Boston Bans the sell of puppies

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by yavenay

The reason I mention fur coats is because animals are being skinned alive so people can wear them as a fashion accessory. As for fake furs, unless you know what to look for, fake furs are dogs,cats and other furry creatures skinned alive. I was speaking to the "faux furs" that people think are fake but in actuality are really just skinned dogs, cats and rabbits or other small animals.

I love all animals and not just domestic animals. Bringing intentional harm to an animal because some people want to look good is unacceptable. With so many synthetic fibers out there, there is no reason to wear clothing made from animals.

So yes, I am for banning real fur and "faux furs".

FAUX is the French word for FAKE, which I take to mean a simulant, or synthetic. Never mind. I'm too busy for this today.

[canana]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

FAUX is the French word for FAKE, which I take to mean a simulant, or synthetic. Never mind. I'm too busy for this today.

I had a good laugh out loud when I read this. haha...

Then I got curious, why someone might think that faux fur is still real fur. So I did a quick Google search and this article popped up which I thought was quite surprising...
https://www.thedodo.com/real-faux-fu...523379462.html

Not sure how often real fur is actually being sold as faux fur. Regardless, it's troubling to know...

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

I don't think reputable breeders breed to 'meet the demand". IMO the "meeting the demand" breeding is what is causing more and more neglected and/or abused...and homeless animals in this country.

As to the owners who surrender dogs willy nilly......they are coming from breeders who breed to "meet the demand".

My comments did not say reputable breeders breed to meet the demand in fact contrary to your statement. I simply said we can not meet the demand for puppies if (inference here0 there is a large decrease in puppies. I was musing upon the *law of unintended conseqences*.

Sure get rid of puppy mills but surely it is best to do that at the source of the problem. Sic the puppy mill itself. Instead we have these laws coming into effect at the retail level not the producer level....

Owners who surrender dogs willy nilly really are not only coming from commercial USDA licensed facilities and or puppy mills - they do also come very sadly from responsible breeders.

I am simply saying the answer to the problem is much more complex than a black n white solution. Block retail sales at pet stores - and if there is as much profit in it as you think the commercial breeders will find another outlet..... So that outlet will be something we have not thought of - the darkweb - back to newspaper adverts - pet expo sales - gosh I donot know - but anything underground is defacto harder to regulate.

I have posted some numbers before and of course they are all soft numbers! But there is anywhere from 75million to 80 million dogs in the USA in homes. Baring surrenders to shelters et al a very conservative number of say 5% of dogs will die from disease or old age. THat is anywhere from 3.75 million to 4 million dogs a year that consumers might want to replace. This of course ignores the new entrants to the field of dog ownership and or those older folks that say this is my last pooch. I have yet to see any stats on those percentages.

In home responsible breeders can not just based on their numbers of same possibly fulfill that new demand. So the demand is there and anyone in business knows market forces will move to fullfill that demand.

IMO there needs to be a grass root sea change of potential and current dog owners to actually sign up for ownership of their dog for that dogs lifetime. And yes sometimes there will be regrettable circumstances that occasion the need for a dog surrender to a shelter but if we stop before it starts irresponsible dog ownership then a whole lot fewer folks will purchase a dog be it through a rescue or a dog breeder or a puppy mill or a USDA licensed commercial breeder.
Surely as I have read that a significant proportion of dogs surrendered are from actual owners and not from breeders dumping a litter at a shelter that would go a hell of a long way to reducing dogs in shelters...

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by canana

I had a good laugh out loud when I read this. haha...

Then I got curious, why someone might think that faux fur is still real fur. So I did a quick Google search and this article popped up which I thought was quite surprising...
https://www.thedodo.com/real-faux-fu...523379462.html

Not sure how often real fur is actually being sold as faux fur. Regardless, it's troubling to know...

Wow, now I've just looked it up too and it's really quite sickening that anyone is out there selling real fur as fake, or faux.
Now I have to go back and figure out how that problem is connected to puppies being sold in pet stores.
Basically, some people won't rest until there are no puppies available anywhere. I need to make peace with that as I won't be the one suffering over it.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

My comments did not say reputable breeders breed to meet the demand in fact contrary to your statement. I simply said we can not meet the demand for puppies if (inference here0 there is a large decrease in puppies. I was musing upon the *law of unintended conseqences*.

Sure get rid of puppy mills but surely it is best to do that at the source of the problem. Sic the puppy mill itself. Instead we have these laws coming into effect at the retail level not the producer level....

Owners who surrender dogs willy nilly really are not only coming from commercial USDA licensed facilities and or puppy mills - they do also come very sadly from responsible breeders.

I am simply saying the answer to the problem is much more complex than a black n white solution. Block retail sales at pet stores - and if there is as much profit in it as you think the commercial breeders will find another outlet..... So that outlet will be something we have not thought of - the darkweb - back to newspaper adverts - pet expo sales - gosh I donot know - but anything underground is defacto harder to regulate.

I have posted some numbers before and of course they are all soft numbers! But there is anywhere from 75million to 80 million dogs in the USA in homes. Baring surrenders to shelters et al a very conservative number of say 5% of dogs will die from disease or old age. THat is anywhere from 3.75 million to 4 million dogs a year that consumers might want to replace. This of course ignores the new entrants to the field of dog ownership and or those older folks that say this is my last pooch. I have yet to see any stats on those percentages.

In home responsible breeders can not just based on their numbers of same possibly fulfill that new demand. So the demand is there and anyone in business knows market forces will move to fullfill that demand.

IMO there needs to be a grass root sea change of potential and current dog owners to actually sign up for ownership of their dog for that dogs lifetime. And yes sometimes there will be regrettable circumstances that occasion the need for a dog surrender to a shelter but if we stop before it starts irresponsible dog ownership then a whole lot fewer folks will purchase a dog be it through a rescue or a dog breeder or a puppy mill or a USDA licensed commercial breeder.
Surely as I have read that a significant proportion of dogs surrendered are from actual owners and not from breeders dumping a litter at a shelter that would go a hell of a long way to reducing dogs in shelters...

I knew exactly what you meant. My thoughts on demand are that I don't give a darn about demand.

[ladyjane]

I don't think anyone is trying to stop ALL breeding and quite frankly it is disturbing to me that every time someone makes a suggestion or a law is passed that will limit the bad breeders, people start carrying on that we don't want ANY dogs. That to me is ridiculous...there will never be a shortage of dogs. What we need is for breeders to stop selling to every Joe Blow who has money in hand AND to support legislation that will stop this. I DO know there are breeders who don't sell to just anyone.......sadly there are MORE that don't do it. These are LIVE beings and to just breed for money and give to anyone regardless of what kind of life they will give that dog is horrible.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

I don't think anyone is trying to stop ALL breeding and quite frankly it is disturbing to me that every time someone makes a suggestion or a law is passed that will limit the bad breeders, people start carrying on that we don't want ANY dogs. That to me is ridiculous...there will never be a shortage of dogs. What we need is for breeders to stop selling to every Joe Blow who has money in hand AND to support legislation that will stop this. I DO know there are breeders who don't sell to just anyone.......sadly there are MORE that don't do it. These are LIVE beings and to just breed for money and give to anyone regardless of what kind of life they will give that dog is horrible.

Nobody in this thread suggested that we don't want any dogs at all being bred. Although PETA has in the past posited this position. To question and muse upon consequences is a inborn trait of humans.

What besides breeders not selling to every tom dick or harry is also shelters not placing dogs with whom-ever. What we need is an educated and committe buying public who don't show up to adopt a dog when they are not prepared for the commitment of dog ownership/ That can only come with a continual education of the public and discerning dog placement from all sources that dogs come from!

[magicgenie]

Originally Posted by gemy

Nobody in this thread suggested that we don't want any dogs at all being bred. Although PETA has in the past posited this position. To question and muse upon consequences is a inborn trait of humans.

What besides breeders not selling to every tom dick or harry is also shelters not placing dogs with whom-ever. What we need is an educated and committe buying public who don't show up to adopt a dog when they are not prepared for the commitment of dog ownership/ That can only come with a continual education of the public and discerning dog placement from all sources that dogs come from!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

Nobody in this thread suggested that we don't want any dogs at all being bred. Although PETA has in the past posited this position. To question and muse upon consequences is a inborn trait of humans.

What besides breeders not selling to every tom dick or harry is also shelters not placing dogs with whom-ever. What we need is an educated and committe buying public who don't show up to adopt a dog when they are not prepared for the commitment of dog ownership/ That can only come with a continual education of the public and discerning dog placement from all sources that dogs come from!

There you go.... blame the shelters who have NOTHING to do with breeding!

I agree about education, and I believe that the people who bring these animals into the world and make money off of them owe it to them to educate the person buying...and NOT selling to the uneducable.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by magicgenie

This whole movement to stop everyone from selling puppies cuts to my core somehow. Now Boston has jumped on the bandwagon of banning pet stores selling pets? This is getting close to home. Massachusetts was already generally miserable for breeders when I left. Never mind, I think the movement is a runaway train now.

Originally Posted by gemy

Nobody in this thread suggested that we don't want any dogs at all being bred. Although PETA has in the past posited this position. To question and muse upon consequences is a inborn trait of humans.

What besides breeders not selling to every tom dick or harry is also shelters not placing dogs with whom-ever. What we need is an educated and committe buying public who don't show up to adopt a dog when they are not prepared for the commitment of dog ownership/ That can only come with a continual education of the public and discerning dog placement from all sources that dogs come from!

Actually it was said.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

There you go.... blame the shelters who have NOTHING to do with breeding!

I agree about education, and I believe that the people who bring these animals into the world and make money off of them owe it to them to educate the person buying...and NOT selling to the uneducable.

shelters have everthing to do with the placement of dogs. It is their responsibilty to place dogs in homes.

Dog Owner's Guide:Minimizing owner surrenders

From this study linked above:

Introduction

Several years ago, the Humane Society of the US initiated a “voluntary breeding moratorium” to urge dog breeders to stop producing puppies until all dogs in shelters were adopted to new homes.

“Until there are none, adopt one,” the slogan said.

Thoughtful and caring dog breeders were put on the defensive, pet stores were vilified, and all commercial kennels were lumped together as “puppy mills” no matter how they provided for their animals.

A new study that examined the reasons dogs — about two million each year — are surrendered to animal shelters has shed new light on the problem. The main reasons dogs are surrendered is that owners fail to obedience train or have unrealistic expectations of their pet; the dogs at highest risk of surrender are those acquired at low or no cost, especially those that do not visit a veterinarian regularly.

Gary Patronek VMD, PhD, one of the principle investigators on the study, presented the results at the NAIA Purebred Rescue Symposium last March. The work was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association on August 1, and is corroborated in another study reported in the August 15 issue of the Journal.

Patronek and his Purdue University colleagues concluded that dog owners who pay more than $100 for a dog, take him to a veterinarian more than once a year, and participate in obedience classes are more likely to provide a long-term home for the animal.

Veterinary care and obedience classes may reinforce the bonding of pet and owner, the researchers wrote “. . . by allowing the owner to experience and appreciate the positive aspects of pet ownership such as companionship, affection, entertainment, and security without overreacting to or being distracted by disruptive or unwanted behavior.”

Their conclusions challenge the assertions of activists that breeders directly and indirectly produce an “overpopulation” of pets and provide testimony for early intervention through education, a solution that breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and the American Kennel Club have promoted for years.

And another extract from the article:

The numbers

The research was done at the Humane Society of St. Joseph, Mishawaka, Indiana. The team compiled separate information for dogs and cats; they interviewed 380 people who surrendered their dogs for adoption and 905 owners who kept their animals. The control group was chosen from a random sample of dog-owning St. Joseph County residents.
Fifty-four percent of the dogs surrendered were six months to three years old and 15 percent were less than six months old. (The study included only acquired dogs, not surrendered litters.)
Fifty-one percent of dogs surrendered had been purchased for less than $100 from a breeder or private owner. Nearly nine percent from these private sources cost more than $100 ; 2.5 percent came from pet stores; and 3.9 percent from litters produced in the home.
Nearly 20 percent of the surrendered dogs came from a shelter, and about the same number were acquired as strays.
Nearly 41 percent of the surrendered dogs were obtained free from the previous owner.
Behavior problems occurring daily that contributed to surrender were:
barking, 41 percent
chewing24 percent
hyperactivity, 45 percent
housetraining accidents, 21 percent
aggression to other pets, less than eight percent
aggression to people, less than nine percent.

20% of dogs re surrended from a shelter tells me there is a lot lacking in shelter placement

[ladyjane]

Oh, so you think shelters should pick up the mess made by breeders.

I am not going to argue....I know what a waste of time it is.

Sad state of affairs for the poor animals in this world...more blaming than doing.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by gemy

shelters have everthing to do with the placement of dogs. It is their responsibilty to place dogs in homes.

Dog Owner's Guide:Minimizing owner surrenders

From this study linked above:

Introduction

Several years ago, the Humane Society of the US initiated a “voluntary breeding moratorium” to urge dog breeders to stop producing puppies until all dogs in shelters were adopted to new homes.

“Until there are none, adopt one,” the slogan said.

Thoughtful and caring dog breeders were put on the defensive, pet stores were vilified, and all commercial kennels were lumped together as “puppy mills” no matter how they provided for their animals.

A new study that examined the reasons dogs — about two million each year — are surrendered to animal shelters has shed new light on the problem. The main reasons dogs are surrendered is that owners fail to obedience train or have unrealistic expectations of their pet; the dogs at highest risk of surrender are those acquired at low or no cost, especially those that do not visit a veterinarian regularly.

Gary Patronek VMD, PhD, one of the principle investigators on the study, presented the results at the NAIA Purebred Rescue Symposium last March. The work was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association on August 1, and is corroborated in another study reported in the August 15 issue of the Journal.

Patronek and his Purdue University colleagues concluded that dog owners who pay more than $100 for a dog, take him to a veterinarian more than once a year, and participate in obedience classes are more likely to provide a long-term home for the animal.

Veterinary care and obedience classes may reinforce the bonding of pet and owner, the researchers wrote “. . . by allowing the owner to experience and appreciate the positive aspects of pet ownership such as companionship, affection, entertainment, and security without overreacting to or being distracted by disruptive or unwanted behavior.”

Their conclusions challenge the assertions of activists that breeders directly and indirectly produce an “overpopulation” of pets and provide testimony for early intervention through education, a solution that breeders, breed clubs, kennel clubs, and the American Kennel Club have promoted for years.

And another extract from the article:

The numbers

The research was done at the Humane Society of St. Joseph, Mishawaka, Indiana. The team compiled separate information for dogs and cats; they interviewed 380 people who surrendered their dogs for adoption and 905 owners who kept their animals. The control group was chosen from a random sample of dog-owning St. Joseph County residents.
Fifty-four percent of the dogs surrendered were six months to three years old and 15 percent were less than six months old. (The study included only acquired dogs, not surrendered litters.)
Fifty-one percent of dogs surrendered had been purchased for less than $100 from a breeder or private owner. Nearly nine percent from these private sources cost more than $100 ; 2.5 percent came from pet stores; and 3.9 percent from litters produced in the home.
Nearly 20 percent of the surrendered dogs came from a shelter, and about the same number were acquired as strays.
Nearly 41 percent of the surrendered dogs were obtained free from the previous owner.
Behavior problems occurring daily that contributed to surrender were:
barking, 41 percent
chewing24 percent
hyperactivity, 45 percent
housetraining accidents, 21 percent
aggression to other pets, less than eight percent
aggression to people, less than nine percent.

20% of dogs re surrended from a shelter tells me there is a lot lacking in shelter placement

As to your highlighted sentence....WHERE DID THEY COME FROM ORIGINALLY?

I rest my case. I have seen this type of rhetoric over and over ad nauseum and I say that until breeders are controlled we will continue to have problems. Reputable breeders SHOULD be on the bandwagon to help but no...so many just worry about their bottom line. $$$$$$$$$

sick. of. it.

[ladyjane]

Gemy, you breed and you are against early spay/neuter ... yet you blame shelters for our over population of dogs ? I don't think there is much more I could say to you.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Oh, so you think shelters should pick up the mess made by breeders.

I am not going to argue....I know what a waste of time it is.

Sad state of affairs for the poor animals in this world...more blaming than doing.

Yet again Linda you put words in my mouth I did not say! I was merely pointing out the fact that shelters have a responsibility to place correctly and with judgement the right dog into a home. A 20% surrender rate of dogs from previous shelters tells me that they need to improve.