It's not my intention to bicker with you, so I won't post in this thread any more.

The world is not black & white, but shades of gray.

I recently lost a long battle with my family over adopting vs buying from a "breeder". They recently decided to buy a golden retriever from a neighbor...needless to say I cried, a lot, and we are currently not speaking (but we're stubborn Italians, it's typical). I thought that this was one change in their life that I could influence - it wasn't "drastic" like going vegan and yet they still chose to put their "wants" over the needs of others.

Any advice on getting over this obstacle with my family would be greatly appreciated. I feel very betrayed by their choice, not only did it condemn a life to death in a shelter but I felt it was a personal offense to me and my thoughts on the subject.

@Abby: I'm sorry that you think we don't also see the world in shades of grey, because we do. But just as YOU probably take an "extremist" view on say, murder or rape (that is, you believe murder and rape are bad all of the time, for every reason, no matter what) we take a similar vein on animal breeders. As I said to another commenter, this view requires somewhat of a Gestalt shift, so no, I don't expect you to understand that we simply see animals in two fundamentally different ways. 

I personally also do not want to live in a world without dogs. I love my dogs to pieces (they are both rescues, one a purebred AKC registered Lab). However, when push comes to shove, I would rather live in a world without dogs than live in a world where millions of dogs are murdered yearly for no other reason than some human has grown tired of them, or didn't think about the commitment they were making. As long as we (society in general, not the AR community) see dogs as generally disposable, then I cannot reconcile my desire to know and love dogs with our continual breeding of them, no matter how "responsible" the breeder. I think many, many AR advocates feel the same way. Perhaps there is a way for dogs to continue to live with humans in harmony even after we stop breeding them - something for greater minds than me to think up. 

I also wonder what you think of what "responsible" breeders are doing to the health of dogs world wide. Genetic disorders and other genetic health problems run rampant in the world of purebred dogs (I'm sure you know this, I know Pappies are prone to a number of genetic conditions) and it's not just backyard or hobby breeders. 

@Kristen: I lost that battle about 13 years ago, when it was purebred dog from a breeder or bust. The dog we got, Magic, was an amazing old man who died last year, and I still miss him so much it hurts. When my mom decided she wanted another dog, I did tell her that if she went to a breeder, we wouldn't speak again anytime soon. We now have two rescued dogs. Perhaps your family isn't aware of how many Golden Retrievers there are in the world without homes. Even though they've already made this choice, it doesn't mean you can't still help dogs who are in need of homes. Perhaps you could foster dogs for your local shelter or rescue - you'll help dogs, and let your family see how much these dogs need homes. If you can't foster, perhaps you can convince them to go volunteer with you as a family activity. There are so many misconceptions about shelter/rescue dogs, many people actually need to see them and be around them to get over it. 

I said I wasn't going to post any more on this thread, but I do want to address the health of animals.

Papillions are overall a pretty healthy breed. The main health concerns within the breed are luxating patellas and PRA. I own 3 dogs (2 papillons from breeders, and 1 pomeranian-mix from the shelter). For both of my papillons I was shown the OFA & CERF screening results on the parents prior to getting the dog.

Advances in screening methods are helping the health of dogs. For statistics on genetic health issues, you can check out http://www.offa.org/ .
For example, here's their statistics on hip dysplasia  http://www.offa.org/hipstatbreed.html?view=2

Like health problems in humans, health problems in dogs are dispersed throughout the entire population, not just purebreds and not just mutts. I frequently hear "mutts are healthier than purebreds", which simply isn't based on factual evidence, it's just that they aren't screened as often. Dogs may very well have something 'wrong' with them that an owner would never know. I have been a puppy-raiser for a service dog organization before, one of the dogs washed out because her hips were bad (found by x-ray screening), so we got to keep her as a pet. She never showed outward signs of hip dysplasia, just as trouble getting up or the bunny-hop, if she hadn't been screened for the service dog program it would have never been diagnosed; it never progressed to cause her problems.

A responsible/reputable dog breeder (note that I'm using "responsible/reputable" in the context of animal welfare standards, since animals rights says all breeders are bad) will test their dogs for genetic health issues prior to breeding and not breed carriers of health problems. A responsible/reputable breeder (again, in animal welfare context of the phrase) breeds for the whole package: conformation, temperament, health, and [where applicable] working ability.

Just a disclaimer: My above comment was not meant to argue "breeding is okay because of x, y, and z".

I've read the letter before, and know personally how difficult it is to watch another cat or dog enter the shelter, knowing that it will most likely be put down after the owners surrender their pet (for whatever irresponsible reason).

Here is my problem with shelters (including our local one). They have a dry erase board at the front desk that tells how many adoptions have taken place each month, separating cats and dogs (and other). I would like to see the number of animals euthanized each month posted right next to the number adopted. It's a dark, hidden secret of what really happens there. They want to advertise the "positive" side of things, yet they are part of the problem because people can continue to keep their eyes closed on the actuality of the situation.

I think that if people walked in to turn in their beloved pets, and the employees or volunteers greeted them and then told them that they would most likely euthanize their family member, they may not surrender their pets so easily. The shelters do good work in many ways, but make it so easy for people to continue to be irresponsible.

Many people ask me why I refuse to work in the shelter. I will volunteer in order to socialize the animals and help to get them adopted, but it is horribly stressful to work with the animals, get attached, and then watch them disappear when no one wants them. We have taken in dozens at our cat sanctuary, but cannot save them all. Once they get here, they are here for life. Our oldest cat passed away at 30 years old. Many last into their 20's.

Breeders do not care about how many dogs end up dying in shelters because of their business. To them, it is a product. It is how they make their money. Bottom line. If people refused to pay for a bred dog, the breeders would quickly disappear. It's all about the money. I really don't think that reading the letter would stop the breeding altogether. They really don't care. What stops breeding is not paying them money to continue, whether it be buying an animal as a pet or breeding them to sell as experiments.

@Abby: Genetic mutations are more common in purebred dogs because the breeding populations (gene pools) are smaller than in so-called mixed breeds. The more inbreeding and line breeding you have, the greater chances you have for both genetic mutations and other inherited defaults. It's a biological fact, and I have seen statistics for both horses and dog populations. Believe it or not, I know quite a bit about animal breeding - I was on track to get a degree in animal sciences, specializing in equine science and breeding. 

Believe it or not, certifications do not equal good health - although you're right, it is more responsible to assure that your dogs are in good health. When my parents purchased my first dog 13 years ago from a very reputable breeder, we also took in his full sibling who had a congenital liver defect - something I later found out you can't screen for, but which does have a definite genetic component. Very reputable breeder, both parents OFA certified, etc. etc. but it still happens and it seems to be correlated with breeding. 

Thanks for responding though.. the question is always on my mind. Once again, it seems to be a problem of being willing to accept some casualties in pursuit of some desire. I also forgot to say I really liked your comment about the HSUS being a red-headed step child. I think it's a good reference.

@Abby:  The only problem with the "Where are we going to get our dogs in 30 years if we don't breed them?" problem, is that it doesn't matter right now.  Right now, and for the next 30 years, we don't need to breed them, because irresponsible people who do not spay or neuter their pets are boosting the population just fine.  In 30 years, if we've fixed the problem, and there are no more animals dying in shelters, no more animals who cannot find a home, maybe we can start letting them breed again, because even then we will not have spayed/neutered every cat and dog.  In the mean time, every puppy that is born, whether bred in backyard or "responsibly", means another puppy dead, or another dog whose last years are spend in a shelter.  No matter where you get them, buying a dog from any breeder means that you did not get it from a shelter, and the dog you did not get is very lonely without you, and wondering why you think that puppy is somehow superior to them because of their parents.

There is absolutely no justification to make more animals -- except to make more money.  Millions of dogs and cats, kittens and puppies flood the "shelters" - All with limited time to catch the eyes and hearts of a perspective home.

It's horrible what we are allowing to happen through our ignorance of refusing to neuter pets.  I've been to the most affluent homes -- to discover an "oops" litter of pups or kitties.  This is just plain irresponsible!

Anyone who advocates breeding dogs, or the "love" of pure breed dogs should watch this documentary which exposes the ills of the industry.  This is not about the obvious back-alley puppy mills, but rather cruelty in high dollar kennel clubs breeders.  But it's all the same - people after a "certain look", or a certain "style" animal.  In our greed for "perfection" - we cause millions of innocent dogs to suffer...

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44215931

"Responsible breeder" is an oxymoron.

Ditto Kim... "Responsible breeder" IS an oxymoron.

And Abby - what can I say?  Once again your knowledge overwhelms me... You know more than the documentaries and professionals in the field. 

I could cite a personal experience with a Wheaton Terrier breeder who did indeed "cull" a few bad ones... but you know - you probably will question my source so I'll just let it go. 

Dogs with faulty left ears... 4-H, "service dogs" & dog "obedience"... Whatever expertise you have in "animal breeding" is far beyond my scope (or patience) to debate.

Instead me and my mongrel dog are going to take a walk around the block -- in the rain. 

People who care about animal welfare come from a range of backgrounds and political views. Being disgusted at the millions of animals surrendered to shelters every year, and the conditions in those shelters, is an issue that both the most ardent vegan animal rights activist and the red-meat eating hunter can agree on, believe it or not.

I worked with a shelter where the dominant volunteers managed to turn new, very passionate volunteers away who didn't share their exact same views regarding animals, and I thouht it was such a shame -- to turn away people who were ready to address the tragedy of animal shelters, whatever their reasoning for thinking it was a tragedy, was appalling to me. The horror of millions of dogs and cats being euthanized every year is a cross-cutting issue, something that appeals to people from a variety of value-systems, and I'm always sad when I see potential supporters of actions to address this issue turned away because they aren't saying exactly the right things about why shelters are overpopulated, why millions of dogs are euthanized, and why shelters are horrific places.

No, the Humane Society is not an animal rights group. But they are trying to address this issue, and they should be celebrated for doing that. I am proud to link to their Pets for Life campaign, because I think it has excellent information to help convince someone NOT to give up on their animal, to NOT take their dog to a shelter.

I'm the proud owner (sorry if "owner" isn't the right word) of my third discarded-by-others dog. I have a lifetime commitment to always have a dog, to always adopt from a shelter or rescue group, to advocate for spaying and neutering, and to help people make a life-time commitment to their pets. But, no, I'm not an "animal rights" person, as has been defined here. Hope my support for this particularly posting, even though I don't fit that category, will still be welcomed.

Very nice to meet you Jayne!  How wonderful that you are so actively involved in saving these beautiful (but desperate) dogs... All animals need whatever voice we can give them - And it's generous of you to speak up on their behalf! :)

Part of the problem can be explained mathematically: we have more dogs than good homes (at least ones we can find) right now, so breeding more dogs exacerbates the overpopulation problem, causing more dogs to be homeless and be killed.

I wish some dog breeders - as many as possible - would agree to stop breeding as long as there is this overage of dogs to homes, and instead urge their current customers, potential customers, and the general dog-desiring public to adopt a homeless dog from a shelter or rescue group. That would help us ease the often-heartbreaking consequences of dog overpopulation rather than extend it longer than necessary. Is this possible? It would not only be responsible and save dogs' lives, it would also be much, much appreciated!

Once we've achieved something close to parity between the number of available dogs and the number of homes that can properly care for a dog, we can talk about breeding again. Whether or not to breed and have pets is a huge subject outside the scope of this comment, but if it is to be done, I think it has to be done much differently than is done now, even by "responsible" breeders.

Many purebred dogs have congenital physiological and health problems simply because they were designed to achieve a certain look or utility function, and this typically runs counter to the dogs' health and well-being interests. For example, English bulldogs are the result of people wanting a dog with a large head and narrow hips. (Is there not something disturbing about engineering a living being to satisfy a human's aesthetic desire?) Now, Cesarian sections, a major abdominal surgery, must routinely be performed on English Bulldogs when they give birth. In addition, a bulldog's "squashed face" is an intentionally bred deformity that hampers breathing.

Cocker spaniels often suffer from malformations of the eyelids and ears. German shepherds get hip dysplasia because breeders created a dog with a low-to-the-ground aggressive look. Pugs have problems with their eyes, teeth, and noses because of their artificially foreshortened skulls. Collies have head problems because their skulls have been made long and skinny. (In fact, a condition called "collie eye anomaly" is now present in nearly all collies.) Dachshunds are prone to back problems. And so on.

Remember that dogs were originally all 30 to 40 pounds. We've distended, distorted, expanded, reduced, and mis-shapen them because of our desires, not because it was in the dogs' best interests. We see the same thing with cats and rabbits. For example, dwarf rabbits are great sellers but have more teeth problems because of their unnaturaly small mouths. (Due to their small size, they're also, unfortunately, more likely to be picked up, incorrectly and against their will, by humans, especially kids who don't know who to properly pick up and cradle a rabbit.)

Mutts typically are not plagued with so many inborn health problems, because they come from a larger gene pool. However, a mixed breed dog who is the result of two purebred parents may inherit genetic problems from either parent; IOW, health problems in some mutts may be indirectly caused by breeding.

Today, the human-centric, "design for looks" attitude continues, with arbitrary breed "standards" that typically have nothing to do with the animals' health or well-being.

IMHO, any breeding of companion animals in the future - once we solve the homeless animal crisis - will have to be done first and foremost with the animals' health and well-being in mind. That means we will probably have to say goodbye to many if not most of the breeds we know today.

But first we have to stop creating more dogs (and cats and rabbits and other companion animals) while we already have millions without homes.