Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayceeh  Sorry but I disagree wholeheartedly as to it not being about selling and at the end of the day dollar signs. |
If you honestly feel that the bottom line for breeders is monetary profit, then I am sorry to say you are very misinformed. If that were the case, there would be many breeders who didn't breed at all as they never see the first resemblance of profit, or even breaking even for that matter. It's very disheartening to see such an unfair assumption and generalization made about ALL breeders based when it is, in fact, a mistruth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayceeh No I would use the judgement of a qualified vetenarian to make that judgement. I certainly wouldn't go ahead and decide off my own bat whether my dog was suffering so much, that it was cruel to prolong it's existance. Just as I would never assume to go ahead and try to perform an amputation on an animal without the necessary training.. |
And you don't think that breeders base their decisions on docking the judgement of their vets as well? I can assure you that some certainly do. The point, which is apparently a valid one since it's being swept under the rug and ignored, is just the same and one that apparently no one has an answer for: Whether the judgment being used is that of the owner/breeder, or the vet. If it's good for one, it's good for the other. Why can the pain and suffering in one instance be assessed, and not the next? Like I said, there is no "difference" other than the fact that one supports your argument, the other disputes it. Principles can be accepted for the basis of one thing, and then shunned in the next instance. (Well, I suppose they can...but it really speaks for itself in that case.)