True I do not know it but then neither do you. As said, I don't think by not rescuing the dogs it will make life harder for them. They clearly do not care for the dogs welfare, it wont be hard to kill them if you have no emotional connection to them.

The only way to stop them is to take away their profits, i.e stop people buying from them. However, we both know that that isn't likely to happen.

I do see what you are saying though, I just can't see it making much of a difference if any. There is also the risk of a lot more dogs suffering for no good reason when the breeding carries on.

But again, this is an assumption is it not? Surely killing them/abandoning them is a much simpler/easier option full stop, so why go to the bother of rehoming them at all??? If they choose to rehome them then it stands to reason they're not completely cold hearted....

No I don't know for certain, but I'm not the one making out right assumptions. Like I said previously people assume there is no emotional connection, yet they choose to go to the trouble of rehoming their unwanted animals when it would be a damn sight easier just to dispatch them there and then.

I really do think if the easy option to rehome wasn't there a lot of PFs wouldn't exist. The whole "they'd only kill them if we didn't rehome them" rubbish is often portrayed by those who make money by rehoming them eg MT. At this point I very much believe what Azz has been saying all along, but it never occurred to me until now.

Do MT approach these PF or do the PF go to them?

If PF know that many tears will take their dogs then it makes better business sense to give their dogs to them. Time is money and gives them a good reputation to unsuspecting buyers who know nothing of PF and buy from them.

Better to have a rep of giving dogs away to find a good new home then 'dispose' of them.

I'm sorry but that's utter rubbish. As if a PF would advertise that they don't kill unwanted stock to gain a better reputation. You're clutching at straws now!

It would be a damn sight cheaper and quicker just to kill the animals they don't want. End of.

Totally agree.

IMO, I dont know how much of an effect not taking there dogs has, but taking their dogs must def be of help to them.it certainly won't help to shut them down. ESP as MT don't report them, even when cruelty/neglect is obvious.

I dont really think theres a need to be like that. I never said they would advertise it, that was your assumption! There is such a thing as word of mouth.

I'm not commenting to win an argument. And if MT approach them to take dogs, that makes it quicker and easier then disposing of the dogs themselves.

I agree that it does help them but I also don't think by not taking them it would shut them down. I also don't really understand why MT don't report these places.

However, we can all sit here and judge but if none of us are out there actively getting involved to stop PF how can we judge? Just a thought.

I didn't mean to be "like that", but the idea that PFs would use the rehoming of their stock, as opposed to the killing of their stock, as a marketing ploy is ridiculous. PFs do everything they can to avoid looking like a PF, otherwise they'd never sell any animals.

Re your last point: Exactly, so if "charities" like MT didn't offer to take their dogs life would be more difficult resulting in less PFs.

As much as businesses like MT try to pretend they're saving dogs, what they're actually doing is ensuring to continue the suffering of many more dogs for many years to come. It's got to stop IMO and the first step is to stop all the "rescuing".

I bet Wiccaways would like even half the income MTs has