This began as a post on Facebook, in response to an article on Feedstuffs Foodlink. Actually this is probably a better idea, this way the thread is not monopolized and the people who really give a crap about anything I have to say can read it and the ones who wish I would just shut up and die are not forced to *evil grin* So, for those interested I have posted here my thoughts about the thread on Feedstuffs Foodlink about the recent move by the $PCA to 'raise awareness' about 'puppy mills' and suggesting people boycott purchasing puppies at pet stores. The link to the relevant article is here:
http://www.care2.com/greenliving/no-pet-store-puppies-campaign-launched.html
Here are my own thoughts on this convoluted issue, intended to be shared on that comment thread. Before you begin, please be aware that although FB automatically posts notes to the Wall and hence to all your friends, this is not written as a stand-alone piece, but as one comment in a string of comments about the article above, posted here as a 'note' to get past the FB limit on post length, and as such includes replies to other points raised by other people on the thread. To read the entire conversation in order to put these comments completely in perspective, you would have to go to the Feedstuffs Foodlink page and track down the relevant discussion, so if you are just monumentally bored or are dying to see what comments I am replying to, the comment string at Feedstuffs Foodlink is here:
https://www.facebook.com/feedstuffs/posts/178585675544903
Otherwise, this is actually pretty much able to stand on its own. Concerning 'adopt don't shop':
There is NO difference to the consumer, price wise, 'adopting' vs buying from a reputable breeder, whether that be a high quality commercial producer or a small time specialty breeder like myself. The 'adoption fees' include the required neutering (breeding is evil, exploitive and cruel, you know) shots at outrageous prices, and often various 'health costs' from worming or flea treatment, skin diseases, ear mites, and the list goes on. Usually the costs are pretty inflated, and there is a general cost for the fostering written in as well so that by the time you take your new 'adopted' puppy home, you have spent as much as if you came to a top show breeder to buy a pet quality puppy. And the only papers you will get are not ones you want to keep. ;o)
The difference, though, is pretty telling. At the shelter, you get a dog in a cage, parentage usually unknown, health issues if any of said parents also unknown, health testing at all of those parents pretty unlikely. Often it has not been there long enough for the staff to be able to tell you anything meaningful about its personality, and in the case of puppies generally the breed/size/etc is a mystery to all concerned. Foster situations are generally slightly better, usually they are indoors as opposed to kenneled and have had more opportunities to learn house manners and usually have been worked with more, but the rest of the limitations probably apply. You have no idea what kind of temperament the parents had, no idea what kind of socialization or enrichment the puppies got as weanlings, and there is seldom a really decent screening process. Oh, they screen, but not for the sorts of things that breeders look for; they want to know if the prospective owners are gainfully employed and how much they make, do they have a fenced yard, do they own other animals (usually considered a bad thing) and are any of them intact (almost always a bad thing) things of that nature, but there are a LOT of intangibles that get glossed over if you don't really know the dogs you are placing as individuals. (Again, better in the case of rescues and fosters, but they have their own screening issues.) Many are neither trained nor qualified to figure out which pup/older dog would be the best fit for younger kids vs pre teens, which dog/breed works better in a high energy household as opposed to an elderly couple, etc. They are working under a lot of limitations because they just don't KNOW; often they have no real idea how big that cute pup will even grow up to be much less anything else, and their only observation of these animals has been in a completely unnatural, stilted and highly stressed environment that can make good dogs look bad and bad dogs 'lock down' and seem fine right up until they blow... Health guarantees? Temperament guarantees? Not happening. You bought it, (excuse me-*adopted* it) you own it, health and temperament issues and all. If the pup/dog develops serious health or temperament issues, they will direct you to the vet or a good trainer, and offer you good luck. Oh, certainly you can return it, but you will not get a replacement for that several hundred dollar 'adoption' fee, you will get attitude for being a 'bad owner' for returning a dog that didn't work out, often for reasons beyond YOUR control. And, in a few cases, overburdened shelters or rescues may 'gloss over' the bad points to try and get more animals moved through the system. Too many animals coming through the doors means they will not be able to keep them long enough to catch the telltale signs of a problem, assuming they are experienced enough to see it. This is where you get the horror stories about kids savaged and etc. I am not demonizing rescues or shelters here, I have been engaged in rescue for many years, and I have seen some very well run shelters who would never do such a thing, and I'd say they outnumber the bad ones. But, it is undeniable that shelters and rescues are working with a handicap when trying to make any kind of predictions about what you can expect, long term, from adopted dogs.
A breeder will have a record of health testing on the parents usually for several generations, and a pedigree that shows what those dogs were good for. This is sort of important if you are getting a dog for a special purpose, such as herding livestock on your ranch or working as a police or search-and-rescue canine, or a service dog for the handicapped. Pedigrees track more than parentage; they show a lineage of talent behind your puppy, giving you a good idea what you can expect. The breeder who delivered and sat over these puppies for weeks has socialized those puppies and has a pretty good idea, after several weeks, how best to fit those pups to prospective homes; so we don't waste the time of an elderly couple sending them the hyperactive over-acheiver; we send that one to the high end performance trainer and put the sweet, quiet one with the retiree. Health and temperament guarantees are offered by most breeders, which gives the prospective owner genuine remedies if things do not work out. Because it is in the best interests of all concerned, the breeder tries very hard to make sure these arrangements are beneficial to all concerned, because first of all they are a lot more involved with their puppies from the beginning so they are more emotionally invested in wanting the pups to be happy, and there is also the issue of (in the best cases) wanting the new owners to be happy with their new pup so they will love it and give it the best of everything, and (lesser case but still valid) they don't want to see it come back through the door in 18 months because the people are unhappy so they are going to do the front work to see that does not happen. This is where those intangibles of time spent socializing and enriching these pups, and sorting and screening homes to make sure they are paired properly, really makes a difference. Yes, it is also true that just like shelters and rescues, there are also low end breeders who breed more than they can reasonably manage and who will therefore be less likely to 'screen' beyond whether or not the check will clear. But, as in the case of shelters, the good ones far outnumber the bad ones, it is just that the bad ones get all the press. This is pretty much true of most things in life, actually, but in recent years the ARAs have seized on sensationalizing every single 'bad one' totally out of proportion to reality, presenting each as 'typical' of breeders in general. Of course, each such 'puppy mill bust' comes with a camera crew and a pre-packaged rollout of begging for donations to 'help us with this crisis.' All of this is arranged far in advance of the actual bust; does nobody ever realize just what this means? This is a BUSINESS, people. (Remember Katrina? Remember the millions of dollars in donations to 'help Katrina victims' that H$U$ *still* has not accounted for? Uh huh. Business as usual for those folks.) Sad faces of puppies and kitties will make people open their wallets even faster than sad faces of hungry children; sick but true. As far as that goes, more recently this has escalated to hitting breeders that are NOT doing anything wrong; frankly because there are not enough 'bad guys' out there to keep the 'problem' of 'puppy mills' inflated to the level of a 'crisis' they can sell to the public, to keep the money rolling in consistently. (Now, where have we seen that before, even recently as a matter of fact? *coughcough*MFA*cough*) I wonder where they learned such tactics? Wonder no more; the ARAs teach this stuff in seminars.
The POINT here is, adopting dogs is a noble calling. I do not want people to take away from my comments that rescues and shelters are bad, or that adopting a dog is always a poor choice. Many do a very good job, and even from a breeder you can get a pup with issues, it is more a matter of weighing options, and a rescue dog is often a win/win for the dog and the new home. I also do not want to pick on rescue workers here, they have a tough enough time. It is hard work, from people dedicated to taking animals that have not had the best breaks in life, and trying to turn things around for them. And adoption works; there are literally millions of dogs that have been saved from euthanasia who are presently making their owners very happy.
BUT, there are many situations where an adoption should NOT be the first choice, and it certainly should never be presented as the ONLY choice. Pretending that buying puppies from *whatever* outlet is inherently wrong and bad is irresponsible and wrong headed. The same arguments that apply to pet store puppies as far as socialization and etc apply to shelter dogs as well; and as someone else stated, most pet shop pups get a LOT more handling once they get to that pet store, than the majority of shelter or rescue dogs. And often they arrive at that pet store too young, before they really should have been taken from their dams which is a sign of irresponsibility on the breeder's part on one end, but at the same time if they are just cranking out pups for cash it's probably for the best to get the pups out of the environment sooner anyway, they are not going to benefit from a longer stay if they have been yanked off their dams to make her dry up sooner and are not being enriched anyway. At least in the pet store they will get plenty of handling and affection. Even in an ideal shelter or foster situation, they are seldom the entire focus of the rescue personnel, while pet shop puppies (and kittens) are the belles of the ball and the undisputed biggest attention getters, and the ones the employees and customers spend the most time working with and fawning over. I worked for a pet store when I was a kid, it was one of my first jobs as a matter of fact, and I learned a LOT from that facility, not all of it bad. The pups were kept very clean, they were taken out and worked with all day, we watched them carefully to make sure they were not wallered to death and that they got plenty of time to rest. People bitch about 'spur of the moment purchases' but the simple fact is that a lot of people do that anyway, that is not the shop's fault and in the absence of a pet store these same idiots will be buying pups from ads in the newspaper. We cannot fix every single problem in life by throwing ill-conceived laws or boycotts at it; it never works out the way the designers expect and usually hurts more innocents than it does the problem people.
Bottom line is that the concept that puppies should only ever come from a shelter or rescue is ridiculous, and condemning pet stores on generalized criticisms that actually apply equally as well to shelters themselves is kind of an oxymoron. And, implying that all commercial breeders are 'puppy mills' is BS to start off with, it is demonizing people who work very hard without a shred of fairness to the accusation. It is roughly equivalent to attacking all car dealerships as 'disreputable' businesses that ought to all be shut down, because everyone has a story about some used car they bought that blew up once it left the parking lot. It's a load of crap, and a slap in the face to a lot of hard working people who genuinely provide good care for their animals. And, worse than that, it is a very dangerous precedent to set, if we want to have pets available for anyone to purchase, from any source. That is a very dangerous road to travel, and no good outcomes.
