My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup | Main | Pit Bull Attack in Charlotte »

December 09, 2007



Those auctions are heartbreaking. Some breed clubs attend to buy up their dogs, which while understandable is the wrong thing to do. It just perpetuates the practice.

Missouri is one of the top miller states, has been for a long time. Most of the dogs are shipped out of state like produce to be sold to unsuspecting people in pet shops across the continent. Some are sold over the internet.

I doubt that the presence of legitimate commercial breeders (and there are a few) is a major factor in the higher kill rates. I suspect it's lack of will on the part of shelters to explore every avenue to find homes for the animals they take in.

You can tell I've been reading Redemption - what a great book.

Peta is running some inaccurate - heck, ridiculous - ads right now about 'breeders' contributing to the deaths of adoptable shelter dogs. That's a crock. Breeders aren't killing those dogs directly or even indirectly.

It's all part of the push to outlaw breeding which, combined with mandated sterilization, breed bans and mass killings of dogs and cats will make dogs very scarce, if not extinct.


mandatory s/n led to MORE deaths?
wow, that's sure not what the supporters of these bills claim.

I wonder if there's any way to trace the dogs that turn up in shelters to their source? Do they come from these auctions, or from other sources of puppy mill?

I read a lot of blaming about dogs in shelters, but I haven't seen any proof



I think it's safe to say that there are a lot of reasons why there are dogs in shelters. People turning dogs into shelters because they're being "difficult" instead of training out the problem. People breeding dogs (and unplanned litters) that lead to more dogs out there than homes. Shelters not doing enough to get dogs adopted out and turning down potential adopters for silly reasons. People who buy dogs for no real reason instead of adopting them. There are likely many factors...and the reason you see no "proof" is because it's hard to find someone who has any data on this information that isn't pushing an agenda of some type. Read "Redemption" and it will give you a pretty good idea of what is causing the 'overpopulation' problem.

Meanwhile, yes, sadly, MSN tends to have the opposite affect that you'd hope to have. I've never seen a single study that has shown MSN has done anything to lower euthanasia rates (unlike really strong voluntary programs that seem to work well). What then ends up happening is that many people who don't have their dogs spayed/neutered end up with their dogs getting taken by animal control for not being in compliance with the law and the dog ends up getting euthanized. Take KCMO for example. They passed MSN for 'pit bulls'. What happens when someone doesn't comply? Well, they get taken to the shelter. Since the shelter doesn't adopt out pit bulls, the dog has a 95% likelihood of being put down. The owners, then, likely go out and get another dog (which further encourages breeders to breed) and the cylce continues. Meanwhile, this all too often takes Animal Control resources away from dealing with other dog issues and causes a host of other problems (including San Francisco that pass BSL MSN and doubled their bite rates the following year). MSN almost always has the opposite affect that it's supposed to have. I wish the people who pushed for these laws would check stats on places that have passed it so they wouldn't do so.


I read somewhere recently, might even have been here, that MSN also contributes to rabies outbreaks.

Since it's fairly expensive to get a dog neutered these days, low income people have trouble affording it. I don't want to get into whether someone who can't afford basic maintenance should have a dog at this point. They have a dog or dogs.

MSN comes in and there's no subsidized or at-cost clinic so they hide out. They don't go to the vet for shots, since they have an intact dog. No rabies vaccination and if there is wildlife they are vulnerable. So, dogs get rabies and get put to death.

Since no rabies = no licence in most places, people don't license either. There goes any accuracy about how many dogs live in an area.

Health problems aside, mandating radical surgery on the basis of personal beliefs and junk science is just plain unacceptable.

Kind of like breed bans.



Best Friends actually has a great story on their site about MSN. I believe that it was Ft. Worth, TX that had the Rabies situation following their MSN. It covers the lower licensing rates that follow MSN and other problems that come from it. I'd love to link to it, but the link is down right now (annoying). Nevada passed MSN a couple years ago and saw their vets increase S/N rates and ended up seeing a 22% increase in euth rates.

I'm not sure why everyone hasn't follow New Jersey's system where they have really promoted low cost voluntary S/N programs which has actually been really successful in getting Euth rates down.


Yes, it was Texas, wish I could remember where I saw it, I've been reading a lot of stuff lately.

All of these good intentions end up paving the road to you-know-where.

I wish politicians and other meddlers would just back off and let dog owners get on with their lives.

selwyn john marock

The first step is to change the terminology from euthanasia to MURDER,and BSL to GENOCIDE.Start calling a spade a spade.
Their is very little difference between Hitler and his gang of Nazi THUGS and the likes of Kory Nelson's of the world,many ,many similiarities.


On that note, selwyn john marock, I was a bit surprised in reading two recent news stories almost back to back. One used the word "murder" in the headline (but not in the story) about a dog that was killed. In another incident, having found a dog which had clearly been sodomized, the act was not only referred to as "rape," in the news story, but the attending veterinarian allegedly did a "rape kit" on the dog, in the hopes of prosecuting the perpetrator.


I will have to find the email but I believe MSN has had some success when applied properly. In Balitimore (somewhere up there) they have mandatory micro chip on your first offense and then MSN on your second. You only penalize irresponsible/law breaking citizens though...NEVER penalize the majority to get at the minority. This is what scares me with anti-tethering laws...I think it is absolutely cruel but I cringe at how many dogs would be rounded up in KCMO and killed if they passed it here - much like with MSN. "Killing" to "save" makes no sense to me. And people don't seem to get that BSL, MSN, pet limits and even anti-tethering laws KILL pets.


I should add continuous/constant tethering is cruel - "inhumane tethering".

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)