Puppy Mills On The 7.30 Report

[GAL]

Steve Austin said they ONLY buy puppies from registered purebred breeders or people who are registered as a breeding business.

This comment by Steve Austin from the 7.30 Report is what got me fuming. He is either ignorant and has not bothered to educate himself about a subject that his Association (PIAA) has been so vocal about, or he just doesn't give a damn.

His comments should have be refuted as out right lies.

Code of ethics of the ANKC and it's state branches:

26. A member shall not:

.1 Sell or dispose of a dog to a commercial pet wholesaler or retail pet shop unless they are accredited by the Pet Industry Association of Australia Limited (PIAA).

PIAA has only 6 Accredited PIAA retail outlets in all of Australia. I shall attach the link to this site page;

http://piaa.net.au/index.php?option=com_co...9&Itemid=79

Hmm, so where are the cute little puppies and kittens coming from?

Steve Austin should be ashamed. As a Delta Society dog trainer and as a pet free pet shop owner, I was totally disgusted with Austin when he became the talking head for PIAA. I didn't think it was possible for me to trust him any less, but I was wrong.

[mr.mister]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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?

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

Exactly. Shock tactic? Maybe. Emotional blackmail? I don't think so. This is a very, very serious issue and if a little shock here and there make people open their darn eyes and take some notice, well in my books that's a good thing.

[Loving my Oldies]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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?

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

Exactly. Shock tactic? Maybe. Emotional blackmail? I don't think so. This is a very, very serious issue and if a little shock here and there make people open their darn eyes and take some notice, well in my books that's a good thing.

I agree. In any case, if a bit of emotional blackmail can save dogs' and cats' lives, I'm prepared to do a bit of it. However, in the final analysis, facts and figures are also needed to change business practices.

[justin19801]

A lot of people are bagging Steve Austin when he has done more for responsible dog ownership than anyone I can think of. Although he didn't mention it this time he has said in the past (paraphrased) "that he wasn't happy for someone else to tell him where and what dog he can buy". I agree entirely. The puppy farmers needed to be puniished but given there is a shortfall in dog ownership killing them didn't make any sense to me at all. The aim of the animal welfare industry is to end pet ownership. Puppy farms today, BYBs tomorrow ANKC breeders after that. The fact PETA is coming to Australia should at least open some eyes. Regulating is the best way to go as banning will not work. In my opinion there is a big problem when one can't differentiate the abusers from the enforcers.

[Steve]

A lot of people are bagging Steve Austin when he has done more for responsible dog ownership than anyone I can think of. Although he didn't mention it this time he has said in the past (paraphrased) "that he wasn't happy for someone else to tell him where and what dog he can buy". I agree entirely. The puppy farmers needed to be puniished but given there is a shortfall in dog ownership killing them didn't make any sense to me at all. The aim of the animal welfare industry is to end pet ownership. Puppy farms today, BYBs tomorrow ANKC breeders after that. The fact PETA is coming to Australia should at least open some eyes. Regulating is the best way to go as banning will not work. In my opinion there is a big problem when one can't differentiate the abusers from the enforcers.

yes Id agree with this.

In my opinion people who are pushing designer dog F1 crosses are much more responsible for people seeing dogs as a lucrative method of making money than pet shops. The RSPCA are pushing for addresses of breeders to be published and for buyers to visit the place dogs are bred which is what the guy from Banksia was on about too

Taking away his ability to sell to a pet shop wont hurt him.he will still breed 10 times more puppies in one year than most purebred breeders breed in their whole life and have a nice shiny shed set up as a pet shop and ship them out all over the country via agents and exports.

Don Burke was backed up by McGreevy and Company's paper telling us about how first cross dogs are healthier than purebred and more predictable. Monash uni gave the floor to a puppy farmer to tell us how to suck eggs and backed her up with Mc Greevy and Bennett. The interest in designer dogs has been generated and nurtured by people with their own agenda

and they are as much to blame if not more than PIIA

[WoofnHoof]

justin19801 what animal welfare industry are you talking about???

I think you are confusing animal welfare with animal rights, while the two do impact upon each other they are still very different things.

Steve your suggestion that Monash uni has somehow endorsed the view of the puppy farmer by 'giving her the floor' as you put it, and apparently 'backing her up' with academics is very curious, universities provide venues and vehicles for all kinds of events and speakers and I'm pretty sure that doesn't equate to endorsing the content? Feel free to bring it up with the university though I'm sure they'll let you know whether or not they endorse puppy farming.

Since the AWSC organised the event perhaps you should raise your concerns with them, I am sure they would like to know if their event and organisation has been associated with the promotion of puppy farms.

[justin19801]

justin19801 what animal welfare industry are you talking about???

I think you are confusing animal welfare with animal rights, while the two do impact upon each other they are still very different things.

Steve your suggestion that Monash uni has somehow endorsed the view of the puppy farmer by 'giving her the floor' as you put it, and apparently 'backing her up' with academics is very curious, universities provide venues and vehicles for all kinds of events and speakers and I'm pretty sure that doesn't equate to endorsing the content? Feel free to bring it up with the university though I'm sure they'll let you know whether or not they endorse puppy farming.

Since the AWSC organised the event perhaps you should raise your concerns with them, I am sure they would like to know if their event and organisation has been associated with the promotion of puppy farms.

The multi million dollar oirganisations like R$PCA, PETA, Humane Society etc. The means differ but the end result is no pets and killing dogs. R$PCA have even built kennels in which to keep the harmless family APBTs they seize without human contact. Animal cruelty to a companion animal? In my considered opinion yes. They are different branches of the same tree. The end result is the same. Soliciting funds to save dogs then killing them, in my opinion little more than a racket. Not even the mob could come up with such a lucrative racket, or could they?

[Steve]

justin19801 what animal welfare industry are you talking about???

I think you are confusing animal welfare with animal rights, while the two do impact upon each other they are still very different things.

Steve your suggestion that Monash uni has somehow endorsed the view of the puppy farmer by 'giving her the floor' as you put it, and apparently 'backing her up' with academics is very curious, universities provide venues and vehicles for all kinds of events and speakers and I'm pretty sure that doesn't equate to endorsing the content? Feel free to bring it up with the university though I'm sure they'll let you know whether or not they endorse puppy farming.

Since the AWSC organised the event perhaps you should raise your concerns with them, I am sure they would like to know if their event and organisation has been associated with the promotion of puppy farms.

Woofandhood I am aware of what universities provide and I didn't say the academics were endorsing puppy farming I said they were endorsing designer dog breeding of F1 crosses.

This was a seminar called Breeding Better Dogs and 250 people in that room went there to learn from the speakers on how best to do that and Id say several thousand have heard the tapes on the net since then so telling me what Universities provide wont change the fact that whether it was intended or otherwise the result is that there is a public perception that what was said had weight.Kate Scoffield was introduced as an expert.Her vet and genetics credentials were publicized and used to give weight to what she had to say and what she does.Pauline Bennett pushes for changes with the CCs to allow registered breeders to breed solely for the pet market. Ive no doubt that there was no intention on behalf of the organisers or most of the speakers or the uni to promote puppy farming but thats the whole point. Its about public perception and unintended consequences.

The point is that pets have always been sold in pet shops in this country but people breeding dogs in such high numbers for profit is a recent event.

Breeding cross bred dogs was once not a good idea because they were mutts and they were hard to get rid of and if a pet shop took them it was usually for free.

If the demand for first cross dogs hadn't been generated then there would be no one going like mad on the supply end.

Im not saying that any of the players anticipated the consequences but in reality they have all played a part including the RSPCA.

Pet buyers want F1 cross dogs because they have been told they are more predictable than purebreds, they are more healthy than purebreds and they are status symbols. There was a demand generated and within a couple of years ACA breeders Kennels were showcased in magazines and national TV and Don Burke said they were the best puppy breeding set up he had ever seen and so much better than the way purebred dog breeders keep and house their dogs.

Breeding dogs for profit was promoted as being a legitimate method of making money and farmers who were suffering drought conditions followed the lead.

The RSPCA dont anticipate that their new suggestions for controlling mass breeding will mean more people breeding in higher numbers and less people breeding fewer numbers.They don't anticipate that their anti purebred promos simply mean there is a higher demand for designer dogs and that they are a part of what they are trying to prevent. Mcgreevy doesn't mean to generate demand for designer dogs but thats exactly what is going on.

Animal welfare groups calling for tougher screening of buyers and purebred breeders having limited supply means buying from someone who will just sell you a pup without jumping through hoops becomes appealing to those who want a puppy too.You can talk about changing social conditions like how there are less puppies being bred in suburbia due to changing lifestyles and council restrictions - including bans on debarking which also generates more supply for farm bred dogs.

Then add in the internet and simplify the sale process too and its a runaway train.

Pet shops play a minor role and blaming them and focusing anti puppy farm battles around them is not going to work.

6 puppy farmers breeding 1000 puppies each a year is as many as 50,000 registered breeders throughout Australia breed each year. :cry:

[BJean]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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.

[BJean]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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?

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

Exactly. Shock tactic? Maybe. Emotional blackmail? I don't think so. This is a very, very serious issue and if a little shock here and there make people open their darn eyes and take some notice, well in my books that's a good thing.

It will not make dogs/cats less disposable.

[BJean]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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?

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

Are you sure we have a massive over-supply of pets?

Do people dump their dog/cat because there are too many or because they are no longer wanted?

Do puppies/dogs available make you want to dump your current pets or are there other issues at play?

Edited April 1, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

If we accept that a proportion of animals entering pounds and shelters will have to be

euthanased, the reasons for euthanasia become critical in assessing the nature of the

perceived pet overpopulation problem.

In 2006, CEO of RSPCA ACT, Michael Linke, reported:

“In 2006 no cat or dog was euthanased as a result of over population in the shelter.

The main reasons for cat euthanasia were:

Feral 39%

Health related issues 33%

With regard to dogs, the main reasons were:

Temperament 57%

Health 37%"

In other words, the RSPCA ACT found homes for all the dogs and cats which were suited by

health and temperament to live as companion animals. Indeed, Mr Linke makes a point of

the RSPCA’s service to the community of screening pets for health and temperament.

Rather than having an oversupply of cats, such was the demand for kittens that in 2006 19

kittens were imported from the RSPCA in Townsville and adopted in the ACT.

<a href="http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Mandatory_Des...he_ACT_Cats.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ccac.net.au/files/Mandatory_Des...he_ACT_Cats.pdf</a>

The dynamics of dogs entering pounds and shelters are different from those of cats.

Essentially dogs have been, at one time, owned, and the majority are abandoned by their

owners (whether directly or by failure of reclaiming) because of temperament and behaviour

problems. The majority of cats entering shelters are either feral (more than 16% of intake,

nearly 40% of euthanasias) or are free living or stray – in 2006 only 101 cats from an intake

of 2504 (4%) were reclaimed by their owners, compared to 429 of 1301 dogs (34%). While

there are many proposed reasons for the low reclamation rate amongst cats entering

shelters, a common reason is that they are stray or free living cats.

If the source and reasons for admissions to pounds and shelters differs for cats and dogs,

then it makes sense that the solutions to reduce the intake and especially the euthanasia of

cats and dogs also differs. For dogs, we need to target the owners, and issues such as

identification, registration, education about responsible ownership (including reproductive

issues) and most especially about dog temperament and behaviour are important.

Education of owners about normal dog behaviour (what to expect when you obtain a pet

dog), the importance of socialisation, temperament and behaviour training, and providing

solutions for behaviour problems is pre-eminent.

The numbers of cats and dogs recieved by the RSPCA

has decreased by 27% over the past 12 years.

So if we have an 'overpopulation' problem now

well it must have been at plague proportions in 1998.

The number of dogs coming into Australian RSPCA shelters peaked

at 80, 776 in 1997-1998 and has declined to 60,030 in 2004-

2005; this represents a reduction of 25.9%. At the same time

the euthanasia rate declined by 42.7%.

http://www.ccac.net.au/files/The_issue_of_...UAM06Lawrie.pdf

Edited April 1, 2010 by lilli

[WoofnHoof]

Woofandhood I am aware of what universities provide and I didn't say the academics were endorsing puppy farming I said they were endorsing designer dog breeding of F1 crosses.

I know that Paul McGreevy has commented on his research regarding F1 crosses but I was unaware that Pauline Bennet was in any way endorsing crosses, it's been stated about a million times that she is a registered breeder of purebred animals, surely if she were in favour of breeding crosses she would already be doing so???

This was a seminar called Breeding Better Dogs and 250 people in that room went there to learn from the speakers on how best to do that and Id say several thousand have heard the tapes on the net since then so telling me what Universities provide wont change the fact that whether it was intended or otherwise the result is that there is a public perception that what was said had weight.Kate Scoffield was introduced as an expert.Her vet and genetics credentials were publicized and used to give weight to what she had to say and what she does.Pauline Bennett pushes for changes with the CCs to allow registered breeders to breed solely for the pet market. Ive no doubt that there was no intention on behalf of the organisers or most of the speakers or the uni to promote puppy farming but thats the whole point. Its about public perception and unintended consequences.

No one can control how information is used, seminars are held to present the information, if the public decide that F1 crosses are the bees knees it's because they haven't been told otherwise.

The point is that pets have always been sold in pet shops in this country but people breeding dogs in such high numbers for profit is a recent event.

Breeding cross bred dogs was once not a good idea because they were mutts and they were hard to get rid of and if a pet shop took them it was usually for free.

If the demand for first cross dogs hadn't been generated then there would be no one going like mad on the supply end.

Im not saying that any of the players anticipated the consequences but in reality they have all played a part including the RSPCA.

Pet buyers want F1 cross dogs because they have been told they are more predictable than purebreds, they are more healthy than purebreds and they are status symbols. There was a demand generated and within a couple of years ACA breeders Kennels were showcased in magazines and national TV and Don Burke said they were the best puppy breeding set up he had ever seen and so much better than the way purebred dog breeders keep and house their dogs.

Breeding dogs for profit was promoted as being a legitimate method of making money and farmers who were suffering drought conditions followed the lead.

The RSPCA dont anticipate that their new suggestions for controlling mass breeding will mean more people breeding in higher numbers and less people breeding fewer numbers.They don't anticipate that their anti purebred promos simply mean there is a higher demand for designer dogs and that they are a part of what they are trying to prevent. Mcgreevy doesn't mean to generate demand for designer dogs but thats exactly what is going on.

Animal welfare groups calling for tougher screening of buyers and purebred breeders having limited supply means buying from someone who will just sell you a pup without jumping through hoops becomes appealing to those who want a puppy too.You can talk about changing social conditions like how there are less puppies being bred in suburbia due to changing lifestyles and council restrictions - including bans on debarking which also generates more supply for farm bred dogs.

Then add in the internet and simplify the sale process too and its a runaway train.

Pet shops play a minor role and blaming them and focusing anti puppy farm battles around them is not going to work.

6 puppy farmers breeding 1000 puppies each a year is as many as 50,000 registered breeders throughout Australia breed each year. :D

The gardener hasn't been on our screens for many years now, of course the promotion of crosses has resulted in an explosion of people breeding them - that's what promotion is - maybe the purebreed world should give it a go

At the end of the day it's all just words on a forum, maybe I'll believe it when I see it on tv

[Chocolatelover]

I really believe in the power of the people and if people would just stop buying their pets from these people then there is no money to be made.

I am astounded by the number of people that have no idea about puppy mills or mass farming of dogs and cats. I have that "Where does my puppy come from" poster on my fridge and most people who read it say they had no idea. My T-shirt that says "The 10 top reasons to have your pet spayed or neutered were just killed in a shelter" is pretty effective too

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.

[huski]

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

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.

[Chocolatelover]

Yep. We have a massive over-supply of pets available so its common sense to get them desexed.

If the advertising/promotion of this fact has to be sensationalised a little to reinforce this point, I don't really consider that 'emotional blackmail'.

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.

[huski]

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.

What? No, where on Earth did I even imply that only puppies deserve homes! My point is that most puppies FIND homes in the first place. That doesn't indicate that there is an over supply of puppies, but that they are placed in the wrong homes to begin with and once they are dumped, only a tiny percentage of breeders will be responsible for rehoming what they've bred in the first place.

And whose to say that for every puppy sold, those owners would be happy to take on a rescue instead? Rescue dogs can make great pets, but guilting people into buying one instead of a puppy is not the answer. I don't feel guilty about buying the two pedigree dogs I bought as puppies and I resent anyone who attempts to make me feel that way. Buying the puppies I did was the right choice for my family and I, they were exactly what I was looking for and wanted. It's not my fault that I decided to buy a puppy nor does it mean I killed two rescue dogs in the process. Where were the breeders of those perfectly rehomable dogs when they were PTS? Why were they in rescue in the first place? THEY are the people who you want to make responsible for the dogs being PTS, not the pet owners who bought a puppy instead.

As I said earlier talk to any reputable breeder and they will often tell you there is an under supply of well bred puppies.

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.

I don't understand your logic. The breeders who are breeding good quality dogs often sell them for less than it costs to buy one from a puppy farm or pet store.

I think that puppy farming should be banned but this doesn't address the fact that there is an under supply of good quality dogs being bred. We have to be careful that any restrictions we bring in on breeding dogs doesn't effect those who are doing the right thing.

Edited April 1, 2010 by huski

[Chocolatelover]

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.

[huski]

I'm not saying that there isn't any over supply of pups, there are some dumped after all. I just don't think that's necessarily the root of the problem. Having said that though, there is a demand for dogs from reputable breeders that isn't being met so how can we truly say it's as simple as being an over supply of puppies? There is a lack of well bred puppies that's for sure!

I do think that most puppies find homes. If they are dumped when they found a home in the first place, we need to ask why. I'm not removing responsibility of the owner by saying that breeders need to make sure puppies go to appropriately screened homes, and that they should be responsible for the dogs they breed. Of course the owners need to be responsible for their dogs - but often it's a case of the dogs should never have gone to those homes in the first place. Some of these owners may never have had a problem if they had bought the appropriate dog for their lifestyle.

Edited April 1, 2010 by huski

[Chocolatelover]

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!!!!!!

Edited April 1, 2010 by Chocolatelover