
This is a placeholder text
Group text
by hexe on 14 September 2011 - 05:09
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/classifieds/140138.html
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/classifieds/140157.html
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/classifieds/139696.html
This is the line in the ads for the pups that is a knife in the heart for me:
"If pups do not get placed they will be subject to being dispatched :( PLEASE "
OK, I figure, they've hit hard economic times and can't afford to feed these dogs any longer, so they really need to move them...but threatening to 'dispatch' pups? Can that be read any other way than a threat that these pups will be put down if they aren't placed? Who puts perfectly healthy pups down because they need to get rid of them but can't get anyone to pay for them or trade them something for them?? You'd rather kill them than give them away without registration papers???
Here's their 'trade' page listing what they'll swap a puppy for:
http://www.eurogsds.com/trades.html
And worse yet, when I go to the web page it says that they've got
They're located in my state, too. [sobs]

It's this kind of barbarism that pushes me to lean toward the notion that anybody who has sexually intact bitches ought to have to pay a *huge* annual 'breeder's fee' that would go to the local humane society shelter to help cover the costs of dealing with cast-offs. But then I remember that there are responsible breeders who would never sink this low, and who only breed if they are prepared to keep each and every puppy or dog they produce for it's entire life if the right homes aren't found for them, and the 'breeder's fee' really wouldn't be fair to those people.
[Edited to correct #of additional litters planned and to add link to website page]
by beetree on 14 September 2011 - 14:09
Oh good grief. If I labor, you just belabored.
by brynjulf on 14 September 2011 - 14:09
I made her an offer to take the babies (at my cost shipping to Canada is pricey) , train, sell, send her the money after the puppies are placed at no cost to her. Not interested SOOO that says alot to me.

by thunderingnights on 14 September 2011 - 14:09
Welp...whos coming to Michigan with me? You bring the dog crates for the puppies and I'll bring the penata stick for the dumb*ss, dog breeding yankees.
Personally I am in 100% agreement with you. I've thought that for a long time. If you have intact females you should be required by law to have a liscence. And if you buy a female puppy you only have so many months to get her spayed before you start paying fees.
Edit: Not surprising, Brynjulf. Someone thinks they're being a tactitian.
Personally I am in 100% agreement with you. I've thought that for a long time. If you have intact females you should be required by law to have a liscence. And if you buy a female puppy you only have so many months to get her spayed before you start paying fees.
Edit: Not surprising, Brynjulf. Someone thinks they're being a tactitian.

by Jenni78 on 14 September 2011 - 15:09
Thunderingnights...that would only help PITAs cause. The people who would do something like that would never pay anyway.

by thunderingnights on 14 September 2011 - 15:09
Nah, it's doable. It's perfecting the regulatory enforcement and coping with (and responding quickly to correct) negative repercussions of certain components of the groundwork (for example, you make it illegal to sell puppies without a breeder's liscence, the douches would start killing accidental puppies or turning to some other, hopefully milder, form of undesirable action) that would be the issue. Along with finding people deticated enough to remain tenacious through the headache and legality issues to get the machine up and running.
It'll never actually happen because nobody cares all that much. Not because it couldn't be practical.
It'll never actually happen because nobody cares all that much. Not because it couldn't be practical.
by pt1 on 14 September 2011 - 15:09

15% discount on any pup for payment prior to birth !!! 10% for 2 or mor pups !!!

by beetree on 14 September 2011 - 15:09
It is a method of payment if you think about it, and probably a way for them to not show any cash income. Maybe that's why they can't give away pups, but have to "dispatch" the inventory. So they can claim "a loss". That is a disgusting thought.

by Jenni78 on 14 September 2011 - 15:09
Beetree, you're right. I know of a big time horse breeder who routinely kills even weanlings simply to show a loss for tax purposes.
by Firedist8 on 14 September 2011 - 15:09
I think that these so called breeders need to be tortured. I would never "dispatch" a pup unless there was no way of saving him or her. I hope this is just a way of selling them by making people feel bad!
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top