Dukasaur wrote:jimboston wrote:Dukasaur wrote:There's no such thing as a "responsible" breeder.
100 million unwanted pets are euthanized every year in North America. The number of homes is finite. Every new pet deliberately bred means that some other pet will have to die.
This is a simplistic view of “supply and demand”.
You know this.
Simplified does not equal simplistic.
Essentially, simplified, pet ownership is a zero-sum game. There are a finite number of people whose life circumstances allow them to keep a pet. Some have more than one, but there is still a finite number.
Yes, I know that it's not a
perfect, textbook-case zero-sum game. Yes, there is a small amount of flexibility in it. Someone with two dogs might be persuaded to take on a third. The number of spaces for pets might fluctuate by 5 or 10 percent. But it's close enough to a zero-sum game for any meaningful analysis. Adding to the oversupply of pets does not meaningfully impact the demand. If you have room for 101 Dalmatians and the 102nd shows up, someone dies to make room for him.
In ecological terms, you have a species living at full carrying capacity. It's no different than in the wild. In the wild the limitation on carrying capacity might be food or spaces for nests. If a particular ecosystem can support 100 owls and 3 new owls are born, either 3 of the old owls will die or the chicks will die. Wishful thinking won't produce enough mice to support 103 owls in the same system. With dogs and cats the limitation on carrying capacity is humans (plus a
very small portion of the wilderness suitable for supporting feral dogs and cats) willing to keep them. When the carrying capacity of those humans is exceeded, the excess pets die.
I understand this economics concept, but like all “Laws” of economics it can’t factor in human decision making or what I’ve heard labeled “the irrational consumer”.
Many of the “consumers” of pet dogs are not “in the market” for an older, possibly abused, possibly sick, dog. Sometimes their reasons may seem frivolous, but often their reasons are legit. If they have kids, and rescues dogs aren’t always a great choice for houses with young kids. They may have a family member with a mild allergy and so want a hair-breed that is less prone to irritate allergies. They may have limited dog experience and want a breed known for an easy temperament. (This was me with my first Beagle... I had never had a dog and actually had a fear of dogs till I was about 18. I wanted a dog known for a relaxed temperament and easy to train. Some breeds are not good/smart choices for first-time owners.)
These “consumers” (in some cases, not all) may choose to bypass a family pet entirely if their only option is a rescue dog.
Then there are special highly trained dogs. Rescue dogs, police dogs, “seeing eye” dogs, bomb sniffing dogs, bedbug sniffing dogs, actor dogs, maybe some hunting and herding dogs, etc. In some cases rescue dogs may work for these roles but often these dogs need to be trained from birth to fulfill these roles.
So basically some “wants/needs” can’t be fulfilled by rescues, and even if you magically stopped all breeding you’d still have to put down many rescues. Maybe you’d save some... but I don’t think it’d be as many as you suggest.
I owned two pure Beagles and a couple years after the older one passed we started talking about getting another. I would’ve gone Beagle, but my girls wanted a different dog. I looked at other breeds but was unwilling to pay $1500 (min) to $3000 or more.... AND wait months possibly for a new litter. So we started looking at Shelters and that’s were I found my little Leia.
Even taking a rescue I was still limiting my choices to smaller breeds/smaller dogs; and also was looking younger as I know the younger ones are likely to have been abused less and are likely to be easier to train.
That all said... I think we can agree that;
- There are definitely breeders out there that are sketchy and don’t care about the dogs once they collect their cash.
- There are definitely owners who shouldn’t be owners who abuse and/or neglect their pets.
I don’t think you’ll ever completely ‘solve’ the problem of dogs needing adoption... but you could implement better controls to regulate the industry of dog breeding; and implement better information to prospective pet parents to make sure people know what they’re committing to when they adopt/buy a pet. Any of this (I feel) should be paid for by pet owners via taxes on pets and/or pet products and services. i.e. let the consumers who have pets pay for the regulation to make sure pets are taken cared of.
There will always be a need for shelters... even well meaning pet parents sometimes have to give up pets. Sometimes owners pass away. Divorce. Health issues. Economic distress. My dog was brought to Boston by the Humane Society from Puerto Rico. She was born on the street. Her parents were likely displaced in the wake of 2018 Earthquake that devastated the island (or possibly hurricane activity). The human owners lose their homes and the pets scatter, and then the dogs that live hook up and have babies; she was one of those babies. Apparently stray dogs are a serious problem on the island and some people will try to capture them for neutering or spaying; and if they capture puppies they know US Shelters can find home for the pups. So my ‘adoption fee’ goes to pay for her transportation to the US, her health checks, and shots, etc.
.. but yeah, there is a need for responsible breeders, and there is such a thing as responsible breeding and responsible pet ownership.
