Animal Welfare Professionals

Several articles about shelters/rescues being able to find dogs in the future have been coming out online.  There have been suggestions of importing from other states or even other countries, considering having foster homes breed dogs for the rescue, breeding at the rescue.  All seems to be about supply and demand.  That an animal shelter/Rescue is a business is understandable.  However I must ask myself...are we here for the dogs or are the dogs here for us?  Are we here to rescue dogs and find them new homes?  Or do we need to go to these kind of measures to keep our doors open?  When do you close your doors?  At what point are we no longer fulfilling the dogs need and keeping a business afloat?  Is anyone else struggling with this?

Hi Denise -- I've written on this topic multiple times. From what I've seen there are a couple of different viewpoints. One viewpoint looks just at animals being in a shelter or rescue and needing homes, and identifies that as the problem to fix. The other viewpoint looks at the fact that dogs (and cats) are "property" under our legal system, and asks what is the best way to have a humane "market," since a "market" for pets is what our legal system imposes on us. A huge concern for this second group is that as the number of homeless pets sinks below market demand for those pets, commercial breeders will take up that slack and increase the number of animals they breed and sell. We've all heard about how commercial breeders keep animals in miserable conditions. And pet acquisition from a pet store is bad because there is little or no matching of the pet to the owner's lifestyle, and the pet will probably not be sterilized. We cannot control commercial breeding through our U.S. laws, because puppies are increasingly being imported from overseas, and because puppy mills in the past have just run from one state to another whenever laws are imposed. Also, the agriculture lobby is very strong in this country and they don't like any laws that restrict animal use. The shelter and rescue community has struggled for decades to build up a desire in people to "adopt, not shop." If shelters and rescues cannot supply the demand for pets (and we're rapidly heading in that direction) then all that effort will be wasted and all we will have accomplished will be to help commercial breeders make more money. I think that would be a tragic end to our movement, especially when there are millions of cats and dogs in other countries who need homes.

Again, it seems as though it is about keeping our doors open and taking over the breeding business of which I want no part of.  If shelters took over the breeding business would we come to be what we have founder against?  

I thought our efforts were to reduce the number of homeless pets.  Are you telling me that the efforts were just to get people to adopt and then take over the breeding industry?

what I see is that we are overcoming the problems and making progress toward a world where there are fewer homeless animals.  Why are on earth would I want to now create more dogs through breeding?  I really do not understand this logic!

Denise, if current trends continue and shelters wind up with too few animals to meet the demand of people who want to adopt, then where do you think people will get their pets? This is not a rhetorical question -- I'd like to know the thinking on this issue of you and others who have a similar view.

I understand what you are saying.  However, is it our job to supply the animals to the public?  As a shelter or rescue we are supposed to be nonprofit entities.  If we are breeding to adopt, is that a nonprofit business.  If a shelter or rescue wants to breed dogs, couldn't they just get their license and become breeders rather than rescues?  This feels like saying if a doctor doesn't have enough patients, he should go make people sick so he can stay in business.  I agree that someone will need to supply dogs.  I hear you saying that possibly rescues should think about doing that.  If we breed dogs, are we not then commercial breeders?  Why would rescues who need to make money not do the very thing we now argue that breeders do?  How would it be any different?  We have told people to spay and neuter for years and now we are going to say, "you don't spay and neuter because we are going to do it now?"  What?

As long as people want pet dogs, dogs will be bred. The question is by whom? You appear to be arguing that who breeds dogs is no concern of humane advocates, but I believe that it is. Your vision of a shelter appears to be that shelters are designed for one particular goal only, which is to reduce the number of homeless pets to zero. I see the role of shelters as being much broader - as a safety net for all animals living in the community. This may include owned pets, dogs in commercial breeding operations, lab animals, feral cats, and wildlife. Helping this broad array of animals will require a comprehensive set of new and creative initiatives.

Another point to keep in mind is that even if we reduce homeless animal numbers to zero in the U.S., there are millions of homeless animals in other countries. 

This feels self serving and that is not what Rescue was meant to be.  This in no way serves the purpose of Rescue. Rescue is saving animals not creating animals.

i, myself, will serve my own state until there are no homeless animals here and then, if needed, will help other states or countries.

if there are not enough dogs in rescues why isnour Rescue always full and we have to refuse dogs everyday because we don’t have room?  Yes, they are not always the highly adoptabledogs but they are the dogs that need us and this is why we are here.

you want to create a monopoly where people only have one choice about where to get a job.  Breeders have accused us of this for years and I refused to believe it.  I was wrong.

Personally I greatly prefer the option of importing homeless dogs and cats from overseas before we start having humane organizations breed pets. But in the future, once we can no longer fill our adoption demand through transport networking (probably 10-20 years or so from now), I don't think it would be antithetical to the humane mission to breed pets as an alternative to commercial breeders.

Breeding by humane organizations could be done to match demand, so that no animals would be excess, and no animals would be homeless. It could be done in foster homes, where the sire and dam could be screened for health issues, properly fed, and kept in a low-stress environment. The sire and dam and puppies would have veterinary care. Puppies would be properly socialized for each stage of their growth, given the appropriate vaccinations, sterilized before adoption, and carefully matched to the lifestyles and personalities of prospective adopters.

Adopters would be able to meet the sire and dam of their puppy, and they would have someone to contact to ask about issues large and small. The fosters could take the puppy back if things did not work out. So the adopter has a much better experience than a buyer from a commercial breeders or pet store.

Commercial breeders keep breeder animals in cruel and stressful conditions, get away with as little vet care as possible, do as little socialization as possible, ship puppies as cheaply as possible, don't spay or neuter, and sell to whoever walks in the door, whether a good fit for the puppy or not.

Denise, you seem to think that if humane organizations get involved in breeding, they will necessarily become exactly like commercial breeders. There is no reason to think that would happen, because the profit motive would be taken away. Humane organizations today routinely spend thousands of dollars on medical care to make pets adoptable. They are doing that for love, not money, and it would be the same with foster breeders.

I did not see this post until I replied above, but humane organizations breeding dogs is a preposterous idea.  Why would you breed a dog on purpose just to adopt out, it would no longer be a non-profit charitable organization, but a business.  When and if there are no animals available for adoption, there would be no reason for the non-profit to exist unless they shift their focus to helping animals in another way, and I say, what is wrong with that.  Reputable breeders of purebred dogs already take back dogs that they can't keep, do all health testing that the breed needs and make absolutely no money on the proposition.  They breed because they love their breed.  In my breeds of sighthounds, whippets in particular, you will rarely see them show up in shelters, and when they do, there is an army of whippet breeders who are trying to find out where the dog came from originally and saving that dog.  In my humble opinion, humane organizations should never think about breeding animals-insane.

Susan you made a statement about what I thought about rescues and i responded.

  I would appreciate it if you could respond to my questions and concerns as well.

Susan, regarding your statement  "Denise, you seem to think that if humane organizations get involved in breeding, they will necessarily become exactly like commercial breeders. There is no reason to think that would happen, because the profit motive would be taken away. Humane organizations today routinely spend thousands of dollars on medical care to make pets adoptable. They are doing that for love, not money, and it would be the same with foster breeders."

Do you honestly believe that there are NO rescues out there who aren't in it for the money?  If that were true why are they selectively taking in highly adoptable dogs?  Traveling hundreds of miles to get puppies and pregnant dogs when their own area still has down being euthanized?  Saying they are too full for an owner surrender but taking dogs from other countries?  Going to shelters and picking only their dogs that would get adopted anywhere and leaving the harder to place dogs?   If it's not about the money, why is that happening?

Susan, please educate me.

Susan, you hit the nail right on the head.  I am a staff member in a Southern, semi-rural, open-admissions shelter and we struggle with the term no-kill everyday.  We have been told to do managed admissions, and to stop taking in owner surrenders, as every county shelter around us has done, because that would help our numbers (we are at 90% live release). However, is helping our numbers look better a valid reason to turn animals away?  As a shelter we should be a place where those animals can go.  Do we counsel owners before they turn in their animals and look for other options?  Of course, but we should be the safety net for the animals.  I fear if we are not that safety net, and the owners have no place else to take them, they will meet a fate worse than possible humane euthanasia. 

I would love to see the day that we work our way out of a job and I cannot think that it would ever be ok for shelters to breed, "just to stay in business."  I am also a purebred dog fancier and I love to see WELL BRED dogs who are purposely bred, for hunting, coursing, obedience and shows, not for money.  And I would like to add, if there are rescues out there who are having trouble finding dogs for their programs, Carroll County Animal Shelter in Carrollton, GA has plenty of wonderful dogs.  However, I find that many (not all) rescues come to our shelter and only pull the small and cute and highly adoptable and then turn around and state that the dog would have been killed in our shelter to raise money.  We can adopt out little dogs all day long, it is the big, the older, the energetic that need the rescue, so there are times when I have difficulty with the term rescue, because most of the dogs pulled by rescues are in no danger in the first place (at least not in our facility).

I am sorry I went on a rant, but our job is to save what needs to be saved, not create more animals just to stay open, that makes us no better than the puppy mills who breed for money.

Rant over.

Sellis, just a couple of things. First, managed admission does not -- repeat not -- mean turning away owner surrenders. I don't know even know how people get that idea. Second, are you working on establishing a culture of adoption? Do you know what your adoption-per-thousand-people rate is? If not, you need to know it, and to know what top performing shelters are achieving. I said 2 things, but I'll add a third -- are you maximizing transport?

You hit on a couple things.I operate a rescue and we take the dogs that are given to us.  We do not pick and choose.Itiswrong for a Rescue to pick only your highly adoptable dogs.  Rescues were meant to take the harder to place dogs in where they would have more time to rehabilitate.  

We also take Owner surrenders free of charge without trying to shame the owner.  It is not about the people but about the dog in need.  I wouldn’t send a dog back to a place it is not wanted.

if you think monrescues are in it for the money, you are mistaken.  There are many that operate for the wrong reasons and there are those who don’t take care of the dogs.  

Susan, there are already people who are breeding dogs only when there are homes for them, who screen for physical defects, raise healthy and well socialized animals in a low-stress environment, screen for good homes, often require spay/neuter, and educate and support owners on the care and training of their new pets.  They really love a certain breed or breeds, know a lot about the breed's particular needs and characteristics, and many are involved in rescue.  We call them responsible breeders.  

We should not lump responsible breeders in with commercial breeders because they are NOTHING alike.  Saying ALL breeders (and even some go as far as to say all PUREBREDS) are somehow evil and should be eliminated reminds me of the attitude that shelters had up until not too long ago, that no one was good enough to adopt, where adopters were looked down upon and grilled to the nth degree, and most were rejected.  Now it seems that no one is good enough to breed except shelters??

Until there are NO shelters euthanizing healthy adoptable animals or animals that can be medically and behaviorally rehabilitated, then I don't think we have to worry about "running out" of animals.  There are many shelters that are still struggling with overcrowding and euthanasia despite their best efforts, including transport and "marketing".  There are still shelters that euthanize litters of puppies on intake.  The shelters that are fortunate enough to not have enough animals to meet demand - and they are in the minority - should be helping shelters with surplus animals, and they should be taking ALL excess animals, not just the highly adoptable ones.  If we ever reach zero euthanasia in the US, and then we reach no animals available for adoption in the US, then we can look to help other countries.  But we are far, far away from reaching that. 

And if there are shelters currently importing animals from outside their communities while ignoring the needs of the people/animals/shelters in their communities, then they are part of the problem, not the solution.   

We will never reach a point where everyone adopts a pet from a shelter, so we need to work on eliminating commercial breeding.  We, as animal advocates, should be working harder to shut down commercial breeders and strengthen/enforce import laws and educate the public.  Commercial breeders are not going to be put out of business by shelters breeding animals, they have already changed their operations to cater to the "rescue" market: 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/investigations/dog-auction-rescue-groups-donations/?utm_term=.65db24624a6c

We have created this in part by publically encouraging "adopt (rescue) don't shop" without really educating the public as to what that means, but also by internally treating animals as if they are a commodity to be marketed to the public, instead of sentient beings with individual needs.  

There will always be a need for animal shelters in our communities, because there will always be stray/lost/displaced/surrendered animals, orphaned kittens and puppies, sick or injured animals, and people needing animal related resources.  Animals will still need to be quarantined and licensed, dogs will still run loose, cats will still need TNR, animals will still need to be spayed/neutered, people still need to be educated on pet care, there will still be cruelty cases, etc.  

What would really be tragic is to adopt the mentality of "if we can't beat them, join them", and become breeders as a justification for our existence.  To provide a "product" for the public is not what animal sheltering is all about.  To provide shelter for the most vulnerable animals, provide public safety, help the animals and people in our communities, and advocate for animals is what animal sheltering is all about.  This includes changing laws to redefine animals not as property but as living beings, cracking down on puppy mills/importation, and most importantly educating the public. 

Hi Tracy -- I have a good deal of experience with "responsible" breeders, from back when I worked with many show breeders to do breed rescue. I even wrote a book about a dog breed, which was in print for almost 20 years. I see three problems with the argument that "responsible" dog breeders can be the solution to future dog shortages. First, there aren't enough of them to supply the growing demand for pets. When people talk about "responsible" breeders, by definition they mean people who produce a limited number of litters each year -- 5 or less is a pretty typical number for show breeders who want to maintain a good reputation. 

Second, and more importantly, "responsible" breeders (i.e. show breeders) almost all use inbreeding in their breeding programs (they call it linebreeding, but it's really inbreeding), and inbreeding produces unhealthy dogs. Dogs that are first cousins, for example (a low degree of inbreeding by show-dog standards) will have twice the mortality of puppies in their first few days of life as outcrossed litters. And "responsible" breeders fail to preserve health in another way too, by deliberately breeding in genetic defects and extremes of type -- brachycephalism is one example, the extreme angulation of the modern GSD is another.

Third, if we rely on show breeders as the main supplier of pet dogs, we will miss out on mutts. I think one of the charms of shelter dogs is their infinite variety. You never know what will turn up, and that's great. We've had mutts in the U.S. since the country was founded, and it would be a tragedy for the American mutt to disappear.

By the way, it's nice to say "change the laws so pets aren't property," but that would require courts to overturn hundreds of years of precedent. And it would require the humane movement to defeat the massive agriculture lobby. I wish that would happen, but as a practical matter I don't see it anytime soon. That's why I think the only practical way for us to really protect dogs and cats is to wade into the marketplace. We may not want to be there, but that's where we are and we need to make the best of it. 

Again, our job is not to supply people with dogs. We are here to help the dogs.  We should be here for the dogs that need us, help them get back on their feet and then find them a home they will be happy in.  How can we be there for the dogs that need us if we are making a list of dogs people have requested and fulfilling those requests? What about the dogs no one has requested?  What happens to those dogs?

Are we only here to meet supply and demand?

Tracy, your post is written perfectly!  There are so many points well made!  I do not feel like I am "struggling" any longer.  Your views and those of others who joined in, will prevail.  Shelters/rescue that condone breeding by our entities will lose the respect of the public in due time.  It is an outrage and people will se that.  So glad there are people who put the real reason we are in this "business" first - the DOGS.  I have always said that when pondering a decision, remove the people and just focus on the dogs.  Works everytime!

I also find it interesting that when specific questions are asked, you do not get responses.  It is because wrong can not be justified.

Susan,

Could you supply "links" to your articles and supply/demand statistics? As a volunteer and board member with a humane society with at times "more that we can handle" I have a very hard time relating to these conversations. My perception is there will ALWAYS be a need for animal shelters as the plight of some  animals waxes and wanes with our human whims. There will always be a "doodle". Animals ability to remain in homes also waxes and wanes with our economy and home ownership. While I certainly agree the trend for intake into shelters and euthanasia has SIGNIFICANTLY decreased since the 1970s [those were dark times]. We are blessed with the fact that most animals are in homes where they are considered FAMILY--their status has so improved!!

I still have trouble visualizing what is suggested. I welcome the future when a struggling dog does not stay in our shelter for MONTHS and finds a home withing DAYS.

Where are you located? There are huge differences in distribution in the U.S. right now in animal-shelter intake. In some areas, like most of Texas, shelters are flooded with animals. In other areas, like New England and parts of the Pacific northwest, regions import thousands of dogs a year (and a growing number of cats) to supply people who want a pet but do not want to support commercial breeding. We do not, unfortunately, have good statistics, but for a look at trends, check out Dr. Andrew Rowan's recent article at http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/8/5/68/htm. My most recent article on the future of sheltering is at http://outthefrontdoor.com/2018/07/05/the-future-of-sheltering-2/.

I agree that there is an uneven distribution but since we know the problem is a lack of spay and neuter programs in southern states, why not use some of the money that is made from adopting out those dogs and start spay and neuter programs in those states?  Isn't the goal to reduce the number of homeless pets?  Are we know longer advocating for people to spay and neuter?  No sarcasm intended but isn't saving dogs our job?  I have never seen our job to be supplying dogs to the public.  It feels like that is going back in time and soon we will be where we were before with too many pets and no homes.

Dr. Emily Weiss also wrote an article on her blog some time ago suggesting that shelters think about breeding.  It was called Where Will the Puppies Come From.  I think it was around 2013.  Dr. Weiss is with the ASPCA.

Honestly, how much of this is about shelters or rescues having enough of the "highly adoptable" dogs rather than the "hard to place" dogs?

I have such a hard time relating to this. We get so many surrenders, I never see that as an issue. Add the difficult to place dogs, and the rescues we assist that actually contact us asking for help so they don't have to euthanize animals, I don't see any challenge finding unwanted and homeless pets in the near future. I also think breeding would be the antithesis of our mission. 

Christy, your statement "breeding would be the antithesis of our mission." is spot on!  That is a perfect way of stating it!  It goes against everything inside my heart!  This is not why I started rescuing and I will NEVER be a breeder!  If rescues want to do that, fine.  But they need to get their breeding license, shut down their rescue and give up their nonprofit status.

Just my opinion and I'm in no way humble.  Hurt and discouraged, disappointed....

I think it will be a long time before we have to worry about being “out of animals” and the rescues shutting down.

Many of our local rescue partners have full-time jobs and operate after work, on the weekends, etc. I know most of them would LOVE to be able to close down from lack of animals in need, and start fostering for one of the bigger groups, for their own sanity, stress, and relationships. They created the rescue out of necessity, and getting that next level of animals out of our shelter alive (medical/senior dogs, bottle baby kittens, etc.). I know one group would prefer to stop taking animals and move back to advocacy. 

My image of the future: The smaller rescues could get to shut down or merge, more of the breed-specific rescues would become national foster networks and the larger brick-and-mortar rescues could focus more on medical/sanctuary care with adoptions.