To many dogs been bred and not enough homes,hence why rescue's are full,page after page of litters in the paper and on the net.....

No it wouldnt, would be absolutely NO different from a cesarean, and as we know many bitches wont even rear puppies born that way as they havent "given birth" to them. If we are ever going to reduce the numbers in rescue, these animals should NOT be produced. As hard as it sounds, its the fairest option for those already there.

Page after page of litters - doesn't mean anything. I could show you page after page of houses for sale but we still have a housing shortage.

Rescues being full - this is more telling because these are unarguably unwanted dogs. Thousands and thousands, tens of thousands of unwanted dogs. But does thousands of unwanted dogs = too many dogs supplied? At first blush it would seem obvious that is does. These dogs must have come from somewhere, they are unwanted, so someone is producing dogs that are unwanted i.e. someone is oversupplying.

But a second look gives a conflicting picture. Almost without exception the person who produced these dogs did find a buyer for the dog when it was a puppy. Somebody paid for it. It was wanted. It is later on when the dog matured that it became unwanted. If we have an oversupply problem then shouldn't we be seeing rescues being swamped with unsold litters?

And yet (with the exception of SBTs who overproduction cannot be argued) the presence of litters in rescue remains relatively rare compared with the presence of (formerly wanted) adolescents.


I don't think the rescue crisis hinges on the fate of bitches whelping in shelters.

Well when bitches can have 6/7 puppies upwards at a time, and given they will be fed and reared for at least 8 weeks, isnt gonna help is it!

I think in very early pregnancy they should be aborted there are so many Dogsborn already already to find homes. The bitch should be allowed to continue a late pregnancy. I would want nothing to do with a Rescue that Destroyed pups once born.

I would be also interested to hear from a rescue point of view,we all know pups are more easily homed than older dogs but should they be a priority over dogs that have been in the rescue system for months,some even years ?

I don't think they should be a priority but different poeple have different criteria when looking for a rescue.In fact when we got Fudge we were advised that a puppy would be better for our situation due to our youngests fear of dogs. Had there not been two litters in the home we would have ended up going to a breeder, or indeed from somewhere less desirable as this was before I was aware of how to choose a decent breeder.....

Personally I don't believe in killing the puppies (I won't use the euphemism "put to sleep") as hopefully some good homes could be found? I don;t know though as I have never worked in rescue.

Saw a terrier cross for rehoming on another forum who had just had a litter at 10 years old! Thought this was quite sad at that age.

No dog "helps" the rescue.

It's the other way around. The rescues exist to help the dogs. The issue for the rescue is whether a bitch in whelp is an unacceptable drain on their charitable resources? That would be a question that each rescue must address but, if one rose to the occasion, I would not criticise their generousity.

I think rescue should make every effort to rehome puppies promptly and within their critical socialisation period. When the rescue I assist has had puppies (unwanted litters rather than whelping bitch) the pups have been quickly homed although the huge amount of totally inappropriate interest for staffy puppies means they are never advertised on the website, instead they are offered as a suggestion to selected homes that have come forward for other dogs.

They are not prioritised above other dogs. They don't need to be.

I'd let them have the puppies as puppies always seem to be the most popular to find a new home. And i don't think that's not fair on the older dogs as if someone wanted a puppy then they'd just go elsewhere anyway.

I don't think it's right the whole 'for every puppy thats bought/rescued an older rescue dog dies' or however it's worded. If someone wants a puppy they might go to rescue first and if there aren't any there they'll go to a breeder. Not everyone wants an older dog and there's nothing wrong with that.

When we decided to get a dog ourselves OH said he only wanted a puppy as he wants to raise it and doesnt want to take on an older dog with problems (he's not a big dog lover to start off with) so we got a puppy. He doesn't change his mind once it's decided but just because we wanted and got a puppy i don't think it means an older rescue dog died because of it as he wouldnt have ever considered getting an older dog in the first place. All it means is the puppy we bought has got a loving home for life (when considering his breed could have ended up with a horrible family).

BTW im not againt rescue we've had rescue dogs in the past lol I would love to rescue an older SBT or Rottweiler in the future but it's all down to the OH and it would take a lot of pestering to be able to rescue one (to prove i could sort out any issues ect...), took me a year to persuade him to let me get a dog in the first place .

I just don't think people who would rather have a puppy for whatever reason should be blamed for an older dog dying in a rescue, the people who gave them to the rescue in the first place should get more of the blame IMO.

Don't mean to annoy/upset anyone with this.