According to this Veterinary news article (link above), NAIA is attempting to determine the numbers of animals from purebreds to shelter animals and monitor placement, ownership and relinquishment trends.
See below for what Petdefense believes are the real issues in shelters. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or even statistics these days to realize that the bulk of shelter animals are animals that people put in there, or strays that people don’t want. The real question is NOT what animals are in shelters (as we already know that information) but WHY they are relinquished. Basically we are looking at social welfare in society overall.
This can be proven by finding that the lowest economic areas have shelters with the HIGHEST numbers of animals. This is a fact across the country. Notice we didn’t refer to breeds of animals. It is elementary that if targeted altering at lower income locations was done frequently, there would be less animals to be relinquished in those areas. Yet that is not done in many areas.
More than 10 years ago, studies were already done in the shelter area, which showed in many cases, that pets are relinquished for varying reasons, but often for behavioral issues, and inability to deal successfully with such issues. Personal issues such as loss of housing, divorce, and jobs also contribute. Clearly less income means less money to deal with pet issues.
Undisputed was the evidence that mixed breed juvenile, medium sized male dogs were usually not adopted when compared to other animals. Obviously safety was an alleged issue, since the animal rights keep claiming that “backyard” breeders create dangerous dogs. Animal rights claims that “breeders” create health issues in dogs. Animal rights claim that male canines kill people.
But most of the mixed breed dogs that end up in shelters, were procured at little to no cost to owner, and it was already determined that such dogs have a higher chance of entering shelters. Why? Because juvenile dogs of mixed parentage, sometimes unknown, medium sized, have a much lower market value in general. Much more difficult to sell or adopt out. Smaller dogs usually don’t have a big problem finding homes at shelters. Some desired purebreds never have a problem finding a home. [Don’t jump to conclusions re mixed breed dogs, that is what I have…]
One of the biggest hurdles for parents in adopting canines for kids? They may want a particular mixed dog at a shelter, but shelter rules won’t even allow it to go to a home with kids less than 10years old. We usually do not recommend mid sized rescued dogs for very young kids simply because we don’t know the background of the dog. If we do know the background completely, that is a different story. If the dog is a puppy, it will depend upon how much background is known, and whether the owner is an experienced dog owner.
Unbelievably, many parents never safety train their children with dogs. Instead they seem to think they (parents) will be there 24/7 to catch the dog in action if it’s misbehaving. Hello??????
Dog ‘breeders’ are not responsible for shelter populations. The majority of dogs in shelters are result of unintended ties, often from unknown parent dogs. Many shelters already know they have about 65%+ of such dogs in there…….RELINQUISHMENT of any dog— is NOT the criteria from which to determine that “breeder” caused the dog to be in shelter. Relinquishment actually only can be useful to determine what dogs are NOT in shelters.
Those dogs NOT in shelters are usually the breeder dogs from pet stores, hobby breeders, and higher end breeders where price is higher. That explains why shelters are NOT full of thousands of purebred, high end dogs, or small fluffy designer dogs. (Where there is a market demand for certain pets, then consumers seek them out. If not, they will not seek them out.)
Logically, this would indicate that breeders of the more expensive dogs, whether mixed designer dogs, dogs from commercial kennels, or purebred, etc—- are not filling shelters. There is no NEXUS linking the breeding of such dogs to those in shelters— period. In fact, there is NO standardized data nationwide even used for shelters, and there is no standardized intake, or even standardized methods of identifying breeds of animals. So when animal control claims “purebred” equals “X percent of all dogs”, that means little and nothing essentially, since there is no way to prove that allegation. It is nearly impossible.
People want to claim that pitbull type mixes fill shelters, but many dogs can resemble a generic “pitbull” dog. The fact that many may resemble such a generic type attests to likely several facts; one, the generic breed is popular with many people; two, the dog type is not for everyone and requires a strong, preferably experienced owner; three, animal rights has convinced the public that every one of such generic type is “allegedly” dangerous.
The public is misled about many facets of dog breeding by all animal rights groups.
But animal rights groups in general don’t believe in animal breeding, period, since their belief is that animals are NOT property. If that was true, then not being property means one does not own, buy or sell such property; and it also means one is a “guardian” and not an owner.
This is shown in the animal rights casebook, Third Edition 2006[Waisman, Loyola Law School; Frasch, Northwestern School of Law/Lewis and Clark College; Wagman, UC Berkeley, Boalt Hall, Stanford Law School, UC SF School of Law] where it poses the question that if the property status of animals were abolished, what would be the legal and practical effects on the commercial use of animals?
The answer given in the book says:
1. “should they be put in sanctuaries”
2. “should they be sterilized”
3. “should they be permitted to MOVE TOWARD EXTINCTION?”
Notice that these are the ONLY 3 alternatives mentioned.
This is what they are teaching new lawyers in law school.