When do dogs deserve their forever homes?

Kris · 02-12-2007, 01:51 PM

I'm firmly of the belief that dogs deserve to be in their forever homes from the time they leave their mother/littermate. I would even go so far to say that the Breeder/Owner/Handler category in shows should be the rule rather than the exception with Owner/Handler being the only other allowed category.

If you disagree, why?

Kris

***Cassiepeia*** · 02-12-2007, 02:13 PM

I'm not quite sure I understand.

What has being an breeder/owner/handler got to do with dogs being in their forever home?

If you had to own the dog you handled, how would that stop people selling dogs to others after the show career had ended? That doesn't make any sense.

And how would reputable breeders continue to produce well bred, healthy dogs if they kept every single dog they ever used in their line? You need genetic diversity in breeding and if a breeder breeds a dog that turns out to be a great example of the breed...they show it and at the appropriate age test it for all the genetic problems, only to find out that it has a terrible hip score or it has a heart problem or something...how is it a terrible thing for them to rehome the dog to give them room to add another healthy dog to their kennel?

We want them to continue to produce excellent examples of the breed but they don't have endless room or time (or life span) to keep every single dog that has anything to do with their line.

The dogs are extremely well cared for and are as much a pet as our 'non-show dogs' are, but they have to make the heart breaking decision to place a dog sometimes because they've made a commitment to preserving and improving the breed.

I don't know if that means I disagree with your point or not, I truely don't understand what it was in the first place. Perhaps I've just rambled on.

Cass.

tessa_s212 · 02-12-2007, 02:24 PM

I don't think I understand either.

Dogs are not like children. You may treat them as so, but they are very different.

Last winter I brought home a 5 year old dog. He was previously owned, shown, and bred by his breeders. After his show and breeding career was over, the family was so active in showing that he was just not getting the attention he needed.Now, I personally do NOT like to see a breeder with so many dogs that this situation occurs, but that is not my point. My point is that Marq has adjusted *wonderfully* and is now probably happier than he was in his old home.

Dogs in general can and do adjust well to change.

With that said.. I think a person must have a VERY good excuse to just give away their dog. And I certainly wouldn't agree with a person that gave dogs away or rehomed them on a regular basis. A dog is a dog for life. Don't get it if you don't plan on caring for it until its breathed its last breath.

KennelMom · 02-12-2007, 02:33 PM

Dogs can adjust/adapt to a new family or a new home quite easily....their ability to change to meld with humans' lifestyles is one characteristic of theirs that has enabled the man/dog relationship to be so successful.

When do they deserve their "forever home"...that really depends on what you consider a "forever home." If it's a working dog, then I guess it's great if their "forever home" is also their working home...in cases where it's not, then the dog can do just fine adjusting after they retire.

Racing greyhounds live with their littermates for the first year of their life before they ever go off to train for the track...personally, I think that's an awesome and even ideal way for a dog to grow up.

Bullylover · 02-12-2007, 02:53 PM

OK, is it just me, or does this sound completely asinine? Take for instance, my Shaker. I got her from one of the most reputable, caring, loving breeders I have ever met. These people breed and show. These people put you through a million question test on top of meeting with the potential new owner. My Shaker is not show quality, which doesnt mean jack to me. She was cared for and loved very much by her previous owner/breeder. Yes, she was offered to me because she was not show quality. However, that doesnt mean they didnt care about her. She came to me to have a better life with more attention. They sold her for HER well being. I see no problem with that. I agree with Cass, people would have to stop breeding if they kept every single dog they bred. I think that just sounds ridiculous.

Kris · 02-13-2007, 08:52 AM

I'm not saying breeders should keep every single dog they breed. That would be assinine. Breeders who breed for competition have every right to place puppies. But, they should place puppies in 'forever' homes not homes that will keep them during their competitive years and then get rid of them. What I am saying is I see no real difference between those people who get a puppy from the pound and then pass their puppy on to another when it has lost it's puppy 'cuteness' and those who pass their dogs on once they have become 'useless' to the owner. Both dogs may be 'loved' before being dumped. It's still wrong in my opinion.

As for revising show rules... I think changing it so only owners can show their dogs would discourage the current trend of seeing show dogs as commodities. More draconian measures to insure that showdogs retire to their show person's home could be implemented but even I think that would be a bit much.

For the argument about breeders only keeping breeding dogs and show dogs during their breeding and show years to "improve the breed" I don't truly understand your point. "Improve the breed" for what? If those breeders don't care enough to have 'forever' dogs why should we trust that they care for their dogs at all?

Dogs shouldn't be used and then thrown away; which is exactly how I see the situation.

Kris

mrsgrubby · 02-13-2007, 09:10 AM

I have to agree with Cass. The breeders/show owners I know treat their dogs very well. They are pets, they are loved, they are treated great, fed well, exercised regularly so they are in top shape for the ring. They probably have better lives than many pet dogs.

However, sometimes when their show days are over they need to be re-homed so the breeder/show person has room to take on another show prospect. Otherwise they would have too many dogs to give them all ample attention and love.

I have known several breeders that just agonized over having to rehome a dog, but in order to continue showing and creating the best dogs for their breed they need to limit the number of dogs they own to a manageable amount.

I have a friend who had 2 pet dogs and then got into showing and had three show dogs. Her top show dog turned out to have a medical issue that prevented it from being able to be shown and bred responsibly. She was sooo torn up, but needed to rehome it as her family could not give 3 pet dogs and 3 show dogs all the attention required. She worked very hard to find the perfect family for the dog, and the dog adapted well, and seemed to enjoy being the "only" dog in it's new house.

Yes, I feel for dogs when they move from house to house, but I also want dogs from good lines, good heritage, and of good health history. IN order to get this, breeders/show folks need to be able to show many dogs, breed many dogs, and in some cases re-home a few dogs.

It's not the same case as someone dumping a dog at a shelter cuz they didn't want it anymore, and it is now out of control. These owners find great homes for their dogs, the dogs are up to date on all medical records, they have been trained, they have been socialized, and they usually fit right into a new home, unlike shelter dogs which often come with a ton of issues.

You can't compare neglegeted dogs to rehomed show dogs, its' not apples -vs-apples.

***Rivsky*** · 02-13-2007, 12:28 PM

I have to agree with the majority here - for most breeders rehoming an adult dog once it's finished it's career can be a truly agonising decision for them.

When my sister got Zeta (an ex-show/breeding) bitch the breeder we got her from was in daily contact with my sister and we also emailed her a stack of pictures so she could see for herself how well Zeta was settling in. It really tore her apart to part with Zeta but it was in her best interests as she is one of those one person dogs and wouldn't thrive staying with the breeder being retired and not getting the attention she deserved.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'd much rather a breeder/shower rehome a dog so it can have the attention it deserves once it has retired rather than it being pushed to the bottom of the pile and missing out because they are too busy looking after their current "working" dogs. Hope that makes sense!

rmci · 02-13-2007, 12:47 PM

In a perfect world dog's would be in their forever homes once leaving the litter. But, that's not always possible.

***Cassiepeia*** · 02-13-2007, 01:15 PM

Quote:

For the argument about breeders only keeping breeding dogs and show dogs during their breeding and show years to "improve the breed" I don't truly understand your point. "Improve the breed" for what?

Improving health, temperament and, in some cases, type. If you want healthy, sound purebred dogs you NEED reputable breeders.

My point is...if you don't want the world to be home to unhealthy backyard breeder and puppymill dogs and nothing else, you need to give reputable breeders a break and let them do their thing. If that means rehoming a dog that isn't up to scratch health wise, then so be it.
The dogs do not suffer from change of home. As much as we hate people dumping animals, even those animals who are dumped don't suffer from simply going to a new home. How many of us have rescue dogs? How many of them are basket cases because they're in a new home? Sure it takes time to transition...but it's usually the treatment before they left their previous home that causes them distress or problems. Not the moving to a new home itself. And show dogs are treated extremely well, so no trauma there.

Cass.

Crossfire Bulldogs · 02-14-2007, 12:01 PM

Heres what I don't understand and wonder about those who have an issue with breeders placing their dogs..... what exactly it is that their opinion is based on? Do they show their dogs? Have they spent time with multiple breeders to find out why they do what they do?

Exactly how would they suggest it be done so the breeder could still continue to show as well as keep every one of their dogs and keep them all happy? ( The hundreds of acres, suitable housing and dozens of full time care providers isn't an option for most. )

It always amazes me when someone jumps to an automatic conclusion about me or any other show breeder and the dogs when they have no idea how we do things or know anything about us first hand. While I agree that those who choose to put showing first over that of pet should rethink their priorities I think that if given a closer look you would find that they are the minority and not the majority.

Same goes for those who feel that a show breeder not only puts showing ahead of household pet and family member but also that the dog is considered a "breeder" before beloved family member. Minority not majority is what that type of person is and anyone who would lable all show breeders as being this way really needs to get out more.

As it is with most show breeders who have a true love for their breed of choice, my dogs are family members first and foremost, they always have been and always will be. It is rare that I place an adult dog and I can count on one hand the number of adults I've placed. Did I place them because they were done in the show ring? No, not one and it angers me that someone would even assume that I would. I love my dogs, whether their titled or not makes no difference to me.

Not that I feel that I need to defend my decisons but I'll list for you some of the dogs I've placed and why. I welcome any and all input on how the situation could have been handled differently so that they could have stayed here with me.

Chloe - AKC pointed but hated the ring. I retired her at the age of 1 1/2 and she stayed with me as a pet. From the time she was 6 months old on she hated being with the rest of the dogs, would do anything she could to avoid them no matter what we did and four trainers and 3 behavorists later she was still that way. At the age of two she had decided that she'd had enough and would attack any dog within eyesight.

Chloe injured several of the other dogs, one so badly that she had to be rushed to the clinic for multiple stiches and care. The advice of every trainer and behaviorist we saw - "place the dog into a no other dog household or keep her in a crate." We won't go into the hours of tears I cried over my girl but my question is, who here would have chosen constant crating and seclusion over placement?

Angel - My soulmate and our very first pup from our first breeding. To this day I still consider her my heart and soul, a wonderful girl who knew what I wanted without me telling her and I always could tell the same from her. Angel's problem - hated every dog that came within ten feet of me, wanted no one near "her momma" and didn't care if she had to die trying to keep them away. This wasn't something she started as an adult, she did it from the time she first learned to walk and we went through more trainers and behavorists in three years than I could keep track of.

Their recommendation - placement. Well, I couldn't do it, not after Chloe it was just killing me but then came the day that one of the dogs ( my daughter's doxie ) got too close, she had managed to crawl through the slates in the gate and Angel had her within seconds. By the time I got Angel to let go my daughter's doxie had a skull fracture, perm. blindness to one eye and during the attack an artery had been severed.....she came very close to death. I placed Angel in a one dog household where she's now very happy and content.

I have children and grandchildren in my home, what would have been next a child instead of another dog? Is there someone out there that would have decided to keep her rather than place her? Or maybe placed the other seven instead of the one would have been better?

My point is, neither I nor the majority of show breeders out there care so little about their dogs that they willingly place them without good reason, serious thought and tons of heartache. Showing isn't a business for us, it's simply the iceing on an already fantastic cake and that cake my friends is knowing the true love of a four legged family member. They are and always will be loved members of the family first.

***Rivsky*** · 02-14-2007, 12:04 PM

I'm sorry you had to go through all that Crossfire but you definitely did the right thing (which I'm sure you know anyway).

linnie · 02-15-2007, 10:51 PM

Sort of a strange topic.
So heres how I personally see it
We need reputable Breeders and reputable breeders do have to place some of their dogs in new homes, although I always felt sorry for the dogs I have since realised that REPUTABLE breeders dont just dump them anywhere and the dogs go on to have great happy lives.

I have also seen the other side of the coin where a breeder breeds simply for the money then gives the dog to anyone willing to have it when the dog is no longer useful to them,, this is SAD

Breeders who show also have some litters that we are fortunate enough to be able to buy and give forever homes.
The breeder I got Isabella from loves her dogs like crossfire, but she has had to rehome a few of her adult dogs over the years, however the person has had to qualify to become an owner of her dogs.

If you buy a dog as a pet then I personally think it should be with forever in mind.
If you take on a rescue then different rules apply.
The truth is their is no real answer to your question

DakotaSpirit · 02-22-2007, 08:10 PM

Yeah, I gotta go with the majority here. You also need to keep in mind that most good breeders are selling to what I am sure they understand to be the dog's new forever home. However things do and will come up. No matter how heart renching it is, there are genuine situations in which a dog needs to be given up to someone who can offer it a better life or simply the opprotunity to get the care it deserves.

02-12-2007, 01:51 PM	#1 (permalink)
Kris Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 243 Rep Power: 60	When do dogs deserve their forever homes? I'm firmly of the belief that dogs deserve to be in their forever homes from the time they leave their mother/littermate. I would even go so far to say that the Breeder/Owner/Handler category in shows should be the rule rather than the exception with Owner/Handler being the only other allowed category. If you disagree, why? Kris
Kris Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 243 Rep Power: 60	Last edited by Kris : 02-12-2007 at 02:05 PM.

02-12-2007, 02:13 PM	#2 (permalink)
*Cassiepeia* Chihuahua Mum Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: NSW, Australia Posts: 8,274 Blog Entries: 9 Rep Power: 282	I'm not quite sure I understand. What has being an breeder/owner/handler got to do with dogs being in their forever home? If you had to own the dog you handled, how would that stop people selling dogs to others after the show career had ended? That doesn't make any sense. And how would reputable breeders continue to produce well bred, healthy dogs if they kept every single dog they ever used in their line? You need genetic diversity in breeding and if a breeder breeds a dog that turns out to be a great example of the breed...they show it and at the appropriate age test it for all the genetic problems, only to find out that it has a terrible hip score or it has a heart problem or something...how is it a terrible thing for them to rehome the dog to give them room to add another healthy dog to their kennel? We want them to continue to produce excellent examples of the breed but they don't have endless room or time (or life span) to keep every single dog that has anything to do with their line. The dogs are extremely well cared for and are as much a pet as our 'non-show dogs' are, but they have to make the heart breaking decision to place a dog sometimes because they've made a commitment to preserving and improving the breed. I don't know if that means I disagree with your point or not, I truely don't understand what it was in the first place. Perhaps I've just rambled on. Cass.
	__________________ Say NO! to animals in pet shops. Rescue a friend instead: Petfinder Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Book Club ~ Blogs ~ Art Classes ~ Woof Review As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

02-12-2007, 02:24 PM	#3 (permalink)
tessa_s212 agility addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Stryker, Ohio Posts: 627 Rep Power: 75	I don't think I understand either. Dogs are not like children. You may treat them as so, but they are very different. Last winter I brought home a 5 year old dog. He was previously owned, shown, and bred by his breeders. After his show and breeding career was over, the family was so active in showing that he was just not getting the attention he needed.Now, I personally do NOT like to see a breeder with so many dogs that this situation occurs, but that is not my point. My point is that Marq has adjusted wonderfully and is now probably happier than he was in his old home. Dogs in general can and do adjust well to change. With that said.. I think a person must have a VERY good excuse to just give away their dog. And I certainly wouldn't agree with a person that gave dogs away or rehomed them on a regular basis. A dog is a dog for life. Don't get it if you don't plan on caring for it until its breathed its last breath.
	__________________ The Voice Of Reason http://www.youtube.com/user/assortedagility

02-12-2007, 02:33 PM	#4 (permalink)
KennelMom Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Piedmont, SC Posts: 658 Rep Power: 85	Dogs can adjust/adapt to a new family or a new home quite easily....their ability to change to meld with humans' lifestyles is one characteristic of theirs that has enabled the man/dog relationship to be so successful. When do they deserve their "forever home"...that really depends on what you consider a "forever home." If it's a working dog, then I guess it's great if their "forever home" is also their working home...in cases where it's not, then the dog can do just fine adjusting after they retire. Racing greyhounds live with their littermates for the first year of their life before they ever go off to train for the track...personally, I think that's an awesome and even ideal way for a dog to grow up.
	__________________ Heather and the hounds Visit our pack at GreyhoundFreaks.com In loving memory of my Bridge Babies: Star, Annie, Casino, Erin ~ kitty Simon ~ fosters Dagger and DV

02-12-2007, 02:53 PM	#5 (permalink)
Bullylover Bulldog Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 155 Rep Power: 74	OK, is it just me, or does this sound completely asinine? Take for instance, my Shaker. I got her from one of the most reputable, caring, loving breeders I have ever met. These people breed and show. These people put you through a million question test on top of meeting with the potential new owner. My Shaker is not show quality, which doesnt mean jack to me. She was cared for and loved very much by her previous owner/breeder. Yes, she was offered to me because she was not show quality. However, that doesnt mean they didnt care about her. She came to me to have a better life with more attention. They sold her for HER well being. I see no problem with that. I agree with Cass, people would have to stop breeding if they kept every single dog they bred. I think that just sounds ridiculous.
	__________________ Traci

02-13-2007, 08:52 AM	#6 (permalink)
Kris Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 243 Rep Power: 60	I'm not saying breeders should keep every single dog they breed. That would be assinine. Breeders who breed for competition have every right to place puppies. But, they should place puppies in 'forever' homes not homes that will keep them during their competitive years and then get rid of them. What I am saying is I see no real difference between those people who get a puppy from the pound and then pass their puppy on to another when it has lost it's puppy 'cuteness' and those who pass their dogs on once they have become 'useless' to the owner. Both dogs may be 'loved' before being dumped. It's still wrong in my opinion. As for revising show rules... I think changing it so only owners can show their dogs would discourage the current trend of seeing show dogs as commodities. More draconian measures to insure that showdogs retire to their show person's home could be implemented but even I think that would be a bit much. For the argument about breeders only keeping breeding dogs and show dogs during their breeding and show years to "improve the breed" I don't truly understand your point. "Improve the breed" for what? If those breeders don't care enough to have 'forever' dogs why should we trust that they care for their dogs at all? Dogs shouldn't be used and then thrown away; which is exactly how I see the situation. Kris
Kris Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 243 Rep Power: 60

02-13-2007, 09:10 AM	#7 (permalink)
mrsgrubby Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Michigan Posts: 2,476 Rep Power: 142	I have to agree with Cass. The breeders/show owners I know treat their dogs very well. They are pets, they are loved, they are treated great, fed well, exercised regularly so they are in top shape for the ring. They probably have better lives than many pet dogs. However, sometimes when their show days are over they need to be re-homed so the breeder/show person has room to take on another show prospect. Otherwise they would have too many dogs to give them all ample attention and love. I have known several breeders that just agonized over having to rehome a dog, but in order to continue showing and creating the best dogs for their breed they need to limit the number of dogs they own to a manageable amount. I have a friend who had 2 pet dogs and then got into showing and had three show dogs. Her top show dog turned out to have a medical issue that prevented it from being able to be shown and bred responsibly. She was sooo torn up, but needed to rehome it as her family could not give 3 pet dogs and 3 show dogs all the attention required. She worked very hard to find the perfect family for the dog, and the dog adapted well, and seemed to enjoy being the "only" dog in it's new house. Yes, I feel for dogs when they move from house to house, but I also want dogs from good lines, good heritage, and of good health history. IN order to get this, breeders/show folks need to be able to show many dogs, breed many dogs, and in some cases re-home a few dogs. It's not the same case as someone dumping a dog at a shelter cuz they didn't want it anymore, and it is now out of control. These owners find great homes for their dogs, the dogs are up to date on all medical records, they have been trained, they have been socialized, and they usually fit right into a new home, unlike shelter dogs which often come with a ton of issues. You can't compare neglegeted dogs to rehomed show dogs, its' not apples -vs-apples.

02-13-2007, 12:28 PM	#8 (permalink)
*Rivsky* Super Moderator Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Australia Posts: 3,728 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 138	I have to agree with the majority here - for most breeders rehoming an adult dog once it's finished it's career can be a truly agonising decision for them. When my sister got Zeta (an ex-show/breeding) bitch the breeder we got her from was in daily contact with my sister and we also emailed her a stack of pictures so she could see for herself how well Zeta was settling in. It really tore her apart to part with Zeta but it was in her best interests as she is one of those one person dogs and wouldn't thrive staying with the breeder being retired and not getting the attention she deserved. Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'd much rather a breeder/shower rehome a dog so it can have the attention it deserves once it has retired rather than it being pushed to the bottom of the pile and missing out because they are too busy looking after their current "working" dogs. Hope that makes sense!
	__________________ As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

02-13-2007, 12:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
rmci aka Red Dogs Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: CA Posts: 1,221 Rep Power: 86	In a perfect world dog's would be in their forever homes once leaving the litter. But, that's not always possible.
	__________________ The reason a dog has so many friends; he wags his tail instead of his tongue

02-14-2007, 12:01 PM	#11 (permalink)
Crossfire Bulldogs Sourmug Mom Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Snuggled Between The Snorts & Snores. Posts: 7,844 Blog Entries: 3 Rep Power: 283	Heres what I don't understand and wonder about those who have an issue with breeders placing their dogs..... what exactly it is that their opinion is based on? Do they show their dogs? Have they spent time with multiple breeders to find out why they do what they do? Exactly how would they suggest it be done so the breeder could still continue to show as well as keep every one of their dogs and keep them all happy? ( The hundreds of acres, suitable housing and dozens of full time care providers isn't an option for most. ) It always amazes me when someone jumps to an automatic conclusion about me or any other show breeder and the dogs when they have no idea how we do things or know anything about us first hand. While I agree that those who choose to put showing first over that of pet should rethink their priorities I think that if given a closer look you would find that they are the minority and not the majority. Same goes for those who feel that a show breeder not only puts showing ahead of household pet and family member but also that the dog is considered a "breeder" before beloved family member. Minority not majority is what that type of person is and anyone who would lable all show breeders as being this way really needs to get out more. As it is with most show breeders who have a true love for their breed of choice, my dogs are family members first and foremost, they always have been and always will be. It is rare that I place an adult dog and I can count on one hand the number of adults I've placed. Did I place them because they were done in the show ring? No, not one and it angers me that someone would even assume that I would. I love my dogs, whether their titled or not makes no difference to me. Not that I feel that I need to defend my decisons but I'll list for you some of the dogs I've placed and why. I welcome any and all input on how the situation could have been handled differently so that they could have stayed here with me. Chloe - AKC pointed but hated the ring. I retired her at the age of 1 1/2 and she stayed with me as a pet. From the time she was 6 months old on she hated being with the rest of the dogs, would do anything she could to avoid them no matter what we did and four trainers and 3 behavorists later she was still that way. At the age of two she had decided that she'd had enough and would attack any dog within eyesight. Chloe injured several of the other dogs, one so badly that she had to be rushed to the clinic for multiple stiches and care. The advice of every trainer and behaviorist we saw - "place the dog into a no other dog household or keep her in a crate." We won't go into the hours of tears I cried over my girl but my question is, who here would have chosen constant crating and seclusion over placement? Angel - My soulmate and our very first pup from our first breeding. To this day I still consider her my heart and soul, a wonderful girl who knew what I wanted without me telling her and I always could tell the same from her. Angel's problem - hated every dog that came within ten feet of me, wanted no one near "her momma" and didn't care if she had to die trying to keep them away. This wasn't something she started as an adult, she did it from the time she first learned to walk and we went through more trainers and behavorists in three years than I could keep track of. Their recommendation - placement. Well, I couldn't do it, not after Chloe it was just killing me but then came the day that one of the dogs ( my daughter's doxie ) got too close, she had managed to crawl through the slates in the gate and Angel had her within seconds. By the time I got Angel to let go my daughter's doxie had a skull fracture, perm. blindness to one eye and during the attack an artery had been severed.....she came very close to death. I placed Angel in a one dog household where she's now very happy and content. I have children and grandchildren in my home, what would have been next a child instead of another dog? Is there someone out there that would have decided to keep her rather than place her? Or maybe placed the other seven instead of the one would have been better? My point is, neither I nor the majority of show breeders out there care so little about their dogs that they willingly place them without good reason, serious thought and tons of heartache. Showing isn't a business for us, it's simply the iceing on an already fantastic cake and that cake my friends is knowing the true love of a four legged family member. They are and always will be loved members of the family first.
	__________________ Get more out of Global Paw. Check out these great features. Global Paw Book Club -- Art Classes -- Woof Review I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~ Gerry Spence As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

02-14-2007, 12:04 PM	#12 (permalink)
*Rivsky* Super Moderator Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: South Australia Posts: 3,728 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 138	I'm sorry you had to go through all that Crossfire but you definitely did the right thing (which I'm sure you know anyway).
	__________________ As a member of Global paw staff my opinions are not necessarily those of the website or the owner.

02-15-2007, 10:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
linnie tibbie girl Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 3,051 Rep Power: 170	Sort of a strange topic. So heres how I personally see it We need reputable Breeders and reputable breeders do have to place some of their dogs in new homes, although I always felt sorry for the dogs I have since realised that REPUTABLE breeders dont just dump them anywhere and the dogs go on to have great happy lives. I have also seen the other side of the coin where a breeder breeds simply for the money then gives the dog to anyone willing to have it when the dog is no longer useful to them,, this is SAD Breeders who show also have some litters that we are fortunate enough to be able to buy and give forever homes. The breeder I got Isabella from loves her dogs like crossfire, but she has had to rehome a few of her adult dogs over the years, however the person has had to qualify to become an owner of her dogs. If you buy a dog as a pet then I personally think it should be with forever in mind. If you take on a rescue then different rules apply. The truth is their is no real answer to your question
	__________________ Caution...Dogs can leave footprints on your heart

02-22-2007, 08:10 PM	#14 (permalink)
DakotaSpirit Canine At Heart Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Deep in the Forest Posts: 11 Rep Power: 0	Yeah, I gotta go with the majority here. You also need to keep in mind that most good breeders are selling to what I am sure they understand to be the dog's new forever home. However things do and will come up. No matter how heart renching it is, there are genuine situations in which a dog needs to be given up to someone who can offer it a better life or simply the opprotunity to get the care it deserves.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)