Then to be honest you should not own dogs or any domestic animal, as these are all man made creations.

I don't 'own' my dogs, they live with me.

> You can say they ensure the dog is placed in a 'good' home but the suffering the dog endures through this process is heartbreaking.  I have seen too much of it in my line of work and if people could only see and appreciate the pain, bewilderment and trauma that dogs experience as a result they may have second thoughts about doing it.
>

I have met many dogs that have been re-homes, and often in the company of their original owners, where they sometimes are boarded etc, yet when it is time to go home with their new owners there is no heartbreak.

My mentor (now deceased) re-homed one of her champion stud dogs (my Kizi's Dad) because when she took in a third adult male, who had not been brought up with other dogs, he caused a lot of friction between the existing males, and she felt it best to re-home one of them (one whose character lent itself to moving), as the incomer was being fostered long term for original owner who was hoping to have him back. 

In the end after two years and having reached 8 years she felt it unfair that he should have to be kennelled (swapping time in house with the other male that he would not get on with) and he too was re-homed, both to long time friends in the breed who no longer felt like starting with a puppy.

Both would come and visit and wait at the door to go home with new Mum and Dad.

There are probably individuals and some breeds that form too much of an attachment to one person that they cannot easily move on.  There are also owners who allow their dogs to become over dependent to the extent they cannot cope without them, thereby handicapping the dog.  These would suffer being re-homed, but most dogs are pretty adaptable creatures, which is why they manage to live with us.

Of course dogs that have never had a secure life, been badly treated, neglected etc are much harder to hoem easily, the very reason many logn standign breeders ahve a waiting list of freinds/former clients in theri breed waiting on any retirees, because they adapt so well.

How bizarre - what do you think a pet is doing if not fulfilling the desires of it's owner?  People don't have a pet out of some sense of duty because they need looking after, they have them because they want one, want the companionship etc - so the pet is serving and fulfilling the needs of the owner.

All the dogs that have lived with me permanently (some 22) but one were or are dogs that have been re-homes/rescues.  They are here because they needed a home.  There are thousands of people who do the same.  There's nothing bizzare about it.

Why?  Surely if they are not to be used by man, and ergo should not exist why have them.

I assume you are vegan, do not use leather products or anything animal in origin.

So you haven't trained your dogs to fit in with your personal chosen lifestyle, then? A lifestyle that they've had no choice in selecting, but have had foisted upon them?

No I haven't. 

When it was clear that any specific dog had a 'drive' to do something I made it my business to teach myself how to train them in the 'sport' that best suited their drives whether that was Tracking, Obedience, Working Trials or Agility or with some dogs absolutely nothign at all!

> If you can't rehome your dogs through whatever belief/reason stick to a small kennel and be prepared not to be 'famous'.  I couldn't rehome unless absolutely needed, so my dogs will never go above six no matter how good a pup i might one day produce.  But then again, i might end up eating my words.

Ditto:

And of course if you can produce good dogs for others there is just as much if not more satisfaction to be had.

Like you I never had been able to let any of my own dogs go, but never say never as i don't know what the future holds.

Why?  Surely if they are not to be used by man, and ergo should not exist why have them.

Then what do you suggest should happen to all the dogs that are discarded, given up, abandoned, bred and born with no 'home' already lined up to go to? 

And stop putting your kids in school sports day.... lord knows we shouldn't enjoy the sin of pride.

That's a massive assumption!

Just remembered why I've got you on ignore.

Ditto

And their breed specific drives & needs were what exactly?

Running, jumping, catching and carrying (retrieving), scenting (Tracking) all things all canines did before and after man's intervention.

Leave them to go to homes with people who don't mind dogs serving man.

Of course there would be very few with no homes (and we aren't talking resuce dogs in this thread, but dogs responsibly re-homed by their original owner/breeder) if only people prepared to take lifelong responsibility for their welfare bred dogs and went to owners who had the same level of commitment.

Rescues in fact feed the over production to some extent as there is somewhere to discard rather then the breeder or first owner taking responsibility themselves to keep or home the dog.

Most breeds were man made for a purpose

All breeds were.  From the mometn the dogs ancestor decided or was forced to ally itself with man (depedning on how you see it) .

Not replying to anyone in particular but just adding my view on the end....

I do know of people who will sell on/re-home any dogs that don't make the grade and either never hit the show ring or don't do well when they are in it.  I also know of a lady who always owned Chow Chow's (I absolutely love them) she used to take on the chows from someone who bred them but then they weren't 'good' enough for the show ring.

We have 7 dogs (between myself and my mum) 3 were not bought to show (long haired GSD's and a rescue Staffie) but out of the other 4 (1 Akita and 3 Rottie's) I now am only able to show 1 of them!!  My Akita did really well in the show ring but I pulled her out when she developed an immune condition.  My Rottie was shown but then did his cruciate so was pulled out - he can be shown but I don't really see the point as he will not be used to develop the breed.  My other Rottie bitch is doing well in the show ring and I hope to have a litter to better the breed and continue my own line.  Everyone had really high hopes for my latest Rottie until her jaw went at 4 months...so now she is worked instead.

We now have lots of dogs so have to think a little wisely before we add more but because I am in partnership with my mum it does make things easier.

From the day a pup is collected and brought into our home they are here to stay 'warts n all' as my mum would say!

I don't 'own' my dogs, they live with me.

I suspect in the eyes of the law you do as if your dog caused an accident I doubt you could get away with ' they just live with me :-D

Let's get one thing straight.   I stand by my phasing of........it's sad.   I am not having a go the hobbiest dog shower who goes to the shows and enjoys it and yes it is their hobby.  What I am referring to are some of the bigger breeders who go to win, live and breath competion and when it goes pear shaped pass whatever dog, that doesn't come up to expectations, on.  This is when it stops becoming hobby.......that's what's sad..............sad for the poor dog that doesn't realise that it's a failure.  To me this shows no duty of care.  A dog is born.............a dog !!! it is not born a show dog.  I know what it is like on both sides. All my dogs come with me to the Open Show whether they are competing or NFC, and have are well looked after at home if it's a champ show.  In an ideal world it would all be a hobby unfortunately it's not.  A dog is not a commodity.

>>So you haven't trained your dogs to fit in with your personal chosen lifestyle, then? A lifestyle that they've had no choice in selecting, but have had foisted upon them?
>No I haven't. 

So you haven't housetrained them, or taught them to walk on a lead? Because that's making them adapt to a human's lifestyle.

>sad for the poor dog that doesn't realise that it's a failure.

It's a blessing that the dog doesn't realise it's a 'failure' - it has no comprehension of that at all, so isn't sad in the slightest.

I suspect in the eyes of the law you do as if your dog caused an accident I doubt you could get away with ' they just live with me 

No actually.  They are 'owned' by the breed rescue/rescue centres they came to us from.  If we are unable to fulfil the obligations we signed up to the dogs MUST be returned or are re-claimed by the re-homing organisation.

However, in the eyes of the law I am sure we are 'responsible for' them which is a lifelong responsibility gladly undertaken when we gave the dogs a home.

So you haven't housetrained them, or taught them to walk on a lead? Because that's making them adapt to a human's lifestyle.

|What on earth has that got to do with 'showing' or 'competing' with dogs or the OP's original post concerning her distress at those that don't make the grade being re-homed/given up??

Having said that,  by LAW under Road Traffic Acts, dogs are required to be exercised on-lead in areas where there are public highways/ where  there is vehicular traffic,  or in any public place that any local/district council sees fit to designate as on-lead places under it's bye-laws.  Under the DDA dogs have to be under control in a public place (those off-lead will have a hard time proving 'control' if their was off-lead and got into touble!).  

Are you suggesting that I be a law-breaker to suit your irrelevant to the OP topic and completely un-supportable argument? 

Exactly.....it has no comprehension.......................that's why it's a blessing the dog doesn't realise !!!!!!! re- read post

I don't suppose the dog would realise either that one day it's in it's home and the next in a strange environment with different people with different habits etc.

Bit of a circular converstion going on here I think which seems very pointless to me ! :-)

According the the law you own the dog and are liable for that dog if it causes an accident. Resonsibility = Ownership.

In the eyes of the law you are the owner. You take on full ownership responsibility.

All dogs whether shown or pet are for the purpose of the owner's enjoyment.

Your on the wrong forum I think :-)

>They are 'owned' by the breed rescue/rescue centres they came to us from.  If we are unable to fulfil the obligations we signed up to the dogs MUST be returned or are re-claimed by the re-homing organisation.

Did you get them because having them makes you happy or sad? Do they enhance or detract from your life?

You take on full ownership responsibility.

I have already stated that. I am fully responsible for them.   Under the DDA (and other laws) the person who is responsible is either the owner or whoever is in charge of the dog at the time of any offence.  That responsibility is mine taken on from the day I signed to accept lifelong  responsibility for them.

All dogs whether shown or pet are for the purpose of the owner's enjoyment.

Your on the wrong forum I think 

Really???  It wasn't made clear to me when I joined that a pre-requisite was that I hold the same opinion and views on all matters canine as other users.  How odd.  Just where is this 'condition' enscribed.  I am very intersted because if it is a pre-requisite that every one must share and hold the same opinion, belief and view then you would be absolutely correct - it certainly would be the wrong place for me. 

Your on the wrong forum I think

Really???  It wasn't made clear to me when I joined that a pre-requisite was that I hold the same opinion and views on all matters canine.  How odd.  Just where is this 'condition' enscribed.

It is not "enscribed" anywhere.

I said " I THINK" IE my opinion.  another misunderstanding on your part.

My point, you are on the wrong forum if you think good, decent, breed Custodians will sit back and let you make sweeping generalisations which are clearly incorrect and unfounded.

> I don't think this applies to only those in 'show' circles." and  "Dogs don't always choose us, we choose to take them in and therefore assume responsibility for them"

Suzieque, I think the question of continually discarding 'failures' has been condemned by most on this thread.  Me too!   However, it's beholden upon us as owners/keepers to make the right decisions for our dogs and that might sometimes involve rehoming.

'Abandoning' ones dog IS quite different to carefully rehoming for the good of your dog, or because circumstances prevent you from keeping it.  I can understand your point about decisions taken 'lightly', as you put it but in many cases it isn't a decision reached quickly or on a whim.  A current thread details just how heartbreaking it can be for the owner.

As i am someone who has one of these "show failures" i am glad the breeder decided to rehome. She is amazing and i am so greatful for her.
The breeder knew me as i had another dog of hers and knew this girl would be going to a home where she could lounge on the sofa in the sun and play in the garden. Thatds a good breeder in my eyes who will put the dogs welfare before thiers.

>Thatds a good breeder in my eyes who will put the dogs welfare before thiers.

Absolutely. The dog's welfare (because it has no choice) is more important than the owner's personal preferences.

But equally your 'show failure' dog who was given up by her breeder (for not making the grade??) could just have easily lain on the sofa in the sun in her breeder's  home which she had been born into with people (and dogs?)  she knew. 

Why pass her on?   Would the breeder have kept her and continued to give her a loving home if she was a successful show dog?  Did the breeder go on to breed more puppies in the hope of producing a 'winner?  If so it is not that she couldn't afford to keep her.

I appreciate that people like you get the benefit of a lovely dog but it is still a questionable practice which I doubt is a 'selfless' one by the breeder.

Hi Dogs a babe

I appreciate your post. 

I myself have said in earlier posts on this thread that sometimes totally unforseen circumstances force people to give up their dogs and that those situations are not in the same category as those who give up,  to use someone elses' term, 'show failures' or 'competition failures' voluntarily.

The former is understandable but it is the latter that I personally find unpalatable.   What I also said is that whichever the reason for the re-homing, a great number of these dogs suffer.  It is quite irrelevant to them whether their owners were forced to or voluntarily gave them up, the dog has no understanding and can't differentiate or rationalise between the two sets of circumstances.   But the innocent dog has to live with the outcome. 

The breeder, has a kennel environment, so yes she would have kept her but no she would not have had the benefit of lying on the sofa in the sun.
And yes she most likely did go on to have puppies and keep them but how else are they supposed to continue a line that is fit and healthy if hey keep all the dogs?

My dogs all live in the house with me, but I am in rented accommodation. I suppose you could say that I am one of those people you would detest. I would quite happily pass on any of my dogs, if the right home came up, but it would need to pass all my very strict requirements. If I wish to breed on I won't be able to keep any, unless I rehome, or one of the older ones dies off. So in your eyes I should stop breeding. Why should I? Why should I let a bloodline die out that I have had for nearly 20 years, culminating in my boy who went Best in Show at the breeds club Championship Show in 2008? I didn't come into my breed for the showring, in fact I was only at 3 or 4 shows last year, and I haven't showed this year at all, so you can't say that I am doing it for the ribbons and cards, but I do like breeding, and showing, and I also like to see my 'pups' doing well at what they do.

In your eyes though, I would be better off stopping now and letting this bloodline disappear. Or maybe I should keep every puppy I breed and end up with far too many dogs so that I can't give them the attention they all deserve. And that is the point here. They alldeserve a good life. Whether it is the original (breeders) home, or the first 'new' home when they are sold at 8 weeks, or their new 'forever' home when they are an older dog. I don't see the difference between an older dog going from the original breeders home or a rehome that has been returned to the breeder. They will both be confused at first but so long as the breeder has done their job and found the best home does it matter? Far better than the poor dog ending up in a rescue centre with people who don't understand the breed and is then given to the wrong family and returned time and time again.

> I don't see the difference between an older dog going from the original breeders home or a rehome that has been returned to the breeder.

The difference with rehoming an older dog is that I would have built up such a bond it would break my heart to do so. To rehome an oldie just to make way for a pup to continue the line is just wrong in my opinion. Taking back a dog you've bred and rehoming it is a different matter all together.

i agree pedlee. i would be heartbroken if i had to rehome either of mine but then i see them as family members who need a 'dogsitter' if i go out for a long time just as i used to get a babysitter for the kids. some would say i shouldnt treat them like 'humans'  and they would probably thrive ok if they were rehomed but thats just how i feel.
im sure dogs dont love us in the way we love them if you looked into canine psycology but we like to think they do.
i am always amazed how my neighbour treats their dog. it spends all day in the garden never has walks is not allowed in the house unless they are in and is not allowed upstairs where as mine sleep on the bed. i suppose people love dogs in different ways or sometimes dont love them but just tolerate them.

> The difference with re-homing an older dog is that I would have built up such a bond it would break my heart to do so. To re-home an oldie just to make way for a pup to continue the line is just wrong in my opinion. Taking back a dog you've bred and re-homing it is a different matter all together.

This is the crux of the matter and applies to a lot of things.

For you and in your opinion it is wrong, but not for others, and in the grand scheme of things the fact the dogs have good homes and are well cared for is what matters.

It is the same with a lot of other issues, just because some people find something unpalatable or wrong does not mean it should not be allowed, be banned, legislated against.

Docking, hunting, shooting, fishing, no one is forced to do these things, yet campaign against anyone else having the right to do them.

There are those who believe no-one should eat meat, own animals, etc.

There are those who believe homosexuality is wrong, thankfully our society has become more enlightened there.

I also could not re-home an oldie, or a  bitch that had given me puppies.

For me it would be wrong to have a bitch that I bred back for re-homing and take a litter from her first.  There are those who would find that perfectly acceptable to broaden their breeding lines.

We must take care that our own personal beliefs are not foisted onto others if there is no real welfare issue.

As a society we make rules of standards that are broadly acceptable to all.

For example the number of litters a bitch can have is 6 according to the Kennel Club, but this is a catch all, as some breeds have tiny litters and some huge.  I would consider two litters more than enough in breeds where 10+ pups is the norm, and think 6 litters excessive even if there are only 1 or 23 pups in the breeds litters, but would not dream of foisting my personal opinion.

This is where breed clubs determine what is best for their breed based on a consensus.  In my breed it is 4 litters. 

There are those who feel strongly that two litters is enough, or that a bitch should be withdrawn from breeding by 7, or should be older than the two years minimum the code of ethics stipulates, then that is what they do.

> For me it would be wrong to have a bitch that I bred back for re-homing and take a litter from her first.  There are those who would find that perfectly acceptable to broaden their breeding lines.
>

Would you stand by this Brainless if the pups at 8 -12 weeks had looked non promising but came back as an adult better than anything you have kept?
I only ask as I have seen a few people had stunning adults returned who are now in the ring and I could see no harm in this instance if the bitch was going to remain with you rather than be homed again

> I only ask as I have seen a few people had stunning adults returned who are now in the ring and I could see no harm in this instance if the bitch was going to remain with you rather than be homed again

My Jozi my first champion is just such a one, though I knew she was special when sold and hoped she would be shown, but I was trying to be sensible and not get overdogged and keep something from her mother a few years later. 

I meant the breeder who gets a bitch back to re-home but takes a litter from her before doing so,  for me that somehow would not sit well, and be ungrateful, not like one that they intend to keep after it's return.

Yes I agree it would be unfair to take a litter and then rehome again.- It's great you got Jozi back- I think fate occasionally lends a hand.

Great post Barbara... pointing out exactly that we are all different with different viewpoints but we who show don't attack the pet owning community for not doing so. 

There are extreme examples in everything, one mans wine, anothers poison etc but surely as long as the animal's are being well cared for and their needs are met it is no body's right to say it is wrong and shouldn't be done just because they wouldn't themselves.

I've been invited to a wedding.  It's a vegan wedding and everybody is going to be expected to eat vegan.  Why then did we bother to cater for veggies at our wedding?  This arguement could be compared to that - some people foisting their views on others and condeming them because they strongly believe against it.

You can't have it all your own way Suzieque etc... where are you drawing the line and how come you are allowed to draw the line and those who show are not? 

What arguement would you have against the extremists who believe all companion animals should be set free that doesn't have any element of human selfishness?

Dogs don't choose to live with us, we choose them, but they and us are most of the time better off for it. 

Oh so am I, she is very special, a right royal PIA, but all the more lovable for that. 

Unfortunately she has undermined my confidence re recall training, as sadly she is not reliable, only coming when she is good and ready, and for her own safety can no longer be allowed off lead since she was spayed scavenging has become her pastime, and most gardens around the country park are not dog proof.

The knock on effect has been that those born since have not had the freedoms of their predecessors as I have become hyper aware of possible dangers, what if she takes off, is there a road or livestock too close etc.

Would you go to a muslim or jewish wedding and demand pork? or would you be happy to provide roast dog to your guests because that is their preference?
There is a difference between someone being asked to eat/provide something they may not like or choose and someone being asked to eat / provide something they object to on moral and ethical grounds

( and no I am not vegeterian )

but unless the people getting married are doing their won catering making all their guests eat Vegan is not reasonable.

I would expect them to provide standard acceptable fare for the majority of guests as well as cater for the minority vegan tastes too.

I haven't been to a Jewish function, but if it is not a religious one I would expect catering to cover a range of tastes, including ham sandwiches.