Thanks, I expected a flood of condemnations!

The term "backyard breeder" is just one step up in snobbery from "trailer trash."

I got my two cats from families that could be called backyard breeders. To me, that meant that children played with the kittens, which is especially crucial to cats.

So if you want a golden (fantastic dogs, btw!), there are lots of breeders. You might have to drive for a few hours to find one. I drove two hours for my Lab breeder.

> The term "backyard breeder" is just one step up in snobbery from "trailer trash."

The term is often used to refer to people running extremely sketchy for-profit operations (basically very small scale puppy mills). Operations like that often falsely present themselves as the more innocent 'oops my grandma's dog and my dog bred one time because we didn't know hers wasn't fixed' type.

Traditional breeders have all kinds of other problems. Imo there's not really any great way to get a puppy, ethically speaking

> The term is often used to refer to people running extremely sketchy for-profit operations

Yeah, no question. There are also people, like the family I got my first cat from, that like to breed animals and do their best to be kind to them. Perhaps some term that doesn't conflate the two groups would be preferable.

> Perhaps some term that doesn't conflate the two groups would be preferable.

100% agreed. I don't give a shit whether someone I buy a puppy from is (let's be real) a sufficiently certified canine eugenicist. I care whether they are kind and responsible and attentive with the animals in their home. That's it.

I uh... I don't think that was a condemnation at all?

I uh... I didn't say it was, but I guess you could legitimately read it that way.

I meant "I expected a flood of condemnations, but this is nice." or words to that effect.

Oh wow, I completely read it as if you were saying "thanks for condemning me as I expected you would" and was very confused why you'd take it that way. Apologies!

I find it a bit ironic that you and the OP seem to be saying these rescue groups work for their actual goal and the goal of the shelter.

What do you think the "goal of the shelter" is? To just move as many dogs out as possible, or to serve the public by giving them fair access to dogs others don't want? Those are subtly different.

Successfully performing an ethical responsibility to house dogs in a good situation inherently deprioritizes every member of the the public getting a great choice in free dogs. That is a successful supply side shortage which is the goal.

I don't see how I could ethically agree that people's rights to get the dog they want through a rescue shelter exists and is more important to a shelter than the welfare of the dogs placed in it's care.

Sorry, but you're resorting to word salad here. "The welfare of the dogs placed in it's [sic] care" is not at issue, as I'll demonstrate:

Let's say a highly desirable dog, say a beautiful young Golden Retriever, is brought to the shelter, and further, let's suppose the shelter euthanizes all dogs after two weeks.

Normally, a member of the public would adopt this dog within a day or less. They're a very popular breed. How is "the welfare of the dogs placed in its care" enhanced by the Golden Rescue group taking it and deciding for themselves who should have it? (If the foster person doesn't keep it for themselves, which often happens.)

Let's say the shelter has an agreement with them: "if a Golden is slated for euthanasia within two days, you may take it." That seems fair to me.

So the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.

Rescues typically house their dogs in foster homes rather than shared kennels, and are more likely to engage in rehabilitation and training than shelters are. Dogs at breed rescues generally get way more individual attention and care.

> the only argument you're left with is "the Rescue group will do a better job of choosing its home." Not proven and doubtful, sorry. Those people are volunteers with no training and no accountability. The shelter is going to be at least as good.

Shelters don't generally attempt vetting adopters to the same degree as rescues do, which is much of the source of annoyance with breed rescues that started this thread. Shelters are not going to be 'at least as good' at things they're not even attempting to do.

As for the foster homes: point taken. Although it's irrelevant if the dog is so desirable that someone adopts it right away. Which is the case we're talking about here after all.

As for your comment about shelters: you're just plain wrong about that. There's a stereotype that they're about as diligent as the DMV. Wrong. Considering the breed rescue people are mostly unpaid volunteers who don't stick with it very long, it's probably a wash.

Fwiw I think what's good about breed rescues, when they are good, are virtues that shelters could also have, in principle (and some shelters do). I would rather rely on robust, publicly funded and publicly accountable shelters that emphasize foster programs of their own than fall back on a ton of random, breed-specific, donor-funded organizations. Seems like that would be better for dogs of mixed and unpopular breeds, as well as more convenient when it comes to locating a dog for adoption.

I wonder whether breed rescues have an easier time finding fosters to volunteer for them than shelters do. I could imagine they might, because of emotional attachments people have to breeds that look like dogs they remember from childhood or that they've had positive experiences with or whatever.

Yeah, one can imagine some kind of public-private partnership that combines "love for a specific breed" with "ease and fairness in finding & adopting the dog you want."

I'm sure you heard it a thoudand times, and you anticipated hearing it when you posted in this thread, but since things are friendly:

chihuahuas and pitbulls are wonderful, wildly underrated dogs.

I used to think I didn't like chihuahuas until I adopted an elderly chihuahua, and she proved to be an angel. I frankly didn't understand the appeal of lapdogs at all, until I found a creature in my care who wanted very little beyond basic human company, and who was so agreeable and sweet that I could take her absolutely anywhere.

Since she died this year, I adopted a chihuahua mix puppy and it has well and truly convinced me that if you do a good job of proving to the critter that the world is safe for them, chihuahuas are lovely, polite, outgoing dogs.

And as it happens, one of his favorite playmates in the whole world is an enormous pitbull mix, who is always delighted to meet him and impressively tolerant of his puppyish nonsense.

I get seeking a breed that looks like the dogs you grew up with, or which you can trust to be reliable around your kids or whatever. But chihuahuas and pitbulls can be seriously delightful and easy dogs to have in your home, and I wish more people would give them a chance.