Re: [PyrNet-L] Re: [Pyr-Net]:breeding question/showing

[dsmith@iolinc.net (Smith, Deborah)]

    Not necessarily.  There are many places you can find Pyrs for just a
couple hundred.  The point is, no matter what you pay for the dog, it's the
quality of the breeder (and the owner) that determines what happens to the
dog.

Chrissy
Rajah and Moses
West Union, WV
dsmith@iolinc.net


> Wow ... following this thread was pretty boring until this posting.
>
> What if everyone thought this way?  Rescuing or not rescuing abandoned
> animals won't change the ways of irresponsible owners or breeders.  How
does
> rejecting someone else's abandoned pet teach anyone a lesson?  Or rescuing
> that abandoned pet, for that matter?  It doesn't.  It's about saving the
> animal.  Also, just because someone has gone to the most reputable breeder
> who breeds only the best doesn't automatically guarantee they'll be a
> responsible owner.  "Quality" animals end up in shelters too.
>
> I have two pyrs that I adopted through rescue.  Before deciding on rescue,
I
> looked into buying a brand spanking new pyr puppy from a breeder.
Starting
> prices for "pet" quality pyrs were at $800.00.  So that means that before
my
> pyrs found a home with me, the previous owners went to breeders and
shelled
> out a pretty penny.  I don't know my female pyr's history but the male
spent
> his entire life chained to someone's back porch and was never properly
> socialized.  I'd like to add that both of my pyrs were "intact" before
being
> rescued.  Obviously the previous owners felt no obligation to rescue an
> abandoned animal.  Nor did they feel any qualms about contributing to the
> problem.  The fact that neither were altered suggests that maybe the
owners
> thought they would eventually breed.  The bottom line is that if they had
> not been rescued, they may have been euthanized.  How would that have
> impacted the former owners and breeders? Not at all.  I didn't adopt
rescue
> pyrs with the intent of creating a safety net for anyone ... except the
> pyrs.  Abandoned pets are not other people's messes to be swept under the
> carpet and forgotten.  They're living creatures.
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Kshoffman@aol.com>
> To: <pyrnet-l@pyrnet.org>
> Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2000 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] Re: [Pyr-Net]:breeding question/showing
>
>
> > In a message dated 03/11/2000 10:24:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > clhenke@juno.com writes:
> >
> > > The estimate of animals
> > >  euthanized in this country is said to be around 6 million a year.
> Surely
> > >  you can understand why some of us consider the choice to breed as
being
> > >  of the utmost importance.  Pups should be brought into a world that
> > >  cares, not destroys.
> >
> > But Cindy, those animals are not coming from responsible breeders, for
the
> > most part.  Would it be better for all the "good" breeders to stop
> breeding
> > dogs altogether and just let these other types take over?  Is that
really
> > going to solve the perceived problem of pet overpopulation?
> >
> > In my opinion, the crux of this societal issue is not really how many
dogs
> > are being produced, but a lack of commitment on too many owners and
> breeders
> > parts to take the responsibility of dog ownership and breeding as
> seriously
> > as we would like them to.
> >
> > If, as a consumer, a potential pet owner, I am in the market for a
> purebred
> > dog, the whole beauty of which should be predictability in looks and
> > temperament and health, why shouldn't I be able to go to a responsible
> > breeder (in good conscience) to get the best quality I possibly can and
to
> > increase my chances of getting precisely what it is I am looking for in
a
> > pet/companion/worker? Why should I feel obligated to bail a dog out of
the
> > pound or some other sorry situation simply because some idiot(s) allowed
> it
> > to get their in the first place?  Why should I or others like me serve
as
> yet
> > another safety net for these types?  We just keep doing things, cleaning
> up
> > their messes, basically letting them "off the hook". Because of this,
they
> > will never change their ways.
> >
> > Why should I, as a breeder who attempts to the best of my ability to be
> > accountable for every single puppy I bring into this world for life,
feel
> > guilty or in any way responsible about those dogs that have been
discarded
> > and are no longer wanted? It's not my fault they ended up in that
> position.
> > It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me or my activities or
my
> > actions. I didn't fail those dogs, their breeders and/or owners did. Why
> > should an educated and well-researched and committed prospective
purebred
> dog
> > owner have an obligation to such dogs or be held accountable for that?
> >
> > Adopting a rescue or taking on a rehome is a wonderful and noble thing,
> for
> > those who are inclined to go that route, but it is not something that
> anyone
> > should feel *obligated* to do.  As far as I'm concerned, those who truly
> feel
> > so strongly about the woes and ills and failures of our society in these
> days
> > where the word commitment sometimes means nothing to many should
consider
> > fostering discarded and unwanted children and stop getting so worked up
> about
> > dogs.
> >
> > JMO to which I am entitled.
> >
> > Kelley
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> > unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> > as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>
>