hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 am
In my experience, about half of the dogs (maybe a bit more, maybe not) in the shelters here have been brought there by their owners. Some, because the owners' financial or health state has changed. But most, because the dog's personality is incompatible with their lifestyle.
And how many of those dogs brought to shelters because the owner didn't like the personality were actually purchased by the owner from a breeder?
You would have to demonstrate that effectively *all* of the returned dogs are shelter dogs, and that there's virtually no risk of this with dogs from a breeder.
And even then, you'd need to demonstrate the harm of trying out a couple dogs. There's not a comparison there:
Bred dogs, when bought and then given to a shelter, *increase* the number of dogs in shelters and burden those shelters.
Adopted dogs, when adopted from a shelter and then returned, do not increase the number of dogs in shelters but in fact *decrease* the number by temporarily or cyclically removing dogs to homes (even if not forever homes).
There's a systemic risk of harm with buying a dog and then giving that dog to a shelter. There's no such systemic risk with adopting a shelter dog and then returning him or her because it didn't work out.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amA dog with a husky-type personality is definitely not suitable for most people, and will suffer in a "normal" family, and a dog with an ovtcharka-type personality is also not suitable for families or people who need a dog who can socialize a lot. This is the main point why dogs are rehomed and given to the shelter as far as I see it here. Even mutts have very varying personalities.
What's the relevance of that to the adopt don't shop message?
Most people seem to prefer breeds based on aesthetics, and the choice of breed seems about as likely to go wrong for a first time dog owner as opting for a mutt if not more likely to go wrong for a purebred. Not only are mutt personalities going to be about as predictable as a breed since it's not that hard to figure out what the parents were (there are even genetic tests today), but mutt personalities are likely to be more mild where purebred dogs have more extreme personality traits that are more likely to cause trouble if you don't know what you're getting into (and most people do not). Yes, mutts have varying personalities, but the distribution there is less extreme and a mutt is more likely to work out for somebody than a random purebred.
Like I said, unless this is a working dog with very strict requirements, a mutt can probably fulfill people's needs.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amThey are often taken from the shelter and brought back 1 or 2 years later, then adopted again, then brought back again.
Many previously owned dogs have behavioral issues that have nothing to do with genetics. They need to be better trained, and shelters should really do a better job of this (and matching dogs to families) in order to have a lasting fit. Of course the trouble with that is that they aren't incentivized to do so, they only collect adoption fees when an animal goes out... so it kind of works out for them if there's a revolving door. Of course the animal lovers working in shelters don't want to see that, but from a business standpoint it doesn't make sense to invest more in training and dog-family matching.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amFor many people, they will take more of the same breed, but if it's not currently possible, then they will not adopt a dog at all - they will wait until the dogs are available. But of course, people who have had a positive experience with a shelter dog will want to adopt more shelter dogs. And some people have no preference.
Then it seems like the doggie
racists breedists should wait until one shows up for adoption. Or maybe should just not have a dog.
If it comes to it, I think this kind of prejudice would die out if the breeds did or it became impossible to adopt one.
Aside from assistance animals, bomb sniffing dogs, etc. I think the only exception might be for somebody with severe allergies, since some dog breeds may be more hypoallergenic... but then there are always allergy shots, so it seems kind of extreme to specially breed a dog (and all of the ethical risks of that) rather than just investing in fixing your allergy problem at the root.
When there's no compelling reasoning there we can't indulge irrational prejudices like that by giving them a pass to breed dogs. Would we respond that way to human racists, saying it's OK for them to only hire white people because they had good experiences with white people? Or would we condemn that?
The only place we allow that kind of hiring prejudice is where it makes sense, like casting somebody in a movie role who looks like the character he or she will be playing. If there's not a very compelling objective reason to exercise prejudice, against humans or dogs, then I don't think we should condone it.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amUsually, at least here, the way mutts and accidental litters are made is this: a person in a small country place has a dog. Keeps it in their yard, maybe on a chain. So the neighbour dogs visit and have some fun and suddenly, surprise, there's a litter. Well, okay, I'll just give the pups away to other people in the village or nearby. Then these again breed, but who knows if they avoid their own siblings and parents? Then their offspring breeds. Etc. Some lines stay in the same small village for generations. Inbreeding is very much an issue.
How large are these villages? That's not an issue in most of the world. You only need a few hundred individuals in the population to prevent serious issues unless there's intentional selection for certain traits.
If we're talking about very small populations, this could be pretty easily resolved by way of a shelter dog exchange where shelters ship their dogs out to more distant villages and accept dogs from other places. Seems like we should advocate an easy fix like that rather than dog breeding that doesn't fix the problem at all but at best just adds more dogs without the problem.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amMutts are not generally healthier than purebred dogs, but they are more healthy than some breeds in specific. Purebred dogs, at least here, ARE indeed seen more at the clinic, true - but this may be because owners of purebred dogs just tend to have more financial resources.
Some purebreds may be comparable to mutts in terms of genetic health, while others are worse. I don't see any credible argument that mutts could be, on average, less healthy than purebreds.
Unusual cases of localized inbreeding aside (in which case you should adopt from a larger town/city where the population is better mixed) a mutt is going to be as healthy as a healthy purebred.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amI think the way to help the dogs and owners in poor countries is local aid. Spay and neuter organizations, volunteering at shelters etc. It seems to me that this is more effective aid than just exporting the dogs.
That may be more effective to get to the root of the problem, but that doesn't mean export does nothing. Export still helps, and it still saves lives.
It's still better to import a dog from somewhere with a population problem rather than purchase a bred one.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amI agree that appeal to tradition is fallacious - meaning that it's wrong to say "this is right, because it's tradition". But conserving traditions can be a positive aspect on its own as long as it doesn't cause harm. That's what I meant.
Then you can't put that in a list of pros and cons to be weighed against each other, the implication there is that tradition offsets or justifies a harm.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amI justify my personal choices like this: I'm vegan (and try to do activism), I am childfree, but on the negative, I have bought a dog.
Vegan is positive and activism is great, childfree is negative (unless you're adopting), and buying a dog is negative. There's a big difference between children and dogs: children of progressive and conscientious people grow up to become adults who contribute to society and carry on those ideals... dogs don't. If your dog could vote and hold down a productive job then things might be different. There are major advantages to raising children (biological or adopted) to the world as a whole that don't exist with dogs, and outweigh their environmental footprints even if you don't adopt (though adopting is arguably even better for some people).
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 am
In my opinion it is just that breeders have actually done a lot to advance the dog culture here, indirectly saving a lot of homeless dogs.
Them having done some good things doesn't justify the bad thing they regularly do. Do you not think they'd keep doing the good things if they stopped doing the bad thing? If breeding were banned, most of them might move on to advocating for shelter dogs.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amBefore purebred dogs were introduced to this country, dogs were only seen as a tool and not something to spend a lot of money or care on. Breeders introduced the idea of keeping dogs just for their own sake. And they spread the idea of viewing dogs as family members and actually treating them instead of just putting them down in case of a problem.
OK, but that's in the past.
You could say that Slavery in the U.S. elevated the prevailing opinion of black people from violent and dirty savages to (while still seen as inferior) people you could trust to raise your children as house slaves. So should we defend slavery? I don't think so. There's no reason we can't continue to fight racism without slavery -- and do it even better without slavery, which still perpetuated certain racist beliefs.
hiirhiir wrote: ↑Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:26 amI would never be vocally anti-adoption, of course. But I'm not sure I can be vocally anti-breeder either. Of course I'm anti puppy mill (so are breeders). Maybe that makes me not vegan after all...
"Puppy mill" is a bogeyman term, no breeders identify as being puppy mills, but to some degree if they are selling animals then they all are. It's like how every farmer insists he or she is running an ethical operation.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you don't have to vocally oppose breeders. My only point was that it's not alienating to do so because "adopt don't shop" is mainstream.