Puppy Mills On The 7.30 Report

[huski]

Aww, do you have a tan and white too? I didn't realise you had a beagle

[Chocolatelover]

Aww, do you have a tan and white too? I didn't realise you had a beagle

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

[huski]

Oh he (?) is adorable! I love the tan and whites

[Chocolatelover]

Yep boy Daisy is gorgeous too

[Jed]

RSPCA stats quoted by lilli are correct, and are backed by other studies by the AVA and universities.

UQ's research program found that the majority of healthy dogs surrendered "did not meet expectations".

There is actually an under-supply of pups, according to all research.

Except PETA. But that would be USA. And I think the same stats apply there, but PETA seems to not publicise the fact.

[Chocolatelover]

RSPCA stats quoted by lilli are correct, and are backed by other studies by the AVA and universities.

UQ's research program found that the majority of healthy dogs surrendered "did not meet expectations".

There is actually an under-supply of pups, according to all research.

Except PETA. But that would be USA. And I think the same stats apply there, but PETA seems to not publicise the fact.

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.

[Jed]

RSPCA stats quoted by lilli are correct, and are backed by other studies by the AVA and universities.

UQ's research program found that the majority of healthy dogs surrendered "did not meet expectations".

There is actually an under-supply of pups, according to all research.

Except PETA. But that would be USA. And I think the same stats apply there, but PETA seems to not publicise the fact.

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

[Freshstart16]

Good show and hopefully seen by many.

I've posted the web link to my FB account.... I suggest others do the same to make sure EVERYONE sees this.

Thanks for posting it up.

Same goes here....Posted on FB!!

[Steve]

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.

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

I said Pauline Bennett pushes for reform with the CC codes of conduct to enable breeders to breed puppies soley for the pet market. I didnt say she was promoting DD breeding she is promoting breeding only for the pet market whether that is DD or purebred its still a promotion of breeding lots of dogs for profit - isnt it?

At the end of the day it may be just words on a forum for some but not for all of us.

The question is whats the best thing for the dogs - what can we do to prevent dogs suffering. Promoting purebred or designer dogs isnt the answer and nor is jumping up and down and focusing on pet shops.Puppy farmers will breed whatever sells and they dont give a rats if they have to sell them selves rather than a pet shop.

[Steve]

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

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.

[BJean]

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.

How do you know the puppies individual advertisements you are referring to are disposed of?

Edited April 1, 2010 by lilli

[BJean]

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.

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?

Edited April 1, 2010 by lilli

[Chocolatelover]

RSPCA stats quoted by lilli are correct, and are backed by other studies by the AVA and universities.

UQ's research program found that the majority of healthy dogs surrendered "did not meet expectations".

There is actually an under-supply of pups, according to all research.

Except PETA. But that would be USA. And I think the same stats apply there, but PETA seems to not publicise the fact.

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.

[Chocolatelover]

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.

How do you know the puppies individual advertisements you are referring to are disposed of?

How do you know they all find homes?

[Chocolatelover]

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.

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.

[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

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.

Edited April 2, 2010 by Chocolatelover

[BJean]

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.

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.

No analogy - you referred to the economic equation of supply and demand to explain why there is an oversupply of puppies/dogs.

I am saying this is incorrect - adult pound dogs and advertised puppies are not in the same market; they do not compete for the same buyers - therefore you cant draw up a Puppy/adult pound dog supply and demand axis. The demand for pound dogs is not determined by the supply of advertised puppies.

Copper and wheat?

Exactly there is no correllation between the demand for one and the supply of the other.

When you speak of supply and demand wrt advertised puppies and adult dogs in the pound, it incorrectly assumes that adult pound dogs are in the same market as advertised puppies -

whereby demand for one is a function of supply of the other.

If you are going to assume this

then you are also assuming that the two are perfect subsitutes.

They aren't.

Yes you would like them to be, but fact is people have certain traits that they are looking for in a dog, and it doesnt matter if there are 10 000 dogs to be pts, a person is going to get the puppy/dog which is the perfect match for their circumstance - as they should.

Do you think if 1 dog is pts at the pound, that dog was pts because its home went to a puppy sold on the outside?

Or is it that we should not think or want or own a dog, any dog, except for the dog that is next due at the pound?

[Souff]

Somewhere in all of this I read that "puppies did not meet expectations".

This is how it is.

Buyers expectations can sometimes be a long way removed from reality. Some people are actually trying to replace a dog that they had for years and years but in reality, the new dog can never be the old dog. Some owners have trouble adjusting to the needs of a pup, after years of owning a dog who had been conditioned to think like them, a dog they knew as well as themselves. New pup is behind the 8-ball from the beginning and is sometimes moved on.

Buyers expectations, particularly in the case of new dog owners, are often falsely built on what they were told by the person selling the puppy to them.

In the case of buying a crossbred pup from a backyard breeder, this information is usually scant and in some cases little more than a pack of lies. Pup can turn out totally different to the parent dog they were shown!

Pet shop buyers are also often led up the garden path and when the pup does not conform to what the $20 breed book says will happen (purchased from the same pet shop) and is actually becomes more like another breed as it grows, then yes, the dog does not meet the buyers expectations.

All the new laws and new regulations in the world wont change a thing, because sellers will still tell porkies.

And the revolving door of animal rescue will keep on revolving, ad infinitum, because the animals do not meet expectations. ;)

What a grotty bunch humans are!

Souff

[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.

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.

[poodlefan]

Chocolatelover you've bought the PETA proganda hook line and sinker.

What Australia does not need is less dogs. Dogs don't die because there is a surplus. They die because the people who get rid of them didn't do right by them. The same person who dumps a dog will often replace it, and repeat the cycle again. Pups don't get trained, grow into unmanageable dogs and get disposed of. And the people doing this blame the dog and do it over.

What Australia does need is more responsibly bred dogs sold by people who ensure that buyers expectations are realistic. And those breeders should refuse to sell to people who can't demonstrate that they know and care enough to care for dogs properly.

Because we need most of all is more knowledgeable responsible owners.

No amount of legislation alone can improve the situation. We also need decent education campaigns.

DOGS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. PEOPLE ARE. Any legislation that targets dogs is doomed to fail. BSL is a case in point.

And as for 4 dogs being all a person can handle? Some people shouldn't be allowed to own a pet rock. Others can manage with many dogs because they have practices and motivation to do so. The number of dogs limit also fails to account for size, exercise requirements and temperament. Owning 4 Chis and 4 Neopolitan Mastiffs is not the same.

Edited April 2, 2010 by poodlefan