Dog Rescue Rebuttal
Karen Metcalf TheDogPlace.org - February 2010
In Reference To Article: SHELTER & RESCUE IMPORTS - Trafficking In Dogs - For a Fee
I
want to thank you for
understanding my point of view.
I am proud to be the middle
person who believes strongly
that there are ways to effect
change without all the
destructive legislation.
I am a member of Golden Gate
Basset Rescue and can honestly
say that our rescue does not
import dogs from other
countries. I also have knowledge
of many other basset rescues
that do not import. To imply
that all rescues are in the
business of rescuing animals in
order to make a profit is
ludicrous. Many times the
animals that are taken in
require extensive medical
treatment due to neglect. The
adoption fee rarely covers the
cost of the medical care
required to get the dogs ready
for adoption. Those times that
the adoption fee may leave a bit
left over, that money is then
used to cover the other dogs in
their care.
On
Dec. 18, 2009, GGBR took in 61
basset hounds from a kennel
closure. Every single basset
from the age of 6 months to 8
yrs old required dental work.
Their teeth were black and
green. On top of the standard
testing there is one that has
glaucoma, one that will need
major orthopedic surgery and a
number of dogs that required
hernia repairs plus a myriad of
other problems. These 61 bassets
were living in horrid
conditions, smelled putrid due
to urine and feces soaked hair
and skin, malnourished and some
with easily treatable infectious
diseases. Some vets discounted
procedures, a few donated a free
spay/neuter but most vets
charged full price because of
the economy. GGBR covers all the
cost of medical as well as
heartworm and flea prevention
while they are in volunteer
foster homes. What most people
don't know is that the foster
homes provide the food,
supplements and care for the
dogs on their own dime. Most of
these bassets were unsocialized
with people so that leaves the
foster to help them get over the
fear of people and the every day
sounds (like the clinking of a
cup when you sit it down) that
we take for granted as normal
sounds in a household. The
foster homes also provide the
time to socialize, housetrain,
leash train and teach the
unsocialized dogs how to fit in
to homes. I know for a fact that
the adoption fees will in no way
cover the expenses of these 61
bassets or the others that come
from surrenders, shelters or are
found as strays.
There are many rescues where all
the members as well as
volunteers are unpaid. Many run
on a shoe string budget and use
their own personal money when
the funds are not there. Yes
rescues do depend on donations
and grants for their survival. I
do not see how it is wrong to
post a story on a particular
animal(s) in need that they have
taken in and request donations.
Though there may be a surplus of
funds, which is rare, those
funds are saved for the next
animal in need. Without rescues
and shelters there would be dogs
running the streets that leave
the public at risk for disease
and injuries. I would venture to
say that most rescues would
welcome the day when they shut
their doors forever, not because
of lack of funds but because
they are no longer needed. I
don't see that day coming in the
near futures, especially when
you have breeders that are
unscrupulous. Who will continue
to let their animals live in
horrid conditions allowing them
to breed unchecked in the hopes
that they may sell more puppies
even in this economy. Who call
the rescues and request they
take the dogs and then threaten
the rescues that if they don't
take them they will be
euthanized? It is the
unscrupulous breeders that care
less about the breed and are in
it for money that give the good
breeders a bad name. These large
scale breeders also perpetuate
the lie that rescues "sell"
their dogs for a profit. What
they fail to mention is that
many of these dogs are in need
of medical care and they donate
absolutely nothing towards there
care. Some will even keep the
puppies, the pregnant bitches
and the dogs under 6 months old
in hopes of selling them for
profit.
As for the letter writer's take
on the importation of other
animals from other countries
well there are different sides
to the story. The writer stated
that the number of dogs imported
to the U.S. in 2006 as 287,000.
What she failed to mention was
the breakdown of those numbers,
again misleading the public to
believe that this was the
importation from rescues. How
many of the 287,000 dogs
imported were brought in by
breeders, soldiers returning
home, Americans civilians
returning from a foreign country
and bringing their dogs with
them.
I believe in allowing soldiers
to bring home dogs that they
have become attached to. These
dogs provided unconditional love
for our troops in a time that
were risking their lives every
single day. Whether you support
the war or not, we as a people
should support or troops. I for
one could not deny them the dog
that they have formed a bond
with.
However I do not support those
rescues that bring in dogs from
other countries. I feel that
there are enough unwanted
animals in our shelters and
rescues in this country that
need to find homes first. In my
opinion they are taking a page
straight from the government.
They rush to the aid of other
countries while they leave those
Americans in need to suffer. I
do believe that is wrong. I can
say that I know of one so called
"rescue" in a bordering town
that goes to Mexico and sneaks
small breeds back in the country
in a van. They bring back as
many as 50 at a time. Animal
control turns a blind eye as
they cannot prove that these
animals were brought in from
Mexico. Yes I believe that these
are the types of "rescues" that
should be shut down. Though I
realize their intentions may be
good they are hurting America's
animals in need. So I can say
that I am adamantly against
them.
On the flip side there are
breeder's that bring in lines
from other countries to improve
their existing lines. So they
could be cutting off their own
nose if they demand tighter
restriction on the importation
of animals sought to improve
their lines. What happens to
those imported animals that do
not meet their breed standards?
Are they petted out, sold to
another possible breeder or
given to rescues or shelters or
even God forbid dumped? Are they
neutered/spayed prior to going
or left intact to perpetuate a
line that does not meet
standards. While I would love to
believe that all breeders are
reputable with high standards,
we all know that that is not the
case.
This letter writer is
villianizing all rescues with
her ideas that we convince the
public that breeding should be
restricted or banned. Yes
rescues spay/neuter all the dogs
in their care but this is to
prevent them from going to
people that would use them for
breeding or may allow them to
run loose to breed unchecked
with other animals. Not all
rescues believe that breeding
should be banned in the U.S. so
that statement is simply untrue.
There are many rescues that will
refer people to the reputable
good breeders. In fact many
rescues receive support from the
national clubs for a particular
breed.
I in no way support any AR
groups or their offshoots. IMO
they are accurately accused of
having goals to eradicate pet
ownership. I also do not support
any breeder that practices
inhumane and neglectful
practices. I do support the idea
that the federal laws pertaining
to breeder practices be changed.
These USDA laws governing
dog/cat breeding have not been
updated since 1993. From all the
information that I have read IMO
breeders don't want these
standards changed because it
would affect their bottom line.
They are against change that
would required increased
inspections, improved living
standards for the dogs that
include increased space,
exercise, etc. If one speaks up
against the outdated laws they
are accused of belonging to an
AR group. They do not want to
accept that there are those that
are in the middle that only want
to see improvement in the
standards of care, increased
inspection, etc that would allow
the dogs to live in a healthier
environment. I am of the opinion
that these two sides of the
breeder vs. AR groups don't
realize that there are those
that want the good breeders to
survive. We are the ones in the
middle that the good breeders to
survive while weeding out the
breeders that allow their dogs
to live in squalor, feeding
sawdust so the dogs to give them
the sense of feeling full,
standing or lying in their urine
and feces, where the only vet
care ever provide is the rabies
vaccine. We are the middle that
are in between the two sides
that are villianized by both
sides. We are the ones that
rescue out of love. We care
about how these dogs are treated
and want to insure that they
never have to be subjected to
inhumane treatment again. We are
also the ones that believe when
we bring an animal into our
lives that they are with us for
the length of their life. We are
the ones that believe a pet is
not disposable because they are
old, sick, too big, too little,
etc.
The breeders against legislation
seem to want to support all
breeders even if they practice
poor management and care of the
animals. They do not want any
laws changed and support
antiquated laws that are 17
years long. They are against the
term puppymill, though the term
is not yet considered a legal
term yet, when many every day
people accept the terms use and
can envision how that kennel
must be maintained. I would
think that the good breeders
that are breeding to improve the
breed, that take pride in the
puppies they produce, that care
about there breeding dogs would
help to form legislation that
protect the dogs from
substandard living conditions,
neglect and yes even abuse
instead of seeing any change as
an attack. Where there is a
large amount of members that see
any change as having an ulterior
motive. I would think that the
would not want themselves
associated with the bad
breeders. Bad breeders do exist.
The AKC as well as many AC
officers or USDA inspectors do
very little to rid the U.S. of
the bad breeders. First there
are not enough inspectors to
inspect all the kennels/
breeders. Second the laws in
effect now state that breeders
that are moderate to high risk
are inspected yearly. The
breeders that are low risk have
no set inspections and through
reading the actual law one can
get the opinion that they could
go years without inspections.
For those that think that I am
speaking untruths about the laws
then go read them.
TheDogPlace.org EST 1998 © 1800 URL
SSI

Brought to you by the NetPlaces Network
Your $20 Membership
enables the world's first public website (1998) to provide free information by our international Science and Advisory Board. Please join our educational project for all dog owners.
Become A Charter Member!
|
Shelters Traffick Dogs

Overpopulation reports are false. Stray dogs are so rare that shelters import dogs. |
The Shelter Game

Animal Shelters, Rescues and Animal Control have a plan... |
Shelter Marketing

Shelters and Rescue are now the most successful marketers of purebred dogs.
|
SSI
Advertising ~ Disclaimer ~ Mission ~ Privacy
ii NetPlacesNetwork ~ ii Health Disclaimer
TheDogPlace.org
World’s 1st public website from Animal Health to Vaccines.
World's 1st online dog news, TheDogPress.com from AKC records to zoological news.
TheJudgesPlace.com
World's 1st site by/for dog show judges, educates on purebred dogs.