Dog fight in the blogosphere
By Christie Keith
September 8, 2007
So, as she often sometimes does, Gina sent me a note last night, “suggesting” I blog about an article she was linking me to in the email. I glanced at it. It seemed to be a diatribe about getting a puppy over the Internet and a failure to differentiate between different kinds of breeders, and I of course said I would.
I just got up from losing about an hour and a half of my life that I’ll never get back following the amazing twists and turns of a little story about a blogger getting a puppy, and the 45897987 opinions that have been expressed about her actions on what I guess is every single blog on the planet except this one.
I’m exhausted, I tell you, exhausted. And in all honesty, not sure what to say.
I don’t know if this puppy came from one of those deceitful internet “breeders” that’s really the carefully marketed website of a puppy miller.
I don’t know if this puppy is the carefully chosen, lovingly bred product of a small, passionate hobby breeder.
And I don’t know if this puppy is from a breeder in between those two extremes.
All I know is that while I have, in the past, said many of the things people said to her in their comments, I hope I never do again. Because I realized something: It doesn’t work.
I don’t mean that trying to educate people about how to figure out if a breeder is a good one or not doesn’t work. And I don’t mean that raising awareness of the ways that unscrupulous businesses try to make you think they’re something other than what they are in order to separate you from your money isn’t a good idea.
And I don’t even mean trying to get people to stop lumping all breeders together, or calling out the ones who keep saying that for every dog bought from a breeder, a shelter dog dies, or all the other propaganda riddling her comments section, is pointless.
No, all of that has its place, and I don’t intend to stop doing any of it. What I’m going to stop doing is scolding people and making them feel like idiots for things they’ve already done. I’m especially going to stop doing it publicly. Because all it does is make people defensive, and sets people with much in common — such as a love of animals — at each other’s throats, obsessed with defining our differences and winning a debate rather than doing what’s best for dogs.
Yes, when Paris Hilton or some other celebrity buys a puppy from a pet store, I think we should speak out against it and use it as a platform for education. Because when she does that, she legitimates the practice for lots and lots of people. And we should say something about it, so when some airhead Googles “Paris Hilton chihuahua” so he can buy one for his girlfriend for Christmas, he might get our blog post and change his mind. (Hey! I can dream!)
Sure, when someone with a following, even one considerably smaller than Paris Hilton’s, does something that those of us with specialized knowledge realize is at least potentially problematic, and it’s moreover something that she or he may not have been aware of, it’s not unreasonable to point it out to them privately. If this blogger did get her puppy from a puppy mill website, or even if she didn’t, it could create the impression that’s a good, valid, informed place to get a puppy, so trying to carefully mix in some education with cute puppy squeeage isn’t the worst idea ever.
But to scold her like she was a stupid child, publicly? To blow up at her and accuse her of doing something that harms and kills not just a few dogs but millions of dogs? All without even knowing where she got the dog or what kind of research she might have done?
Let me tell you what that accomplishes: Nothing. Not one damn thing except to irritate your enemies and please your friends.
It doesn’t reach one person who didn’t already have a side, because everyone in the argument is being shrill, throwing around buzz phrases that have great meaning to us but are incomprehensible to anyone outside of this ongoing discourse. It makes us look mindless. It sounds like propaganda (and a lot of it us) instead of thoughtful commentary.
People often fail to do their homework, and I’ve been frustrated before when well-educated, compassionate, informed friends of mine get their puppies from questionable sources out of ignorance. But the answer isn’t to make that individual feel like she’s basically just personally clubbed a baby seal over the head, but instead work harder so that the message gets out, so that more informed, compassionate people don’t make the same mistake.
All that said, it was all I could do not to join the fray and scream and yell at everyone to stop lumping all breeders into one category, to stop parroting propaganda about how everyone who gets a deliberately-bred puppy is automatically condemning a shelter animal to death, and in general, to make the situation even worse than it already is.
If you are the kind of person who can’t drive past a hideous roadside accident without slowing down to view the carnage, click here.
I agree, when I began my ‘puppy’ (I ended up with a two year old) I had no clue that pet store pups were the product of puppy mills, or that responsible breeders test for genetic defects etc. I did know I wanted a puppy, and being an acedemic I did some research. The only problem was that once I knew these things and went down some of the many avenues open I was turned down, again and again by rescues, humane societies and breeders because I was a student and a novice dog owner. I even went so far as to call a nice lady who had a litter of Aussie Shepherds (my breed of choice) advertised in the paper. My concious persuaded me to take one more look at the last of the local shelters and thats where I found my Libby, but even then I had to make an impassioned plea (after my application was rejected) and my landlord (also my mother) had to promise to keep the dog should I be unable to do so.
I understand the problems associated with both students and novice adopters being unaware of responsibilites of dog ownership but everyone has to start somewhere- and unfortunately for a lot of people they are almost driven into the arms of puppy millers and backyard breeders.
Comment by Chanin — September 8, 2007 @ 8:50 am
I’ve left a couple of comments in which I’ve pointed out the difference between ethical small-scale hobby breeders, backyard breeders, and puppy mills, and I’ve been linking to your “Finding A Good Breeder” article over on SFGate (hope you don’t mind).
I’ve also pointed out my frustration at the implication (and even outright statement in at least one place) that unless you are against all breeding everywhere, you don’t really love dogs and/or can’t really call yourself an animal advocate.
Nobody’s responded to my comments.
What gets to me further is that now people are taking this opportunity to jump in and crow that this is why feminists are or feminism as a whole is ridiculous.
To a certain extent I guess this is just the nature of the blogosphere, but it would be awfully nice if all of this energy could be directed at a common enemy (e.g. puppy mills).
Comment by Liz — September 8, 2007 @ 11:51 am
A couple of weeks ago I came across an interesting statistic that was put forward by a No-Kill advocate in the comment section of the USA Today article that was critical (or damning to be more accurate) of the No-Kill movement. The article had made no attempt to separate true No-Kill, defined by a 90% save rate or better in an open admission system vs self declared “no-kill” or individual selected admission shelters.
Many of you have no doubt seen or read the article. The comment section was of course quite lively. But the very last commentator asserted this:
“Here are some facts, nationally, less than 20% of all dogs and cats brought into homes come from animal controls and shelters. If that number were to increase to just 30-35%, this whole country could be no-kill right now. There is already an OPEN ADMISSION animal control and county in this country that”
So is this accurate? Well if there are 10 -12 million animals entering the shelter system currently each year and at best estimate 3.7-4 million killed then 6-8 million are adopted. (I’m using very rough, rounded numbers here) If these are only 20% or so of pets aquired in a given year then approximately 30 million new pets enter homes annually. So 24 million are coming from sources other than shelters. If you increase that number to 35% from 20% of the total then you get 10.5 million, over 90% of the US shelter population annually. Given that some of these are multiple admits, turned in by owners for euthanasia due to health or severe temperment problems and also road kill, exotic species etc then yes, if you increased the percentage of pets adopted by just 15% or so then you will have achieved no-kill for adoptable, treatable, saveable pets in US shelters.
In fact, it would mean that there is no way that the US shelter system could possibly provide the pets for even the majority of homes who desire to add a pet or an additional pet to their family! If these figures are somewhat on target then it takes all the wind out of the ridiculous argument that any pet obtained from a source other than a shelter kills a shelter animal.
Does anyone know a good source on just how many pets are brought into new homes each year? And how those numbers are estimated? The other figures seem fairly well agreed upon by most organizations with the exception of the most radical and extreme.
Comment by Jennifer J — September 8, 2007 @ 5:41 pm
The article is down.
(1) The ideal situation, IMO, is that responsible people buy dogs from responsible breeders and keep them until the dog dies or should be put down gracefully. This should be encouraged. Shelters and rescues in no way encourage this.
(2) Despite the feel good nature of adopting from shelters and the poorly named “rescue,” Rescue and shelters do little to nothing to stop the problem in the first place. Spaying and Neutering do help unwanted litters, so that aspect does help. It’d also help if all the unwanted dogs just disappeared (i.e. were killed). It’s not their fault, but thats a sad fact of being domesticated, otherwise helpless property.
Most of the time Rescue groups take their frustration out on good people who want to adopt. Shelters and rescue simply move unwanted animals around. Yes, “lives are saved” … but forgive me if I don’t shed a tear if those lives were instead lost.
(3) Every rescued dog prevents a good puppy from being bought from a good breeder, thus rewarding that breeder for producing quality animals and finding quality homes. Taken over all the shelter dogs, this effectively lowers the price of buying a quality dog. Not a good thing. Dogs are a luxury and should come with a luxury price tag.
Lowering the price means that more people have them than would if the price was higher. Again, dog over population problem? Here’s a reason.
(4) Many shelters IMPORT ANIMALS. That’s right, they are businesses, feeding the demand for hero complex people who want to “save” a dog from being “killed” and when the demand outweights the supply, they don’t shut down or turn people away, they import dogs from Mexico, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere. And no, we’re not saving poor dogs on the street there. We’re supporting puppy mills there.
(5) So next time you support your local farmer by buying organic, and support your local girl scout troupe by buying their cookies, support your local hobby breeder by getting a quality dog AND KEEPING IT.
(6) The feminist attack must be very twisted in logic. Aren’t feminists the ones who argue that abortion should remain legal and that women should get to decide if they want to terminate their fetus? Well, replace fetus with shelter dog. The consistent logic must then be, all women must be encouraged to put their unwanted fetus into adoption once it’s born. Because adoption is like the shelter. Then all these unwanted babies must be found homes.
So having your own child, well, that’s killing a shelter baby. And getting fertility treatments, that’s even more cruel. Doing it the natural way is evil, spending $$$ to try and do it the natural way is mega evil. And if only 15% more people stopped having their own children, all the world’s orphanages would be closed down.
There’s a smart blogger I know who has the balls to actually live that way. But I have a feeling that the guilt trip feminists out there didn’t all run out, have their tubes tied, and adopt a pair of kids from overseas to be consistent with their world view. That takes (balls/ovaries) that the haters just don’t possess.
Adopting from a shelter is a good thing. Don’t get me wrong. This little logic trip is simply to point out that just because you recycle dogs doesn’t make people who buy new evil.
The problem lies almost all on the shoulders of people who throw away. Not on the people who buy. Blame them. Blame the people who put the dogs out on the street and into the shelters. Don’t blame breeders.
Comment by Christopher — September 8, 2007 @ 7:35 pm
The problem lies almost all on the shoulders of people who throw away. Not on the people who buy. Blame them. Blame the people who put the dogs out on the street and into the shelters. Don’t blame breeders.
I’m coming not to agree with that, although I used to.
I think that pointing the finger endlessly at the amorphous irrespsonsible pet owner takes the heat off of those people who are maintaining and defending entrenched bad management in shelters. They just wriggle off the hook by saying, “It’s not us, it’s the bad irresponsible pet owners!”
Well, some of it is. But it’s also the pet owners who blew the top off this blog during the pet food recall. Pet owners who maintain feral colonies. Pet owners who do cross-country transport for rescue dogs. Pet owners who volunteered at the animal shelters for Katrina animals. Pet owners who fight over who is going to adopt the blind, three-legged dog featured on the news the night before.
The country is full of wonderful people who love animals. And a few jerks. I think our system should be designed to minimize the damage done by the jerks, and if the people holding animal control contracts for our towns, cities, counties, and states can’t do that without running a slaughterhouse, find someone who can and will.
Comment by Christie Keith — September 8, 2007 @ 8:31 pm
well said Christie!
I do breed rescue and am fully aware of just how awful, shallow, neglectful and abusive some people can be.
I also get to see how generous folks can be to help out with dogs, to provide homes for dogs with significant medical issues and a loving home for elderly dogs who need somewhere to sleep and rest in the sun for their last days. Most dog and cat owners do care for and love their pets.
We had our first litter in 1994. We have a litter about once each 18 months. I must say that I have met some wonderful people by placing puppies with them. we stay in touch for the dogs lifetime and they are always welcomed back if need be. Four have returned over the last decade, three due to circumstances beyond the families’ control, one was due to negligence and neglect. The people involved misrepresented themselves in virtually everyway. It was heartbreaking, but at least we got him back. He needed us for a while, then he needed to be the only dog. His new Mom sends pictures regularly.
When we moved to the county we currently reside in, the public shelter was a horror show. Pets checked in, but they didn’t check out. The mobile spay neuter van sat unused for several years. Now it’s clean, inviting. Lots of volunteers, neonates are fostered, pets are released to rescues as appropriate, adoptions are up and killing is down. It has taken several changes in management for this to occur. The new director is now agressively pursuing feral cat programs which will hopeful slash the euthanasia numbers 50-60% over the next two years. And the mobile clinic is back in business.
Until this happened, no one with pets at home or not, would adopt because the conditions at the shelter bred disease. Who wants to bring home a new dog or cat and watch it suffer or die? Rescues had to be quarrantined. Not against kennel cough but against parvo!
Now I happily refer people to the shelter if they wish to adopt. It is now actually a shelter not a death trap. It didn’t happen because of money or new laws etc… It has all been due to better management
Comment by Jennifer J — September 8, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
You know, I respect all of those people. I might think that some of what they do is not something I’d do, but it is honest and good work to set up a transport system (love these people, they understand a little bit about economics… local supply and demand is not national supply and demand… and I’d rather have a US dog going to another US family than IMPORTING dogs or letting dogs that could be adopted in town A instead die in town B).
But passionate people get it wrong sometimes. They think that if you don’t buy into their dogma/religion/politics, that you’re evil. Well, televangelists see Satan all over the place. Why? Because that drums up money. People don’t buy umbrellas if it isn’t raining.
Responsible breeders aren’t the problem. People who buy from them are not the problem. But they are easy targets because they are not anonymous.
For instance, why in the hell does Craigslist have a “no selling animals” policy? The stupid idea that selling animals is bad. I’m sorry, but the market economy works and quality goods should be sold for a quality price. The no selling policy doesn’t harm puppy mills. True puppy mills already have distribution networks.
It doesn’t stop accidental breeders. They park in front of Walmart with a sign.
But it does stop hobby breeders and people who are smart enough to put in just a little bit of time looking for a pet from meeting on a community site.
I just love how you can sell sex, but not sell a dog. Amazing.
Comment by Christopher — September 8, 2007 @ 10:15 pm
The craigslist policy is ineffective because people just call it an “adoption fee” rather than a “selling price”. It is all over the animal ads. A loophole you could drive a truck through.
That being said, the philosophical underpinnings of the “no animal sales” rule relates to the philosophical underpinnings of Responsible Breeding practices - i.e. that puppies are not “produced” to “generate $$”. Rather, that breeders produce animals to perpetuate and improve upon the characteristics of the breed, eternally striving towards that elusive “ideal dog” (or cat) with every succeeding generation.
It’s why even bringing up the question “How much are your puppies?” with a Responsible Breeder can be so tricky - because none of them want there to be even the HINT of a suggestion that that’s what motivates them. So the “etiquette” almost demands that talk of “purchase price” be almost more of an afterthought than anything else.
I agree that this is one more thing that makes it difficult for new buyers to know how to interact in their initial inquiries. Often, “How much are your puppies?” is almost the first question they ask, and then the breeder gets put off because they wonder whether someone who appears to think of money first will always put the dog’s best interests first.
And so the dance goes on.
Still - though - I prefer it to the alternative of “If you’ve got the plastic, you’ve got a puppy!”.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 9, 2007 @ 6:10 am
Sources of info on pet population - http://www.petpopulation.org (which has a recent study on pet population dynamics), Gary Patronek has an early article on the topic you can get through your local college library, and APPMA has extensive statistics on OWNED pets (ferals are not included.) APPMA stats are $800, but well worth it if you’re interested.
The last set of APPMA stats I have (2005-2006, show, as of 2004, that for dogs, 16% came from an animal shelter.
About half of all animals entering shelters are euthanized. Pets in rescue are rarely euthanized. If you doubled the shelter proportion for dogs, which is the portion that we talk about when we discuss euthanasias, you would completely cover all dogs entering shelters at about 32%.
For cats, APPMA stats do not include ferals never in the shelter system, which is a big issue for cats and the reason TNR is so important for cats.
Comment by Sally — September 9, 2007 @ 6:39 am
Thanks “The OTHER Pat” … I am always amazed that people hate money so much and treat it like a corruptive force. I maintain that Econ101 should be a mandatory class in high school and again in college. Financial incentives make the world go round and it is ETHICAL to be paid for doing good work.
I guess I just wouldn’t be ashamed to ask for $600-1,000 for a puppy (this is on the high end for a border collie) I produced if I have the pedigree research, DNA tests, health certifications and documented ability behind it. I’d put that right up front next to the cute picture to ward off people who don’t understand that the purchase price of a puppy is nearly insignificant to the cost of the dog over its lifetime and that you need to pay for basic assurances.
The one thing that really scares me is you hear how some people are very good at misrepresenting themselves to breeders. A high price tag lessens that to a degree.
Speaking of statistics, this little pamphlet is very interesting. “Exploring the Surplus Cat and Dog Problem”
http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf
Here are the Top 10 reasons people ditch dogs at shelters:
1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets in home
7. Pet illness
8. Personal problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for littermates
WOW. That really shines the light on things, doesn’t it. It’s not about the dogs, it’s about PEOPLE. And the only one on that list that is a breeder problem is 10, and my guess is that it’s accidental breeders, more mix breed than purebred, and people who would otherwise give the animals away.
On a simple “more/less” likely to be relinguished, dogs are more likely to be relinquished if they are…
- sexually intact
- obtained at little or no cost
- over 6 mo. when obtained
- were more work than expected.
less likely if….
- dog had regular vet care
- dog had participated in obedience training
Certainly food for thought.
Comment by Christopher — September 9, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Christopher, what it means is that it is less about GETTING pets in homes than it is about KEEPING THEM THERE once placed. That is probably the most significant finding of the work done so far and summarized on petpopulation.org.
Responsible Breeders are picky about who they’ll place puppies with in order to maximize the chances of it being a lifetime home. They provide ongoing education and support in helping new puppy owners over the unanticipated hurdles inherent in “Bringing up Puppy”. And in the event something goes wrong, Responsible Breeders will take that animal back - at any time during its life. Animals produced by Responsible Breeders do not (knowingly) end up in shelter or rescue.
Progressive shelters are learning these lessons as well. They’re providing more upfront education, as well as offering training classes for new pet owners. And many of them staff “Hotlines” for panicky owners to call if something comes up that they think they just can’t deal with. In general, if you can keep puppy and owner together past the “Terrible Twos”, the chance of it being a “forever home” goes way up.
This is the food for thought engendered by the information on petpopulation.org.
In an ideal world, there would be no randomly-bred dogs or cats. The available puppies and kittens would come only from Responsible Breeders who place them in carefully screened homes, and ensure that they never find themselves homeless if circumstances change. Consequently, in an ideal world, there would be virtually no need for shelters or rescues, and virtually no adoptable dogs or cats being euthanized.
But we’re not in that ideal world yet. And chances are we never will be. So while that “ideal world” model is a wonderful image to keep in mind, reality says that we deal with the situation that faces us today - a situation that includes significant shelter populations all around this country. Hopefully, more and more of these municipalities will adopt a shelter model that conscientiously examines what it means to be “no kill”. Sally and others have posted real-life examples of not only how well such a model can work, but how quickly, as well.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — September 9, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
Ran across this book in my personal library yesterday “Is This The Place?” from the D.E.L.T.A. Rescue Outreach Program which was founded by Leo Grillo in California. Is this organization still in operation? Is the organization as good as it sounds in the book?
Comment by VJ — September 10, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
I’ve been a donor to DELTA Rescue since the early 90’s and try to get out there to take a tour every couple of years. I am always amazed at the growth of the sanctuary and how great those animals live. They live a better life than some humans! DELTA Rescue has a website.
Comment by Nicki — September 11, 2007 @ 4:20 am
Thanks Nicki. They just may be getting a donation.
Comment by VJ — September 11, 2007 @ 12:35 pm