Where to get your dog

---

When you have decided to add a dog to your family, the main question is where to get one. Some people advocate for purebreds, claiming they are more standardized and predictable, whereas other people are vehemently opposed to any and all breeders, claiming that every breeder puppy purchase equates to a shelter euthanasia for space. However, this is simply untrue because many people are looking for something specific that they are not going to find at a shelter. Ultimately, the question of where to get your dog comes down to what you are looking for and where you stand on the ethics of dog breeding.

Does buying purebreds mean leaving shelter dogs homeless?

Some people believe that—because of our current crisis of homeless dogs in shelters—any kind of dog breeding is inherently unethical. Their rationale is that for every purebred puppy bought from a breeder, a dog could be adopted from a shelter instead. The keyword here is COULD. Not everyone who buys a dog is simply interested in getting a(nother) dog. Many are getting a puppy from a breeder exclusively because they want that specific kind of puppy. The population of humans who are buying purebred puppies, though not mutually exclusive, is not the same population who might save our shelter dog population from homelessness. In other words, when someone gets a purebred dog, it typically does not mean leaving a rescue dog in a shelter somewhere. If the purebred were not available, that person probably would not get a dog at all.

Is all breeding necessarily unethical?

Purebreds exist as a result of historical demand for different types of dogs for performing different types of jobs. The creation of different breeds has been predicated on artificial selection and selective breeding. In order to control dogs’ genetics to produce these different breeds, humans have taken the reproductive autonomy from the dog subspecies, essentially resulting in canine eugenics. This sounds objectively bad, but the alternatives are arguably worse. When it comes to breeding ethics, there are three logical/valid positions one can have: 

1) Sterilize all dogs and extinguish the species, but allow the ones who are left to live out their lives as comfortably as possible (PETA’s stance); 

2) Allow dogs to regain their reproductive freedom and breed at will (Village dogs already do this in various parts of the world); or 

3) Control dogs’ genetics and selectively breed them in such a way that they are physically and mentally healthy and stable and continue to be specialized for the jobs they were bred for (preservation breeding). 

If we intend to keep them around, the most ethical thing we can do is to breed dogs selectively so that they are genetically healthy with stable temperaments. After all, dogs might be the only (sub)species we know of who have the potential to truly live a fulfilling life free of suffering, so keeping them around (and doing everything we can to minimize their suffering) is beneficial to both dogs and humans.

Is rescuing a dog necessarily ethical?

Adopting a rescue dog is almost always beneficial for that individual dog, but it is not always beneficial for the dog world as a whole. If you "rescue" a dog from a puppy mill by paying for it, you are alleviating that dog of suffering but contributing to the overall problem by supporting that puppy mill. If you rescue a dog to assert your moral superiority over others, you are still contributing to the overall problem by adding to the stigma associated with buying/having a purebred dog. Some people adopt from rescues because they tend to be cheaper than dogs from breeders. Some people adopt rescue dogs simply so they can brag about it (virtue signaling) and tell themselves they are morally superior to their peers. Some people adopt rescue dogs because they have been taught by their friends and/or family that purebreds are inherently unethical (and sometimes these are the same people as in the previous sentence). The majority of people who adopt from dog rescues have very specific demands regarding what they need in a dog because they are doing it for themselves. But very few people who choose a rescue over a purebred truly do so to give a home to a dog in need. The world definitely needs more of those people, but shaming people who buy an ethically bred purebred puppy is not helping with that at all.

"Adopt, don't shop"? Or "Adopt or shop responsibly"?

The idea behind "adopt, don't shop" is that buying a puppy from a breeder inherently leaves a homeless dog in a shelter. This is simply unrealistic, as mentioned earlier, and it is an idea that has polarized the rescue world against ethical breeding. In reality, there are ethical and unethical breeders, and there are ethical and unethical rescues, and the important thing is that we educate the public on the ethical practices of both so that we can all start obtaining our dogs ethically, whether that means adopting from ethical rescues or buying from ethical breeders. The "adopt, don't shop" rhetoric has pushed people who want a predictable dog to buy from puppy mills in much the same way that "abstinence-only" sexual education has resulted in unwanted teen pregnancies. If we fail to holistically educate the public about their options, nobody will be happy because the majority of purebred buyers will continue getting puppies from unethical sources because they think all breeders are equally unethical. Even if you agree with PETA's philosophy about dog ownership, transparent education is the starting point, not "adopt, don't shop".