*Shamrock*

Euthanize Vs. No Kill Animal Shelters & Purebred Vs Mutt

Recommended Posts

EUTHANIZE VS. NO KILL SHELTERS

So, I live near an army base and the more I read on craigslist, the paper, etc the more upset I get. There are dogs, cats, puppies and kittens going left and right. The common excuse "I'm pregnant," "My husband is deploying," "My landlord.." "I'm moving and can't take them." The list goes it. It makes me so mad, because the shelters here are ALWAYS at full capacity.

This is what brings me to my debate of a kill vs no kill shelter. All I ever hear is how horrible it is to euthanize a pet. I, however, have my own opinion. While I think that every animal deserves a loving and caring FOREVER home, that is just not possible in the world we live in. The dog population has gotten so out of control that it is just not possible. So, would you rather a dog be humanely euthanized IF it cannot find a home OR have a home where it is neglected and beaten OR live its life out in a tiney tiny kennel shared with 2 other dogs at a shelter. Personally, I would rather see a dog leave this world peacefully than be neglected.

PUREBRED VS. MUTT

Would you rather own a purebred dog or a mutt? I believe that it is RIDICULOUS to pay a couple hundred dollars for a purebred PET dog. In my opinion the ONLY time someone should pay high dollar for a dog is if the dog is going to be a working dog (aka policedog, hunting dogs, cattle dogs, guide dogs, searchdogs, etc) If people would be more responsible pet owners and spayed and nuetered their dogs, we woudln't have mutts and we wouldn't have to have kill shelters. However, getting everyone to be a responsible pet owner would be practically impossible! If you are not using your dog as a working dog or showing your dog why do you have to have a purebred? I just don't understand this. There are 800 dogs an hour being put to sleep, why pay $300 for a purebred when you could save one of the 800? If people didn't pay for purebreds, other people would quit breeding purebreds, stopping part of this cruel cycle.

So, what is everyone else's opinion....Kill vs No kill and Purebred vs ...PLEASE keep it civil, this is just opinions!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's feasible to have no-kill shelters of any real size. It can be done on a small, private basis where you can choose which animals to accept, but if you have to take every animal that shows up, it's not possible.

I like aussies, so I guess I vote purebred. The aussie intellect and personality just works amazingly well for me. I love mutts too, but I worry about getting a puppy that wouldn't mesh with my lifestyle. That's possible with an aussie too, but it is much less likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have worked with our animal control shelter for over 30 years.

There is another "no-kill" shelter here.

The way we see it, each one does their job the way they know best to do it and they are not the same in important ways.

In a way, the no-kill shelter is not named right, it should be named the "warehousing" shelter, because they only take so many and then sit on those until someone is adopted and makes room for another, playing musical chairs with the dogs they turn back, "no room at the inn", that are euthanized at the animal control shelter after now three days.

The no-kill shelter uses many resources that could go to help many more dogs, if they would not keep dogs forever, some unadoptables their whole lives.

I guess it makes a difference to that one dog, but really, does that dog in that pen for all those years has much dog quality of life just because it is alive?

As I say, each one of us does what they can, the way they are set up to provide.

At the animal control shelter, the local humane association group, no relation at all to the HSUS, rents one wing and any dog that is not claimed after three days and seems adoptable, we take over there and they have some more days to be adopted, are featured on the local TV news and many are adopted.

Still, there are not enough homes for all those unwanted dogs out there, so a good 80% are euthanized every day, from 30 to 100 some days.

I am afraid that, after we don't slaughter horses any more in the USA in sizeable numbers and it is made hard to ship them to Canada or Mexico, unwanted horses now are follwing the same fate, animal control is getting them and have to euthanize them.

When there are more pets than homes and with the bad economy not many want or can manage to take care of one more mouth and let their pets go, I don't know what else anyone can do.

It is absurd that we as a society have to kill all those pets, but we keep doing it, have been for many years.

As for purebred or mixed bred, most dogs in our shelter are mixed bred dogs, the majority now labs, that goes by fads, the most popular dog breeds get to be the dog to have.

Purebred dogs will assure some minimum bred characteristics in the offspring, so many people prefer them, as they want those characteristics in their pet.

Mixed breed dogs as puppies are fine if you don't care that much for what you get in a dog and make do with what you get, unless you get an adult and you can see what it is like.

Each person looking for a dog just has different ideas of what they would like to live with and that is ok.

I think that so many people are in love with the idea of having a sweet dog be part of their family and after they get one realize the dog is far from what they idealized, but one more for them to take care of, use up their time and energy and have to be managed, when they already have a full life with little time to spare and those are the ones that end up homeless, sooner or later.

Edited by Merry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think no kill is an unrealistic goal. For the reasons KatyB said... if you have to take every animal that comes to you, you will have to euth ones that can't be rehomed or end up full and overwhelmed.

As far as purebred vs mutt? i think people should get the dog they want, what ever kind it is. If they buy a purebred it should be from a RESPONSIBLE breeder. RESPONSIBLE breeders are not the ones to blame for pet over population. IRRESPONSIBLE ones are. If someone wants a mutt, they should get a mutt, if they want a pure bred dog they should buy one the RIGHT way. My issue is with people who buy from irresponsible breeders. I have one of each(mutt and a pure bred), but I got my pure bred from rescue.

If the only people who spend money on a high dollar pure bred dog are show people what happens to all the less than show quality offspring of the show dogs? Why can't someone who wants a pure bred dog buy one of those without being judged for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had both muts and purebreds. Thy all have their uses as pets or working dogs. I lean more toward purebreds because you have a better general idea what a pup will grow up to be, versus mutts that MIGHT resemble either parent in attributes, or often, resemble neither of them. Mutts are a crapshoot. And yes, I prefer getting pups to adults, so I can raise them to suit me, and not just take on someone else's mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been involved with kill shelters and no kill shelters. It can go either way and, to me, what makes a shelter good or not, is not the status of kill or no kill.

Currently our no kill shelter has taken a high priority in being in the media and in utilizing foster homes. All animals leave the shelter spayed or neutered and are up to date on shots. Medical attention is always given.

If the dog has issues, I (the trainer) have most likely worked with the dog. The dogs are sent home with an information packet on how to successfully acclimate their dog into the family and the new family is given resources.

Dogs that would be better placed in a breed specific rescue are placed there if necessary.

Cats are loose in cat rooms unless they are ill or too young. Cats are found homes quickly.

This shelter uses its resources to the the best of its ability. Are there flaws sometimes in the system? Of course; but this shelter is an excellent model of how a no kill shelter can operate successfully without turning into a hoarding facility.

The local kill shelter does not have a trainer on board, they aren't in the media, they don't spay or neuter the animals and in fact, even if the animal desperately needs a vet, they won't pay for it. Cats are kept in small cages and they rarely find homes. All teh critters have a timeline.

So, like I said, it isn't about kill or no kill; it's about using your resources wisely and running a quality organization. I think you can run no kill successfully if that's what you are determined to do. It doesn't mean that all teh animals coming through will be adopted out of that facility; it requires networking with other shelters and organizations, but it is possible.

RE: purebred vs mutt

Everyone is entitled to whatever kind of dog they want. Buying a dog from a shelter or buying one from a breeder each comes with unique training challenges.

I will go so far as to say it is arrogent to push "save all the dogs and get one from a shelter" on every person that gets a dog. Not everyone has the capacity to deal with adult or adolescent dogs with issues. You will only increase the amount of dogs in shelters when you don't properly match the dog to the handler's abilities. I know; I see mis-matched pairs all the time and it is very hard to make it work.

As much of a pain in the butt puppies are, they can be easier for some people than taking on somebody else's problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see barn boss's point (but then i always do LOL), but if you have the intestinal fortitude, rescuing an older dog has advantages. they are usually housebroken (note "usually"), and problems like outright disrespect soon become clear and can be dealt with.

i'm actually against no-kill shelters though. the dog didn't do anything except react to the ineptitude of its owner. life sentence in a cage? no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kill shelters in this area are more overwhelmed with cats than dogs. Typically a dog will sit in it's cage for as long as it takes to get adopted. They aren't normally given 5 days and then you're done. What i find happens in kill shelters is that any weird behaviour causes the dog to get euthed vs calling in a trainer and either getting to the bottom of it or getting a recommendation. It just seems the answer to everything is euth.

With the no kill shelter, the dogs have so much exposure via media and website that they move through rather quickly and the dogs that don't, go to foster homes or spend lots of free time with staff.

They also have way more volunteers than the kill shelter so all the critters get way more attention and exercise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why, oh why, do people not neuter? shakespeare could have written a whole soliliquy around THAT.

i had such a problem with a one year old male border collie that i adopted (and prompty neutered). actually i had problems. imagine my despair when i realized that i would have to change MY behavior, to remain ever vigilant, to impose consequences for every action. and this from a person who has had a lot of nice dogs in her life. that the dog was not the problem, it was his former family and consequently, MOI.

that's the challenge for a dog trainer like you BB. dealing with dog owners who don't want to have any ownership in the dog's behavior.

germany has nothing but no kill shelters but a lot of people who would be better off having a glass dog on their lawn rather than live. neuter or spay--horrors! but then these days i could say the same thing about parents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since spay/neuter is so wrapped up in the topic at hand, I'll share this here.

new Nola spay/neuter regulations

Basically, to have an intact cat or dog in my city, you now have to have a permit and pay $20 every year.

I think it's cool, though far from perfect. It was opposed by the AKC, which I don't get at all. IMO, responsible breeders who are breeding on a not-a-puppy-mill scale should be happy to pay it, since it's geared towards punishing those who are doing nothing to help the industry. I mean, if you can't easily afford $20 a year for each of your breeding animals, you probably shouldn't be breeding them. Would I wanna pay? No, no one wants be told they gotta pay for something new like this. But it's for the greater good of the animals, and again, if you're not at all concerned with that, you probably shouldn't be breeding.

Hopefully it'll work out well and will eventually help decrease the burden on our shelters.

I own a nonworking purebred. Paid a good bit for him too because he was what I wanted and needed in a dog. He's fixed and is the perfect dog for me. I fail to see anything wrong with that. A shelter dog didn't die because I bought my dog. If I didn't have this specific dog, I wouldn't have one at all right now. I've had shelter dogs in the past and probably will again someday, but that wasn't (and isn't) what fit best in my life these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as purebred vs mutt? i think people should get the dog they want, what ever kind it is. If they buy a purebred it should be from a RESPONSIBLE breeder. RESPONSIBLE breeders are not the ones to blame for pet over population. IRRESPONSIBLE ones are. If someone wants a mutt, they should get a mutt, if they want a pure bred dog they should buy one the RIGHT way. My issue is with people who buy from irresponsible breeders. I have one of each(mutt and a pure bred), but I got my pure bred from rescue.

This bears repeating. Responsible breeders dont usually breed until they have a waiting list of committed buyers out there to buy the puppies. That is how it should be done with all breeders IMO.

Purebreed vs Mutt...I prefer purebreed. I have had mutts, I have 2 now out of my herd of dogs, and I have dogs from shelters. But my preference is purebreed.

I know many breeders who do have a shelter dog or two around their place, or one they picked up somewhere off the side of the road.

No kill shelters IMO are not a good idea. I read an article about a lab that was turned into a no kill shelter when he was a puppy, and here it was 10 years later and he was still there. He had lived his entire life in a kennel with a concrete floor. What fun that is. They are mainly foster homes IMO because they do pick and choose.

I think dogs who remain in shelters need to be the most readily adoptable. I dont agree with keeping iffy personalities because there are alot of really good dogs out there getting PTS.

I also do not agree with going to huge heroics to save a stray animal. Like the cat with no legs, or a dog that is very injured and spending a ton of county money to fix it and offer it up for adoption. That money could have been put up to save a healthy animal with good temperament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will go so far as to say it is arrogent to push "save all the dogs and get one from a shelter" on every person that gets a dog.

Or to judge someone for paying $300 (or significantly more) for a purebred for whatever reason they want the dog for. I have a Chesapeake that I paid more than triple that for and that was only for a limited registration (meaning if I bred her and wanted to register the puppies, I would have had to pay double the purchase price). In her case, we spayed her since her elbow xrays came back questionable, but if they had been good, we would have a bred her once she was proven in the field. We don't do field trials with our dogs, they are just good old hunting dogs, and she's a pheasants worst nightmare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This bears repeating. Responsible breeders dont usually breed until they have a waiting list of committed buyers out there to buy the puppies. That is how it should be done with all breeders IMO.

Purebreed vs Mutt...I prefer purebreed. I have had mutts, I have 2 now out of my herd of dogs, and I have dogs from shelters. But my preference is purebreed.

I know many breeders who do have a shelter dog or two around their place, or one they picked up somewhere off the side of the road.

No kill shelters IMO are not a good idea. I read an article about a lab that was turned into a no kill shelter when he was a puppy, and here it was 10 years later and he was still there. He had lived his entire life in a kennel with a concrete floor. What fun that is. They are mainly foster homes IMO because they do pick and choose.

I think dogs who remain in shelters need to be the most readily adoptable. I dont agree with keeping iffy personalities because there are alot of really good dogs out there getting PTS.

I also do not agree with going to huge heroics to save a stray animal. Like the cat with no legs, or a dog that is very injured and spending a ton of county money to fix it and offer it up for adoption. That money could have been put up to save a healthy animal with good temperament.

I still say it is the fault of the shelter's policy on pets that aren't moving through vs the fact that it's no kill that the dog ended up sitting in a cage for 10 years.

There are good shelters that are kill and good that are no kill. It's not the status of the shelter that makes it a good one or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kill vs. No-Kill

I like the idea of no-kill shelters, but I must admit to the necessity of kill shelters. Add up the number of dogs and cats that were euthanized in the past month and I bet the resultant number would be significant. Multiply that by a year, etc. etc. It would simply not work given today's propensity for people to breed their animals (or allow them to breed) like rabbits. A sad but necessary evil in my mind. So, I'd prefere to see BOTH types, and for the animals in both to have the needed medical care, space, and social interactions. Animals with significant health or mental issues should be euthanized. In the perfect world, owners would be the ones doing this, but welcome to the real world.

Mutt vs. Purebred

Purebred for me. There were specific traits we wanted in a dog. Some breeds have those traits, others do not. While it isn't 100%, with a well bred purebred, you have a pretty decent idea of what you are gonna get. We purchased a purebred with mutliple generations of proven working ability, and our dog grew up to be EXACTLY what was expected based on her bloodline. Mutts are awesome, as long as you aren't looking for something specific in your dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
still say it is the fault of the shelter's policy on pets that aren't moving through vs the fact that it's no kill that the dog ended up sitting in a cage for 10 years.

There are good shelters that are kill and good that are no kill. It's not the status of the shelter that makes it a good one or not.

I didnt word mine right. I meant to say that is one of my examples of not liking no kill shelters. I have seen that they live in kennels all the time and people justify it by saying that at least they are still alive. Death is not the worst thing for a dog. I dont really consider it a shelter if they are a no kill. Its more of a foster/private thing. Its not really a shelter if they turn animals away. I guess it is mainly the labeling that bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get you there and I agree that there are far worse things than death.

Typically this is what happens in a no-kill shelter:

1. All animals are accepted.

2. If an animal has been at the shelter for some time, they typical become a shelter pet where they're crated over night and during the day, buddy up with a staff member and are given the run of the shelter so they are able to have a somewhat normal life.

3. If foster homes are available, special cases go there.

4. If it looks like an animal may move through at a different location (breed specific rescue etc), they may be passed on that way.

I have found no kill shelters really work networks and resources and in doing so, really up the chances of critters getting adopted. They have to because if they don't, the shelter will fill up. In order not to become hoarders, they have to do a lot of legwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I get you there and I agree that there are far worse things than death.

Typically this is what happens in a no-kill shelter:

1. All animals are accepted.

2. If an animal has been at the shelter for some time, they typical become a shelter pet where they're crated over night and during the day, buddy up with a staff member and are given the run of the shelter so they are able to have a somewhat normal life.

3. If foster homes are available, special cases go there.

4. If it looks like an animal may move through at a different location (breed specific rescue etc), they may be passed on that way.

I have found no kill shelters really work networks and resources and in doing so, really up the chances of critters getting adopted. They have to because if they don't, the shelter will fill up. In order not to become hoarders, they have to do a lot of legwork.

That is a fantastic shelter system there. The ones that I know people who have tried to use around here are more like "Nope, we dont want your dog it doesnt fit our criteria." And that is what aggravates me. They pick and choose. It seems more like a private industry to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding "pure bred vs. mutt" I have to ask a question: Why do I want the dog? If all I want is a pet to cuddle then almost anything will do. If I want a dog to do a job (guardian, tracker, herder, etc.) then I'm better off to look for dog breeds/lines that have been established to produce animals that do those jobs. The same rule applies to horses.

Regarding "kill vs. no-kill" we only need look to the BLM to see what happens when you allow your emotion to overdrive your logic. We've got 30,000+++ horses being warehoused because they have no market value and we can't put them down. Shelters that won't euthanize are nothing more than warehouses where we hope against hope that somebody will want a pet. IMO we don't do anyone a favor by this approach.

It sucks that we end up killing a lot of potentially useful creatures, but what else is there to do?

G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a fantastic shelter system there. The ones that I know people who have tried to use around here are more like "Nope, we dont want your dog it doesnt fit our criteria." And that is what aggravates me. They pick and choose. It seems more like a private industry to me.

The shelter I'm involved with used to be a kill shelter. Some things happened and the community threw a fit. Basically the top people were fired, the whole shelter was re-structured and it became a "no kill" shelter.

Lots of changes occured and they have a good system going. Even if this shelter was a kill shelter, IMO, it would still be a good one. They really do a good job and I'm happy to be a part of it.

I think as a whole, staff would rather work harder to find homes for critters if it doesn't mean they have to pick and choose who lives or dies every Friday. There is a lot of turn over in kill shelters because of what employees are asked to do.

The shelter was very open about becoming a no kill shelter. They told the community, "Look- we need your help; we can't do it alone" and there was controversy about that decision, but they are doing a good job and I think it's run well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a fantastic shelter system there. The ones that I know people who have tried to use around here are more like "Nope, we dont want your dog it doesnt fit our criteria." And that is what aggravates me. They pick and choose. It seems more like a private industry to me.

I agree... sounds like the system where barnboss works is a good one.

I think no-kill shelters SHOULD get to pick and choose which animals they want. If an animal comes in that they know is unadoptable, why should they be the ones to care for it and fund it's existance? They need to spend their funds on animals with the highest probability of adoption, or the system starts to fall apart. The OWNER of said animal should be the person held responsible to do what is needed for the animal. If they are not willing to do so themselves, then they have to take the risk of going to a kill shelter knowing that their animal is potentially not a good candidate for adoption and may be euth'd.

Stray animals make it a little harder. I'm not willing to take on a stray myself, and if a no-kill shelter wont take one in, then the person dealing with said stray has to decide for themselves what they can live with and what they can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn, I think if shelters would turn away stray animals, there would be no need for shelters in the first place. Most of the animals are stray, not because they ran away, but because joe blow is tired of them and dumps them in a field or in a box outside the shelter doors after closing time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

barnboss, what % of animals coming in to your shelter would you say are true "stray's" vs. ones that the actual owner dropped/dumped?

Ie. I live out in the country and we have random dogs show up sometime. Lost, dumped, whatever, I don't know. If I were to drop one of those dogs at a shelter, I would call that a true stray, where the owner is unknown (although the OWNER knows who they are). We do have a feral pack of dogs out here that don't have a 'owner' unless you are able to track them back to the original idiot who turned something loose.

Just curious how often it is actual owners dropping off their dogs as opposed to random people who had a dog fall into their lap through no fault of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't give a number Dawn. I volunteer training time, so I don't really focus on that end.

I know they colour code the cards of stray vs. surrendered dogs and there are a good chunk of dogs that are strays.

I distinctly remember at the last shelter I was involved with, that close to 80% were strays. I'm not sure if it's that high at this shelter or not.

ETA: just read your question again. We have one dog that we feel is truly a feral dog in every sense of the word.

The rest, who knows? They're found wandering and staff either picks them up or a good samaritan brings them.

Edited by barn boss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our area, most dogs that come into the animal control shelter are found wandering.

We had such a problem with people dumping dogs, that there is a room with cages that is open 24/7 so people can leave dogs without needing to see anyone.

Many people just don't want to bring dogs and face anyone or any questions and were just dumping their dogs somewhere.

Many still do, but at least some do drop them in there now.

I am surprised that any area has most dogs as surrenders.

I think that you must have a very large city to adopt dogs to, or not that many dogs coming in every day.

There are three small no kill shelters, but they are full all the time, with small turnover, so they really don't count for the service animal control provides.

I wonder what your numbers are, here at animal control, we get from 30 to 100 dogs a day.

No way we could try to handle that many dogs for long, waiting for adoptions or transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally euthanize my pets before I sent them to a shelter and probably before I would rehome them, unless it was to someone I personally knew. They are everything to me and I would go hungry before I would get rid of them, but if it came down to it I would prefer to euthanize them. It is quick, painless, and they don't know that their life was cut short. All that matters to them, in my opinion, is that they were well cared for and loved while they did live and I make sure of that everyday. I see the benefits in both no kill and kill shelters, but the truth of the matter is that there just aren't enough homes and dogs will have to continue to be euthanized in shelters.

As for purebred vs mutt, I have had both in my lifetime. I don't think I'll ever have anything but a purebred boxer again because I love the breed so much. They have everything I want from looks to personality. We (my boyfriend and I) have had four boxers in the past, two were adult rescues and two we bought as puppies from responsible (keyword) breeders. I do love mutts but I have fallen in love with the boxer characteristics. The breeders I buy from are not backyard breeders or puppy mills, they care greatly for their animals and we update our breeder with pics and info constantly and she loves it. Both of our breeders said they would keep any dogs they couldn't sell and they only breed one litter every one to two years. Who are you, or anyone, to judge me for the breed of dog I own? I guarantee there is no dog that is more loved, spoiled, well trained, and most importantly cared for with the best of vet care, feed, etc. in the entire country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we were out searching for our recently adopted dog, we went to a no-kill and a county shelter.

The no-kill was 99% pit bulls and mixes. Which are not easy to adopt out. Those dogs had been there over a year or more. While its sad that these dogs are there, their presence is taking up space for a dog that is more adoptable. That's sad to say but what's worse? Being stuck in a cage for the rest of your life? Some of these no-kill shelters need to wake up and see how overpopulated pets are right now and be selective about what dogs they rehab and try to adopt and which they need to euth.

The county shelter, on the other hand, had MANY adoptable dogs available. There were maybe a handful of pits but they were exceptional ones. This is a shelter that gets criticized all the time by locals for euthing animals too much. The only thing I'll say is that they don't spend alot of time advertising the dogs, going to Petco adoption days, etc. But whose fault is that? The public. The county needs volunteers to do those things because the budget is crap.

As far as purebred v. mutt, its a personal preference. I personally feel better about myself by adopting a dog. I could not purchase a dog from a breeder. I would feel like I was contributing to the overpopulation of animals. But to each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When we were out searching for our recently adopted dog, we went to a no-kill and a county shelter.

The no-kill was 99% pit bulls and mixes. Which are not easy to adopt out. Those dogs had been there over a year or more. While its sad that these dogs are there, their presence is taking up space for a dog that is more adoptable. That's sad to say but what's worse? Being stuck in a cage for the rest of your life? Some of these no-kill shelters need to wake up and see how overpopulated pets are right now and be selective about what dogs they rehab and try to adopt and which they need to euth.

The county shelter, on the other hand, had MANY adoptable dogs available. There were maybe a handful of pits but they were exceptional ones. This is a shelter that gets criticized all the time by locals for euthing animals too much. The only thing I'll say is that they don't spend alot of time advertising the dogs, going to Petco adoption days, etc. But whose fault is that? The public. The county needs volunteers to do those things because the budget is crap.

As far as purebred v. mutt, its a personal preference. I personally feel better about myself by adopting a dog. I could not purchase a dog from a breeder. I would feel like I was contributing to the overpopulation of animals. But to each their own.

It's not the public's fault that the shelter isn't going to PetCo and such. The shelter needs to step up to the plate and recruit volunteers, get out in the public and have a presence. The public is not responsible for a shelter's practices.

When a shelter steps up to the plate, so will the community, but the shelter must take the initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not the public's fault that the shelter isn't going to PetCo and such. The shelter needs to step up to the plate and recruit volunteers, get out in the public and have a presence. The public is not responsible for a shelter's practices.

When a shelter steps up to the plate, so will the community, but the shelter must take the initiative.

I think it can go both ways. When a shelter is dealing with literally 100s and 100s of dogs and doesn't have enough volunteers, their time is spent feeding, walking, watering, cleaning, euthanizing, spaying, etc. these animals. They need more public help/recognition to get out in the community in the first place, but most likely the public isn't going to help until they get out in the community. Double edged sword IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does go both ways, but I've seen, from the inside, that until management decides they're going to make a change, no amount of volunteers are going to help.

Shelters need to set up programs and training for volunteers and have a plan so that every volunteer comes in can be used appropriately.

More bodies won't help unless there is a plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not breeding for Pure breds wouldn't even come close to fixing the issue at hand. Why should the responsible breeders feel bad when they only breed a couple litters every other year, when some BYB is make yorkie poos every heat cycle??? Designer MUTTS are the biggest problem. I have mutts and I have rescued and I have bought purebred working dogs. I had a couple of good shelter dogs and a couple here recently that just had nothing at all in their heads and were pretty much good for nothing except destroying everything they came in contact with. When I buy from a responsible purebred breeder I KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING! to an extent of course but I haven't had a single issue with any purebred animal I've owned. They all have been highly intelligent, gentle loving animals and their parents being health tested I knew my chances of having hip, elbow and eye issues are minimal. With the PB(purebred) I got to meet the parents, close relatives and older siblings and I really like getting to do all that. My only dogs I have now is a older stray I took in and our 3 legged shelter dog. They could really give a rats a$$ about me. They show no bond towards me or my family except at meal time. Training is a struggle, simple concepts are in one ear out the other. I love them but I'm counting down the days till we get our new PB dog in 6months to a year after researching the breeders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now