pet connection

111 Comments »

1. I love this interview but am especially fond of the end quote. Rock on Martha!

   Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 12, 2009 @ 11:11 am

2. Great! Thanks for the insiders’ update!

   Comment by Becky — April 12, 2009 @ 11:31 am

3. wow, she sounds like a very neat lady.
   Great interview, Christie.

   Comment by EmilyS — April 12, 2009 @ 11:41 am

4. Do you have contact info for the Sterns?
   Michael Saul
   Daily News Political Correspondent
   212-210-1582

   Comment by Michael Saul — April 12, 2009 @ 11:44 am

5. “They gave me a list of talking points”
   I wonder who “they” are and what the talking points were?

   Regardless - I’m glad this breeder knows the most important “talking point” of all and is adamant about getting it out there!

   Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 12, 2009 @ 11:45 am

6. I did ask her who gave the talking points, and she didn’t want to say. But I agree, that last one was the critical one, from my point of view!

   Comment by Christie Keith — April 12, 2009 @ 11:55 am

7. Great work Christie. I know how hard it has been to sit on this interview for months until everything was for certain. The updates just make it better.

   There IS a difference between a reputable, ethical breeder and a puppy-mill, whether the animal-rights extremists can see it or not. If shelters and reputable breeders work together, there will be a better world for all pets, and the puppy-millers will suffer. Bashing reputable breeders is not helping anything, nor will eliminating them change anything.

   Let’s work together, those of us who not so filled with hate as to not be able to. As in, most of us can.

   I haven’t slept all week, and have been to the vet’s twice with McKenzie’s litter — her first and my first, too! — plus they have all been placed before they were born, and they will never see the inside of a shelter since I am responsible for them all for life. I have run a rescue group fostering and placing 30 dogs a year from my own hown: I know the difference between ethical, reputable breeders and milling scum.

   Again, I would have LOVED it if a shelter pet would have worked, but the family did everything right, and this is the right dog for them. Their decision, and by all accounts they made it responsibly and carefully.

   Welcome to Washington, Bo.

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 12, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

8. You totally scooped the poop. Congratulations!

   Comment by KathyF — April 12, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

9. LOL, thanks, Kathy!

   Comment by Christie Keith — April 12, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

10. Fabulous, fabulous reporting, Christie. Thanks so much.

    Comment by Susan — April 12, 2009 @ 12:10 pm

11. FABULOUS job Christi - and this lady sounds like a class act, too!

    Comment by Cait — April 12, 2009 @ 12:24 pm

12. Great interview! and a terrific attitude. Does dog folks proud…as will Bo, I’m sure.

    Comment by Amy Shojai — April 12, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

13. Did you hear about any of this?

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com.....html?yhp=1

    Summing it up, the breeder Joe Biden bought his puppy from has been tormented and harassed since December, including repeated investigations and seemingly frivolous citations by animal control. I hope that’s not what this breeder is in for.

    I think this breeder sounds like she’s doing everything right, and I’m glad you published this, but I’ve always maintained it’s the First Family’s own darn business what kind of dog they get and where they get it, as long as no laws are broken.

    Comment by Susan — April 12, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

14. Love this responsible breeder! Willing to take responsibility for the dog for life, not just until the cash is in hand. I wish more breeders were this ethical and responsible.

    Comment by Laurie Luck, CPDT — April 12, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

15. Go Martha! Great interview. Great comments especially the last one. I pray we are able to keep our breed safe despite the publicity and popularity.
    Good luck to the Obamas.

    Comment by Karen Ash — April 12, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

16. I have had Portuguese Water Dogs since 1988 when they were very rare in the United States. Since then I have had two males and two females. My current PWD is a six year old male. He is the light of our lives. I wish the Obamas the best of luck with their puppy. They are in for a delightful ride. Thank you to the Sterns for being responsible breeders all these years!

    Comment by PWD Mom — April 12, 2009 @ 1:31 pm

17. Please check your facts, the Portuguese Water Dog is not a decendant of the Poodle, a german breed. It’s ancestors although unknown perhaps might include the French Barbet, and its relatives might include other costal breeds like the Irish Water Spaniel.

    Comment by Andrew I. Kalmanash — April 12, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

18. I knew the interview was going to be a great one! You have a talent for getting the whole truth out.

    Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 12, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

19. What a great interview. You said what needed to be said about our wonderful breed. I know that regardless of who has one of your puppies, you will look out for the welfare of the puppy. I’m sure Bo is in a wonderful home.

    Comment by Karen Giles — April 12, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

20. I’m so glad the Portguese Water Dog Club is so proactive and very concerned about their breed. Requiring that their breeders take back puppies is a wonderful policy.

    That tells me that this breed is going to be in good hands.

    And let’s hope the puppy millers never get to this breed!

    Comment by retrieverman — April 12, 2009 @ 1:57 pm

21. as much as a shelter dog would have been great, I think a responsible breeder pup is a very good choice in this situation. What with kids, allergies, unique living situation and neither parent has raised a pet before. They’ll have plenty of support if needed from the breeder, and the Kennedys ta boot. Looks like a pretty darn good “first dog” situation to me and a great example of advance planning :) Looking forward to seeing Bo in the fountain soon, lol!~

    Thanks for the interview, great read!

    Comment by straybaby — April 12, 2009 @ 2:11 pm

22. There may be a few in the hands of some high volume breeders, who knows, but the PWDCA is extremely watchful, and Martha Stern is not an exception, she’s the norm!
    Of any breed the Obamas could have chosen, they did well to select a PWD. They will have two mentors, Ted and Martha, and a whole breed club behind them. Maybe Malia or Sasha will try Junior Handling with Bo? Or on to Obed, AG and water trials?
    I am ashamed to say I don’t know of Karen or Andrew’s dogs. The dogs and their people I know come from classes and trials come from DownEast. Judging from my contact with them, these are fabulous dogs who love to do things with their people and have a quirky sense of humor. I think it’s a great match for the Obamas!
    Great job of reporting, Christie!

    Comment by Anne T — April 12, 2009 @ 2:17 pm

23. Cute pooch.

    Comment by Kate — April 12, 2009 @ 2:40 pm

24. Ooops, that’s right; Poodle RELATIVE, not ANCESTOR.

    I’ve corrected it. Thanks!

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 12, 2009 @ 3:06 pm

25. It’s great that the PWDCA is small, protective, and fierce about ethics.

    Unfortunately, since the AKC grants its vassal breed clubs no power over registrations, their admirable qualities will be of no use to them.

    There are already people out there with intact ACK registered PWDs who will be gearing up for the milling — and AKC will register the blind, dysplastic offspring of the cardiac-compromised adults, no problem, no questions asked.

    Had the Club had the good sense and restraint to have declined to seek AKC as its overlord 25 years ago, it might be in a much better position to protect its breed from exploitation now. I suppose they could plea for a pass, since AKC had not yet started the aggressive hostile takeovers at that point.

    It was not so long ago that one could describe Rottweiler and Cavalier breeders in just about exactly the same terms as Portie breeders are now described. Didn’t help those breeds, or those who truly love them, one bit.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — April 12, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

26. The Portuguese Water Dog Club of America has issued a press release:

    http://www.akc.org/poll/special/PWDCARelease.pdf

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 12, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

27. I don’t envy the club’s Corresponding Secretary. I remember the year Kirby (Papillon) won Westminster. Our club’s Corresponding Secretary saw her requests for information skyrocket from a few a month to something like several hundred per week!

    I hope there are other Club members prepared to step in and lend a hand in keeping up with the requests for information!

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 12, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

28. I’ve been doing animal rescue for 7 years. Even dogs that come from “reputable breeders” do end up in shelters. Breeders do contribute to the pet overpopulation problem, not just puppymills. The breeders claim to be responsible but they cannot account for every dog and every offspring of every dog they place.

    A rescuer I know did a Petfinder search and found rescued/shelter purebred PWD’s as close to DC as NC. I have fostered many hypoallergenic dogs from shelters.

    Does anyone remember the Dalmatian fad after “101?’ I guarantee that in a few months, the shelters will see the PWD population increase to supply the demand by copycats who want a dog like the President’s, and they will end up in shelters because they find they are not suitable matches.

    I am a supporter of the President, but I view this as his first broken promise. Several million dogs are euthanized every year, and this was a chance to set a good example.

    Comment by Crystal — April 12, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

29. Crystal, if a dog obtained from a Responsible Breeder finds his or her way into a shelter, that is not the failure of the breeder but rather the failure of the owner to follow the takeback clause in the contract they signed when they obtained that dog.

    If and when a Responsible Breeder finds out that a dog they have produced has ended up in a shelter, they go and get that dog out. They don’t leave it there.

    That is why - by definition - dogs from Responsible Breeders do not stay in shelters.

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

30. The breeders claim to be responsible but they cannot account for every dog and every offspring of every dog they place.

    Comment by Crystal — April 12, 2009

    Actually, Crystal, you’re wrong: Reputable breeders do account for every dog and every offspring of every dog they place. I know many, many of them, people who have been working to preserve their heritage breeders for 20, 30 even 40 years who know the life story of EVERY dog they bred — yes, EVERY DOG. They took them back when they needed taking back, helped the owners for life, knew what the pets had in the way of illness, lifespan, temperament and so on.

    The offspring? There aren’t any, unless you have permission to breed from the person who sold you the dog. I know of breeders who have sued to enforce the conditions of their sales contract … and gotten their dogs back.

    It’s not JUST responsibility — although that’s a large part of it. You can’t know what you’re doing as a breeder based just on the dogs you keep for yourself. You need to know how all your dogs turned out to make good decisions.

    When you got those “good” breeder dogs in the shelter, what did you do? They were surely chipped (basic good breeder requirement). Did you call the breeder? Because if you didn’t, you have no way of knowing what kind of breeder you were dealing with.

    And if you did, and that person didn’t drop everything to come get that dog, you were not dealing with a reputable, ethical breeder.

    I have run a breed rescue, and I never had a good breeder not willing to swim the ocean to get her dog back if it ended up in rescue. That was a given. The others … casual breeders and puppy-millers. And by the way, the reputable breeders supported our rescue financially, taking responsibility for the dogs puppy-millers sold.

    A dog bred by a reputable, ethical breeder could end up in the shelter without that breeder knowing. But the minute the breeder knows, that dog will no longer be there.

    I’m sorry, but I will no longer allow good, reputable breeders to be put in the same category as puppy-milling scum and casual “whoops” breeders. I don’t want a world without the diversity of breed types we have, different dogs for different families and different jobs.

    Work with reputable breeders, not against them. We love dogs — all dogs — as much as you do, and want to get every pet into a forever home.

    It’s possible. Learn about the no-kill movement, and consider the changes that are possible, and how things are changing even now.

    You will never find a dog of mine that I will not take back, no matter the circumstances. That was true of the 100-plus dogs I fostered and placed (and sometimes re-homed two times) when I was doing rescue, and it’s true now, with the one litter of six puppies I have planned to have for than 15 years.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 12, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

31. I disagree with Crystal. A breeder can account for every dog that they place - if the buyer/owner is not lying through their teeth. Then you need to place the irresponsibility on the lying person.

    An inexpensive abet controversial way for a breeder to track pups is by purchasing their own AVID microchips (ie. directly from AVID) and inserting it in the pup before placement. (The controversy is mainly the cancer possibility.)

    AVID is known for keeping a private database of people who purchase their chips, and so even if the puppy owner does not enroll in Home Again, AKC CARS or whatnot, the breeder can be contacted by AVID.

    This works if the shelter even bothers to scan the dog and asks AVID to contact the chip buyer. If not, this is the shelter’s irresponsibility.

    Comment by Nom ail — April 12, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

32. A side note on dogs from Responsible Breeders ending up in shelters even if a contract with a takeback clause was signed: One of the foibles of human nature is that sometimes the owners reason for failing to return the dog to the breeder has nothing to do with any overtly nefarious motivations. Rather, sometimes a family is simply embarassed to admit that they “failed”. Or they might be afraid the breeder will become angry with them. Or some other reason along these kinds of lines that has nothing to do with someone trying to be deceitful or misleading - simply human.

    This doesn’t excuse the failure of a puppy buyer to honor the breeder’s takeback clause. But I just thought it should be noted here that sometimes puppies and dogs from Responsible Breeders end up in shelters through simple human frailty.

    (Of course, the shelter or rescue in this case STILL has the responsibility of notifying the breeder if they know who that breeder is through chip, tatoo, or other means.)

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 12, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

33. The OTHER Pat is so right - in every case I’ve heard of where a dog produced by a responsible breeder wound up in a shelter or rescue (and over the last 20 years that has been MAYBE 5 dogs) - the owners had not been willing to contact the breeder. Given that the alternative to maybe a little embarrassment is the dog having to suffer in a shelter, it says a lot about the lack of responsibility of the OWNERS. In every case the breeder was horrified to hear that one of her/his dogs was in rescue, and they either dropped everything to come get it, or they paid for the dog’s care until the rescue could re-home it.

    Repeat after me - responsible breeders do NOT contribute to shelter killing!! They never have, and never will!

    Comment by Barb — April 12, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

34. I don’t think the people who break contracts deserve such sympathy.

    I think even less of those who turn in a dog to a rescue, paint the breeder as a horrid breeder to salvage their pride, and then the rescue does not notify or return the dog to the breeder.

    Comment by Nom ail — April 12, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

35. Years ago, when I had Papillons, I had one male - Chocho - who finished his conformation championship, obedience utility dog title, and was a certified therapy dog and his breeder begged me to breed him. I used him for stud five times - only with well know REPUTABLE breeders. As the owner of the stud dog, I felt that it was just as much my responsibility to make sure those puppies always had a home and told the owners of the bitches to put my name and number on the contract, too. Sure enough, when one of the litters was nine years old, one of the owners passed away. The kids could not find the owner of the bitch so they contacted me and yes, I took in that grieving nine year old who had lost her well loved owner. And after a period of healing, I found her a new loving home.

    Since Chocho, all of my dogs have been spayed or neutered. I feel there are other people who can do a much better job at this than I can.

    However, I will say, yes, reputable breeders do feel responsible for those lives that are produced and yes, we do what is right.

    Comment by Liz Palika — April 12, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

36. I purchase AVID chips and any dog or cat that rolls in or out, whether a foundling of the street or a carefully planned well bred pup, gets one.

    I do it precisely so that IF the unexpected occurs, and a dog of mine (still mine as far as lifetime responsibility goes, no matter who is the current legal owner) winds up in an untoward situation, they can always be tracked back to me and find their way home.

    In the anti-breeder utopia, dogs will ONLY come from shelters. OK, but that will guarantee shelters will always have dogs. Even if every domestic dog is sterilized in the United states and rescues are imported in from other countries to adopt out, you will still have dogs in shelters. Because the main reasons dogs are in shelters have little to do with breeders in general and far more to do with unrealistic owner expectations, lack of training, lack of education, lack of assistance to deal with health or behavioral issues, lack of affordable services, particularly during difficult economic times. And personal tragedies, losses, illness etc…

    All those same factors will be around no matter where dogs are acquired from. BUT there will be no reputable breeders to return the dogs to. No reputable breeders to take them back. To provide one on one 24/7/365/ “tech support” for the dog’s life time. To pull rescues FROM shelters, support, volunteer, foster for breed rescue to assume responsibility for dogs they did not breed but willingly take on out of a sense of greater responsibility. And from that moment, those puppy milled or BYB’d dog’s acquire the same safety net that the responsibly bred dogs have always had and THE SHELTER WILL NEVER HAVE TO WORRY OVER THEM AGAIN.

    So no, RESPONSIBLE breeders DO NOT contribute to the number of dogs needing the services of the shelter system. MOST responsible breeders support rescue efforts and LESSEN the burden of shelters.

    IF every breeder were a responsible breeder, then shelters would only need to deal with dogs whose owners acted irresponsibly, and most dogs would be redeemed by their breeder.

    Someone recently asked “at what point does your responsibility end?”
    Does it end with the offspring of my dogs? their offspring? Or the next generation or the next after that?” Well, never really, that’s WHY as a responsible member of my breeds community, I actively participate in rescue, because you never know! And someday I’ll be gone and rescue will be there to help the ‘nth degree great-grand puppy of a dog who took it’s first and last breath in my arms.

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 12, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

37. Crystal, do you know the status of every dog you’ve ever placed? Do the shelters you work with who say they will take back any dog (yes, kill shelters say this also) know the status of all their dogs? All rescues are in the know?

    Seems to me the Obamas could have adopted a rescue dog and there could be many sympathetic shelter adoptions as a result. Who’s to say all those dogs would get healthy, happy, lifetime homes? How do you know that shelter dogs wouldn’t become the next Dalmatian? You don’t have to have one breed over bred for a trend to have a mass problem with a “type” of dog. Over breeding is just one part of the problem. Yes, “trendy” dogs don’t help the situation, but neither does irresponsible dog adopting/buying and ownership. Part of the problem is advance planning and finding the right match. If the Obamas got an uber screened dog from a shelter for their situation, you don’t think there would be a problem? The key is finding the right dog, whether it be from a shelter or responsible breeder (who does know where all the pups are etc). It cuts out the middle (aka part of the problem) backyard breeder and puppymills. The last thing we need is uninformed people adopting shelter dogs that are a bad fit as a trend. And shelters/rescues feeding into that. Shelters and rescues need to be judged the same way breeders do when you go the “responsibility” route, imo. They have a responsibility also.

    And one other thought, how many of those shelter “PWD” are actually purebred? We are dealing with an allergic child here. Many breed ID’s are based on shelter personnel. Doodles look close to a PWD as do some other mixes. . . .

    Comment by straybaby — April 12, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

38. Good for you Christie on getting the scoop on the Obama puppy!

    Now if we can only get them to do the RAW diet, that would be another coup!

    Cheers
    Sandra

    Comment by Sandra Brigola — April 13, 2009 @ 1:15 am

39. Maybe some networking can help get these Portuguese Water Dogs (mixes?) listed on Petfinder homes. Three of the four are in shelters. The first one they think might be a Portugese Water Dog mix, but I’m pretty sure it is a PWD:

    http://www.petfinder.com/petno.....d=13362325

    http://www.petfinder.com/petno.....d=13456324
    http://www.petfinder.com/petno.....d=13456337

    http://www.petfinder.com/petno.....d=13477448

    Comment by Patty — April 13, 2009 @ 1:54 am

40. Great interview Christie. Do you plan to cross post it to Kos?

    Comment by Cara — April 13, 2009 @ 4:21 am

41. Comment by JenniferJ — April 12, 2009 @ 9:46 pm

    In the anti-breeder utopia, dogs will ONLY come from shelters. OK, but that will guarantee shelters will always have dogs.

    This is a GREAT quote! (Even if I DID have to read it a couple times before the true meaning of it sunk in. LOL!)

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 13, 2009 @ 5:05 am

42. When I did a Petfinder search for “young” PWDs, no other requirements, just “young” and PWD, I got three matches—and all three of them were mixes.

    I just redid the search, with age as “any.” Fourteen dogs. Nine are listed as mixes. Four of the five claimed to be purebred are adults; the Obamas were looking for a young dog or puppy for their young family. The one “young” dog claimed to be a purebred is estimated to be 2-3 years old.

    And who knows if any of those five dogs is really purebred? Chinese Crested Powderpuffs get listed as “terrier mix;” hairless Cresteds get listed as “Mexican Hairless” or, by more knowledgable shelters, “Xolo”; Xolos get listed as Chinese Cresteds. And Yorkies with medical problems resulting in hair loss get listed as either Chinese Crested or Xolo/Mexican Hairless.

    Crystal, if those “purebreds from reputable breeders” didn’t come in with chips and you didn’t contact the breeder, you have no idea whether they were even purebred or not.

    A few years ago, a very responsible breeder that I know sold a puppy as a show pup to someone who had screened well. The dog was shown and had some success for the first year—and then the dog and the man vanished, the man dropped contact and the dog was no longer being shown. She looked persistently for the man, and also watched ad listings for the dog. After four years, she saw a dog listed for “rehoming” that looked like the right dog. She contacted the woman listing him.

    The woman had answered another ad, looking for another type of dog, and not found what she wanted, but she had found this little guy, filthy and ill and severely underweight, and she couldn’t leave him in those circumstances. She got what history she could, took him home, cleaned, fed, and vetted him, and when he was ready to make a decent impression on a potential good owner, she listed him. She was thrilled when his breeder contacted her.

    The original buyer had had a financial reversal and moved and sold the dog rather than returning him to the breeder. The poor dog had had four homes, and had been used as a stud, breeding fashionable mixes and unpapered alleged purebreds. The kicker in all this is that my friend’s return clause states that she will pay to get the dog back, because she considers it unrealistic to expect that someone who is having a hard time will reliably return the dog to the breeder for free, when they could sell the dog and get possibly several hundred dollars or even over a thousand from the right sucker.

    Is that what you mean by “reputable breeders” contributing to the pet overpopulation problem, Crystal? That it might take them four years to find a dog whose buyer reneged on the return clause part of the contract?

    Comment by Lis — April 13, 2009 @ 5:09 am

43. Oh come on Patty!

    The puppy “Mickey” in the shelter in Texas, found by the side of the road with a littermate — you are “pretty sure” this ditch puppy is an expensive PWD?

    And I’m “pretty sure” that in my past lives I was a cowboy, a fireman, and Cleopatra, Queen of Denial.

    Poodle mix, m’dear.

    But you can absolutely bet that any shelter or rescue that has one iota of marketing sense is going to be coming across a lot more PWDs now. They will be legion, and they will be out the door faster than you can say labradoodle.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — April 13, 2009 @ 6:30 am

44. I’m so tired from the first week of puppies that I forgot I have my OWN story right here about responsible, ethical breeders being responsible for their dogs FOR-EVER!

    That would be Drew.

    A longtime friend of mine sold Drew to what she thought was a well-screened, appropriate home when he was a puppy.

    SIX YEARS LATER, she got a call from rescue, who’d pulled Drew from the shelter and traced him to her by his microchip. Of course, she couldn’t get him quickly enough.

    Turned out the people she had sold him to moved, and gave him away/sold him without honoring their contract with her to contact her if they could not keep him. From there, Drew went through at least two, maybe three more homes before ending up in the shelter. Shelter staff called Sheltie rescue, who immediately took him and got him back to my friend.

    In other words, the system worked because people — shelter staff, rescue and breeder — cared enough to use it.

    She decided that she wouldn’t rehome him, since he was such an easy dog to live with and such a sweetheart.

    About a year later, I’m visiting her, and Drew and I just hit it off. I had lost my Sheltie Andy a few months earlier (age 15, heart failure). Love at first sight, and also a little odd, since both “Andy” and “Drew” are nicknames for “Andrew.”

    Drew has been with me ever since, and will be with me forever.

    Because people are sometimes unwilling to admit something isn’t working out and call their breeder (as they agreed to, in their contract), all my puppers will carry chips that link them to me, so if anything Drew-like happens, I’ll be there for them.

    In fact, I’ll take it one step better like the co-owners of my dog does. Not content to trust in contracts, she contacts the owners of EVERY DOG, EVERY YEAR and updates all the information, until that dog passes on.

    Do people fall through the cracks? Yes, and one did with her. My 12-year-old Heather’s littermate’s owner could not be found (although when last known, the dog was healthy, spayed and happy).

    Just as we were getting ready to send McKenzie to Minnesota to be bred, the owner of that dog checked in. Turns out Heather’s sister was doing well, and the owners were calling to inquire about eventually getting another puppy from my friend.

    You may be sure the next time they will not lose contact!

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 13, 2009 @ 6:35 am

45. Very good article. My supposed ‘breeder’ dog came from an irresponsible ‘breeder’ who brokered him for someone.

    There will always be those malcontents who find problems with what the President does, but that’s life. The fact that thousands of dogs are euthanized each year is not the fault of the President, but rather the greedy and the lawmakers who allow the animal killers to remain in business.

    Good luck to our President and his family. Here’s to a long and happy life for Bo.

    Comment by dolores de simone — April 13, 2009 @ 6:38 am

46. Something one occasionally finds with shelters …

    Purebred dog comes in, owner turn-in, and the owner actually brings a file a of vet records and such.

    And in that manila envelope, lo and behold, are the dog’s registration papers, and perhaps even a packet of information from the breeder. Name, address, phone number, email, website, right there in the dog’s paperwork.

    Do the shelter workers call the breeder to ask if he or she will take the dog back?

    Depends on the shelter. Some do. NESR has helped in some of these situations — I know of only two breeders who, so contacted, declined to take the dog back. Their names are mud in the rescue organization now (but the dogs were taken by us and adopted). This is why I always recommend that people checking out a breeder contact the applicable breed rescue organization to find out if he or she is “known” to them. There are two ways a breeder can be known to rescue, and one of them is not good.

    But I’ve also KNOWN — been right in on it — when the shelter workers entertain themselves by standing around and bitching about the bad bad breeder, who is NEVER going to get this poor goggie back, serves her right.

    They get to validate their bilious collective hatred of breeders AND have a generally good-looking well-bred purebred to adopt out. The papers — the dog’s link with his ancestry, history — get tossed.

    And then someone else, or maybe the same person, gets to come onto a blog discussion and vilify breeders, because even reputable ones let their dogs get dumped in pounds.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — April 13, 2009 @ 6:46 am

47. Yes, I’ve been there, too.

    And I also remember when I was doing breed rescue how much hostility we got at first from shelters, including one director who wouldn’t cooperate AT ALL because we were “cherry picking” purebreds and leaving him with — and I am quoting — “drek.”

    Fortunately, after a few times of taking ancient or chronically ill Shelties they would have put down anyway, it came to be that they started calling me when they had Shelties come in. And again, let me note that our Sheltie rescue was supported by our local breed club, people who were helping to foster and place dogs they did not breed.

    The point is: QUIT VILIFYING REPUTABLE BREEDERS.

    They are NOT The problem, and they ARE part of the solution, if the “All breeders are scum” forces suck it up and decide that working with everyone who loves pets is in the best interest of pets.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 13, 2009 @ 7:15 am

48. I long ago lost count of the number of purebreds coming into our shelter who went right out again to a breed rescue as soon as a ride could be found for them. Quite a few of them monitor the Pet Harbor listings, which are updated in real time, so they know right away if a GSD, northern breed, golden or whatever has come in.

    They don’t generally take the adoptable ones, but the old, the ill and the ones with issues that can’t be addressed in a county shelter environment, although we do our best.

    I’m certain that some of those breed rescue folk are responsible breeders who are determined that no dog of their beloved breed will ever fall through the cracks.

    To accuse them of being part of the problem is unfair and inaccurate.

    Note to Sandra Bigola- not only did the Obamas have the right to get the DOG that was right for them, they have the right to FEED the dog what they wish without be pestered or judged. They are not there to provide coups, ammunition or a bully pulpit for anyone’s “pet” peeves about choosing and caring for a companion animal. They got a puppy for their children as promised. A very personal choice. Period. Get over it.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 7:55 am

49. Note to Sandra Bigola- not only did the Obamas have the right to get the DOG that was right for them, they have the right to FEED the dog what they wish without be pestered or judged. They are not there to provide coups, ammunition or a bully pulpit for anyone’s “pet” peeves about choosing and caring for a companion animal. They got a puppy for their children as promised. A very personal choice. Period. Get over it.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009

    Oh I so agree! I swear the forces of “my way is the only true way” are as strong in the pet world as the parenting world — and both are as judgmental as any religion.

    The Obamas made a responsible, well-considered choice on what was right for THEIR FAMILY, and they did not sacrifice what was right for their children to ideology. Good for them, and now … let them enjoy their new puppy without harping from the peanut gallery on how they feed him and how they train him.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 13, 2009 @ 8:05 am

50. Sometimes it looks like a lot of this IS their religion and if you don’t believe what they believe you are clearly A Bad Person. Phooey.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 10:49 am

51. If I recall correctly the Obama’s said they would _like_ to adopt from a shelter, but since they had to consider their daughter’s needs that took priority. As someone involved in rescue, I was also hoping they would adopt from a shelter/rescue but realized that would be hard to find. I don’t consider this to be a promise that was broken.

    What I am thrilled about is that the puppy they adopted is an older puppy. So many people want a really young (six weeks old)puppy or kitten. Many think that at six months old, the critter is an adult so they pass it by. I am hoping this boosts the chances of older puppies and kittens to be adopted.

    Comment by BeckyH — April 13, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

52. BeckyH, great point!

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 1:54 pm

53. Older puppies and adults are a great choice for many people. If the pup or dog has had decent socialization and a little training, they are a BETTER choice for busy families or inexperienced dog owners who might not have the time or experience to do the intensive socialization a baby puppy needs.

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 13, 2009 @ 2:06 pm

54. I second the notion of getting a slightly older puppy for the children. Michelle Obama is not exactly your typical stay at home mom. The children are in school all day, she has her own obligations, the president is busy, so a really little puppy would have been a poor choice. Not that I don’t think they’ll be a great family for a dog - its just that baby pets need constant care and supervision.

    And take it from me - I adopted a year old and a 18-24 month old cat and they (now 5-6 years old) have plenty of energy. But I did get to skip the highly destructive kitty stage and go straight to the moderately destructive juvienile delinquent stage.

    Comment by 2CatMom — April 13, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

55. Congrats to the Obamas on their 4-legged addition to the family and the fabulous choice made.

    As shown already by some of the other posts - one of the biggest scammers on the situation will not be those “devil breeders churning out pups” - but shelters labeling anything with curly black hair as a PWD mix to try and appeal to anyone wishing to imitate the first family.

    As has also been mentioned - most of the dogs in shelters are the result of irresponsible owners, NOT breeders. It’s an owner retention issue and not an overbreeding issue. Responsible breeders do everything within their power to make sure the dogs they have bred do not end up in shelters - and responsible owners have the ability to recognize that when they cannot keep a dog they have gotten, that they should contact the breeder and return the dog to them. The Obama’s new dog illustrates a situation carried out responsibly by all parties!

    Comment by Lynn — April 13, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

56. I come from the Rescue perspective, and I must admit/say that I have developed a few concerns and suspicions about how my hundred+ fosters came into the shelter system. Certain shelters (Merced, CA for example) seem to get a steady stream of gorgeous BCs (redheads, in Merced’s case). While it’s possible that they all came from separate owners in ad hoc situations, after a while, you have to wonder whether we’re cleaning-up somebody’s excess inventory (if true, the policy Qs around that are the stuff of a separate post — for now, we try to focus on winning these pups new homes, and not worrying in an organized way about their origins).

    I have read a numerous conclusory entries hereabouts to the effect that “responsible breeders always take back their dogs.”

    My question is: how do you know that’s true? If there are breed club rules — how are they enforced? If there’s a contract, how do you know it’s abided-by? Is there mandatory microchipping or some other means of identification that would facilitate establishment of an “audit trail?” Are other techniques used that would alleviate my concerns? Or is this statement really an article of faith?

    Thanks for enlightening me. I would hope for tighter coordination between breed clubs and Rescues, in any event, but I do wonder…

    Comment by Tom Cushing — April 13, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

57. Just saw the photo on HuffPost of The First Puppy running down the hall with the President.

    The Prez is rapidly going to wonder why they didn’t get a dog years ago.

    I fully expect to see a pic of the puppy crawling out from under the desk in the Oval Office a la John John any time now.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

58. That picture is well-nigh adorable.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

59. Comment by Tom Cushing — April 13, 2009 @ 5:11 pm

    I have read a numerous conclusory entries hereabouts to the effect that “responsible breeders always take back their dogs.”

    My question is: how do you know that’s true?

    It’s self defining. Taking back a dog you have produced is the responsible thing to do. Therefore, if a dog of your breeding ends up in a shelter and you DON’T go get the dog (or arrange to provide for it) you have failed to fulfill the definition of being “responsible” for that dog and are therefore NOT a Responsible Breeder.

    It’s truly a case of actions speaking WAY louder than words.

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 13, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

60. My question is: how do you know that’s true? If there are breed club rules — how are they enforced? If there’s a contract, how do you know it’s abided-by? Is there mandatory microchipping or some other means of identification that would facilitate establishment of an “audit trail?” Are other techniques used that would alleviate my concerns? Or is this statement really an article of faith?

    These are all valid questions, but I think a little to the side of the “point,” which is that a breeder who doesn’t take back his or her puppies is, unquestionably, not a responsible breeder.

    It’s not like you can take an irresponsible breeder and require them to take back their puppies and voila, they become responsible.

    It’s that the hallmark, the acid test, of whether or not a breeder is someone you’d want to give your money to, and get your new family member from, is how they answer that one question: If I can’t keep this dog someday, for any reason, what do you want me to do?

    The only acceptable answer is, “If you can’t keep your dog, ever, for any reason, I will take him back.” And that answer should be part of their written contract.

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 5:43 pm

61. Thanks — the reason for my inquiry, though, is not to determine who gets to belong to the Responsible Breeders’ Club, but how leaky the breeding system is.

    If it’s leaking as badly as I suspect it is, then there’s a whole lot that the Responsible Breeding Community could do to staunch the flow. Basic, familiar systems management principles could be applied to improve tracking, for example. If those things are not being done, then the statement I asked about is merely self-comforting (and, frankly, calls into Q the very definition of “responsible”).

    Indeed, I think there’s a pretty good argument that Breed Clubs and their umbrella organizations might take an active role in Rescue — not only of dogs specifically attributable to their members, but also of “irresponsibly bred” dogs, because of the club members’ love of the breed, or even the species. The dogs are, after all, the reason-for-being of the clubs. We certainly take-in quite a number of so-called “borderline” collies, for example — because, at the end of the day, a life’s a life.

    Increasingly, manufacturers who put an item into commerce (and may profit thereby) are being called-upon to manage their product throughout its life-cycle, to minimize the pollution it causes. “Cradle-to-grave” it’s called.

    I’d ask you to consider whether such a principle might have application to these circumstances, as the ultimate showing of responsibility and care.

    Comment by Tom Cushing — April 13, 2009 @ 6:23 pm

62. I come from the Rescue perspective, and I must admit/say that I have developed a few concerns and suspicions about how my hundred+ fosters came into the shelter system. Certain shelters (Merced, CA for example) seem to get a steady stream of gorgeous BCs (redheads, in Merced’s case). While it’s possible that they all came from separate owners in ad hoc situations, after a while, you have to wonder whether we’re cleaning-up somebody’s excess inventory (if true, the policy Qs around that are the stuff of a separate post — for now, we try to focus on winning these pups new homes, and not worrying in an organized way about their origins).

    You have one or more puppy mills in the area. Or a lot of backyard breeders.

    Responsible breeders don’t produce dogs in those numbers. They can’t, and still do the things that make them responsible breeders: health screening, temperament screening, limited breeding of each dog, not breeding at all until they have screened homes lined up for more puppies than are likely to be produced by the breeding, making a lifetime commitment to each and every puppy, keeping in touch with every owner, taking back any puppy or dog at any time in its lifetime if for any reason it cannot remain with its family.

    I have read a numerous conclusory entries hereabouts to the effect that “responsible breeders always take back their dogs.”

    My question is: how do you know that’s true? If there are breed club rules — how are they enforced? If there’s a contract, how do you know it’s abided-by? Is there mandatory microchipping or some other means of identification that would facilitate establishment of an “audit trail?” Are other techniques used that would alleviate my concerns? Or is this statement really an article of faith?

    Maybe it’s necessary to say explicitly what most of us here take for granted: By “responsible breeder,” we do not mean every breeder whose dogs are AKC-registered, or even every breeder who may have a few actual titled dogs. We’re talking about breeders who take responsibility. My dog comes from a breeder who takes responsibility for every dog she breeds: my dog, like the Obamas’ new dog, was returned by her original buyer. Unlike the Obamas’ dog,sadly, the previous owner wasn’t quite so responsible, and returned the dog in part because they created problems for themselves by not socializing the poor pup from the time she arrived in their home until the time they decided to introduce two other dogs to their home, and partly because the breeder was Not Happy when they finally complied with another contract provision, to provide pictures of the dog when requested.

    I’ve already described the lengths another responsible breeder of my acquaintance went to to track down and reclaim a dog of her breeding after the original owner violated the contract by dropping contact and selling the dog.

    Or, here’s an analogy that might help clarify things: How do we know that ethical, law-abiding hospital doctors are not selling narcotics out the back door? We know it because if they are selling narcotics out the back door, they are not behaving either ethically or legally.

    Comment by Lis — April 13, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

63. If it’s leaking as badly as I suspect it is, then there’s a whole lot that the Responsible Breeding Community could do to staunch the flow. Basic, familiar systems management principles could be applied to improve tracking, for example. If those things are not being done, then the statement I asked about is merely self-comforting (and, frankly, calls into Q the very definition of “responsible”).

    Tom, if you think responsible breeders are business people producing a product, you’re badly confused.

    Nevertheless, responsible breeders microchip their puppies before they go to their new owners, with chips that are always traceable back to the person who bought the chip, i.e., the breeder. This has been mentioned in this thread more than once; have you read the other posts?

    However, responsible breeders have zero power to do anything to stop or slow the flow of puppies from puppy millers and BYBs. The AKC is not controlled by responsible breeders; they make their money by taking registration fees from anyone who has two registered purebred dogs and puts them together to breed. The AKC does at least care, somewhat, that the puppies really are purebred; other registry organizations are worse. In fact, many of those other registry organizations were born when the AKC took some minimal steps to ensure that the registration papers you get with your puppy mill product do actually reflect the real pedigree of that puppy.

    Indeed, I think there’s a pretty good argument that Breed Clubs and their umbrella organizations might take an active role in Rescue — not only of dogs specifically attributable to their members, but also of “irresponsibly bred” dogs, because of the club members’ love of the breed, or even the species. The dogs are, after all, the reason-for-being of the clubs. We certainly take-in quite a number of so-called “borderline” collies, for example — because, at the end of the day, a life’s a life.

    Um. Tom. Several posters here have described how they and/or other breeders they know work closely with their breed rescue organization; several posters have described how their breed rescue organization works closely with responsible breeders of their breed. Have you read the other posts?

    Increasingly, manufacturers who put an item into commerce (and may profit thereby) are being called-upon to manage their product throughout its life-cycle, to minimize the pollution it causes. “Cradle-to-grave” it’s called.

    Again, Tom, this is what responsible breeders do, although most would find your comparison of dogs to manufactured consumer crap somewhat creepy. Oh, one part of that they don’t do, it’s quite true: They don’t make a profit. But the rest of it, yeah, that’s not something they need to start doing; that’s what they do now, that makes them responsible breeders rather than puppy millers or BYBs. We’ve been describing this in this thread. Have you read the other posts?

    I’d ask you to consider whether such a principle might have application to these circumstances, as the ultimate showing of responsibility and care.

    Read. The. Other. Posts.

    Seriously.

    Comment by Lis — April 13, 2009 @ 6:48 pm

64. Lis: I’m asking you to take a system-wide perspective. I do not care if an individual breeder has acted ethically — I care about solving the “euphemasia” problem (mercy killing it’s not). I especially don’t care if the individual breeders are claiming to act ethically without checking to confirm the validity of their assumptions — that’s just an unmanaged system.

    If the unmanaged system is leaking dogs, then those who rescue and rehome are subsidizing those who breed. Those rescue costs would be called “an externality” in business terms.

    Subsidies are generally a bad thing; those costs ought to be borne by those who created them. Continuing the analogy, disposal costs ought to be built into the cost of an item of commerce. That would “internalize” all the social costs to the system, that are associated with the product.

    Now, I’m not arguing for a situation where the government charges an up-front fee for breeding dogs, but I am saying that breeders might consider voluntarily undertaking, in an organized, financial way, to address the over-pop problem. The clubs as conduit would be one way to accomplish something like internalization of breeding costs.

    Comment by Tom Cushing — April 13, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

65. Lis — I would argue that my analogy is a great deal more apposite than ‘docs selling drugs out the back door’ — and not the least bit creepy. Do you give your dogs away? Again, the euphemasia problem is a System problem, and you’re arguing that it must not exist because some individual people are acting ethically.

    Tell that to the dogs that died today, or the techs who killed them.

    “Not my problem” just won’t do as a response. If we love dogs, it’s all our problem. And the back end of the flow of dogs is systematically subsidizing the front end. I think that needs fixing in an organized way.

    Comment by Tom Cushing — April 13, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

66. Tom-
    You. Creep. Me. Out.

    We are talking about living creatures here.

    Not everything can or should be reduced to a business paradigm or silly superficial business-speak. “unmanaged systems”? “leakage”? “internalization of breeding costs”? “disposal costs”? But I guess if all you have is a hammer you’ll make every problem look like a nail.

    And there is no “over-pop” problem. See myriad past posts.

    Jargon is not information. Jargon can be content-free. Jargon does not mean you are smart or have even the inkling of a twinkling of an idea of how to solve of a problem. It might mean that you are trying to sound smart about something you clearly know little about.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

67. Nicely said Susan

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 13, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

68. Tom, I’m going to try once more.

    Responsible breeders are not the source of the dogs turning up in your rescue. Responsible breeders do not assume their dogs are not winding up in shelters; they follow up, and remain in contact with the dogs’ owners for the life of the dog.

    If their screening system fails, and they do place a dog with someone sells or gives away the dog or turns it in to a shelter, they work hard to track it down, and take it back if they can find it. I personally know breeders who have looked for years for the one and only dog they ever lost track of.

    Responsible breeders DO support and participate in recue, and DO rescue and rehome dogs of their breed who do not come from them or any other responsible breeder.

    Responsible breeders DO NOT possess the power to control or alter the behavior of puppy mills and BYBs.

    Responsible breeders DO NOT make a profit on their dogs, because conducting all the health screening, proving their dogs in shows or field trials, breeding AT MOST one to two litters a year, screening potential buyers, and providing lifetime support and a lifetime safety net for every single puppy, does not a profit-making operation make. Responsible breeding is not a business.

    If you think there are things responsible breeders could do better, and you want to actually persuade them to do so, you will need to talk to responsible breeders—in language that won’t creep them out. And if you talk about the puppies they so lovingly breed as if they were manufactured objects being sold as consumer goods. you will creep them out, and convince them that you do not actually care about animals, living, breathing, loved and loving animals, any more than Ingrid Newkirk does.

    If by “euphemisia” you mean to talk about the convenience killing that takes place in institutions claiming to be “shelters,” wherein healthy, adoptable animals are killed because the shelter management finds it to be too much trouble to look for homes for them, well, had you actually been reading any posts but your own, you’d have noticed it’s strongly condemned here. We just don’t think that the responsibility for that convenience killing lies with people who breed responsibly and track every single puppy they breed, for the life of the dog, and take it back if it can’t stay in its home.

    You seem to believe that the existence of irresponsible breeders, of breeders who DO share your “manufactured consumer good” view of dogs, disproves the whole idea of responsible breeding. It does not.

    And if you won’t listen to anything you’re being told about a subject you clearly know little about, you won’t be able to contribute much that’s useful to anyone—including you.

    Comment by Lis — April 13, 2009 @ 7:45 pm

69. Tom reminds me of my father in his approach here.

    Because, I do think it is a calculated “approach” Tom is trying to talk to us in the language he thinks, or is convinced, will appeal to breeders.

    because all breeders must, even if they protest, care about profit, right?

    My dad could never wrap his brain around the idea that I was not breeding for profit. That health clearances and titles earned etc… were not somehow about making more money by being able to advertise them with my “product”.

    Hell, I do enjoy showing my dogs but I breed for dogs I am proud of and enjoy living with. If they never did compete again that would not change. I’d still put the same care in.

    So, like Lis here I go.

    Tom, I do not breed to make money. I am not failing at a “business” because I am not IN a business. My “product” is not a product. A few puppies from a litter may not be suitable to the co-careers of pet and show, or pet and agility or pet and obedience, whatever and will be placed as companions in pre-screened homes witch have no desire to pursue further canine activities.

    I don’t make money because I am not running a business to make a profit. I absolutely know that I will spend far more money on my dogs than will ever come back in from the sale of such. I rescue because I feel it is a way to give back to my breed and assist with ending the killing of adoptable pets. As a breeder of one breed for two decades, I have expertise in dealing with that breed and it’s quirks and needs and placing them appropriately that the average shelter worker and even many vets do not have./ that’s why breeder run breed rescues work. And it’s a service we provide to the city, county, state and shelters for FREE. Not to “subsidize” the “low end” breeders but because it is the RIGHT THING TO DO on behalf of the dogs and the breed.

    We are not subsidizing the mills and BYBs because whether we rescue or not, they still make more. Nor are we their competition nor they ours. Same planet, different worlds.

    To me, treating dogs as product and responsible breeding as a business is not creepy, but it is condescending and offensive.

    Please try to wrap your head around the idea that we really really REALLY are not about making money. Realize THAT and we can ALL start to work together to end the killing of adoptable dogs.

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 13, 2009 @ 8:31 pm

70. “Indeed, I think there’s a pretty good argument that Breed Clubs and their umbrella organizations might take an active role in Rescue — not only of dogs specifically attributable to their members, but also of “irresponsibly bred” dogs, because of the club members’ love of the breed, or even the species.”

    Might take an active role in rescue? who do you think is rescuing the irresponsibly bred breeds? I know for a fact their are many responsible breeders rescuing Dals that they did not breed. Wouldn’t have much to rescue if they only rescued their own. Pretty much everyone else involved with Dal rescue are owners and spotty monster lovers. Some own rescues, others responsibly bred dogs, some both. Others own irresponsibly bred ones before they earned. Nobody cares who bred the Dal, the goal is generally to get it out of the shelter and and into rescue/new home. If it happens to be a responsibly bred dog, all efforts are to get the Dal back to the breeder. Heck, they send images around of dogs that could possibly be from a responsible breeder when they see them to see if anyone recognizes them. They do the same if they think they recognize a rescue dog that may have passed through in one of the networks. What more would you like them to do? They’ve been rescuing their tails off for years.

    Comment by straybaby — April 13, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

71. Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 5:21 pm

    Susan, I absolutely love that pic and thought they might just wonder the same thing. I think the Pres might just end up with a serious case of puppy/dog love, lol!~

    Comment by straybaby — April 13, 2009 @ 8:42 pm

72. The National Council on Pet Population and Study is comprised of the American Association of Feline Practitioners, the American Humane Association, the American Pet Products Association, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Association for Veterinary Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, the Cat Fanciers’ Association, the Humane Society of the United States, the National Animal Control Association, and the Society of Animal Welfare Administrators.

    The Council did a multi-year, multi-city study of dogs and cats entering a dozen shelters across the country. While that study is more than 15 years old and clearly out of date now, it found that around 8 percent of animals entering shelters came from “breeders,” which were distinguished from pet stores and from neighbors or friends.

    They were not distinguished as to whether or not they had a contract nor any other factor that would enable anyone to know if those breeders had a policy of taking back any of their pets during their lives, or anything else about them as far as practices, ethics, etc.

    Compared to the about 8 percent that came from breeders, about 20 percent of the animals orginated from shelters, and around 40 percent from friends. Pets obtained for free had a very high relinquishment rate compared to animals that were purchased.

    The Council is doing a new survey now, and when they publish it in the future, perhaps we’ll be able to make a rational analysis of how many pets from breeders who would take those dogs or cats back if they knew they were in a shelter — the definition of a responsible breeder — are slipping through the cracks.

    Until then, we can only say that more than a decade ago, the number of pets who came from breeders was one of the smaller categories of pets entering shelters, and thus, not the most profitable segment of the shelter population to target.

    Limiting that to the subsection of breeders who are responsible would make that already small number even smaller, so targeting responsible breeders is, based on what we know today, counter-productive. It creates obstacles to reuniting breeders with the animals they would be glad to care for by fostering hostility against breeders among shelter workers, and against shelters by breeders who feel stigmatized for a problem they did not create and don’t believe they contribute to.

    Not exactly a winning strategy for animal lifesaving, is it?

    Not to mention that not one community in America that has ended the killing of shelter animals for population control has done by targeting breeders. To the contrary, they’ve all established alliances with breed rescue groups, and welcome every stakeholder and animal lover in their communities as volunteers and foster homes.

    This line of reasoning is IMO a dead end street.

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

73. “most of the dogs in shelters are the result of irresponsible owners, NOT breeders. It’s an owner retention issue and not an overbreeding issue. “
    notes Lynn.

    Can we make this a permanent headline at Pet Connection?

    Comment by EmilyS — April 13, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

74. Well, I don’t really believe that, and “irresponsible pet owner” is on my list of phrases I never want to see again. ;)

    Not that they don’t exist; they do. But I don’t believe “owner retention” is how I’d frame the issue. I believe that housing problems are biggest reason many pets become homeless.

    My belief is that we’ve reduced inflow a great deal in the last 20 years, and we need to push outflow over a hump it’s currently stuck at, while maintaining current low inflow and diverting pockets of high inflow to areas that can absorb it.

    In other words: low cost/free/incentivized, accessible speuter; aggressive adoption marketing; better customer service, convenient hours, better facilities when possible at shelters; TNR programs; foster care programs; work with rescue groups; rescue transport.

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

75. Most responsible breeders do their best to keep track of all the dogs they have bred and sold to homes. They sell them for the going rate, which rarely covers all their costs. They love their breed and do it as a hobby, not as a for profit business. They spend a lot of time, socializing the puppies before they go to their new homes. They usually keep a puppy for themselves. It is a lot of work when done right. None of them are perfect, but they are at least trying to keep their breed out of the humane societies/shelters. The puppy mills and byb, sell to pet stores or anyone with enough cash, no questions asked. If the puppy doesn’t work out or needs a new home, it’s not their problem. Responsible breeders ask a lot of questions, and not everyone gets a puppy just because they have the $$. They would never give a puppy to someone who was going to resell it or give it to someone they didn’t personally screen. If you think you’ve found a puppy from a responsible breeder, at a pet store, think again!! If it’s true then the responsible breeder is not aware it’s at the pet store!!

    So it’s easier to buy a pup from a pet store or byb. That’s part of the problem. But it’s much riskier, to get a puppy from them, in terms of the puppies physical and mental health. Most people are not aware of this, unless they had a bad experience with a puppy mill/byb puppy, (called learning the hard way) and/or have been educated by a good breeder. A lot of dogs with separation anxiety are puppy mill or byb puppies that were separated from their littermates when they were too young.

    Some pet store/byb puppies must work out fine, or bybs/puppy mills/pet stores would no longer exist, but compared to the resposible breeder their puppies are more likely to have high vet bills, behavior problems and end up in a shelter. Just ask your vet! Or your local shelter. We need to get the public educated on the responsible breeders vs. the bybs, puppy mills (who sell to the pet stores)!!!!!

    The Obama’s have found what a lot of people look for - an older puppy (already housetrained) from a responsible breeder. Lucky Bo!!

    Comment by Kathy A. — April 13, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

76. Dang Christie!
    There you go all reasonable with the common sense again.

    Jeesh!

    :-))

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 13, 2009 @ 9:54 pm

77. As someone who works for a rehoming charity, I believe there is absolutely a place for responsible, reputable breeders who care about their dogs (such as this lady).

    Also, private rehomings are better for the dog - they never see the inside of a shelter or even have to go back and forth from the breeder’s home - and relieve the pressure on busy rehoming centres, so I don’t see that we can really complain!

    I’m not speaking for Dogs Trust here, but for myself: they saw a dog that needed a home, they had the right home for the dog and they offered it - that all sounds good to me! Good luck to them and Bo.

    Comment by Alex — April 14, 2009 @ 1:26 am

78. Tom,
    I am a member of a Border Collie Rescue group on the east coast and have been for the last 9 years. Like you we get hoards of dogs that “breeders” did not take back. We have been compiling good breeder/bad breeder lists for years. We have pieced together entire litters in our rescue. We know who the breeders are. That is our job as a rescue. We know our breed! Do you know who the number one “breeder” we see in rescue the most? Petland and Hunte Corporation. We have had good breeders who have flown dogs back to Scotland, England and California, and bad breeders who don’t return phone calls. It is what it is, and who wouldn’t want to see that changed?

    Comment by Nancy Freedman-Smith CPDT — April 14, 2009 @ 2:16 am

79. Christie, I agree wholeheartedly. That was part of what I was getting at in an earlier comment where I was pointing out that - in general - owners who fail to honor the takeback promise they made to the breeder when they signed their puppy contract most often aren’t failing in that because they’re deliberately trying to be sneaky and devious. Most often - when that failure occurs - it is because they are afraid or uncertain or maybe didn’t really, really believe the breeder would really, really take the dog back after X years and so on. In other words. most often - when owners fail to honor the takeback promise they made to the breeder when they signed their puppy contract - it is because they are simply very imperfect humans.

    In writing this, I did not mean to create excuses for these people. Failing to honor their puppy contract is still wrong. But I don’t believe it follows that we demonize them with the label “irresponsible owner” slapped on each and every one of them.

    In line with Winograd’s message, such demonization only tends to drive them away. Rather, extending some understanding is far more likely to help people overcome their fears and make a better choice in the future. Perhaps not THESE specific owners. But certainly some other owner out there somewhere who’s looking down at that dog or cat that he is no longer able to care for - for whatever reason - and trying to work up the courage to make that difficult phone call to the breeder and say “Things have changed, and I just can’t keep her any longer”. Maybe that person reads or hears about a discussion like this one and realizes it really IS okay to make that phone call. And so one less dog ends up in a shelter rather than back with the breeder who brought her into this world.

    (And maybe that breeder is able to help the owner find a way to work through whatever issue is in place, and the dog can stay in her home after all. And wouldn’t THAT be a wonderful outcome?)

    So there are plenty of reasons not to paint all owners contemplating the surrender of their pet with the same, broad “irresponsible” brush. And plenty of reasons to find ways to try and help them, instead.

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 14, 2009 @ 4:55 am

80. Great interview. Great story. I hope all dog lovers send to their politicians who are considering Limit Laws and Mandatory Sterilization like SB 250 in California. If SB 250 passes in CA breeders will be unable to easily take dogs back for fear of violating Animal Control rules and putting all their animals at risk.

    Comment by Diane Jones — April 14, 2009 @ 6:47 am

81. Looks like Tom just parachuted in, dropped a grenade or two and snuck out under cover of night.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 10:24 am

82. I wish all breeders were truly responsible for their dogs ‘for life’. If every dog that was bought, and then not wanted could be returned, I would have no problem with breeders. But until every single breeder and puppy mill operator has to have a mandatory micro chip on every single puppy they produce, I won’t believe a word out of a breeder’s mouth. Even this 70yr old breeder has no idea what has happened to the hundreds if not thousands of pups she has sold.

    Comment by Georgia — April 14, 2009 @ 12:40 pm

83. Or changed his name to Georgia. ;)

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 14, 2009 @ 1:00 pm

84. I wish every parent were truly responsible for their children. But I don’t blame the good parents for the high-school punks that broke into my brother’s home a couple months ago and took his TV, DVD player, bike and video camera.

    Frankly, it makes about as much sense as blaming reputable, ethical breeders for what puppy millers do.

    And your claim that the breeder of the Obama dog has no idea what has “happened to the hundreds if not thousands of pups she has sold” is utter bullshit based on no knowledge at all of how many dogs she has bred and her practices with regards to keeping track of her dogs.

    Y’all can keep spewing your “breeder is a breeder is a breeder and all are scum” hate until the cows come home. Doesn’t make it any more true..

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 14, 2009 @ 1:01 pm

85. Gina, why don’t you tell us what you REALLY think?

    Comment by Christie Keith — April 14, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

86. My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts.

    I mean, is this, like, contagious or something? It sure seems to be going around since the Prez promised his kids a puppy.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 1:19 pm

87. Georgia,
    From the Stern’s website: “Amigo Portuguese Water Dogs
    Puppies: We will not be having puppies until this winter”

    Gee she’s not expecting litters now? Missing the Spring breeding season? Loosing all that $$$$? Gee, there goes your “100s if not thousands of puppies’ theory.
    Just so you know, there is also concern among dog people about the safety of microchips available in the US, which by the way is heavily controlled by the chip makers and their lobby. Microchips not only migrate in the dog’s body, but have been linked to cancer.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....97_pf.html
    The studies are 20 years old, and obviously new studies need to be performed. However, it should be left up to the breeder, whether or not a microchip is implanted. Not you! Not your state, not the USDA, not Congress.
    You want to do something meaningful about breeding responsibly, go after the Hunte Corporation.
    http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Broker.html
    Now that would be a really worthwhile endeavor!

    Comment by Anne T — April 14, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

88. Comment by Anne T — April 14, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

    From the Stern’s website: “Amigo Portuguese Water Dogs
    Puppies: We will not be having puppies until this winter”

    Gee she’s not expecting litters now? Missing the Spring breeding season? Loosing all that $$$$?

    Spring breeding season? Hell - she’s missing the major “Buy a dog that’s related to Bo” opportunity!

    Someone better refresh her on the rules of being a greedy breeder who’s only in it for the money . . . . . .

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 14, 2009 @ 2:20 pm

89. I’ll take bets that Patty’s first three “PWDs” on Petfinder are dead ringers for Bouvier des Flandres. It’s not poodle or PWD fur at all. The chest star on Mickey is exactly a Bouv star. The pictured dogs have uncropped ears and undocked tails. Most shelters just aren’t familiar with Bouviers and call them anything but. If they are being guided by a photo of a groomed Bouvier, I can understand their confusion.

    Comment by Nadine L. — April 14, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

90. Gina, Christie is doing the Numbers thing again! lol!

    Comment by Anne T — April 14, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

91. She’s just showing off. Again.

    Susan Fox gave me a tip on a post that will knock everyone’s socks off. You just wait.

    Oh yes.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 14, 2009 @ 3:30 pm

92. Gina, Christie, please stop shoving all this “logic” and these “facts” around.

    Poor Tom and Dennis and Georia just KNOW what is the truth. They know what the answer is and that all breeders is ebil. They can FEEL it. And if it’s a feeling and you believe in it and click your heels together and wish really hard….

    Wait, sorry, lost my train of thought there

    Comment by JenniferJ — April 14, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

93. Uh oh.

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

94. Just put socks on. Ready. Waiting.

    Comment by Nadine L. — April 14, 2009 @ 4:27 pm

95. The Best idea! The OBAMAS MADE THE RIGHT CHOICE! CONGRATULATIONS!!
    THE CASE AGAINST MIXED OR CROSS BRED DOGS!
    Mutts, curs, mongrels, heinz varity type or simply mixed breeds are what is one of the major factors leading to overpopulation of shelters and rescue kennels. One should not be in the White House.
    If one should be there it will be a reson for more people to cross breed such as a Bulldog with a Shitzu! A Pointer with a setter would be another holiday dog. Who knows what the world will come up with and centuries of selective breeding will be diluted even more. Years of breeding for specific traits is why pure-bred dogs are so popular, hap-hazzard breeding goes into mongrels. Both are or can be wonderful pets, but one has foundations, clubs, associations working to protect them. They find homes faster, the others outnumber the purebred in all shelters three to one. Buy a registered AKC dog from a reputable breeder. Claire McLean

    Comment by Claire McLean — April 14, 2009 @ 4:44 pm

96. I’ve been following the “Portuguese Water Dogs” on Petfinder for the past couple of months, and I can’t say for sure that any of them really have been Porties — and the majority listed have been identified as strays and/or “possibles.” (I have saved screenshots of some of the more creative “PWD” listings after seeing how many people were referring to them in their arguments against the Obama’s choice of dog.)

    Misleading and flat-out incorrect listings are VERY common on Petfinder, unfortunately. Many of them are blatant “come ons” to get people to look at what they have for adoption, but there are also plenty that are really misrepresenting their animals. I just keep thinking about people going in there and adopting them thinking they are getting one thing, then finding out it’s something entirely different and being disappointed. I see it all the time.

    I agree that the dogs that are listed above look more like Bouviers; they could also be “Labradoodles.” In any case, it’s highly doubtful there is any PWD in them. Sad for the dogs, sad for — and unfair to — potential adopters.

    Comment by stellaluna — April 14, 2009 @ 4:56 pm

97. Claire, I gotta say that the only thing I agreed with in your comment was that if you’re going to buy a pedigreed dog, buy from a reputable breeder.

    I am not about to bash mixed-breed dogs. They’re every bit as wonderful and every bit as worthy of forever homes.

    This is not about purebred vs. mixed. I don’t accept bashing reputable breeders and those of us working to preserve our heritage breeds. But I’m also not going to accept kicking a mixed breed dog. Ain’t gonna happen.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 14, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

98. “I wish all breeders were truly responsible for their dogs ‘for life’. If every dog that was bought, and then not wanted could be returned, I would have no problem with breeders. But until every single breeder and puppy mill operator has to have a mandatory micro chip on every single puppy they produce, I won’t believe a word out of a breeder’s mouth. Even this 70yr old breeder has no idea what has happened to the hundreds if not thousands of pups she has sold.”

    Here’s a news flash for you, Georgia — have you ever stopped to think that the same can also be said of LOTS of shelters? That many of them have NO idea of where the animals they have placed have gone once they are out the door? Many, if not most, shelters don’t microchip the animals they adopt out. There are still plenty of shelters that don’t even spay/neuter the animals before releasing them, instead relying on later-date vouchers that are usually very low-compliance. Few shelters even do follow-ups at a later date to be sure the animal is doing okay.

    Yes, there are scummy breeders out there, but shelters are not all angels, either — not by any stretch of the imagination.

    And now with the trend towards “no-kill” and the pressure to raise adoption numbers, there are even more animals going out into the big world that maybe ought not to be out there in the first place — and will not be accounted for weeks, months, or years later. And with lots of rules being relaxed in shelters to make it easier to adopt, very few do home checks or landlord checks any more, so a lot of animals go out into precarious situations from the start.

    So please don’t think for a minute that responsible breeders are the source of the problem of homeless and unwanted pets. This is NOT an exact science, and nobody has all the answers. But I do know that demonizing the people who have shown that they really DO care for the animals they are responsible for is hardly the way toward positive change.

    Comment by stellaluna — April 14, 2009 @ 5:13 pm

99. “Mutts, curs, mongrels, heinz varity type or simply mixed breeds are what is one of the major factors leading to overpopulation of shelters and rescue kennels.”

    Claire- please site your sources for this utterly unsubstantiated statement. And “everyone knows…” doesn’t count.

    I recommend that you read “Redemption” by Nathan Winograd, which thoroughly disproves the myth of “pet overpopulation”.

    “Who knows what the world will come up with and centuries of selective breeding will be diluted even more.”

    Uh, actually we know perfectly well. Left to themselves, dogs converge into a medium-sized, short-coated, curved tailed, prick-eared critter with a yellowish coat. Like dingos, Carolina dogs and the millions of feral dogs living in and around cities all over the world.

    You sound like one of those breed purity freaks that Terrierman recently decontructed so effectively, which is too bad since you clearly love dogs.

    But the main thing is that people should be able to get the dog that is right for them, mutt or purebred, young or old, without being judged, hassled, pilloried or chased by idiots with pitchforks.

    NB-As it happens, my own dog is an AKC (limited registration) purebred collie with a VERY fancy pedigree. That and six bucks will get me a pound of his favorite gourmet dog cookies (pizza-flavored)

    Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 5:49 pm

100. “But the main thing is that people should be able to get the dog that is right for them, mutt or purebred, young or old, without being judged, hassled, pilloried or chased by idiots with pitchforks.”

     Totally with you on this, Susan — there is a dog for everyone in this world, you just have to take the time to find it.

     Comment by stellaluna — April 14, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

101. Claire McLean, you not only demonstrate a singular talent for great rocket-powered leaps of canyons of logic, but I don’t think I’ve seen a sentiment so repugnant posted here, or anywhere else outside of the Aryan Brotherhood Discussion Forum.

     And you don’t even know what a “cur” is. Ignoramus.

     Pull your head out of your AKC once in a while, maybe.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — April 14, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

102. I’m beginning to think that for the dogs, it’s more a case of being “between owners” than anything else. And SHELTERS (along with rescues, foster homes and responsible breeders) are the places that we have for them to stay in until they go to a new home.

     There’s someone out there for every homeless adoptable dog but:

     -they have to be kept alive and physically and emotionally healthy until their new person finds them, which can take awhile

     -their existence has to be broadcast widely enough for their new person to find them (or they need to have an “in” with the Kennedys ;-))

     -plus, they have to be protected from certain “elements” who want to kill them to save them

     They are completely dependent on us for their very lives. And whether they are an AKC purebred or not is totally irrelevant.

     Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

103. Huh! Over a hundred comments. ;)

     Comment by Christie Keith — April 14, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

104. But who’s counting?

     Comment by Susan Fox — April 14, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

105. Well, folks, I’m sorry — I’ve been so busy dropping bombs/making a living that I just got back here.

     I will ignore the smoking organics left by the likes of Lis, Jen and Susan, because frankly, they’re all heat and no light. I will say this, and then move on. You don’t know me, and I’m quite satisfied that if you did, you’d understand that your reflexive assumptions, generalizations and snark are misplaced and might better be returned to the respository from whence they emerged. The speed and vigor with which you humped my leg (to mix metaphors) suggests to me that a bit of self-reflection might do you good.

     Thanks very much, Christie, for quoting the study findings — now that’s getting somewhere. I will find it online and look forward to the update. I’ll be interested to see how they did it, and how they define categories.

     Thanks, too, to Nancy — you-all are ahead of us BC partisans here in the west coast hustings. Off-line, I would like to learn from you how you did your detective work. I will be surprised if we get a lot of “mill” dogs in this neck of the woods (but I’ve been surprised before in thhis work). We do have a lot of our “inventory” (oops! — that’s for you Lis) coming from Central Valley shelters — my guess has always been that there are some farms/ranches who supplement their crops of plants with crops of puppies.

     My ultimate point is that shelter killing is a problem for all of us who love dogs. I hope the breed clubs are as involved as you say — although I haven’t seen a lot of evidence of it. And, consistent with Nathan’s book (you might be surprised to see who wrote the review of it in The Bark), it will take creepy systems thinking to get it solved.

     Comment by Tom Cushing — April 15, 2009 @ 7:02 pm

106. Tom, I think the amount of involvement varies widely by breed club, on a local and a national level. When I was running Sheltie rescue here in Sacramento, we sometimes had people in the breed club who were very involved in helping and other times not so much.

     It’s also interesting to me that some of the most innovative and successful breed rescues — like Homeward Bound Golden Retriever Rescue here in Northern California — have come out of the ranks of people who “just love golden retrievers,” not people who love them and are also involved in any aspect of competing with them.

     To me, it doesn’t matter who helps, as long as we give people places and ways TO help. That, of course, is the central message of “Redemption.”

     More later, perhaps … off to bed now.

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 15, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

107. Tom, unfortunately the Central Valley, especially around Fresno and Bakersfield is well know amongst breed rescues as puppy mill central for California.

     Redding is another hot spot.

     The Southland is well known for brokers and importers.

     But the central valley has had the puppy mill rep for as long as I can remember. I think that many of the dogs acquired are then bred to “make back” the money spent, but if people actually calculated it out I suspect they’d find that they really don’t make much back!

     The central valley’s reputation in some breeds re: puppy mills very poor, to the point that many reputable breeders are hesitant to place to homes there and view almost any inquiry on puppies or breeding with great suspicion. Not fair to the many nice families there but true.

     They’re not the big 200-500 dog mills, and they are not licensed. They typically breed one to five breeds with a couple of dozen dogs. The ones which have been visited by people I know were not on the property of farmers or ranchers but in suburbia or even in town. Sometimes on a few acres, sometimes not.

     Border collies are easy breeders and whelpers and generally very good moms.. They have a romantic/popular appeal to the general public. I could easily envision people having 3-5 litters a year from two or three breeding females selling pups for a few hundred bucks a piece.

     Our breed rescue sees plenty of dogs from the region, both those purchased as pups and also cast off breeding stock.

     The problem in asking the breed clubs to somehow control this “trade” is that virtually none of these breeders have ever even thought of joining a club, may use multiple alternate registries or none at all, and really are marketing and reaching a different group of puppy buyers than club members. Most breed club member breeders don’t advertise at all and rely on a network type system to place dogs through the breed clubs.

     Our club has been placing ads in newspapers, national dog magazines aimed at the general public, and online to try to reach people before they buy a “bargain” puppy from the paper or on the internet or at a pet store. Education is key. The best way, probably the only definitive way to end the flow of poorly, casually and commercially bred dogs is to dry up the demand for them. If we can convince more people on the “puppy hunt” that they need to demand health screening, personal visits wherein they can view the facilities or home where pups are reared, take back-clauses etc… we can diminish the allure of breeding just a few or many puppies to sell.

     Making people aware of what a great deal an already altered, vaccinated, chipped rescue dog is can help too. :)

     I cannot speak for all breed clubs and rescues, but in California, ours is deeply concerned about the mass production, and relinquishment, of dogs, our breed or any other.

     That is pretty much a given for the regular posters and commenters here. So much so that being lumped in with for-profit breeders never be taken lightly. But everyone here wants to see an end to the killing of adoptable, treatable pets.

     Comment by JenniferJ — April 15, 2009 @ 10:31 pm

108. Tom,

     I wanted you to know I very much appreciate your comments about applying systems thinking to the dog overpopulation problem. I can understand why people bristle at attempts to call dogs “commodities” that are “produced,” but when you are looking at it from a supply chain managemement perspective to FIX THINGS, I see nothing wrong with it.

     I work in animal rescue, with several shelters, and I think about this issue a lot. I hate what I see.

     I also work in business consulting. I wonder when the day will come that someone, somewhere will find a way to get a 30,000-foot perspective on this problem and give some workable solutions.

     Nathan Winograd is off to a good start … if only I could read that book of his. I have tried and tried. I heard him speak, so that helps. I simply cannot get through more than three pages of his book.

     Anyway, thanks Tom.

     Amy G

     Amy

     Comment by Amy G — April 19, 2009 @ 3:50 pm

109. I think Bo’s a great choice for the Obamas! I’ve been dismayed by many of the comments here and elsewhere, though, about their choice of a purebred Portuguese Water Dog, a gift from the Kennedy’s (and from a breeder, not a shelter!). Too may people overlook the most important factor in this decision: Malia’s allergy to dogs. As the mother of a son who is (or was) also allergic to dogs, I can relate. I didn’t know he was allergic until we switched allergists due to a new medical plan with a change in jobs (and therefore new skin tests): I’d gotten him a Border Collie several months before. The doctor wanted me to get rid of the dog; of course, that was met with an ‘absolutely not!’. Then it was a “keep the dog out of his room”; the reply was “she’s a border collie - she’ll tunnel through the wall if she has to to get to him”. So I kept him room cleaner and changed his sheets more often; and, of course, the dog allergen was added to his shots. Why would the Obamas put Malia through allergy shots, or medication (or more medication?), if there’s an alternative? Should the President’s daughter’s well-being be less important than scroring political points or making certain animal rights groups feel better about themselves? Why should Malia have to become a pincushion? When looking for a specific breed, you are told to look at shelters; if no dogs of the breed can be found there, you next turn to rescue groups, then breeders who might have either returned puppies, dogs for sale, or puppies, period. No one should have to justify their decision involving the adoption of a family member. While I belong to some of the groups which have been outspoken in their criticism, I do feel they need to put the welfare of the President and his daughter above their own politics.

     Also, some people here seem to forget (or not care) that there are responsible breeders out there: some breeds simply can’t be found in shelters because their breeders do take responsibility for them. While there are exceptions to that rule in every breed undoubtedly, it is next to impossible to locate shelter dogs with some breeds unless you’re just plain lucky. I looked for a long time for a Bearded Collie for my mother after hers died (who had come from a rescue group after being mysteriouly abandonned) and she felt she was ready for another dog: the BCCA rescue groups didn’t have any dogs available; there were none in shelters (who weren’t snapped up as soon as they went online); and I was forced to look into similar breeds (which is where I found my own shelter puppy, an Old English Sheepdog / Aussie mix - mom didn’t want a puppy). Finally, I found a rescue group with a Beardie mix, but it a nearly impossible task.

     Unless you’ve been in a situation, you have no business judging anybody. The President did what was best for his daughter and the rest of his family, which is all he should be expected to do.

     Comment by Sharon C. — April 21, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

110. Sharon C. - I gotta wonder . . . .

     Did you read this thread?

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 2:00 pm

111. Pat, I think it’s pretty clear that she did not.

     Comment by Lis — April 21, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Syndication

• Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
• Subscribe to the Comments RSS

Recent Comments

• glock on: Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation
• David S. Greene on: Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation
• glock on: Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation
• Amy D Shojai, CABC on: Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation
• Rori on: Inside PETA's freezer: Oops! They did it again!
• Cait on: Inside PETA's freezer: Oops! They did it again!
• Gina Spadafori on: This toy wouldn't last a full minute at my house
• Kelly on: This toy wouldn't last a full minute at my house
• Michael Newman on: This toy wouldn't last a full minute at my house
• Sandi K on: Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation

Categories

• 2007 food recall
• administration
• animal charities
• animals: pets
  • behavior
  • medical
  • news
• animals:general
• Books
• contest
• Disasters
• dogcars.com
• dogmobiles
• Dr. Marty Becker
• feral cats
• Foreclosure pets
• GoodMorningAmerica
• GPE
• Gratuitous blogging
• Ketamine Recall
• Life
• Media
• No Christmas Puppies
• No Kill
• Pet-lover life
• pit bulls
• polls
• products
• puppy mills
• Syndicatedcolumn
• The blogroll
• The Dr. Oz Show
• The Making of a Therapy Dog
• Ultimatebooks
• Uncategorized
• Westminster
• Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
• Worth a click

Recent Posts

• Insomnia follies: Feline edition
• Alert: Splintering dog treat under investigation
• How to help pets avoid stress … naturally
• Inside PETA’s freezer: Oops! They did it again!
• Silly human tricks: Why I love dogs
• Willy the Pug: The Hollywood years
• Good news in the pit bull wars
• Austin poised to become a no-kill community
• Nature’s Variety: How to do a recall right
• This toy wouldn’t last a full minute at my house

• Pet Connection Team

  • Each post is the opinion of the person who wrote it (click for our biographies).

• Search

• Read more from the Pet Connection team

  • -Dr. Marty Becker
  • -Gina Spadafori
  • Christie Keith
  • David Greene
  • Dr. Narda Robinson
  • Dr. Tony Johnson
  • Keith Turner
  • Kim Campbell Thornton
  • Liz Palika
  • Mikkel Becker Shannon
  • Phyllis DeGioia
  • Susan and Dr. Rolan Tripp

• Worth reading

  • A Dog’s Life
  • Alltop: Pets
  • Ark Animals
  • BadRap
  • Best In Flock
  • Did A Cat Shit In Here?
  • Disapproving Rabbits
  • Dog Art Today
  • Dog Star Daily
  • Dogged
  • Dogster
  • DrawTheDog
  • Food Politics
  • Frogdog Blog
  • Fugly Horse of The Day
  • Full Cry: A Hound Blog
  • Fully Vetted
  • Guinea Pig Connection
  • ICanHasCheezburger
  • KC Dog Blog
  • Land of PureGold
  • Lassie Get Help
  • Nathan Winograd
  • Ohmidog!
  • Patricia McConnell
  • Pawcurious
  • Pet Health and Nutrition
  • Pete the Vet
  • Petfinder blog
  • PetHobbyist.com
  • PetSitUSA
  • Philly Dawg
  • Raised By Wolves
  • Sarah Andrew’s RockAndRacehorses
  • Smartdogs
  • Speaking For Spot
  • Terrierman’s Daily Dose
  • The Cat’s Meow
  • The No Kill Nation
  • Vet Blog @ Dogster
  • Vet On The Edge
  • VMDiva
  • Winn Feline Health
  • YesBiscuit!
  • Your Pet’s Best Friend

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009