Re: [PyrNet-L] Failure of Rescue

[Ken McNamara <conmara@oaktree.net>]

Jack -

I agree with the conclusion that EVERY breeder should be responsible for
every puppy - for the life of the dog.  A no questions asked haven.

One way to promote this would be for someone to develope a branded or
trademarked product name that the public would ask for.

Then a breeder who subscribed to this (call it a service) would register
to use the trademark.

Something like:  "Forever home" "Lifetime home" - something simple to
put in advertisements.

The only catch would be that each pup would have to be chipped.  Then if
a pup showed up in a pound with a registered breeders chip - they'd get
a call.  (Of course that assumes that the chip companies would start
charging something reasonable for their chips - (today's prices are
highway robbery).)

Of course ideally the person who purchased the puppy originally would
return it to the breeder (but can everyone admit failure...).

This may seem like pie in the sky.  But when the public begins to demand
something things can change.  And if the public decided they wanted a
dog with this kind of backup (just like AKC papers) - then some dent in
this problem might be made.

Thanks all for listening.

KenMc


Jack Mowery wrote:
> 
>                 Much of what Kelly has to say is hard, cold, and most of all
> completely true.
> 
>                 Don't get me wrong, I believe in rescue (with a little r)
> but maybe not so much Rescue (with the big r).  I have loved rescued dogs
> with all my heart and my 48-year old soul cried its eyes out all the time it
> dug the last (rather largish) hole a couple years ago.  But no matter how
> hard the people work and how much money they spend, Rescue can never re-home
> dogs as fast as the puppy mills, and back-yard breeders can produce them,
> and the upright anal orifices can abandon them.  It is like pumping almost
> enough food into a famine area.  The only result is that the people starve
> to death slowly.  The same as you can't cure famine by pumping in food, you
> have to work at the opposite end of the life cycle by cutting baby
> production . . . we cannot cure the abandon dog problem by finding homes for
> unwanted dogs.  Rescue is good for the dog, but maybe, not so good for dogs
> as a whole.
> 
>                 She speaks of making the owner re-home or euthanize their
> own dog instead of having shelters and rescue organizations available.
> Plainly, it ain't gonna happen.  This, I feel, will result in more dogs
> dumped on country roads.  "Don't worry, Suzy/Jimmy.  She will find a good
> home here in the country, with lots of room to run.  Farms always need good
> dogs."  Yeah, sure they do.  The dogs they get rid of for temperament or
> behavior problems are just what a farm needs running the livestock.
> 
>                 She speaks of making the breeders take life-long
> responsibility for the pups they produce.  Here, moreso even than education,
> may be our solution.  If every pet shop and backyard breeder knew they could
> be required to take back (or even buy back - now here is a real hit in the
> purse) every pup they ever produced, no questions asked (behaving like
> reputable breeders) there would probably be fewer pups to abandon, and
> owners would be screened for more than credit history.
> 
> From:   <Kshoffman@aol.com <mailto:Kshoffman@aol.com>
> To:     <pyrnet-l@pyrnet.org <mailto:pyrnet-l@pyrnet.org>
> Sent:   Saturday, March 11, 2000 9:46 PM
> Subject:        Re: [PyrNet-L] Re: [Pyr-Net]:breeding question/showing
> 
>         In a message dated 03/11/2000 8:33:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>          <mailto:kdbooth@mindspring.com> kdbooth@mindspring.com writes:
> 
>                 What if everyone thought this way?  Rescuing or not rescuing
> abandoned
>                  animals won't change the ways of irresponsible owners or
> breeders.
> 
> First off, I want to make it perfectly clear that I paid my dues by working
> INTENSIVELY in rescue for about 3 years- snip Rescue of Great Pyrs was
> intricately woven into my day to day life.
> 
> So I know exactly how the system works and what types of people discard
> dogs, and what types of breeders more or less don't give a hoot about what
> happens to the puppies they produce once they shove that money from the sale
> of pups into their pockets and send the ignorant new owners on their merry
> way.   . . .snip . . .  We'd just keep bailing them out, they'd just keep
> churning them out.  Didn't change a thing, and I came to realize my time and
> effort and money could be much better spent in ways that might make *more*
> of a difference to the betterment and long-term welfare of the breed, snip
> 
> nsip
> 
> During my time working rescue, I got so sick and tired of having to put
> maladjusted, improperly raised, and/or poorly bred and wholly unplaceable
> dogs down that I just could not take it anymore.  Especially so being a
> breeder of some really nice, lovely, healthy, mentally and physically sound
> dogs who have just the most wonderful characters and dispositions and are
> the cherished and prized companions and members of some really wonderful
> families -- as couch potatoes, as working dogs, as show dogs, as therapy
> dogs.
> 
> Rescue just stopped making sense to me when I took a long hard look at what
> I was doing in trying to save all these rescue dogs, and then looking at the
> differences between them and my own dogs I was producing.  It was like "What
> is wrong with this picture?"  I had to begin to question why on earth I
> should recommend that anyone should get a rescue dog over a conscientiously
> bred dog from a dedicated and responsible breeder.
> You're exactly right.  The way the system works now, it doesn't change a
> darned thing with regard to how people view commitment to animals and how
> they treat them. Perhaps if irresponsible breeders and owners had to be held
> accountable for their actions, had to suffer some consequences for their
> mistakes and/or lack of commitment, it would.  Perhaps if these types of
> breeders and owners didn't have the option to turn their no longer wanted or
> inconvenient animals over to shelters and rescue organizations in the first
> place, but instead had to bear the burden of either: a) going to the time,
> trouble, and expense of rehoming the dog themselves; or b) taking the dog to
> their vet and having it euthanized if they can't find a good suitable home
> for it, then they will think a bit harder and longer about getting a dog or
> breeding a litter the next time around.
> 
> The type of people that dump their so-called pets (or unwanted puppies out
> of a not so well planned litter) on shelters and rescue organizations (for
> whatever reason) in my experience find euthanasia a horrible and distasteful
> fate for their dog, which they should, because it IS a horrible and
> distasteful thing. As far as I can see, this is generally the whole reason
> such owners or breeders discard these animals, shove the responsibility off
> on others, instead of assuming what *should be* THEIR final responsibility
> to a dog they no longer want-they can't even stomach the thought of
> euthanizing the dog-out of sight, out of mind seems to prevail. Perhaps they
> need to experience that horror.  Perhaps it needs to hit a little closer to
> home for them to realize they should never have acquired a dog or bred a
> litter in the first place.  Perhaps they need to suffer the consequences of
> their actions or misdeeds to learn a lesson.
> 
> snipped because while I agree I don't want this to enter into the
> discussion.
> 
> Kelley
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
>         unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.