Thanks for the responses, glad I wasn't the only one feeling 'paranoid' about it.
Does this breeder sound reputable?
-
double post
-
Just a few things, there are quite a few rescues that clearly state, on almost all of their adoptions, 'better off in a home with children over 12, etc'. So what is that saying? Obviously, a lot of these dogs are felt to be not good with children-and that is put out by your evaluators/fosters. So how can it be said that rescues are well socialized with children and are able to be placed with children? I'm not saying all rescues dogs are like this, but a reality is most are because most of these dogs have little socialization with adults, never mind children.
What people are you dealing with that got pups from 'reputable' breeders?
Most of the rescues that are dealt with do come with issues irregardless of what you say. Whether they are mental or physical. It is a crap shoot in the long run with any dog. I agree with that as to the physical well being, no one, NO ONE, can determine long term what can happen to anyone or anything physically or mentally. Things happen. The reason they are in rescues is that the 'reputable' breeder (as you say) is not taking them back. Sorry, but they can't possibly be that great if they won't take one of their own back.I seriously don't know what 'reputable' breeders you have come into contact with, but maybe you should talk to some more truly, reputable breeders before you lump us all into your category
.
I'm not trying to 'bash' you, I don't think anyone is here, but we are trying to educate you as to what a 'reputable' breeder really is. Based on your experience with what you call 'reputable' breeders, I think maybe you should re-evaluate and stop lumping us into the same category. I, in fact, do more health testing on my 'pets' that most lay people do. I think on this forum, most people do more health testing than the average 'pet' person as well.1. You made my point for me, thank you. Rescues who evaluate KNOW the temperament and place in the right home. A rescue who is suitable for a home with kids is as safe as a breeder's dog that is safe for a home with kids. Thanks!
2. Sorry, but the breeders I meant are not JUST basenji ones. And sorry again, but as has already been pointed out, lots of responsible breeder pups hit rescue. The really responsible ones take the dogs back, but the owners didn't contact for help before dumping. That wasn't a slur on the breeder, you can't MAKE people call you if they have an issue. Of course, routine calls to stay involved help, but even then some owners don't want to admit issues. I wasn't lumping all breeders. As for health testing… um, not to be snarky, but DUH. You are breeding, testing more for genetic issues is critical. Most pet owners, even those you place pups with, will do only what they understand is important for the health of their pet. One reason I REQUIRED hips and elbow prelim at 6 mos and final at 2 yrs for my Rotties... pet or show. I worked to help them understand that even though they weren't breeding, I needed that information to have a full picture of what I was producing. And it was often pulling teeth. But the bottom line is that the average pet owner cares about overall health and you cannot show me one study by an reputable source that shows genetic testing provides anything other than less occurrence of that genetic issue. Glad you test, YOU SHOULD! But it doesn't mean a puppy from you will be one bit healthier beyond genetic issues, live longer or have less health problems than a rescue. It doesn't. And while the "mutts are healthier" mantra also doesn't hold much water, neither does claims that rescues are unhealthier. Of course if you have any dog, even from a responsible breeder, who has been malnourished, abused, sick without treatment... there are problems. But that is environment, NOT genetics. So again, a healthy rescue is as healthy as a healthy pup. I don't know rescues pushing unhealthy dogs on unsuspecting families. I do know angels who take sick and needy rescues. But again, that has nothing to do with trying to indicate that rescues are not the perfect answer for as many homes, if not more, than a puppy from a responsible breeder.
3. Educate me about a responsible breeder? Hello, I am fully aware of what a RESPONSIBLE breeder is. I don't need an education. The education needed here is for people to stop bashing rescues as less overall healthy than responsibly bred dogs once the main issues are eliminated. The education needed here is for people to stop pretending that a rescue who has often been in foster and evaluated for MONTHS so that their temperament is truly known is not as safe or good as any puppy. That, not my clear understanding of what a responsible breeder is, is the educational lack in this thread. And I AM bashing the bashing of rescues, no apology.
-
I believe some area's of the country don't support rescue, that folks do use rescue as a dumping ground for dogs..I have heard many stories of this. Course, that makes rescue angry.
I live in the PNW. We have only 3 breeders I can think of, off hand who are NOT responsible. This is over 4 states. So, clearly, I live in a more responsible area of the country.
Not only to the responsible rescues support me, but often they will foster a b that isn't even theirs, will help with transport, and do home checks or give me tips for homes for
these dogs. I can't tell you how helpful that is.
I think all this depends on what area your in and if you have support to do rescue work.Rescue does do all they can to find the right home for the right dog. Just a breeders do.
I don't see this as a conflict, I do think its possible to make it a win/win. -
Wow thank you for missing the essence of what I said and latching onto numbers. We'll forget that I met several breeders at Nationals who said they had 8 to 12 ADULTS in their homes, which meant with even 2 litters up to 20. I was trying to make a point. Since it seemed to fly over your head, I'll make it basic.
It is disingenuous to slur the "bomb proofing" and socialization of rescues who are usually in homes with only a few dogs compared to a breeder's time per dog who has several adults and a litter. The rescues are fully as able to socialize. THAT was the only point, not whether you know anyone with 10 dogs in the house. I'd be really snarky and pull up breeder web sites to prove numbers 10 and up, but since that wasn't the POINT, won't bother.Nor did I say TEMPERAMENT wasn't an issue. But you knew that. I said the temperament of rescues is fine, as fine as breeders, when a rescue does it's job and the breeder does its job. Again, you knew that was the point and pretending I indicated a TEMPERAMENT just in of itself wasn't important is incredible.
Clearly, you have a beef with breeders and I think I did get your point perfectly.
You said that rescue volunteers are better able to socialize and evaluate dogs because they have fewer dogs. I think you are impressively misinformed on several points. Are there breeders with more than 10 dogs in their household? I am sure there are but I don't think it is the "norm" in many places. I think many breeders have moved away from keeping large numbers of dogs and see many that are co-owning puppies with their puppy buyers who are amenable to them showing them and later breeding them. Even if they do have more than 10 dogs that does mean they don't do a great job at providing their puppies with critical socialization and early puppyhood experiences they need to become stable adults. Secondly, no matter how stellar a rescue volunteer is at training and rehabilitating, lack of good socialization during critical development periods can never really be fully substituted. Thirdly, I know many rescue volunteers with more dogs in their home than some responsible breeders.
I do think that you implied that temperament issues were a non-issue in rescues and that is just not true and since behavior and temperament are so critical, I think it is wrong to imply that rescue organizations are somehow going to make those non-issues simply through the fostering and evaluating process.
I think rescues are a great option for some people but they come with huge question marks that make then a less suitable option for some households and no matter what you say, HEALTH and TEMPERAMENT are some of those huge question marks. It is far better though to adopt a rescue with these question marks though then it is to go out and buy from a BYB where you are still going to have those question marks and won't have the support of the rescue organization to help you work through them.
-
Rescue does do all they can to find the right home for the right dog. Just a breeders do.
I don't see this as a conflict, I do think its possible to make it a win/win.Absolutely Sharron.
I think that things work best when breeders and rescue work together to make sure that households get the right dog for their situation. Not all dog owners should get puppies. But not all households are right for rescues either. When both sides are willing to refer to the other when appropriate everyone wins because the dogs stay in their homes.
-
Educate me about a responsible breeder? Hello, I am fully aware of what a RESPONSIBLE breeder is. I don't need an education. The education needed here is for people to stop bashing rescues as less overall healthy than responsibly bred dogs once the main issues are eliminated. The education needed here is for people to stop pretending that a rescue who has often been in foster and evaluated for MONTHS so that their temperament is truly known is not as safe or good as any puppy. That, not my clear understanding of what a responsible breeder is, is the educational lack in this thread. And I AM bashing the bashing of rescues, no apology.
Not sure who you think here is "bashing" rescue? We are just pointing out that a rescue is not the best choice for all people. And even if you look at BRAT, how many of those dogs say "no children under the age of…."....
Rescues as we all know come with a different set of baggage then a puppy... and many times because of the situation they were in there are circumstances that the best of fosters will never be able to work through... And I don't know what breeders you are referring to that have 20/30 Basenjis .. None that I know of, at least not responsible breeders. Just because you may have been involved with a less than responsible breeder, don't lump all the rest into that catagory -
Clearly, you have a beef with breeders and I think I did get your point perfectly.
I have no beef with breeders. I have beefs with breeders bashing rescue. Surely you are able to see the difference, no?
You said that rescue volunteers are better able to socialize and evaluate dogs because they have fewer dogs. ..blah blah blah.. 10 dogs that does mean they don't do a great job at providing their puppies with critical socialization ..blah blah…lack of good socialization during critical development periods can never really be fully substituted. Thirdly, I know many rescue volunteers with more dogs in their home than some responsible breeders.
I was responding to someone indicating BREEDERS only able to do a good job. Let the 10 dogs go, really, it wasn't the point. Make it 6 compared to 2 if you really need numbers. The POINT, the ONLY POINT, was that a rescue sure as heck can do as good of a job. Period. As for early socialization, having seen so many rescues of many breeds who came up with horrific situations, I say.. again.. not really. Some dogs have bad temperaments that the early issues cannot be overcome. Most dogs, given proper socialization even as adults, do fine. Thank goodness. As for rescuers with many dogs, just like breeders with many, they are not the norm.
I do think that you implied that temperament issues were a non-issue in rescues…more smoke throwing to avoid what was really said and address that….I think it is wrong to imply that rescue organizations are somehow going to make those non-issues simply through the fostering and evaluating process.
If you got that, I already tried once to explain. Since you ignored my clear explanation, no sense in saying again what you want to continue insisting that wasn't meant. What you are insisting is insultingly stupid and never said.
I think rescues are a great option for some people but they come with huge question marks that make then a less suitable option for some households and no matter what you say,
And I say, prove to me the health stats on well bred versus byb. Please. And I also say 90 percent of people looking for puppies don't know a responsible from byb, so again… it's usually a pig in a poke for most. But even when they do... again, you can certainly decrease genetic issues, but that's about it. And again, a TEMPERAMENT TESTED socialized rescue is as safe as any responsible breeder dog for a pet.
And I am sorry for all the responsible breeders who support rescue. Honest, I love you people. I don't lump you with the rescue bashers any more than I lump responsible breeders with puppymills or byb. My only issue is bashing rescue.
-
Not sure who you think here is "bashing" rescue? We are just pointing out that a rescue is not the best choice for all people. And even if you look at BRAT, how many of those dogs say "no children under the age of….".... don't lump all the rest into that catagory
I started to go all debraly and quote you where i already answered the above… but why bother.
I understand... some breeders don't have homes lined up, get back adults and can't place them, and see rescue as a competition. Snarky enough comment for you?
Because the continued twisting of what I said, or saying the same thing again I responded to already convinces me that some folks will continue to twist and ignore so why bother.
And now, really done. I just hope people thinking of rescue consider the source of the nay-sayers, do their homework, consider the bazillion rescues who have made superb pets, and realize it is usually a great choice and almost always at LEAST as good of a choice as a breeder's puppy unless they want to show and breed.
-
I understand… some breeders don't have homes lined up, get back adults and can't place them, and see rescue as a competition. Snarky enough comment for you?
And I would not consider the above breeder, responsible. I do not know of any breeder that considers rescue as "competition"
-
I have no beef with breeders. I have beefs with breeders bashing rescue. Surely you are able to see the difference, no?
Actually, you took one statement about rescues being at higher risk of health issues than dogs with well tested and carefully bred parents to be rescue bashing and then turned this thread into your chance to breeder bash. I think that demonstrates an issue with breeders.
I was responding to someone indicating BREEDERS only able to do a good job. Let the 10 dogs go, really, it wasn't the point. Make it 6 compared to 2 if you really need numbers. The POINT, the ONLY POINT, was that a rescue sure as heck can do as good of a job. Period. As for early socialization, having seen so many rescues of many breeds who came up with horrific situations, I say.. again.. not really. Some dogs have bad temperaments that the early issues cannot be overcome. Most dogs, given proper socialization even as adults, do fine. Thank goodness. As for rescuers with many dogs, just like breeders with many, they are not the norm.
I know a lot more rescuers with 6 dogs than 2 so the point of they have less is still FALSE. You wanted to make rescuers look better than breeders but you exaggerated breeder numbers and down played rescuers numbers to do it.
If you got that, I already tried once to explain. Since you ignored my clear explanation, no sense in saying again what you want to continue insisting that wasn't meant. What you are insisting is insultingly stupid and never said.
Here is exactly what you said
There are situations where a puppy IS important. But it isn't for temperament or behavior.
I still believe that temperament and behavior are the primary concerns when adding a new dog and they are the primary reason most families opt for a puppy over a rescue because rescue dogs do not have the socialization to the hectic daily routines of most families. It has been pointed out time and again that far more adult dogs list "not good with children" then list "good with children" so absolutely TEMPERAMENT and BEHAVIOR are important in choosing a puppy over rescue.
And I say, prove to me the health stats on well bred versus byb.
It is really hard to prove with health stats seeing as BYBs won't spend the money to test or submit the data. What we do see is the data from the owners of those dogs and only significantly for Fanconi where it is required that the information be published in order to have the test.
-
The majority of my rescues have never been around children since they have lived in crates 24/7. Since I do not have children, they are not exposed to children in a household. They might meet children at events, etc. but that is not the same as living with children who might pull their tail, carry food around at their height, etc.
Jennifer
-
I understand… some breeders don't have homes lined up, get back adults and can't place them, and see rescue as a competition. Snarky enough comment for you?
And now, really done. I just hope people thinking of rescue consider the source of the nay-sayers, do their homework, consider the bazillion rescues who have made superb pets, and realize it is usually a great choice and almost always at LEAST as good of a choice as a breeder's puppy unless they want to show and breed.
WOW! With what you made this thread out to be, perhaps a TT is in order.
NO good breeder views rescue as competition.MY dogs, as most well-bred dogs, have temperaments beyond comparison to any rescue. Sure, some rescues are one in a million… but that isn't the norm.
FEW RESCUE DOGS, IF ANY, CAN BE CONSIDERED BOMB PROOF.
I do not care who has evaluated it, spent time with it, and TT it.
The vast majority of dogs in rescue to not have a history that rescue knows 100% about.
The vast majority of people that turn dogs into rescue tell the truth. They are ready to be done with the dog, and if it takes making up crap to shove the dog off on others, it is done.
Don't even waste your breath to try and refute this... I have seen it way too much.And a rescue is almost always as good of a choice as a well-bred puppy?
You obviously believe this to be true... but it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion that all I can really do is laugh at someone that believes it.I do rescue, so don't think I am a rescue-basher... but as a responsible breeder, I feel it is my position to help clean up the messes of others. If I don't do it, more dogs fall into the wrong hands.
In fact, I have been in contact with the OHS and they have contacted the new owner of the 11yo R/W Basenji girl that was recently posted on the Oregon HS website. The dog is doing well and I am awaiting the info on the breeder. They have followed up with me with 4 phone calls... do I need to worry about someone else's dog? No, not really. But, if it were mine, I would hope that another responsible breeder would do the same.
-
Kathy, re this dog in the OHS. I have tried to get her out and into BRAT.
The shetler will not release her to us. They want to place her. As its a no kill shelter, that's better than some.
This is just fyi. -
Not sure who you think here is "bashing" rescue? We are just pointing out that a rescue is not the best choice for all people. And even if you look at BRAT, how many of those dogs say "no children under the age of…."....
Rescues as we all know come with a different set of baggage then a puppy... and many times because of the situation they were in there are circumstances that the best of fosters will never be able to work through...Not bashing rescue dogs? Really, what thread were you on? Review below.
Actually, you took one statement about rescues being at higher risk of health issues than dogs with well tested and carefully bred parents to be rescue bashing and then turned this thread into your chance to breeder bash. I think that demonstrates an issue with breeders.
I still believe that temperament and behavior are the primary concerns when adding a new dog and they are the primary reason most families opt for a puppy over a rescue because rescue dogs do not have the socialization to the hectic daily routines of most families. It has been pointed out time and again that far more adult dogs list "not good with children" then list "good with children" so absolutely TEMPERAMENT and BEHAVIOR are important in choosing a puppy over rescue.
And continuing to say my issue is BREEDERS is dishonest. No beef with responsible breeders. My only complaint is anyone, breeder or not, bashing rescues. Although I DO have a new beef, it is twisting my words and continuing to repeat something I clarified… such as that temperament doesn't matter. OF COURSE IT DOES. But a temperament tested, fostered, socialized dog who has been deemed good with kids IS just as safe as your puppies. AND, once again (typing slow so maybe you all stop repeating it over and over).. I didn't CLAIM ALL RESCUES GOOD WITH CHILDREN. For crying out loud, how many times do I have to say it.
And there are benefits from the health perspective to temperment of the dog that you know about.
The initial adoption fee for a rescue may be a little bit less than a responsibly bred dog but the risk for health issues may prove higher, and far more expensive, in the long run.
Okay so rescues AND homes without children living in them can't prepare a dog to live with kids:
@khanis:For others, it just will NOT work.
I have kids, so I know that is imperative to many families getting a pup… my pups are kid-proofed more than any puppy could possibly be that does NOT have children living under the roof. If they hit 8 wks in my house.. they are literally bomb-proof to all noises and kinds of people. You don't generally find that in rescue.Actually most rescues ARE fine, or they don't make it into rescue… unstable dogs should always be put down. Nor is the modern family an issue. Unruly abusive children would be, they would be for ANY dog.
@lvoss:It can be very difficult for families to find adult dogs that have been well socialized to the chaos of the modern family and of the temperament to take it all in stride. That doesn't mean that there are not adult dogs that will fit the bill but they are definately not the most commonly seen in the surrendered dog population.
Just a few things, there are quite a few rescues that clearly state, on almost all of their adoptions, 'better off in a home with children over 12, etc'. So what is that saying? Obviously, a lot of these dogs are felt to be not good with children-and that is put out by your evaluators/fosters. So how can it be said that rescues are well socialized with children and are able to be placed with children? I'm not saying all rescues dogs are like this, but a reality is most are because most of these dogs have little socialization with adults, never mind children.
Most of the rescues that are dealt with do come with issues irregardless of what you say. Whether they are mental or physical. It is a crap shoot in the long run with any dog. I agree with that as to the physical well being, no one, NO ONE, can determine long term what can happen to anyone or anything physically or mentally.
Secondly, no matter how stellar a rescue volunteer is at training and rehabilitating, lack of good socialization during critical development periods can never really be fully substituted.
I think rescues are a great option for some people but they come with huge question marks that make then a less suitable option for some households and no matter what you say, HEALTH and TEMPERAMENT are some of those huge question marks.
-
MY dogs, as most well-bred dogs, have temperaments beyond comparison to any rescue. Sure, some rescues are one in a million… but that isn't the norm.
Actually, it really is. Most dogs in rescues and shelters are there due to stupid or irresponsible owners, not temperament. Lets get real okay? Responsible breeders make up .. I forget the AKC stats… quite a bit less than 20 percent show their dogs in any venue, never mind percent who do their breed's recommended genetic and health testing. That's only akc. Yet most dogs are perfectly fine temperaments. Exceptions? Sure, guardian breed dogs and others. But generally, nope. Which is why there aren't hundreds of people dead every year from those poorly breed insane dogs you imagine are out there. MOST dogs have fine temperaments... maybe not for every home, but certainly okay. Most dog issues are not the dog's temperament but the owner's issues.
FEW RESCUE DOGS, IF ANY, CAN BE CONSIDERED BOMB PROOF.
I do not care who has evaluated it, spent time with it, and TT it.
The vast majority of dogs in rescue to not have a history that rescue knows 100% about.Heads up. Unlike a human sitting in psychoanalysis, you don't need much history. Live with a dog for 3 to 6 mos and if you aren't able to evaluate the temperament and bomb proof it as much as any other dog, you need some help. Doesn't mean every dog for every home, but then, neither are Basenjis right for even MOST homes.
The vast majority of people that turn dogs into rescue tell the truth. They are ready to be done with the dog, and if it takes making up crap to shove the dog off on others, it is done.
Don't even waste your breath to try and refute this… I have seen it way too much.I think you meant DON'T tell the truth. And we agree. Again, so what? You spend time with the dog, you'll get all the info you need.
And a rescue is almost always as good of a choice as a well-bred puppy?
You obviously believe this to be true… but it is merely an unsubstantiated opinion that all I can really do is laugh at someone that believes it.Typing slow again. Puppies are hard for most people to raise right. If they have the ability to raise a puppy right, they could also live with a rescue. So yeah, it's laughable you want to argue a rescue won't do just as well unless they want to show or breed. Genetic diseases aside… which I grant and have said.
-
The majority of my rescues have never been around children since they have lived in crates 24/7. Since I do not have children, they are not exposed to children in a household. They might meet children at events, etc. but that is not the same as living with children who might pull their tail, carry food around at their height, etc.
Jennifer
Then you would be wise to never place in homes with children… or do you mean dogs you have adopted? Not sure if you mean you rescue to place or your own adopted dogs. If you rescue to place, here is a thought.. should anyone do rescue if they are not able to find kids to expose them TO? Because most homes have kids visit... family, neighbors, whatever. I consider exposing to children to be critical. It really is important to know how a dog is. What if one of those rescues has issues with children and is a danger?
-
Debra,
Do you have any idea how much rescue Jennifer does for the Basenji breed??
I gather you don't by the rude comments you are making.
Jennifer is an ANGEL and does more than many folks combined when it comes to rescue. Bless her for being there for so many of these dogs.THIS THREAD NEEDS TO BE CLOSED.
You are a rude individual to folks that you do not know in any way.
We can all suffice to say that you would argue til the cows came home…
the fact is, you are bashing those of us on here that are good breeders AND we do rescue.
Get past yourself and realize you are preaching to the wrong choir. -
I agree this topic needs to be closed.
-
Well before we close it can I pipe in? Thanks.
Of course rescue dogs are in competition with reputable breeders for finding good homes, and vice versa. As are BYB and puppymills. What differentiates us from each other is our intent. Personally I find very little fault in what Debra has had to say. Breeders do perpetuate the myth their dogs are better than rescue dogs to some degree, and again - vice versa. We are all biased about what we are doing and we all think we have the best thing going. I admit it - I think what I do rocks and is better than many if not all others which is why I continue to do as I do! But - I am always open to improvement.
I am not concerned so much by the number of adults a breeder has. Well socialized adults have very little need for excessive training, just brief periods of refresher courses throughout the week is enough to keep them in tip top temperament shape. What concerns me is multiple litters that a number of "reputable" breeders (and I say that word lightly) have on the ground at any one time. I know the time and effort and commitment that goes into properly socializing and exposing puppies - which means getting them out of the house, as a group and individually numerous times. With multiple litters - something has to give and it will usually be the early socializing/exposure excursions 'cuz they just don't have the time. My recent litter of 4 pups took a tremendous amount of my time and I still did not do all that I had wanted.
That said - nothing is full proof. I have seen dogs with the best start in life be ruined by owners to become schitzo adults. I have also seen pound pups, with the worst start in life, step up and make the grade. As for children - I personally do not feel this breed is good with children in the traditional sense. Not because there is anything wrong with the breed's temperament - its more due to the fact that many kids I see today are spoiled rotten, have no boundaries with very little respect or regard for anything. Sure - a total generalization but its my reality. IMO, our breed does not do well with any human (child or adult) that does not have a sense of respect for it and act accordingly. Does not mean my guys are not well bred or well socialized.
And speaking as a person who sees multiple rescues of every shape and size, every day at work where most of our patient base are petstore rejects or pound pups - I agree it is stupid people that create stupid, schitzo dogs - it is the rare individual animal that has a true genetic temperament template which can not be eradicated in the right enviro and a lot of dedication.
As for health. Excluding fanconi - as that is a recent test therefore I would expect well bred dogs to be over represented in testings - having test results does not guarantee breeders anything. Yes, testing does help breeders to determine odds of a health problem cropping up but it does not exclude breeders from having said problems or other problems not on the breeds radar screen. I know breeders with Idiopathic immune disorders on this list - myself included - that no amount of health testing would have alerted us to. Heck - health testing has only really become a mainstay within the breed in the last 10-15 years. It was the norm NOT to test. Which means most well bred dogs were NO better than the unknown rescues with regards to knowledge - in other words - it was all a crap shoot. Add to that breeders unwilling to talk about or even acknowledge they had any problems and you have no more info than if you took home a dog picked up off the street - except what the breeder may or may not tell you. Has it gotten better - heck yes. But we still have breeders with their head in the sand, to the point they still will not test for fanconi!
The crux of the problem, IMO, is something Pat mentions - not every person wants a rescue. There is something alluring about a puppy; it's a clean slate, has little to no baggage, is believed (wrongly of course) to be "easier" to take care of. So in that regard Pat is right - rescue is not for everyone. When folks come to me re: a basenji puppy and I do not have pups on the ground or a litter planned I will always remind them of rescue dogs as well as give them names of other breeders who might have litters or older dogs needing placement and leave the choice to them. But if I have available pups on the ground or a litter planned and they are asking for a pup, I admit I am not thinking about sending them to rescue. I am thinking about vetting them to see if they would be a good prospect for one of my pups. If they are, I admit I will keep them for myself if I can. By no means am I bashing rescue - to be honest - rescue probably has not even come up in the conversation.
As an aside - this reader did not take Debra's post to Jennifer as a criticsm - especially since she has implied she is not 100% certain she understands what Jennifer means by rescue (dogs she plans to place or dogs she herself has rescued/adopted). Her question re: whether or not someone should do rescue (for eventual placement) if they have no plans to somehow expose said rescue to children is a valid question. I personally never thought of it but can see how it could be an important point in a future potential placement.
Now then - feel free to close the subject since this reader feels ya'll are so set to "right fight" you lost the bigger picture about 2 pages ago. That being - in the end it is all about the dogs and giving them the best start, or second start possible, and getting them into one home for the rest of their lives.
-
Linda, well said.
I always try to keep my eye on what is best for the b.
It makes things a lot clearer when I think that way.
