“Adopt, don’t shop” can lead to more animal abuse. It doesn’t teach anyone about what a responsible breeder is if they are determined to buy, nor does it educate people on how to find a responsible shelter. Responsible breeders ensure none of the dogs go to a shelter. The message is disrespectful to responsible breeders and owners, and does nothing but alienate people who have had a dog or work to improve their health.
There hasn’t been a single time that blanket generalizations and slurs against a demographic of people have ever led to positive social change. Given that everyone in this thread is a proponent for the ethical treatment of animals, let’s have a civilized conversation free of disgraceful attacks, please.
This minor change in wording quantitatively teaches people what a responsible breeder is.
Enter “adopt and shop responsibly” into any search engine, and it will list articles that educate buyers to try to adopt if they can. If they won’t, it will list the many standards that help them find a responsible breeder.
A responsible breeder will:
· Raise the puppies in a house, not a facility
· Begin the socialization process and habituate them to people and children
· Won’t overbreed the Dam.
· Raise them until at least 8 weeks of age.
· Vet checks the puppies and provides records of all vaccinations, deworming, and veterinary attention the puppy has received.
· Maintain a clean and safe environment with proper food and water
· Honesty and transparency will let you meet the Dam and the puppies where they are raised.
· Ethical placement, vetting their clients, ensures the dog enters a home appropriate for their temperament and breed.
· Contracts require clients to agree to spay or neuter the dog and return it to the breeder, not a shelter.
· Genetic and health testing will ensure that the Dam and Sire don’t have genes that combine to create known genetic diseases and conditions.
· Following best practice breed standards for health and ensuring the Sire and Dam are temperamentally suited for breeding the kinds of dogs they offer.
· Warranties for the dog’s health up to 5 years for things like eyes, joints and common hereditary genetic issues.
Nobody can argue that the above standards are worse than those of a backyard breeder, yet this is how people behave.
If I apply the same logic that “if all dogs are adopted, there will no longer be dogs in shelters,” then “if all dogs come from responsible breeders that never relinquish dogs to shelters, there will no longer be dogs in shelters.” The black-and-white thinking that adopted dogs and responsibly bred dogs are somehow mutually exclusive is not true and is harmful.
People WILL keep getting dogs from breeders until the end of time. Making sure those people act responsibly and only ever seek an ethical breeder is called harm reduction, and it keeps dogs out of shelters every day. Missing opportunities to educate people on seeking ethical breeders will funnel those people to backyard breeders instead. Holding breeders accountable to the above standards is much more effective than calling them bastards. Dogs deserve better than half measures and hate. They deserve to be treated with respect at all points in their life, and in every aspect of our society.
Jobs are not the same as races. Your job is a choice and if it was a bad one you could choose a better one.
People WILL keep getting dogs from breeders until the end of time.
I’m hopeful that isn’t true. I’m also hopeful that people will stop killing our planet and stop eating animals, too. I don’t think ‘no more breeders’ is harder than those goals.
Correct, there are enough dogs, except once the shelters are empty, people have no choice but to go to breeders. We’ve seen this happen before. That statement does not exemplify for lawmakers how to regulate an industry that is permanently a part of our society. It doesn’t tell buyers to consider their plans to get a dog seriously. It doesn’t encourage shelters and breeders to engage in ethical placement of their dogs.
An increase in adoption from shelters is something we can all agree on, but a decrease on intake to shelters is where the homeless dog problem is taken on directly. Looking at half the equation only helps dogs half of the way. Dogs deserve the best lives and that includes preventing them from ending up in a shelter to begin with.
This is about preventing dogs from going into shelters. Surely you don’t want more dogs in shelters, yet this rhetoric ignores all of that.
If you want to keep paradoxically making the market more ripe for backyard breeders by spreading misinformation by all means, keep doing it.
But people working to educate prospective dog owners to be responsible and prevent dogs from being abused to begin with will always be on the right side of history.
Breeders will always exist, and so will their customers, as they always have. If it’s only financially viable for breeders to be held accountable for their actions, that’s another way of keeping dogs out of shelters. I’d rather live in a world where breeders always adopt their dogs back, always ensure they find a home instead of overwhelming shelters, charities and communities work together to make owning dogs more affordable so they don’t get relinquished during financial stress, AND shelters exist. In a world where shelters are the only hope for dogs, dogs are left behind.
You do know that having any dog that isn’t spayed/neutered that makes pups makes you a breeder, right?
The only difference between a breeder and someone letting their dogs make babies is that the breeder has some idea of what the puppies will look like.
And, since breeders can be divided into two or three “camps”, with two of those keeping records of past breeding, the pups resulting from those efforts are going to have known issues, rather than random ones.
Like it or not, dogs are shaped by humans. The only question is how much control is applied to the process. in theory, breeding would be a well regulated process focused on the health of the dogs as the primary goal. If we could ensure that, it would be superior to adopting mixed breeds in that regard.
I get the idea you’re working from, and I support it. But trying to pretend that random dogs reproducing is better than controlled breeding is absurd.
Ahhhh, please don’t take this wrong, but I’m not sure what you mean. The way your comment is written, there’s a few possible interpretations, so I don’t want to jump to a conclusion.
trying to pretend that random dogs reproducing is better than controlled breeding is absurd
Yes, my opinion is not usually shared by most other people. I do not think dogs, or any other animal is an object to be used by humans. So, make of that what you will. I don’t really care what you think.
I mean, you care enough to respond, obviously. But not enough to do anything else.
That kinda points to you just thinking that your take on things is superior, and nobody else is worth talking to. Which is fine as far as that goes, there’s shit I feel the same way about. But, I don’t come back with “I don’t care what you think” when I don’t care what someone thinks.
A bit contradictory. Which, again, is fine as far as that goes. Nobody is required go be consistent or honest with themselves, or even with others.
Just, you know, it doesn’t convince anyone you don’t care what they think, if you respond at all, much less with the whole “my opinion is so rare and special” type of opening.
You do know you’re responding to a lemmy post, right?
On lemmy, things are threaded, there’s comments in response to posts, and those comments can layered underneath the parent comment.
So, someone responding to your comment not only doesn’t need to make their own post, they shouldn’t, because the discussion is ongoing already. Starting a new post would just start another thread, which defeats the entire purpose of threaded forums
Nobody posted any slogans until you did. It’s perfectly reasonable to reply with civilized discourse.
Unilaterally proposing a single solution to a complex societal issue while insulting dog owners is problematic and does more harm than good. “Adopt and shop responsibly” doesn’t offend anyone who bought a dog and might make someone ask, “What does it mean to shop responsibly?” instead of buying a dog on Craigslist. Dogs deserve more respect from people, which requires treating all people with more respect.
“Adopt, don’t shop” can lead to more animal abuse. It doesn’t teach anyone about what a responsible breeder is if they are determined to buy, nor does it educate people on how to find a responsible shelter. Responsible breeders ensure none of the dogs go to a shelter. The message is disrespectful to responsible breeders and owners, and does nothing but alienate people who have had a dog or work to improve their health.
More details: https://humanwords.cc/notes/a6wcmo9ct59f01eu
Please say Adopt and shop responsibly instead.
I can teach you what a responsible breeder looks like:
*image not found*
All breeders are bastards
There hasn’t been a single time that blanket generalizations and slurs against a demographic of people have ever led to positive social change. Given that everyone in this thread is a proponent for the ethical treatment of animals, let’s have a civilized conversation free of disgraceful attacks, please.
This minor change in wording quantitatively teaches people what a responsible breeder is.
Enter “adopt and shop responsibly” into any search engine, and it will list articles that educate buyers to try to adopt if they can. If they won’t, it will list the many standards that help them find a responsible breeder.
A responsible breeder will: · Raise the puppies in a house, not a facility · Begin the socialization process and habituate them to people and children · Won’t overbreed the Dam. · Raise them until at least 8 weeks of age. · Vet checks the puppies and provides records of all vaccinations, deworming, and veterinary attention the puppy has received. · Maintain a clean and safe environment with proper food and water · Honesty and transparency will let you meet the Dam and the puppies where they are raised. · Ethical placement, vetting their clients, ensures the dog enters a home appropriate for their temperament and breed. · Contracts require clients to agree to spay or neuter the dog and return it to the breeder, not a shelter. · Genetic and health testing will ensure that the Dam and Sire don’t have genes that combine to create known genetic diseases and conditions. · Following best practice breed standards for health and ensuring the Sire and Dam are temperamentally suited for breeding the kinds of dogs they offer. · Warranties for the dog’s health up to 5 years for things like eyes, joints and common hereditary genetic issues.
Nobody can argue that the above standards are worse than those of a backyard breeder, yet this is how people behave.
If I apply the same logic that “if all dogs are adopted, there will no longer be dogs in shelters,” then “if all dogs come from responsible breeders that never relinquish dogs to shelters, there will no longer be dogs in shelters.” The black-and-white thinking that adopted dogs and responsibly bred dogs are somehow mutually exclusive is not true and is harmful.
People WILL keep getting dogs from breeders until the end of time. Making sure those people act responsibly and only ever seek an ethical breeder is called harm reduction, and it keeps dogs out of shelters every day. Missing opportunities to educate people on seeking ethical breeders will funnel those people to backyard breeders instead. Holding breeders accountable to the above standards is much more effective than calling them bastards. Dogs deserve better than half measures and hate. They deserve to be treated with respect at all points in their life, and in every aspect of our society.
Jobs are not the same as races. Your job is a choice and if it was a bad one you could choose a better one.
I’m hopeful that isn’t true. I’m also hopeful that people will stop killing our planet and stop eating animals, too. I don’t think ‘no more breeders’ is harder than those goals.
I’m sorry, activists intentionally spreading misinformation to benefit backyard breeders now has something to do with race?
This is appalling.
Sorry I didn’t take the time to quote.
You said:
Which is why I said that dog breeders are a profession, not something immutable like race.
I’m happy to level blanket generalizations at cops, too, in case you were wondering.
There are enough dogs already.
Correct, there are enough dogs, except once the shelters are empty, people have no choice but to go to breeders. We’ve seen this happen before. That statement does not exemplify for lawmakers how to regulate an industry that is permanently a part of our society. It doesn’t tell buyers to consider their plans to get a dog seriously. It doesn’t encourage shelters and breeders to engage in ethical placement of their dogs.
An increase in adoption from shelters is something we can all agree on, but a decrease on intake to shelters is where the homeless dog problem is taken on directly. Looking at half the equation only helps dogs half of the way. Dogs deserve the best lives and that includes preventing them from ending up in a shelter to begin with.
This is about preventing dogs from going into shelters. Surely you don’t want more dogs in shelters, yet this rhetoric ignores all of that.
@Kyle @MummysLittleBloodSlut
Except when the shelters are empty, the rescues import dogs from 3rd world countries.
If you want to keep paradoxically making the market more ripe for backyard breeders by spreading misinformation by all means, keep doing it.
But people working to educate prospective dog owners to be responsible and prevent dogs from being abused to begin with will always be on the right side of history.
This is stupid, breeders are also stupid. Dogs are living things, not objects.
Breeders will always exist, and so will their customers, as they always have. If it’s only financially viable for breeders to be held accountable for their actions, that’s another way of keeping dogs out of shelters. I’d rather live in a world where breeders always adopt their dogs back, always ensure they find a home instead of overwhelming shelters, charities and communities work together to make owning dogs more affordable so they don’t get relinquished during financial stress, AND shelters exist. In a world where shelters are the only hope for dogs, dogs are left behind.
You do know that having any dog that isn’t spayed/neutered that makes pups makes you a breeder, right?
The only difference between a breeder and someone letting their dogs make babies is that the breeder has some idea of what the puppies will look like.
And, since breeders can be divided into two or three “camps”, with two of those keeping records of past breeding, the pups resulting from those efforts are going to have known issues, rather than random ones.
Like it or not, dogs are shaped by humans. The only question is how much control is applied to the process. in theory, breeding would be a well regulated process focused on the health of the dogs as the primary goal. If we could ensure that, it would be superior to adopting mixed breeds in that regard.
I get the idea you’re working from, and I support it. But trying to pretend that random dogs reproducing is better than controlled breeding is absurd.
And when unregulated breeders are the type of people that prefer animal abuse to constumers that prefer animal abuse.
Ahhhh, please don’t take this wrong, but I’m not sure what you mean. The way your comment is written, there’s a few possible interpretations, so I don’t want to jump to a conclusion.
Yes, my opinion is not usually shared by most other people. I do not think dogs, or any other animal is an object to be used by humans. So, make of that what you will. I don’t really care what you think.
I mean, you care enough to respond, obviously. But not enough to do anything else.
That kinda points to you just thinking that your take on things is superior, and nobody else is worth talking to. Which is fine as far as that goes, there’s shit I feel the same way about. But, I don’t come back with “I don’t care what you think” when I don’t care what someone thinks.
A bit contradictory. Which, again, is fine as far as that goes. Nobody is required go be consistent or honest with themselves, or even with others.
Just, you know, it doesn’t convince anyone you don’t care what they think, if you respond at all, much less with the whole “my opinion is so rare and special” type of opening.
@Kyle Say that in your own post.
That would be spam
You do know you’re responding to a lemmy post, right?
On lemmy, things are threaded, there’s comments in response to posts, and those comments can layered underneath the parent comment.
So, someone responding to your comment not only doesn’t need to make their own post, they shouldn’t, because the discussion is ongoing already. Starting a new post would just start another thread, which defeats the entire purpose of threaded forums
Nobody posted any slogans until you did. It’s perfectly reasonable to reply with civilized discourse.
Unilaterally proposing a single solution to a complex societal issue while insulting dog owners is problematic and does more harm than good. “Adopt and shop responsibly” doesn’t offend anyone who bought a dog and might make someone ask, “What does it mean to shop responsibly?” instead of buying a dog on Craigslist. Dogs deserve more respect from people, which requires treating all people with more respect.