Puggles, Labradoodles, Breeders and Death

The names sound like cartoon characters, or words a group of 5 year olds would make up while playing make-believe:  Chiweenie, Puggle, Labradoodle, Goldendoodle, Schnoodle, Pomapoo. 

There's something disturbing about these childlike names. 

The breeders who created designer dogs were cold, calculating, cynical, their only intent to cash in on their creations.  And they were very sharp and skilled marketers.

Understanding the power of labels, they chose names that not only conveniently reflected the two breeds from which the designer dog sprang,  but more importantly that made the cute pet shop puppies sound even cuter and more appealing:  Schnoodle -- it sounds like a sweet breakfast roll, a reward you give yourself on weekends; Pomapoo -- a wind up toy to play with; Labradoodle, Godendoodle -- doodles, little scribbles you don't take seriously, but that are so much fun. 

And that's the message:  these dogs are fun, fun, and more fun.  They weren't bred to do jobs, like German Shepherds or Black Labs, Great Pyranees or Border Collies.  They're even less serious than lap dogs, such as Pomeranians and Pugs.  Designer dogs are the quintessential play thing, with names more akin to toy stuffed animals than to real dogs.

But they are real dogs.  They bark, shed, tear things up in their teething and teenage years, create messes and need to be house trained, fed, watered and walked.  Only their names are toy-like.

Of course these pet shop pups, like their purebred counterparts,  come from puppy mills.  Anyone who buys one, whether because they've been swept into the Schnoodle fad or they couldn't resist the adorable puppy with the cute name when they idly wandered into the mall pet shop, supports puppy mills.  And puppy mills are a living death for the mill breeder dogs.

And now designer dogs show up not only in pet shops, but as older pups or adults in rescues and kill shelters as well. They're listed for free on Craig's list and even simply abandoned when no longer wanted.

Perhaps they get adopted in the kill shelter; perhaps a rescue pulls them.  This is terrific.  It is not their fault they ended up homeless, facing shelter death.  They did not deserve this fate in the least.  It is not their fault that they were created when there was already an over abundance of dogs in the world.

But because breeders created these dogs and because, predictably, some end up in shelters and are adopted or rescued,  another dog -- a mixed breed dog who is perhaps rather plain and who lacks a cute, cuddly "breed" name for people to latch onto -- dies.

 Dog breeders: the problem is they create more death than life.

Puggle for Adoption at the Kenton County Shelter, KY

Temperament Tests: An Unfair Way to Decide Who Lives and Dies

You have to click the link at the end of this post to a video by Eldad Hagar. I came across  Hagar  a couple of  weeks ago on the internet.  Put simply, he and his wife rescue dogs in L.A., calling their rescue Hope for Paws.

Hagar creates powerful videos of  rescues as they happen. I wish they were shown on TV -- on the mainstream news, on 60 Minutes, on the morning talk shows watched by women.  I can't imagine anyone who's seen one of his videos not saving a dog in a kill shelter instead of buying a pet.

Hagar rescues dogs who are so down and out that if picked up by animal control they would no doubt have been killed rather than being put up for adoption, and he also saves shelter dogs slated for death at the shelter.

One such dog, Chase, was to be killed the day Hagar rescued her. A small dog with dirty, matted hair,  abused by her owner then dumped at a shelter, Chase curls back her lips in a snarl and jumps at Hagar's hand when he reaches into her cage.  Who would adopt this dog?  And if the shelter used temperament testing to determine if she were adoptable, certainly she would fail. 

The video made me think about temperament testing, which can be used in one of two basic ways: 1) to determine what type of home the dog would best be placed in and what type of training it might require, and 2) to determine whether the dog should be put up for adoption or killed. 

Chase probably would have failed the test before it even started.  What's the point of testing a dog who tries to bite when you reach into her cage?

How many dogs are never given a chance because they are terrified at the shelter, victims of abuse, have never known any kindness, and only know to try to protect and defend themselves as best they can?

This video is worth a thousand words.  Watch it and you'll know what I mean.
Chase: Rescued the Day She Was Scheduled to be Euthanized

Is It "Euthanizing" when Healthy Pets are Killed? Language Matters

The euphemism is "euthanize." It's the term shelters use, though usually it's not the correct word choice. Used most precisely, "euthanize" means to painlessly end the life of an animal who is suffering and will not recover from that suffering.

Some shelters do not end the life of dogs and cats painlessly. Some shelters still use gas. I've heard of at least one that uses direct injection into the heart, but without first giving the dog or cat an injection to put him out. And then there's the Chesterfield "shelter" in South Carolina, currently under investigation for shooting dogs, perhaps even using them for target practice.

And as for the question of "suffering," thousands and thousands of pets who are perfectly healthy, including puppies and kittens, are "euthanized." Some would argue that any animal in a shelter, even if physically healthy, is suffering emotionally, is depressed, lonely, afraid, and if that animal does not find a home, his or her suffering will be endless. And there are not homes for all of them.

True on both counts. They do suffer emotionally. There aren't homes for all of them. There isn't enough room in shelters to keep dogs and cats forever. There aren't enough rescues to save all the animals on the "urgent" lists.

But language matters. We use "euthanize" to sanitize an ugly event.

Plenty of rescue workers and animal welfare advocates use other words. They send out pleas on Facebook and Twitter: Young friendly Beagle mix to be destroyed tomorrow. Urgent: 10 week old kittens will be killed this Tuesday. And some post the word "Dead" in red text over the photos of shelter dogs and cats that didn't make it out.

Maybe if everyone, including shelters, used these words instead of "euthanize," fewer people would so easily give up their pets to a shelter. Maybe fewer people would buy a pet and more would adopt, and thus puppymills would breed fewer dogs. Maybe more people would spay and neuter instead of believing their pet needs to have just one litter to be "fulfilled."

This was two year old Bentley. He was killed at a Florida shelter the same day this entry was posted.