So you prefer to stay out the (normal) reproduction game altogether and still complain about all the clients who buy from internet puppymills and Wizard of Claws?

Perhaps if would-be breeders who want to do right didn't find themselves transparently regarded as walking turds by their vets, there would be more GOOD sources for healthy puppies.

Wouldn't it have been good client service to have the names of some experienced, caring, ethical, expert breeders in the rolodex so you could have hooked up your clients with the pregnant rescue with a local mentor? Someone who could answer their questions and even hold their hands during the actual midwifery and subsequent puppy-raising? And even help them work out a plan for placement beyond "hope the neighbors want a puppy?"

Because, believe it or not, there are a lot of breeders out there who would do just that, out of charity and a love of animals.

When our rescue got in a too-pregnant-to-spay bitch, you know where we sent her to have her pups?

Bet you can guess -- it wasn't someone who had only ever owned neutered pets.

...I actually love repro. I used to work for a guy who taught me more than I ever thought I'd want to know about artificially inseminating dogs and cats and every C-section trick in the book. Problem was, his clients included the backyard breeders and truly great breeders, too. He couldn't turn down the scumbags because there weren't enough of the good clients to be had.

Forgive me, but I couldn't hack it. After seeing one too many animals die after a C-section came too late, I was done. I still send the vast majority of my complex repro cases to him, though.

So am I a hypocrite for complaining about the puppymillers and not helping others out when they choose to undertake it properly? I guess in my view that number of should-be-bred pets is so small that I'd rather have a repro person deal with them on AI, etc.

So's I don't misrepresent myself, though, I do perform lots of C-sections and still counsel clients on whelping/queening issues. I just don't prefer to be in that situation. Thank God for whelphelp.com and other sites that offer basic info.

"Perhaps if would-be breeders who want to do right didn't find themselves transparently regarded as walking turds by their vets, there would be more GOOD sources for healthy puppies."

Interesting! Had no idea people turned to the internet and fedex after an exhaustive search for good breeders! Always puppy mill buyers were simply lazy, uneducated, gullible, impatient, etc.

After working around shelters that take in many dogs from owners that are over their heads, dogs from puppy mills as well as dogs from so called "responsible, charitable" breeders, I have an observation. Every breeder I know or have met, out here and in other places, considers themselves responsible. Every person that has purchased a dog considers their dog the product of a "responsible breeder", usually followed by the laundry list of issues and problems that they have had with their dog. I know of one person that has a bulldog that was purchased for high $$$ from the recognized best bulldog breeder on the east coast and yet the dog spends a good amount of time a the Doc's office and, after purchase, was discovered to be deaf.

So, anyone care to take a stab at telling me what the criteria is for a "responsible" breeder? I guess I have more of a problem than most drawing the line between puppy mill and responsible breeder. The highest percentage of both seem to be cloning dogs for appearance consideration being a priority, health and well being being somewhere lower on the list.

Yeah, I endorse a vet staying out of the reproductive game. Most shelters will tell you we simply don't need any more dogs.

I'm guessing that another reason Dr. K. doesn't see too many pregnant dogs or cats is that those who breed them don't see the need to get "prenatal" care for them. They won't seek a vet unless a c-section is needed, or the pups or kittens need shots. Note that the person who brought in the pregnant dog was adopted from a rescue (though I question a rescue that would adopt out a pregnant dog, unless they had an agreement to get all puppies and the mom fixed before placement, and even then...), not a backyard breeder or the like. Like Dr. K said, too many dogs, cats, puppies and kittens are killed every single day. I do dog rescue, and I truely wish that someday my role will be unnecessary, but I know it won't.

"Perhaps if would-be breeders who want to do right didn't find themselves transparently regarded as walking turds by their vets, there would be more GOOD sources for healthy puppies."

You know, there is that problem. Veterinarians (myself included) don't tend to want to deal with breeders until they've *proven* themselves to be better partners than they are dictators. And I can see the other side way better now that you put it in "turd" terms.

But I still don't get how to change this culture given that 99% of the "breeders" most of us have to deal with are not the responsible type I know you to be.

Having to win over a veterinarian must suck. Especially when some won't even give you a shot. I get it. But isn't it worse that so many idiots do what they do with impunity? Can you blame us for not wanting to deal with the crackpot abusers?

I am not a breeder, however I do know the hallmarks of a reputable/responsible breeder.

They show their dogs, to their AKC Championships, before breeding them. How else would you know if you have a conformationally correct dog? They also do breed specific, genetic health testing BEFORE even considering breeding the dog, and the results are verifiable to a potential buyer. They only place puppies, on a spay/neuter contract, if they are going into pet homes. They also will take the puppy back at ANY time in it's life, and for any reason. In fact, it's usually required in their contracts. If they are doing all of this, they are NOT making a profit on the dogs they do breed. In fact, it costs them money.

I work breed specific dog rescue...but If I were to purchase a dog, I do know the difference between a hobby breeder, backyard breeder, and heaven forbid, a puppy mill... vs. a reputable/responsible breeder.

You can apply this same criteria to Cat breeders as well.

That's what I typically recommend to my clients, too. Problem is, most have no patience for the process. (Even the really smart ones!) They'd rather have the puppy flown in tomorrow or whenever it's most convenient. And they buy into the online sales pitch and the "breeder's" BS.

And how does someone know whether they've got a "tested" dog on their hands? Most "breeders" will outright lie about this. Because prospective owners do NOT know what to ask for. Indeed, it's different for every breed. "Do I need CERF? Do I prefer PennHIP or is OFA OK?" etc.

What I'd offer is that the vast majority of prospective owners who want a purebred do not deserve one. If they're unwilling to do what's needed to educate themselves then they certainly don't deserve the benefits of truly responsible breeder. (And yes, for the record, I wouldn't trust a "breeder" who expects to make any money.)

Sad thing is, these are also the owners who cry over "how this could have happened" when horrific hips reveal themselves at the five-month mark. It's especially tragic given that it's so predictable––and preventable.

You hit the hail on the head! Most people are not willing to do the necessary research on the breed they are considering, to even know the right questions to ask. That's were the backyard breeders and millers are so successfull...

I would also offer, NEVER buy a puppy online, where you use a credit card or paypal button, to pay for them. A reputable breeder will interview you, just as much as you should be interviewing them, before making a decision. Also, when it comes to genetic testing, NEVER take the breeder at their word. There are registries where the DNA results are posted for all to see. If the breeder doesn't use them, then ask to see the certificates they received with the test results. A reputable breeder has no sales pitch, they don't need to sell you a puppy...they usually have a waiting list.

Well, I can't blame you, Dr. Khuly, but I can wish there were vets coming into the profession who are interested in repro medicine and aren't intimidated by people who think breeding dogs is for criminals and sociopaths. Or vets who believe that favoring mixed breed dogs is somehow some guarantee of trainability and good health. Or that don't see that a pet retention problem in some areas of the country equals overpopulation everywhere.

And EAB, I suspect you don't associate much with good breedes, or any breeders, really. I don't breed dogs, but if I did, i would not want to be around people who seem to assume purebred dog fanciers are just another kind of Nazi and who resolutely believe their mixed breed dogs are just as capable as purpose bred dogs.

If there were enough responsible breeders out there in any one town I promise you there would be a dedicated repro specialist or two available to meet the demand. As it is, they're relegated to the ivory towers and those who try to go it at repro locally tend have to subsist on backyard breeders. Which makes no one want to dedicate themselves to this corner of the profession...and means real breeders have an uphill battle finding willing partners. Round and round it goes.

I don't disagree with you, but how would you advise to discern
"show millers" from the group?

Dr. K, I think it is quite doable for general practice vets to incorporate some specialized repro work into their practices. There's a very high-end practice in my location that does just that. Both practice owners took some extra training, and they jumped through whatever hoops were necessary to provide semen services as an ICSB franchise. They also did what was necessary to be able to do PennHips. Clearly they do cater to or attempt to appeal to the "conscientious breeder" clientele, and I think it has paid off quite well for them.

OTOH, they also apply "high pressure sales" techniques to their non-breeder clients regarding the whole you'd better spay/neuter ASAP "because ZOMG!!111111 there is no other possible way to keep them from procreating" spiel.

I guess I'm saying that it IS possible to have your cake and eat it, too. Perhaps the secret is in the fee schedule?

And to EAB: Who do you blame when "laundry list of issues and problems" turns up in a randomly bred mixed breed dog acquired from a shelter? Don't pretend it doesn't happen because I know for a fact that it does. So, do you shake your fists at the heavens and rail, "Why, why"? Or do you acknowledge that sometimes bad things just happen? Good breeders make every effort to stack the deck in their favor, but sometimes things just don't work out.

Every breeding is something of a crap shoot. The human breeding that produced me gave me a "syndrome" of physical birth defects, plus nearsightedness, allergies, and the type of immunodeficiency that makes a person susceptible to fungal infections of the nail bed, and I assure you there was no linebreeding or inbreeding involved.

Mind you, I do not deny that some breeders ARE only interested in the outward, physical traits that will win in the show ring, while others are interested in "working ability" ahead of looks and/or health. However, puppy buyers can screen these breeders out if they are educated and knowledgeable. Seriously. It's not rocket science.

As for the question: And how does someone know whether they've got a "tested" dog on their hands? Most "breeders" will outright lie about this. Because prospective owners do NOT know what to ask for. Indeed, it's different for every breed. "Do I need CERF? Do I prefer PennHIP or is OFA OK?" etc.

Have you ever taken a look at "CHIC" at www.caninehealthinfo.org ? That's at least a starting point as to what particular tests are recommended by *some* AKC parent clubs, and then you can go ahead and look and see what animals have actually had all the tests done. [Good idea to look and see what the results were, too, of course.] I've dabbled there a little bit, and it's quite interesting. The PC for one of my favored breeds actually recommends quite a bit more testing than what is traditionally done.

I'm not saying this is THE solution, and it is not "one stop shopping" by any means. But it is one tool.

However, didn't you write a whole series of articles about health problems in different dog breeds? Aren't you well qualified to advise your clients as to which tests should be done prior to breeding and the pros and cons of OFA vs. PennHip? I don't know where those articles are, so I don't know whether you put the testing info in them. Please forgive me.

I have worked with dogs for going on 20 years, and as much as you won't want to believe this, I have yet to meet a mutt that has any behavior issues that can't be worked through. Purbreds, 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.

She's now a therapy dog, leash optional, and allowed in most places in our downtown. The issues listed have been worked through.

Many owners, purebred and mutts, simply don't want to do the work it takes to have a dog. The problem, in 99.99999% of the cases is the owner, not the dog.

I wonder why vets think they need to decide who is, or isn't, a "responsible breeder"? This is an honest question- I am not trying to bait you. Isn't your job about medical care, not trying to right the wrongs of society or politics?

How do mixed breed dogs magically shed the "stupidity" curse of purebreds after just one generation? Or do these mixed breeds that you speak of get smart of generations of mixed breeding? How do you explain the fact that dogs who do most real jobs are for the most part all purebred? Money makes the world go round- if police departments and customs agents and farmers could do just as well going down to the pound and getting any old dog,I am guessing they would.

I am not anti-mixed breed. I am not anti any dog. But calling purebred dogs "stupid" is, well, STUPID. Sorry. There is just way too much evidence against this being true. It is almost like you have some sort of confirmation bias against the notion of purebred dogs being capable in any way and just can't or won't see it.

Don't you invalidate your argument anyway when you state that the problem, or solution as it might be, is the owners?

"Most breeders" lie? That seems really, really negative. I have four purebred dogs here at my feet and in each of the cases where their breeders said they had screened for health, there were able to provide me with copies of the certificates. In MY world, 100% of breeders are truthful. : )

Doesn't some of the responsibility fall on the buyer to do some research on what health clearances are important in the breed and ask for verifiable documentation from the breeder?

Sorry! I failed to make clear that that particular paragraph was a quote from one of Dr. Khuly's comments. My experience (wrt breeder truthfulness) has been much like yours, I would say.

I totally agree that buyers need to do research about health problems in their breed of choice and ask for verifiable documentation that testing has been done (along with the results of the testing). In this day and time, with the HUGE amount of info available online, there's just no excuse for being an ill-informed consumer.

Pax?

/ I wonder why vets think they need to decide who is, or isn't, a "responsible breeder"? This is an honest question- I am not trying to bait you. Isn't your job about medical care, not trying to right the wrongs of society or politics? /

It's an ethics question. By providing reproductive services to people who are breeding irresponsibly, you are aiding them in creating more poorly-bred, unhealthy animals. As an extreme example, many bulldogs are unable to perform any part of the reproductive process naturally - they cannot naturally mate nor give birth. The breeders could stop this progression by opting not to breed animals incapable of natural reproduction, but the vets could also stop this (or at least not be a part of it) by refusing to perform AI or do a C-section without a spay (for the sake of the bitch I would never refuse to save her life and those of the pups by outright refusing the C-section).

I believe it is wrong to breed a dog with major congenital problems, because it IS a medical issue not only for that dog but potentially for any offspring. I consider it my ethical and medical responsibility to counsel owners not to breed without proper health testing and screening, to tell owners of dogs with hip dysplasia or luxating patellas or cryptorchidism or retained deciduous teeth or what have you that they should not be bred, and to not aid them in the process if they do decide to breed. If the dog gets pregnant I will of course do my best to keep her healthy through the process, but if I think that breeding her is irresponsible I will not aid and abet the creation of yet another, say, Yorkie with awful teeth and crap knees. Or pit bulls with more skin problems than I can count. Or cocker spaniels with bad eyes and worse ears.

In response to Donnaw's question and other comments:

I don't believe every veterinarian worries about recognizing a "good" breeder from a "bad" one. I do believe, however, that it's getting more common for veterinarians to enter the companion animal field harboring an especially strong sense of moral responsibility for the animals we've pledged to help.

In other words, we enter vet medicine not because it pays, because it offers comfortable hours (it typically does not) or because our father before us did but because we actually want to make a difference in the lives of animals.

Enter 99% of my prospective breeders: Some just want "another Fluffy," others want to "recoup their investment" on their high-priced purebred. Then there's the "miracle of life" camp. These people want to show their kids how cool it is how things are born. And those are the predominantly non-commercial group. The rest of our breeders are pros. They actually turn a profit or use the proceeds of breeding to support their hobby. Only a very small minority (1%-2%?) uses breeding as a highly selective approach to further their breed.

So when we help so-called "breeders" create more dogs and cats with little to no regard for health and temperament and only a passing understanding of what furthering the breed means, many of us feel we are complicit in adding to the pet overpopulation and genetic disease problems purebred pets face.

No, it's not my job to pass judgment. I simply prefer not to do this job if it feels as if I'm serving as a tool for those who
would ultimately harm animals––intentionally or not. Would YOU work for a puppymill? No? So why should I?

Moreover, what I find most surprising/distressing/uncomfortable about this thread is that it's being presupposed that veterinarians like me are against all breeders because we're mixed breed snobs or because we're up on our high horses and want to force people to treat their pets the way we want them to. Or worse––because we harbor some irrational hatred of breeders.

Doesn't it make more sense to believe that we've had bad experiences we'd prefer not to repeat? That we're acting in what we truly believe to be the best interest of our patients? Why would we turn down repro clients, otherwise?

Finally, there's this point: I don't get why responsible breeders are so quick to condemn veterinarians for this scrutiny. You'd think we'd all be on the same team on this issue. A truly responsible breeder? Shouldn't they be happy that I'm singing their praises while making it hard for those who pretend to do what they do so well? You'd think.

Dr. Khuly, there's a difference between asking questions to get information to determine what kind of a breeder someone is, and asking those same questions with an attitude of "guilty until proven innocent." Attitude matters.

And people who have too often encountered EAB's attitude, the belief that a single generation of cross-breeding cures congenital stupidity, and all genetically-based behavioral problems and medical ills, might be a tad more sensitive than you think is appropriate for your pure intentions.

Also, it's quite true that most people have no idea what's involved in finding a responsible breeder. Unfortunately, a vet who believes that essentially all breeders are scum, who believes that mixed breed dogs are inherently healthier, smarter, and better behaved, who has no idea that they could send people to http://www.caninehealthinfo.org/breeds.html to find out, at least, what are the most widely recommended health screening tests for AKC breeds, is not likely to educate them.

And yes, I know that's not you, but too much of it is true of too many vets--and those negative experiences happen in both directions.

Dr. Khuly writes: You'd think we'd all be on the same team on this issue. A truly responsible breeder? Shouldn't they be happy that I'm singing their praises while making it hard for those who pretend to do what they do so well? You'd think. [end quote]

Do you have another blog out there where you have actually done this (i.e. sung the praises of a truly responsible breeder)?

Words matter. To be honest, countless casual throwaway lines from any number of your blog posts have given me the impression that you have a major anti-purebred bias and are against pretty much all intentional breeding of companion animals. I'm glad to see that I was mistaken.

Dr. Khuly and Dr. Wikith- Thank you for clarifying your position. I did not realize that 98% of breeders you encounter are irresponsible. That being the case, I can see why you would be reluctant to aid them. How do you handle this? Tell them they are scum in your eyes and please find a different vet? I bet human doctors wish they had this luxury, being able to pick and choose who they treat based on moral values.
I am not being snarky when I say that. I am sure a lot of medical doctors wish they could refuse to provide repro assistance to fat women or to perscribe blood pressure meds to heavy drinkers or cancer treatment for smokers.

For the anti-purebred bias, what Eilis and NOT just a dog said is how I feel also.

Not just a dog- no problem for the misunderstanding. : )

"I bet human doctors wish they had this luxury, being able to pick and choose who they treat based on moral values."

You actually believe that doctors don't pick and choose who they want to treat? From where they choose to go to school, what they specialize in, where they practice and what insurance carriers they align themselves with they decide who to treat.

Where do you work? I bet you do––like all of us––choose what to do based on your own moral compass. Who wouldn't?

But why do we have to be so negative? Never have I said that all breeders are scum. Never have I told someone to go away and never come back for being a breeder. Perhaps YOUR interpretations based on what I write reflect more on your biases than on mine.

Dr. Khuly, I'm sure it's totally my own fault, but I can't remember an occasion on which you've praised a breeder, and I can recall countless occasions on which you've said extremely negative things about breeders.

Oh, wait, I lie, I do remember one occasion on which you described someone as a responsible breeder. That was the breeder of an English bulldog puppy, who had hips bad enough to require expensive surgery the owners truly couldn't afford. You said that the puppy was from a responsible, careful breeder, that it had hip problems requiring expensive surgery the owners couldn't afford, and the breeder wouldn't take the puppy back.

This breeder who didn't have the basic, minimum responsibility to take back a puppy the buyers couldn't afford to keep, is the only one I can remember you describing in any way as a "responsible breeder".

You've also both criticized the narrow gene pool in many AKC breeds, AND suggested that a "responsible" breeder would refuse to breed, not only any dog who was a carrier of an undesirable recessive gene, but also any dogs closely related to that dog--advice which would dramatically further narrow the gene pool without any real benefit. Yeah, sure, you'd get the recessive out of the gene pool faster, but what else would you lose along the way? The more rational course is to test, test, test, make sure you know which dogs carry the recessive and which dogs are affected. Speuter the affected dogs, and breed the otherwise-excellent ones who are carriers BUT ONLY TO DOGS WHO ARE CLEAR. That way, you avoid breeding more affected dogs, and you gradually reduce the prevalence of the gene in the gene pool WITHOUT doing unpredictable additional damage by eliminating too much of your remaining genetic diversity.

Take a look at this link http://shidacresteds.com/ The site uses frames, so it may not take you directly to the correct page, but you want to read "JJ's Story".

/How do you handle this? Tell them they are scum in your eyes and please find a different vet?/
I've not yet had one come and ask for fertility services for their BYB enterprise. If they did, I would do my best to dissuade, but refuse the AI/repro services and let them know that those, at least, would need to be found elsewhere and against my advice. And I'd never call them scum, regardless; most of them are not scum, they are ignorant, and if I boot them out the door without trying to correct that I'm not really helping the problem.
Most of my clients who wind up breeding fall into one of three categories (and note: I am not saying I do not think there are responsible, ethical breeders - I sought one out to get my own dog. I do not, however, have even a single one who comes to my practice as yet). There are the "I paid $200 for this pitbull, I need to make back my investment on her!" the "She is such a sweet little girl, we are looking for a male for her" (which may or may not even be a male of the same breed), and the "you say my dog is what now?" I try to nip the first in the bud by presenting the owners with an estimate for pre-natal rads, an emergency c-section, nursing care for puppies should mom be incapacitated, and preventive care for a litter of 8, and telling them that money should be ready and in the bank BEFORE starting. A few sign up for that spay after all, most dismiss it as scare tactics (and, the cynical part of me might add, come in with that disaster whelping and wind up euthanizing for financial reasons - I've gotten two of these faxes from the ER and I've only been in practice for one year!)
The second category is the one most open to education. I try to explain to them what is involved in responsible breeding - I recommend showing or working trials as well as health testing to determine if they SHOULD pass on their genes, the pre-natal care, the preparations for complications, the post-partum care, raising and placing the pups. I've yet to see one of these turn out to do even part of it the right way - about half make the appointment for the spay, and about half have intentions of going about it the same way they always meant to and a fair few get insulted that I don't think their mean, luxating-patella, retained-teeth little land shark is likely to be a prime breeding prospect with a lot to contribute. What I can say for this batch is at least most of them don't expect to make any money, will make sure the pups get their vaccines, and will typically either keep or do a good job screening homes for the babies... and be so overwhelmed by the work involved that they rarely do it a second time, at least on purpose.
The third category I try my best to prevent by educating everyone who declines the surgery but doesn't want to breed on how to keep that female from getting pregnant. Some listen and do manage their dogs appropriately, some try but fail, and most assume it won't happen to them. I see one of my clients regularly at the dog park with his in-heat bitch (well, not regularly in heat, but it doesn't stop him when she is). We have had words. For some reason, he has neither stopped doing this nor has he stopped coming to me.

/I am not being snarky when I say that. I am sure a lot of medical doctors wish they could refuse to provide repro assistance to fat women or to perscribe blood pressure meds to heavy drinkers or cancer treatment for smokers./
Medical doctors have more legal right to choose their clientele than you might realize. Part of this is done by choosing a specialty - GPs refer an awful lot more and have those referrals accepted more often than in vet med. If you'd have a major ethical problem with the first and last of those examples, I'd imagine you'd not go into a repro specialty or oncology. As for declining to treat certain problems in certain patients who engage in self-destructive behavior... well, legally I know vets have the right to decline to provide care for a patient for virtually any reason, as long as the patient is stable and we can facilitate them finding a different vet to provide those services. I imagine that in legal terms, no MD is obligated to provide care other than in an emergency. Now, the practical consequences to their career is another matter. The patient, press, insurance company, and practice owner might all have something to say about such a decision that might more or less force the doctor to choose between employment and their principles.

For the explanation, Dr. Wikith. You sound like a great vet. I think your clients are lucky to have a vet with such balanced opinions!

And Dr. Khuly, thank you for yours as well. Possibly the negative interpretation is partially on my side. I am not even a breeder but do choose to buy carefully selected purebred dogs and I get sick of the "if you buy a purebred dog you're killing a shelter dog/all purebreds are inbred freaks/purebreds are a waste of money/dog snob" junk that is so widespread in today's world.

I agree with everything you said except this one point:

"They show their dogs, to their AKC Championships, before breeding them. How else would you know if you have a conformationally correct dog?"

AKC Championships does not a reputable breeder make. In fact, i would argue some of the shadiest practices out there are a result of trying for an AKC Championship

That's not to say that ALL champion breeders are bad. But there are other way to determing if you have a 'conformationally correct dog'. Such as using them for their purpose.

For example- the dog i purchased from a reputable breeder (after a 2 year wait on their list) doesn't show their Spinone Italiani in AKC shows. They do, however, take part in NAVHDA Trials- to that breeder, a field bred dog that could do the work they were bred for, is more important than how a dog looks (conformationally or otherwise)

And they had CERF and OFA paperwork going back 3 generations.

So don't just spout AKC titles. There are many other titles that a dog can have that may indicate a reputable breeder. The IMPORTANT aspect is that the breeder is active with the breed- in breed clubs or shows or agility or obedience or whatever route they choose to go.

As promised, Dr. Khuly,

I'm disappointed that you have so little experience in what should be a very important field of veterinary knowledge. I guess I'm proud that you willingly admit that...and am glad you're honest.

I heartily support spay/neuter...and give it all the credit it is due...being as it is one of the most important factors in the euthanasia rate dropping from 23 million animals in the 1970's to the 3.6 million today. And that 3.6 million represents 2.6 animals per hundred which are killed in our shelters today. And that 2.6 does not represent "only" healthy, adoptable animals. Shelters and/or animal controls will always be necessary, and animals will continue to be euthanized in municipal shelters for legitimate reasons. But I would say, that we are doing a fabulous job of continuing to solve the moral problem of killing healthy dogs. Yes, there is room for improvement, but spay/neuter can only go so far. There are approximately 155 million OWNED dogs and cats (my figures are all based on APPMA survey figures...but I'm quoting off the top of my head) and according to that survey, 75%+ owned dogs are spayed or neutered, and 87% of OWNED felines are spayed or neutered. So it appears that most Americans are making what many consider to be the "responsible" choice regarding their pets. Quite frankly, if we continue to legislatively mandate the procedures, and if veterinarians continue to bully clients into these procedures on a moral and ethical basis, where will the next generation of pets come from? And I would think that vets would be in some of the very best positions to counsel their clients, and quite frankly, I can't believe that ALL of your clients are persons who are not responsible enough to breed conscientiously. Again, I think spaying and neutering is a good discussion to have with your clients, but if someone wishes to breed, and they are earnest in that desire, I can't think of a single source of information or support that would be better than their veterinarian. You are in a great position to "help" insure that healthy and sound puppies are produced. You are a great mentor in terms of trying to insure that responsible decisions are made resulting in the decrease of unwanted or unhealthy companion animals. But don't you also have the opportunity to be a mentor for those who need support and advice when they are breeding for the RIGHT reasons? Do you support breeding at all? And if not, where are the next generations of companion animals supposed to come from? Did you not wish to be a vet for life? It is quite apparent that Americans wish to share their lives with pets. While I strongly support adopting shelter/rescues (and do myself...) even IF every shelter dog was to be adopted tomorrow, that would fill only about 20% of the current demand. So, are we saying that 80 of Americans that currently own pets, shouldn't in the future? And doesn't that directly affect the veterinary community? You have a very special opportunity to mentor the public to be responsible owners. But, there ARE those that are capable of breeding responsibly as well, and I can't believe that as a protector of animals, you wouldn't see how important it is to support that facet of animal care as well. If nothing else, to support exactly the facet of client that you just saw. Many rescues and strays come in pregnant, and are in need of veterinary support. But beyond that...I would hope that you would also understand the importance of responsible breeding in your practice. You are in a unique position with your clientele to educate them in both of these critical facets of animal husbandry. And hope you would reconsider your position, even if narrowly.