No, but if they were forcibly monitored they would have to take responsibility for them and prove what they did with them once past their usefulness. If they were seen to be discarding etc.. the public would take a far harsher view, as it it they have a way out which actually sounds quite nice for buyers, they find a fireside home, well yes so they should, but the breeder and owner should do that NOT a rescue.

Which rescue did Jake come from?

[
It enables them to cary on churning pups out, because they have ufloaded their surplus stock... without any come back on them..

Oh I dont think they have any ethics as to where they get rid of their dogs, but the rescue way is the easy way, no comeback on them... if they got a reputation of dumping/starving and killing their dogs, that would then tarnish they reputation as a seller.



[ Not sure Emma why you would think any one sees the dogs as criminals the problem is huge, here , to many shelters are overflowing with dogs, not enough homes for them, some have no kill policies but in that it brings more back log, dogs living for yrs in the shelter .

The system gets clogged up, the rescues do as good a job as they are able, they re-home as many as they can, but as one goes out another comes in and so on, for every dog that is taken into a home, one more is taken into rescue.

No one takes responsibility, they get off scott free, they just keep churning out more pups, because they know there is no come back

I have not said anywhere that we should just shut shelters down or allow dogs to die of starvation of dumped in the streets, until regulations are set in place for a breeder to take responsibility for their dogs, and be made to take them back (I am taking the commercial and irresponsible here) things will not change,

They will keep breeding the rescues will keep taking them in and it goes round and round.

that would be me then?

that statement makes me quite sad, given that I have taken on a few dogs when rescue have contacted me because they have a hard dog that cant be re-homed, thus If I had not taken them they would have been killed. So as I see it I have saved the lifes of a few that rescue had reached the end of the road with and would have had to Put them to sleep, eg...killed them

I have more often than not offered free training and ongoing help to rescue dogs with serious problems,

But I guess in the eyes of some Im killing many more dogs in rescue by breeding than I have ever helped or saved.

What BM has left out Shona is the word "irrisposible"

Thers a huge differnce between a resposible and irrisposible breeder, soemthign BM has failed to grasp. becuase inher eys their is no such thing as a responsible breeder..

No, dont think anyone would say that,

I think Lozzi , using Jake as an example, his breeder is exactly the type of breeder we are talking about, one who has a litter knowing he can dump the pups in rescue with no comeback on him/her self.

if Jakes breeder has consequences to answer to , he may not have 1) allowed his bitch to get pregnant, 2( aborted the litter (but that would cost him money ) or 3) take the time to find homes for the pups himself...

But he had no consequences to answer to , he just dumped them in rescue , washing his hands of the problem

where did you get jake from? I have always found there are more x breeds in rescue than pedigrees, although you can find pedigrees in rescue, but not to the extent that you get x'breeds or at this moment sadly staffies seem to be very high in numbers in rescues, but we all know why that is.

Dogs in dogs trust rescue, IMO far more x types than anything else

http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/rehoming...alse&pageNum=1

I am not saying pedigree or cross breeders should have any less responsibility put on them, I would be interest to know the difference as I see none, any animal in our care should be taken as it is, a life time one that doesn't discriminate between pedigree or cross as that is simply choice.
I think I have read about pedigree dogs and owners where it is seen as bad (and have even accidently said it myself, as I was in a rush and didn't put it right, just ask Jackbox)
My personal options of PF's well I can't write them on here as I would get banned.
BYB, I get that education is needed but the human condition being what it is, just isn't going to work on all in thinking before they do.
But to say shelters give them an out, they don't, the government does for not making them accountable (except PF as that is illegal, but the follow up and resources made available to the hunting down of said puppy farmers is less than adequate, again government at fault not shelters).
To me it is about harm reduction, as the world isn't not perfect, it is bad that shelters are needed and they seem to be the middle person that gets the blame from both sides, encouraging puppy farmers and irresponsible owner and breeders, but in fact they are the fall out from these two, and their actions stop the victims (the dogs) in all this meeting a worse fate or increasing problems with strays and more unwanted dogs. Yet they are not perfect and sometimes bad things happen but nothing into the proportion of if they didn't exist.
Education and laws need to come into place for PF's and breeders to be responsible for the dogs they help to create (by accident or purposely breed) and the laws to reflect that. That is not to jail them necessarily but go and do community service and pick up dog excrement or in a zoo with a teaspoon in the elephant enclosure doing the same thing but never be allowed to cause more damage to a problem that has not one single solution but many.

But they could just dump them in a park at dark when no one is around if no shelter, or strict questions asked they don't want to answer them.

I don't think people would necessarily know they starved their dogs to death or any other way of disposing them, as if you look at when puppy farm being pulled apart neighbours are even shocked at the conditions, they are secretive. There will always be ones fooled into thinking they are ethical breeders, and not look any further than what they see or are told.


I see them being classed as criminal, as the dogs are the one's that are being punished by saying shelters encourage it and people seem to think if we just rub out shelters it will act as a deterrant where really I see it only punishes the dogs not the breeders/owners/PF's
The shelter is there to help the fall out and the dogs that are of no use to them, their fate would be worse if no shelter existed and I guess that is why I have a problem, as I don't see people who lack the morals or ethics to treat the dogs humanely to not use other measure to get rid of these dogs.
If the law fails to recognise a PF or repeat offenders that it the law that is fault,not the shelters.
I guess the dogs are clogging up the system but to say shelters encourage the irresponsible and morally corrupt individuals. Where it again starts at the top, the people with the power (law makers) the shelter the middle.
I just wonder what people want when they say if shelters didn't exist that wouldn't encourage them, what is there that the shelters are doing wrong, and maybe if anything, it could be rectified by law not by the actual shelter.
Not sure what I think of a dog living in a shelter for years, it sounds a sad existence, but not sure if it is as bleak as it sounds, I hope not.

Maybe it is that shelters aren't the solution to the problem, that doesn't mean they are faulty, it is where the law fails and needs to be addressed and get resources behind it and follow through with PF laws, and extend it to irresponsible breeders and owners (know a few I would love to see stopped but by law they do nothing wrong)

That is not a rescue issue that is a law issue, I am sure if you ask anyone with shelter involvement they would love to be able to have someone follow up where the dogs come from and the law to fine them or worse......

No Emma , I dont thing anyone is naive enough to think that if we just rub out shelter s the problem will go away.

Far more is needed to fix this, it it goes back to the breeder, if legalisation was brought in to force said breeders to be responsible for their dogs , then it would snowball down the chain...

Exactly what we have been saying, shelters and rescues are there to help, the dogs , the word help , support , enable, its all the same, the end result is that dogs get dumped in rescue and some breeders dont have a comeback, they just carry on breeding for the rescues to fill up.

To help the dogs not help the breeders though, yes we could get into semantics but at the end of the day the shelters are there for the dogs that are in this world regardless of why they exist.
Laws will deter and that is what will fundamentally change the present state of shelter, oh and the law makers investing in the practical element of enforcing it.
Shelters are not a means to an end of the problem and it is showing by them being over run by dogs, more needs to be done.