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

["Ame McNair" <ame63@hotmail.com>]

"kdbooth" <kdbooth@mindspring.com writes:



>>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

  Could not have said this better myself, or agree with you more. Animals 
end up in shelters and rescues for many, many reasons (not all
of which is lack of responsibility (has anyone read about sukie at 
imom.org?)- although the majority is (or ignorance about what dog 
"ownership" is truly about). I am not sure why any animal would deserve less 
from me because of their previous circumstances...

>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

Exactly. How the animal got to the shelter/rescue is of course a major 
ongoing concern, but that should not prevent anyone from forgetting that 
they are there. I don't think anyone is "obligating" anyone else to save a 
shelter/rescue dog- nor do I think they are any less deserving of care. Nor 
do I think that caring for dogs precludes anyone from caring for humans 
(fostering dogs is not mutually exclusive of fostering children, however, 
most folks have only so much time and energy and choose to focus that time 
and energy). I am thankful that there are those who DO choose to 
foster/rescue/work in shelters/humane societies. You can lead by example of 
personal responsibility (which I have no doubt you are doing Kelley), 
educate (as everyone on this list seems to be doing), and still end up with 
millions of abandoned animals a year. For the animals sake- not the 
irresponsible humans- aren't we glad there is a tiny safety net?

                                        - Ame and Pushkin

>----- 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.
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com