it takes.

The sort of puppy you would come home with would have less chance of being suitable than one from a registered reputable breeder who has also done their homework. Badly bred pups with unsound minds and bodies are dime a dozen, many of them end up in the pound. Yep, the type of breeders I mentioned are not thick on the ground, neither are the pups they produce that are in great demand. That is not the issue that was being discussed. The issue was that if I want a pup I can have one with that day from any number of sources - paper, internet, petshop, posters at the dog park. That doesn't sound like under supply to me. No where did I say that there was an oversupply of well-bred, pedigree puppies from ethical, honest breeders - I am talking about puppies in general. Isn't that what the show was about - puppy mills and mass breeding? Not ethical registered breeders. You are implying that nature is the be all and end all. If you can point me to some research that shows that puppies from the same litter all turn out to be unsound of mind and body no matter what type of home they are raised in, I would love to read this. More likely they end up in the pound because they were purchased on a whim and the hard work wasn't put into raising them properly. Maybe a small minority of dogs are born "bad", but mostly they are products of the environment in which they are raised.

And you don't think there are any other factors involved? Like the fact that if a buyer is willing to do their homework about breeds, contact breeders, reads up on health issues and listen to advice that they may be just a tad more likely to take their dog to puppy school, socialise, exercise and train. The puppy will suit because they have put time and effort into it. It was probably not a spur of the moment decision so they were always less likely to abandon their dog, breeder support or not. Compared with the person who rings up the ad in the trading post on impulse, gets the pup that day, leaves it outside to it's own devices, no exercise, no training, no socialisation. and then says "it is not what I expected". Nothing is black and white and there is always more than one factor that influences things. Dogs do not meet expectations because people do not put in the time and effort the dog deserves. How can we say that dogs that were PTS because of "temperament" don't count because they are not "rehomable". In different hands the dogs temperament may have been fine. How would we know?? And what about health issues? There is a dog in a rescue thread that was PTS because it was riddled with tumours. If the owners had treated the first cancer then maybe it would not have had any further health issues. But it probably becomes a "PTS due to health" statistic. And that's why they do not convince me that we have an undersupply of dogs when they say that "rehomable dogs are not PTS". It is the crap owners that make the majority not rehomable in the first place.

Most of it, actually. I didn't actually say "your limited life experiences blinded you" - I said I thought you needed to see places with more than 2 dogs before you criticised. Now, what are the laws you would like to see enacted? Thanks for your concern but I have seen plenty of places with more than two dogs. You just made that assumption and I couldn't be bothered to correct you. I have many ideas for what I think should happen - but I will undoubtedly get flamed for any comments I make and will be accused of being brainwashed by PETA. You have a vested interest as a breeder - you don't want anything to get in the way of that. I have no hidden agenda - yes I love having pets as part of my family but if left with the options of "my right to own an animal" or to "end the suffering and misery and senseless killing" I would pick the later every time. And I make no apologies for that.

Can you, any day of the week, come home with a healthy, sound puppy from a registered, responsible breeder who health tests and offers a lifetime backup?? If you can you live in a different world than I do. Except I never said there was an oversupply of purebreed dogs. So if you read my comment again I never claimed to get a healthy pup with a lifetime back up was easy. I said if I wanted a puppy. I have bought four puppies in my lifetime from registered breeders - one of these breeders cared where it was going. Apparently the type of breeders you mention are not so easy to come by and very hard for the general public to find.

Seriously doubt you have read ALL the research there is out there Jed. That's a big call. I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe. I'm sure your limited life experiences also blind you to other sides of the debate, as you say mine does. The day no dog is forced to suffer a life of misery I will be happy - no matter what it takes.

1. I don't believe that all dogs should be sourced from shelters. I have two pedigree dogs. I don't think any dogs should be ending up in shelters. 2. I never said I believe in mandatory desexing. I believe that the "average" pet owner would be better off desexing their pet. From what I see on a daily basis, many people are not capable of containing their pet to make sure it doesn't get out of their yard. If they can't contain it better to desex it. 3. If there is an undersupply of something - it is hard to get. I can pick up the paper any day of the week, phone a number and come home with a puppy. Or go to a pet shop and buy one. Or call a breeder. That is an undersupply of puppies? God help us. 4. Many people on this forum were against the idea of making it mandatory for you dog to be walked?? Why?? Doesn't a dog deserve that at the very least - to get out of it's yard (whether 500 square metres or 5 acres) and see the world? The laws I would like to see introduced do not mean that people would never be able to breed dogs. It means they would have to do it responsibly and still provide quality homes for their dogs. I am not talking about breeders that all ready do this. And people who take dogs into their homes by choice should be made to be accountable for meeting all of the dogs needs - physical, emotional and social. Of course no law will be 100% enforcable, but if it makes people think twice before acquiring a pet then how can it be a bad thing?? 5. I don't think there is a shortage of homes - but there is a shortage of goodhomes. These are my own thoughts and opinions. Please don't tell me that I have been brainwashed by some organisation that I don't know anything about. Should I assume all of you are brainwashed because you hold the same opinion as each other?

I have never read anything from PETA so I haven't bought their propaganda at all. I have been saying the whole way through that people are to blame, as for most of the worlds problems. Do you realise how many people know exactly the right things to say and do to get a dog from a breeder? Plenty - and yes I know people who did this before we start talking about my experience. Screening homes alone will not end the problem although it will help. There needs to be laws to govern who breeds and how dogs are bred and that people who "keep" dogs as their pets do the right thing by them. And the laws need to be enforced. And if that threatens you as a breeder then that means little to me. I care about the dogs and their quality of life - end of story.

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it. If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy; fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different. No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general. I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like: The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter - bcz I know its not true; but others might. I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether. The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best. The Queensland Government also commissioned research by two independent experts: Dr Linda Marston of the Animal Welfare Science Centre, Monash University Professor Jacquie Rand of the Centre for Companion Animal Health, University of Queensland. Their reports include reviews of the 5300 public submissions, analysis of relevant scientific literature, interviews with key stakeholders in Queensland and interstate, and detailed reviews of desexing and early-age desexing as tools to reduce unwanted breeding. Due to the high level of interest in this program and the content of the reports, these reports to the Queensland Government are available to the public.

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it. If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy; fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different. No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general. I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like: The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter - bcz I know its not true; but others might. I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether. The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best. So produce less dogs and cats, which then puts a higher price on an animals life (supply and demand) and maybe people would truly want one before they spent big bucks buying one. That is what over supply means - they are too readily available which means that people treat them as disposable commodities. Whoops, didn't put enough training and socialisation into that one - off to the pound with you so I can get another one But your right - the solutionis to deny that too many animals die needlessly every day despite rescue busting their gut. And I'm glad you don't feel emotionally blackmailed - I never said that was the intention............you're the one who said that that is how it would make people feel If 57% of dogs were put down to temperament and 37% were put down for health reasons, what was the reason for the other 6%?? Why were they not rehomable - you stated that every dog that was rehomable was. And since temperament is most likely to have been due to the way the dogs were raised as pups - ie lack of socialisation and training - then the majority were in fact PTS due to the stupidity and apathy of humans. No massive problem has a simple solution - but desexing is at least a start............as opposed to denying that there is a problem. If there were an oversupply then pounds would be full of puppies ,rescue wouldnt take pregnant dogs out of pounds and whelp and raise thousands of puppies each year because they know they will find homes for them all more easily than they will adult dogs. Some rescue groups specialise in this. I personally know one rescue who homed over 250 puppies last year which she whelped from pregnant bitches coming from pounds without any help form another person other than her daughter. Thats more in one year than I, as a breeder will home in 30 plus years. Stop for a minute and take a breath because when we focus on one thing which we have decided is the answer to the problem it doesnt allow us to consider unintended consequences and part of the problem to date is that we havent all sat at the same table and worked it through learned from each other, looked at possible unintended consequences and worked together.For the sake of the dogs.Puppy farmers sell puppies to pet shops - ban the sale of live animals in pets shops - that wont stop them but at least its a start. The start of what? There are too many unwanted adult dogs - make everyone desex their pets - that wont stop people dumping pet dogs but its a start.The start of what? Less people breeding more dogs without care for what they breed or what happens after they leave to go to their new homes. When we went in and spoke with Clover Moore's people re the sale of puppies in pet shops I was amazed at how much they didnt know, how many assumptions they had made and if people who are being held as experts had of sat down with purebred breeders 12 years ago when they began fighting us to promote the idea of gathering health data they would know that what they think about purebred breeding in this country isnt what they think it is and there wouldnt be a gaping hole a mile wide in their method of gathering research data for health prevalence and we would have been able to use it to stop dogs suffering.We could have - should have been able to work together rather than one party thinking they have the solution and treating the other like the enemy. Take a look at the RSPCA puppy farm paper - do know how much better that could have been and how little oppostion to it there woud have been if they had sat at the table with purebred breeders BEFORE they started ? Before they made their decisions on what was best for dogs without all of teh necessary information? You are looking at the kill rates and so are we but in doing so we cant just presume what we think we know and decide on what we think will be the answer because unless we respect each other and work together and be open enough to learning what we think the solution may aggrevate the problem. You have assumed that if we desex all pets that less will be available so therefore they will be higher priced and therefore more highly regarded. In fact less will not be available, they may be higher priced but that just makes it a more lucrative pastime for those who want more money and people who decide they cant live with an animal dont care how much they paid for it when they get to a point of dumping it.People who get dogs for free can value their dogs way over another who paid thousands for them and again desexing pets doesnt stop the mass suffering of animals in puppy farms. No - because I said that people who chose to breed dogs would have high costs associated with their right to breed their dog, and that if this were enforced then it would not be so lucrative. Breeders here all ready say they don't make any money so it won't really affect them. People get dogs for free because they can. And the people that love their free dog and treat them well would probably be prepared to pay if there were no free dogs because they value a dog in their life. I think I should probably bow out now because I think I have realised that we are not actually discussing the welfare of dogs and trying to improve the quality of life for all dogs - but it is more about people's rights to own animals and breed their dogs. There may not be an "oversupply" of puppies but how can you deny an oversupply of dogs if even one dog is PTS???? Puppies grow into dogs which becomes disposable. That is human nature and I doubt you will ever change it. You want to believe there is not an oversupply of puppies because you are a breeder. Things become disposable when they become readily available. Australians throw out five million dollars worth of uneaten food every year. This would never have happened in my parents day or in third world countries. We have easy access to food and so it becomes less valuable to us. The same has happened to dogs and cats. Puppies are probably finding homes with people who have just dumped their adult dog because it didn't work out. This should not be counted as a pup finding a home IMO because it will undoubtedly be put in the same situation. No, it won't happen while it is a cute puppy, so statistically it wans't a pup that didn't have a home. The issue will never be solved because everyone has a vested interest - my right to own a dog, my right to be a breeder, my right to own x number of dogs, my right to get a new pup when my dog is PTS because of my apathy. Poor dogs.

First up you cant equate adult dogs with the market for puppies because a lot of homes want puppies and a lot of homes aren't suited to an older dog. If 10 adult dogs are killed in a pound and 10 puppies bought from a byb that week, it doesn't mean 10 dogs lost their lives because 10 puppies were sold. You cant compare two mutually independent markets. That's like saying less wheat was purchased because more copper was purchased. Dogs and puppies are not perfect substitutes. If you are going to use economic terms like supply and demand, then at least stick to market theory.If a person buys a puppy and then 3 years later dumps that dog because it does not fit in with their lifestyle and / or has behavioural issues - if that dog is then pts at a pound - do you see that as a oversupply problem or an unwanted problem? Puppy grows into a dog. Wheat does not turn into copper. Not sure I understand your economic analogy.

How do you know the puppies individual advertisements you are referring to are disposed of? How do you know they all find homes?

Whoops back on track. Wow I hope the researchers at UQthat came up with that didn't get too much taxpayer funding. Probably didn't meet expectations because they were under socialised with no stimulation or exercise. If there is an undersupply of puppies and dogs are being put to sleep every day (I think it is one every four seconds in the US) then people must be trading in their dogs for puppies. Puppies grow into dogs - so not enough puppies and too many dogs - doesn't take a genius to work out what is happening. RSPCA, Australian Veterinary Association, University of Queensland figures and facts all agree. lilli has already given the RSPCA figures for Australia, which I believe disagree with 1 dog every 4 seconds, so perhaps you are using US figures which are not relevant to Australia?You are correct, and all the bodies which have done research over long periods of time are incorrect? May we see your studies please? Thanks Well............yes............that's why I said in the US. Hope you read your studies just as carefully.

Whoops back on track. Wow I hope the researchers at UQthat came up with that didn't get too much taxpayer funding. Probably didn't meet expectations because they were under socialised with no stimulation or exercise. If there is an undersupply of puppies and dogs are being put to sleep every day (I think it is one every four seconds in the US) then people must be trading in their dogs for puppies. Puppies grow into dogs - so not enough puppies and too many dogs - doesn't take a genius to work out what is happening.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise. There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum. I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call. Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course It's not an assumption. You have already stated your experience, and for you to make that statement, you have no experience. Because you can only cope adequately with two dogs, does not mean that everyone is in the same position. Some people can't cope with one, some can cope with ten, if you had exposure, you would have understanding. Sorry have not given you a run down of my life experiences. Nor do I wish too. I don't "adequately" cope with two dogs - this is how many I choose to have at this point in my life while I am raising a family. SBT123 asked me what I considered a large number of dogs and I said three to four. And now you are an expert on my life experiences I gather you are trying to defend your position and in my limited experience people who do this are trying to convince themselves Good luck with that.

Yep boy Daisy is gorgeous too

I agree. Legislation focuses in the wrong areas IMO. It should be an offence to breed dogs without being a registered breeder. It should be an offence to breed cross breeds without a purpose and permit to do so. It should be a requirement that a litter's sire and dam are pedigree papered. It should be a requirement that registered breeders can breed a maximum of two different dog breeds only. Most of the legislation is focused upon closing the gate after the horse has bolted and needs to be focused from the beginning. Now why can't I say it like that

Yeah So similar in colour to Daisy. Trying to put a picture on but I'm sooo crap at this......

I do understand what your saying I just wish there was a simple answer. And one that didn't affect the people that do the right thing. I just hate seeing the quality of homes that so many dogs seem to have. Trapped in a backyard with 15 seconds of human interaction when they get their food bowl chucked down at night. The people down the road from us put a tarp over their patio door so their dog can't even see them inside because it was annoying them I feel like crying every time I walk my dogs and see bored, lonely dogs sitting in their yard day after day. Some people just don't deserve the privilege of owning animals PS Daisy is almost the exact same colour of my beagle!!!!!!

I have two pedigree dogs too - as pups. Never did I imply that your shouldn't buy a pup. Maybe we are getting our wires crossed? (Had a long day at work). Sorry but pet owners have a responsibility too (god I hate this nanny state we live in, never my fault). Not just the puppy farmers and BYBers and breeders. Let's not forget that if people thought more carefully about purchasing a pet and committed themselves for life, or rehoming responsibly if necessary, there would probably be no puppy mills or pounds. The public creates a market - these people are just cashing in. Buyers create a demand for these puppies which leads to too many being produced because so many people see a way to make a quick buck. No buyers, no money. In a perfect world I believe that dogs should only be bred when a good home is available - of course it won't happen. No oversupply? - how do you know that the page after page of pups for sale in newspapers and on the internet all find homes? How do you know they are not disposed of when they are unlikely to sell? I'm sure they are. It is not an attack on breeders. A world without pedigree dogs would be sad. Just that it seems obvious that the puppy farming industry needs much tighter restrictions because too many animals are being bred.

I just can't get my head around all of this. I was just reading another thread where they say it is not the breed but the individual dog (a pup got attacked by a bully breed). If italmum gets her pup, and puts in the hard work of raising her pup the right way I woud say she is likely to end up with a good dog. A pup from the best of lines can end up with temperament problems if in the wrong hands. It is really, really, really hard work raising a pup and a dog takes time, patience and committment. There is no "perfect match" out their for any family no matter how much research you do - everyone needs to put in blood, sweat and tears to get the dog they want. Otherwise it will never have a happy outcome.

I agree with Lilli. Is it really an over supply of pets when most puppies find homes - most dogs that are dumped or euthanised are not baby puppies. The fact is that most puppies find homes. The problem isn't an over supply, but WHY these dogs aren't staying in their original homes and who is responsible for them once they are dumped. IMO the biggest issue is that people buy pets they are not suitable for, struggle with them once they grow and then dump them/have them PTS. The biggest problem is why these dogs are in these homes in the first place - people like puppy farmers who don't give a crap about where the dogs are going and will sell to anyone with the money to buy. Compare this to a reputable registered breeder who places well bred puppies in screened homes and takes back anything they breed. Speak to many reputable breeders and they will tell you there is actually a lack of supply of well bred puppies from good breeders. So only puppies deserve homes? What about all the older dogs that can't find homes because every time a puppy is born that means one less potential home for them so it's the needle instead? And just because the puppy finds a home - it doesn't mean it is a "good" home. Dogs should not be bred until a there are potential good homes waiting for them. So make it harder for people to keep producing litter after litter (not aimed at breeders since ethical ones don't continually churn out litters anyway) and then not taking any responsibility for the quality of the home they go to. If breeders incur more costs in the process - pass it on to the puppy buyers. I'll pay more for a dog that is going to bring me joy every day of my life for the next 10 to 15+ years if I know that it is helping stop puppies being brought into the world that will easily find homes but have a good chance of being dumped when they have outgrown their cuteness.

You might think that, because you have no experience of people who keep more dogs than that. Perhaps if your experience was wider, and your experience of multiple dogs was garnered from places other than filthy puppy farms shown on TV, you might think otherwise. There are people with more dogs than that, and whose dogs I would consider to be better cared for than the dogs owned by many people on this forum. I am not criticising you, although I do think you probably need to see more places where more than 3 - 4 dogs are kept to make that judgement call. Oh do I know you??? How do you know what my experience is? I know how much time I spend on two dogs every day to have happy, content dogs and there would physically not be enough time in the day for any more. But maybe our ideas of how much time a dog deserves is different due to our experiences. Not that I would like to make assumptions about you of course

If people want to desex their pets, that's great - if they feel it is the best thing for their pet and their circumstance. Emotional black mail should not be used to push people into making a decision about their pet (s). The cold hard facts are that over 250000 companion animals are PTS every year because their aren't enough good homes but people just keep producing puppies and kittens. If it stops people thinking that they'll have a litter to "calm their dog down", "let their children experience the wonders of life" or just because "she's such a nice dog" then that's good enough for me. People need to know and accept that if they bring more kittens and puppies into the world then they are responsible for them. I don't see it as emotional blackmail - dog savvy people that choose not to desex their pet but keep them contained and don't add to the unwanted pet population probably wouldn't feel "emotionally blackmailed" as they do the right thing. I have heard people suggest that people dropping their pet off to an animal shelter should be made to watch them be PTS - is that emotional black mail or making them accept the consequences of their actions? If we don't do anything because we might make the poor humans feel bad then what hope is there? Yes the overpopulation myth has been done to death and nope I dont buy it. If you want to equate unwanted with overpopulation that's your business, may even be a good strategy; fact is dogs end up pts not because there are too many but because they are not wanted - similar yet different. No time to find for you the old threads and data on this- there's some in rescue and general. I dont feel emotionally black mailed when I read crap like: The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter - bcz I know its not true; but others might. I think there's enough valid reasons for pet owners to desex their without adding misinformation about 'pet overpopulation' which is another agenda altogether. The issue of unwanted pets is a complex problem and to imagine that it can be solved by mass desexing of pets is simplistic at best. So produce less dogs and cats, which then puts a higher price on an animals life (supply and demand) and maybe people would truly want one before they spent big bucks buying one. That is what over supply means - they are too readily available which means that people treat them as disposable commodities. Whoops, didn't put enough training and socialisation into that one - off to the pound with you so I can get another one But your right - the solutionis to deny that too many animals die needlessly every day despite rescue busting their gut. And I'm glad you don't feel emotionally blackmailed - I never said that was the intention............you're the one who said that that is how it would make people feel :D If 57% of dogs were put down to temperament and 37% were put down for health reasons, what was the reason for the other 6%?? Why were they not rehomable - you stated that every dog that was rehomable was. And since temperament is most likely to have been due to the way the dogs were raised as pups - ie lack of socialisation and training - then the majority were in fact PTS due to the stupidity and apathy of humans. No massive problem has a simple solution - but desexing is at least a start............as opposed to denying that there is a problem.

So why do so many advertisements on DOL say they have pups available?