Kudos for speaking your mind. I couldn't have it better. I'm relieved that I didn't have to watch a puppy being euthanized. I'm appalled when people use the media so stupidly. How they could have assumed that their actions would do anything but bring on a landslide of criticism is beyond me.

unfortunately;I believe the majority of people either remain uninformed in blissful ignorance or don't care or want to know the ugly side of many things involving domestic animals & thier fate: example factory farms with often cruel practices;ex-perimentation/cosmetics,etc.;pet-trade attrocities;@ yes the local shelters which are overfilled/often poorly budgeted.The fact is these topics don't look pretty or make for comfortable conversation but yet it's daily reality for 1000's of mammals & birds.The Bp oil spill is difficult to look @ even comprehend but the ugly attention is turning people to think alittle about the planet.Ugliness is just that ugliness;the people need to realize consequences.I'm glad there's alot of animal people & earth lovers out there.The majority of people though I don't believe make the connection without help.

It is time the public sees what happens when they leave an animal at a shelter. No more excuses since it is the public that places that burden on those that work at the shelter. It is about time this dirty secret was made public.

just waiting for the "it's the greedy Nazi uncaring breeders fault!" contingent to arrive.

Good Blog Post. Unfortunate for the media to take this approach, but how else does the word get out? Animals are killed in the shelter. It isn't the fault of animal control. It's the fault of the folks that don't spay/neuter their animals and let them reproduce randomly. I am not railing against good breeders either who have return policies for animals that don't "work out."

In Cleveland, TN, 162 kittens were killed in a single week during the summer at that local animal control facility. From an annual intake of 7000 in 2007 for a county population of 150,000, only 1100 were adopted out. The rest were "euthanized" as there are only 19 runs to accommodate the dogs. Yes, they need a larger facility. But that is also the community's fault for taking so long to get around to allowing there to be a low-cost spay/neuter clinic, because the local vets railed against such as cutting in on their income.

It is only because media got involved that this information got out. I expect that was what the folks from Channel 4 were trying to do, but chose a poor way of doing it.

I certainly agree with you that the woman from the shelter crossed the line, especially with her statement that "This is what we all do to our best friend." While I also disagree with her effectively euthanizing the puppy to make an example, I have to admit that I do think that the public needs its "nose rubbed" in the way that it treats animals. Many people fail to plan ahead and to get their pet spayed/neutered and end up with an adorable "oopsie" litter of puppies or kittens. The babies end up either at the shelter or with another family who may or may not have fully thought through the immense lifestyle changes and the financial obligations that are necessary when one takes responsibility for another life. Failing to plan ahead may result in either another litter or with the pet being dumped on the street or at a shelter. Clearly I am preaching to the converted here, but my point is that the public really does need a brutal wake-up-call when it comes to the way that a lot of us treat our furry friends. I wish the shelter could have gotten this message across without stepping on the toes of those of us who really do go out of our way to love - and to plan for - our own pets and fosters.

Thank-you Dr. Khuly............thats what happens at shelters, makes me sick. What about the oil spill in the Gulf. How many wonderful animales are lost forever. This is hurting all of us.We are doing very little to stop this, We as a people can change things. This is a-wake-call.

I did not see the newscast you're speaking about, living in Pennsylvania, but I would have been horrified to watch it. The camera man could have refused to show this euthanasia to the viewers. Most folks know what animal shelters do to "extra" dogs and cats. This was a cruel and unnecesary example to film.
The director of this shelter should be replaced with someone with a more compassion and caring. To use that poor helpless puppy as an example is beyond cruel.

First, to Donnadw, I am here. Just take everything I have ever said about breeders and imagine it here:______________________________________________________________________

There, now, about the TV deal. I see her thinking she was doing the same thing that these charities do with the third world starving, medical issues, and the like. Jerry's kids making efforts to get out of a chair, that sort of thing. I actually do understand putting that part in there.

But that part in these charity commercials always is followed by the positive. "Look, if you adopt these wonderful dogs, they don't have to die. Take here. A full bred (Greyhound/Golden Retriever/Poodle/All American Mutt) that would cost you many hundreds of dollars from a breeder and you can have one from our shelter for a fraction of that cost. Furthermore, the animal is altered, has all of it's shots, and we even provide discounts on training and a free book to assist you with managing the animal and having this dog become a wonderful part of your life."

That's what she SHOULD have done. No, I don't have a problem with her insensitive way of presenting the death side of it. For Donna, I just wish they would have shown the $1500 Mastif being put in the oven right next to the street mutt. It happens, and more than anyone wants to admit. I don't blame the breeders fully, and I am sure that there are responsible breeders out there. But my experience is that about 96% of those that consider themselves "responsible" are not. No need to reply, Donna, we're not ever going to agree.

Shelters aren't in the business of MAKING POINTS. They are in the business of getting animals adopted into good homes.

This puppy was eminently adoptable. Euthanasia to "make a statement" was completely unethical and immoral.

EAB, you just keep dreaming that if breeders stop breeding the human race will have an epiphany and decide, "you know, I really DO want a 70 lb 5 year old pit mix instead of a poodle puppy. He'll fit in great in my studio apartment." No, my friend, remember Prohibition instead. If you make it illegal or prohibitive for reputable breeders to breed, the back yard breeders and puppy millers will have a windfall.

I agree with Nathan Winograd that a no kill society -- or damn close to it -- is possible, but not with people like Mordcovich running our shelters. There is a greater demand for dogs than there are dogs in shelters. We need communities willing to support a no kill agenda, leaders and staff who believe in it and are willing to go the extra mile to make it happen. For example, a couple of months ago (with financial assistance from a celebrity, I wish I remembered her name) a number of chihuahuas were shipped from California, where they are crowding the shelters, to I think New Hampshire, where they are in demand. This kind of creative thinking is how dogs' lives can be saved. This is how you get people to adopt from a shelter instead of buying from a puppy miller, pet store, or for that matter, a breeder.

Reputable breeders do NOT make a profit on the puppies they sell. And if there was more effort and creativity put into matching shelter dogs with potential owners, among other things, more potential owners would adopt. Just killing the dogs is not the answer.

I agree with every word of this article. Using killing to remonstrate people for allowing killing is astonishingly obtuse. I will be reprinting this, with attribution of course, at madmikesamerica. I won't leave the exact URL because I don't want anyone to think I am spamming. I have been reprinting Dr. Khuly's posts for months. Fully Vetted is an excellent source of valuable critter information. Keep up this great work.

Well, sorry donnadw, but breeders do share SOME of the responsibility. Maybe not 100%, but some.

Personally, I think it's unethical to breed dogs, cats, or horses in this country. As long as we're killing them for the crime of being unwanted, then there's no justification for breeding more. None. Don't give me your rationalizations, I've heard them all before. None of them fly.

There, now you got what you were waiting for! Aren't you happy!

SBM

I am a huge advocate for adoptions and forever homes. I agree that this situation could have been handled completely differently. I feel this was a misguided way to open the eyes of society.

So we don't address the problem by reducing breeding. That's like saying "well, let's not deal with drunk drivers since people will still wreck even if no one is drunk."

How about the AKC just take to providing no kills shelters for all registered dogs? Really, if this is about responsible breeders that follow up with the owners and ensure all of their dogs get a good home, then this approach should work since there would be relatively few dogs they would have to worry about. Come on, you all can get behind that. If what you are telling me is that the shelters are full of defective mutts from the streets and alleys, then why not do this? Responsible breeders tell me they already ensure their dogs are going to good homes so this should be very easy to implement.

I stand by what I said before. I don't think this lady went about delivering her message the best way, but after throwing a day's worth of dogs of ALL breeds, to include those AKC papered types into an oven and setting it to "well done", one's political correctness can run a bit thin. I can see how it was taken offensive, but boy, I sure do understand where she's coming from.

In 1998 I went to my local shelter hoping to adopt a dog. I picked out a year old pup and filled out the application, only to be told I was unfit to be a dog owner. Why? Well, I'm a nurse who works 12 hour shifts and my yard is unfenced. So I found an ad in the newspaper and bought a Lab puppy from a BYB. My neighbors walked her and fed her when I was at work. She lived in the house with me and slept next to my bed. She didn't even WANT to be outside unless I was with her. I nursed her through (and paid out of pocket for!) two TPLO surgeries, hip dysplasia, arthritis, diabetes and the pancreatic cancer which finally took her life at the age of twelve. She was my baby and I miss her every day!

A few months after she died I decided life with no dog is no life for me. So I did a lot of research to find a reputable breeder (yes, they DO exist) and brought home a beautiful Lab puppy who brings so much joy to my life. She was purchased on a limited registration with a contract which states that she must be spayed and she must be returned to her breeder if ever I cannot care for her. I will NEVER consider a shelter dog again because the hurt of that rejection is still stuck in my heart. They would rather see a dog die than let it go to what they consider a less than ideal home. I'm sure that comes from seeing so many dogs abused and unwanted...thinking it's better off dead than on the street. I get that; I understand it. But their vision is clouded to the point of inflexibility, just like that of people who think all breeders are bad. Life is never black or white and what I share is only my own experience. I just wonder how many people where inspired, by that puppy killing, to go rescue a shelter dog...and were turned away because they were judged to be imperfect?

"Using killing to remonstrate people for allowing killing is astonishingly obtuse."

Well said!

Furthermore, this woman sacrificed a puppy's life to make a point. How is that not unethical? Why not use the TV spot to show the puppy, tell the public, in a no nonsense way, how long he has to live and then show the rows and rows of full kennels and conclude with something positive about adopting and fostering animals (shelters should really scream from the roof tops that they need foster homes).

There's plenty of blame to go around (including at shelters that put more effort into euthanizing and pointing fingers, than in educating, encouraging neutering, fostering and adoption), but blame doesn't bring people over to your side, it alienates them and hardens them against your message. That shelter needs a different PR person.

To all the people who waste their energy blaming, pointing fingers, beating their chests and ripping their hair out, if you want to make a difference, get off your soapbox and do something to effect positive change.

I usually just read and stay out of the discussions, but in this particular instance, I feel I can contribute. Sorry if I go off-topic....

I work in a kill-shelter. I'm the Rescue Coordinator of a local humane society and our office is in the kill-shelter, so we work very closely with Animal Control.

I appreciate that people want a no-kill system, but it's just not feasible unless more people step up to the plate. Even with hundreds of volunteers, barely a fraction of those ever actually come to our shelter, god forbid foster a dog to get it out of the shelter. Despite begging and pleading, we have been unable to expand above maybe 10 reliable, good fosters - half of which are COLLEGE students...how sad is it that the college students are the responsible adults willing to sacrifice something for an important cause. I appreciate that in more populated areas, there are more people willing just by shear numbers, but many shelters just do not have a choice but to euthanize. There's no money, no space and no willing volunteers.

Our shelter's euthanasia rate has decreased dramatically since we developed a strong rescue program. The amount of rescue dogs about equals the amount of adoptions every month, and many months AC doesn't have to euthanize at all. Something else people can't understand unless they work there is that the shelter drives dogs CRAZY. Dogs come in feeling abandoned and you can't even touch them. Dogs are completely normal one week, and the next they are more than bouncing off the walls. God forbid you have a dog that is dog aggressive or has the propensity to become dog aggressive - no rescue wants that dog and it spends all day aggressing at the dog across from them, stressing itself out. Who wants to adopt that? We do our best to get the dogs walked, but when there are only a couple of people at the shelter and we're there to run the Humane Society and clean the facility and feed the dogs, you can't walk the 40/50+ animals in the facility without help. You certainly can't socialize and train the dogs. Sometimes there are worse things than euthanasia. If a no-kill system was to work, people would have to help.

And I have seen the volunteers who come to help at our spay clinic who REFUSE to go look at the dogs in the shelter because it makes them sad...PUH-LEEZ. You can't get over your sadness to go make a difference in those dogs lives?? That's why although I agree that AC did miss a major opportunity to use the media, I see their side.

I used to be really against kill-shelters, but being an ACO is really hard and there just isn't enough of anything to go around. Most of them (ours are FABULOUS) do the best they can.

These shelters need help and that will allow them to do more. The Humane Society/Animal Control partnership has really worked for our shelter and I think it would be a very good solution to implement in more places.

I completely agree with you that more people need to volunteer and help, but for some people it IS too overwhelmingly sad. Just as some people can be nurses and doctors and see death everyday and some can't handle it, same goes for this. Some people can't get things off their mind as easily. But still, it sounds so selfish to be an animal lover and never contribute, and like myself, other people need to figure out a way to handle it so that they can make a difference.

Anyway, the point I really wanted to make was a 4 month old puppy should NEVER be euthanized!! I don't care if you have no room for it, find another place for it to go. We need to also start implementing more laws against these disgusting human beings who leave these animals to such a fate. They not only ruin that animal's life they are affecting whole communities, the people that have to take care of these animals and feel sad for them every single day. It's not right. And I'm sorry but the shelters need to do more to get the government and communities involved because animals should NEVER be euthanized!! Do we do that to children with no families?? Maybe we should, I don't want to pay taxes to feed and care for them for 18 years. And maybe if this country wasn't so corrupt medically the shelters would actually be able to afford these animals. $1000 for a simple surgery and medication is ridiculous.

Also, so what if a dog is aggressive? Not their fault, that's all they know, and it's more being scared than angry, dogs do not understand anger. Those dogs need to be worked with, REALLY worked with, a walk is not going to do anything for those dogs. They need proper training and socializing which any volunteer with a little guts could handle. A half an hour a day would do wonders.

Please take a look at this article, which I found very interesting. Do you really think we are euthanizing animals even though we really don't have to? I hope not. If so, we must do something.

http://dallasdogs.org/education/inside-nathan-winograds-redemption/

If you are only working with shelter dogs, I would imagine how you would only see the worst of purebred dogs and breeders. Sort of how if ones only exposure to men was at a domestic violence shelter, they would see all men as evil abusers.

Your characterizations of purebred dogs (stupid, unhealthy) and 96% of breeders (unresponsible, uncaring, greedy) makes you sort of an Andrea Dworkin of dogs.

Nothing is black and white, or even 96% black and 4% white.

I just went to the website of our local shelter and out of 70 dogs pictured, identified 9 that I would bet were purebred. Breeders are the problem here how, exactly?

No, I am not happy. No one, not even evil breeders, enjoy seeing a puppy killed. But your argument is similar to "There are so many kids up for adoption, no one should procreate." I don't usually get many takers for that proposition. Do you have kids? If so, how do you live with the guilt?

I will be on the next flight to Miami -

I am volunteering to put Mordcovich down - on TV! What a stupid individual! This is clearly someone who has no business being in charge of a shelter.

I think the shelter person did a really stupid stunt and I also understand her underlying point - shelters need more from the public. They need funding, they need volunteers, donations, foster homes, moral support and the public will to say that the status quo is unacceptable. It is a slap in the face to say "this puppy is dying because you don't care" and it's sure as heck not going to get more people to come down to the shelter and offer to lend a hand, or thank their local shelter worker for caring enough to do their job.

At the same time there are dogs and cats from the shelter on the news every day, several local stations do "Adopt A Dog" segments in their morning shows and it does get pets adopted, but it doesn't seem to make people think about how to make things better.

I have to say to LabMom, it's sad that you say "I will NEVER consider a shelter dog again because the hurt of that rejection is still stuck in my heart." You won't help a homeless pet because your feelings were hurt? The animals can't help where they are, it's not their fault someone turned you down. Every shelter has a different policy and set of criteria, if you'd look again I'll bet you'd find one that would work with you. But just like some people think all breeders are bad, you've come to think all shelters are bad. Life is indeed not black and white.

I applaud the shelter manager for going against PC and putting the problem in the lap where it belongs - irresponsible people. Sheriff BJ Barnes in Greensboro, NC did the same after dealing with irresponsible people of did not take the responsibility and privilege (not a right) of pet ownership.

http://cgi.cnn.com/US/9808/07/televised.euthanasia/

"No-kill" advocates are not there when the adult dog or cat has to go see the money grubbing veterinarian (who would not spay/neuter at 1980s prices) because it has heartworms (should that be subsidized too?) or it has a correctable condition but "Gosh, Doc, he only cost me $125. Go ahead and put him down.". The problem is that the irresponsible pet owners suffer no adverse effects/penalties/jail time from their irresponsible behavior. The shelter manager I think was trying to do a version of the "Scared Straight" program for juvenile delinquents directed to delinquent pet owners. She might get positive results like Sheriff Barnes did in Greensboro. I think we need to try more measures that will punish the irresponsible. As long as there are more pets than responsible pet owners who understand the long and sometimes costly committment of owning a pet, then you will have to euthanize pets.

Joe

by susanbt on 07/13/2010 10:16amShelters aren't in the business of MAKING POINTS. They are in the business of getting animals adopted into good homes.

Nope, in most of the South they are Animal *CONTROL* shelters and they are in the business of:

1) protecting citizens from roaming or aggressive pets
2) protecting citizens from persistent or aggressive wildlife
3) picking up stray pets and holding them a prescribed period to see if they are claimed
4) being the drop off point for unwanted pets

In my county, and several around me, making these pets available for adoption is permitted but not required. We have THREE people to cover our county and they also must keep the kennels and cages cleaned to state standards, deal with biting animals' quarantine/euth/testing, and handle the euthanasias of the animals.

From 2005-2008 they took in 6400 dogs and about 82% were euthanized. (2009 is not available yet). Unemployment in our area as of 1/1/10 was 10.7%. We have no large industry, no major work centers. There is no budget for a bigger shelter although they have now made our shelter euth via lethal injection not gas chamber to head off a state mandated ruling.

Guess what locals are doing to make money since they can't find jobs? BREEDING DOGS TO SELL.

I commend the shelter for having to gumption to put real reality on TV. Euthanizing puppies IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE COMMUNITY HAS TOO MANY DOGS. If she succeeded in making LOCAL folks start talking and looking for real solutions good for her. My guess tho is that everyone will be too busy being upset about what she did to address the reality that it happens daily... just not on TV.

Beth P
King NC

We always seem to get into my hate for breeders. I don't hate breeders unless they make efforts to register with the AKC an breed to their appearance IE "clone" standard. I also will always put out there my preference for mutts over purebreds as a companion animal and pet. They simply don't have the single minded drive that a purebred has and thus I have found they are easier to train and more well behaved. They are healthier as well. This is not a stereotype. There are smart purebreds and dumb mutts, for sure. And you know, your opinion may differ and that's ok. I don't take to insulting anyone out here as someone that does that doesn't have any confidence in their point of view so they choose to insult rather than discuss.

Rather than rant, I'll give you this to read.

http://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html

It is in regards to the Border Collie, the one breed I do endorse because they have fought tooth and nail against AKC recognition. While there are some breeders and Border Collie orgs that cater to the AKC, if you want a "real" Border Collie, the first thing you do is ensure the dog is from a reputable breeder which is NOT registered with the AKC. This ensures the dog is healthy and has the performance and health one would expect of a Border Collie.

In short, you could get rid of about 99% of my objections to the AKC if they would just rate dogs based on performance, health, and behavior over appearance. But as long as it is PROFITABLE (enough with breeders not profiting from this, ok!!??) the AKC and it's registered breeders will continue to thrive in it's elitist clone sanctioning business.

Beth P, what your "shelter" does isn't euthanasia; it's killing, straight-up, outright killing. And it takes a fairly gruesome attitude towards cats and dogs to mistake killing via gas chamber, a terrible and scary death for the animals, for "euthanasia."

Or maybe you just don't know what the word "euthanasia" means, and believe it's just the word you use for officially killing animals.

Killing a highly-adoptable four-month-old puppy is not going to do one single thing to get more dogs and cats adopted, to promote spay/neuter, to get more funding and staff for the killing facility

I live in a community where the unemployment rate is 19%, and has been for well over a year and a half. (It wasn't much better before that.) We have dog fighters. We have people who think breeding their pets is a great way to earn some cash in tough times. Animal Control averages between three and twelve animals a week, keeps a list of people interested in cats or particular types of dogs for any dogs that are unclaimed, and transfers to a local shelter any animals that they can't adopt out themselves in a reasonable time. Oh, and we don't have arbitrary pet limit laws or breed bans.

It's two people working a forty-hour week, but they don't see their job as killing excess animals.

They negotiated a deal with the local shelter. They each spend part of their 40-hour week going around the parts of the city where unemployment is the worst and where loose dogs are most often found. They get the dogs back to the owners, give them some education on dog care and why it's dangerous to let them roam--and if the dogs are intact, they offer transportation to and from the local shelter, which will spay or neuter for half the usual "low-cost" fee.

AC is the friend of pet owners here, not the enemy. They don't regard the general public as the enemy. There just might be a connection between their friendly attitude towards the public and the relatively low rate of animals staying in the AC kennel for more than a few hours.

It probably wasn't the best way to wake up the public as to what shelters and humane societies have to deal with every day, but at some point, irresponsible owners need to realize that taking that litter of puppies to the shelter doesn't always work out to a happy ending.
Living in a rural area in Kansas, I find abandoned dogs and puppies on a pretty regular basis; my chocolate lab was adopted from our local shelter two years ago after the ACO spent weeks trying to find the owner. A co-worker found a very young puppy just last Friday on the way to work, we found someone in our office to adopt him and he was put to sleep at the vets the next day because of distemper.
In a big city like Miami, I'm sure the problem is hundreds of times worse than what our ACOs deal with out here.
Getting the message out about spaying and neutering, and reducing the population is the best way out of this mess.

EAB said: We always seem to get into my hate for breeders. I don't hate breeders unless they make efforts to register with the AKC an breed to their appearance IE "clone" standard. I also will always put out there my preference for mutts over purebreds as a companion animal and pet. They simply don't have the single minded drive that a purebred has and thus I have found they are easier to train and more well behaved. They are healthier as well. This is not a stereotype. There are smart purebreds and dumb mutts, for sure. And you know, your opinion may differ and that's ok. I don't take to insulting anyone out here as someone that does that doesn't have any confidence in their point of view so they choose to insult rather than discuss.

I will let your own words speak for themselves:

The reality is that if you breed to make every dog meet a very VERY specific set of physical parameters, you are doing some pretty serious inbreeding, so much so that you are creating something that is unnatural. There is no way to do it "safely." That is a pipe dream. When I hear the term "responsible breeder" I feel like throwing up

Breeds are not natural. A mutt of 1000 characteristics and such is natural. As a result, our dog, this natural 1000 breed mongril, most likely wont' suffer from all of the medical issues listed in Dr. K's thread because she is a dog as nature intended before man got involved. Furthermore, her mental and emotional energy is more balanced than an inbred pedegree. Truth hurts, I know, but it is what it is.

I see these full breeds at the dog park and while some of them are OK, I have to say that the majority of them aren't "wired" quite right. Then you get their owners talking and OMG, they have more behavior and health issues, and it makes one feel for the dog. These wonderful spirits did not ask to be this way.

I am so far off the deep end when it comes to breeds that you know what my opinion is.

Seriously, what I have learned from all of this discussion is that the only difference between a "reputable" breeder and a puppy mill is the consensus opinion of people you choose to trust. The AKC will certify anyone, and proof of bloodline really can't be that hard to doctor up.

I have yet to meet a mutt that has any behavior issues that can't be worked through. Purebreds, because of their "single purpose" of breeding, in some cases seem just half there mentally. That's my nice way of saying "stupid." Truth be told, every one of my dogs has been a mutt off of death row. Our most recent dog is one that had many problems, the ones you speak of. Separation anxiety, destructive, hyperactive, no responsive to commands, wouldn't eat.

We should all be angry. If the animal control officer had just used the opportunity to "cute-up" the puppy and get it adopted instead of kill it? And then do it again 91 times a day too.

I know...seriously...that makes me so angry I can spit. A horrible, tragic situation that she cannot win. 91 animals a day killed. Let's take our anger out on the real problem.

Until the are enough homes for all the unwanted animal there should be a moratorium on the breeding of new pets. People who are "less-than-confrontational" like Dr. Patty NEED to be provoked apparently as nothing is being done about the current spay neuter situation. It is still perfectly fine to let one's dog run intact without public outcry or problem and if it continues we will continue to have the slaughter of innocent lives in the "kill" shelters without change.

The idea of dogs dying is why the general public does not turn up in droves to city kill shelters. Who the hell wants to choose one dog out of the dozens there, knowing that that choice condemns other dogs to die. Its a broken system and blaming the public is ridiculous and why people STILL buy puppies from pet stores.

That moron killing a puppy on TV probably made people *more* determined to avoid shelters at all costs. People are not unaware of what goes on. They feel helpless to change it.

PLease note that news media, neither print nor video, ever tell the whole story. They pick and choose what to show. And for those of you who did not see the video, they did not show any euthanasia. We, the audience, were told the puppy was euthanized.
I volunteer in a rescue group which takes animals from Animal Services. I have seen the efforts these people make to save the dogs and cats that come in there, but with a hundred kittens, puppies, dogs and cats arriving EVERY DAY from the community during the summer breeding season; I can see why bitterness creeps in. One day I saw 8 neonatal puppies brought in by a woman who let her dog get pregnant and give birth. Then it became too much responsibility for her to handle, so she separated the family and brought the puppies into the shelter. They were only two weeks old. She was asked to keep them until they were weaned; but the woman refused. And I wonder, did she get the mother dog spayed afterwards? Did the puppies find foster homes? I left with the 4 kittens I had come to foster. I was afraid to follow up and learn that this is the REALITY THAT BITES.

To SBM and others that believe all breeding should stop until every shelter animal has a home, I have one simple question.

If it takes five years to accomplish your goal, and all breeding stops during that time, how will breeding be re-established? Especially since mandatory spay and neuter laws are being enacted nationwide for all animals which are not exempt from being bred. Since in your scenario NO dogs or cats would be exempt...and they would all qualify for MSN...once the problem was solved...how would breeding be re-established?

Mutts are no more "natural" than purebreds...the progenitors of all domestic dogs were also "purebred" at some point...wolves are purebred. There is some diversity from type to type, or region to region...but a wolf is a wolf is a wolf. Yes, purebreds were manipulated through selective breeding to have specific qualities...but a mutt is the result of mixed purebred breedings. All mutts are "designer" dogs in one fashion or another. Now, given enough "time", to inter-breed at will across the species, it will again homogenize to become an animal that has generally similar characteristics. But today's mutts are no more "natural" than their purebred counterparts.