SQ
Senior Member - Vegan for the animals
and cats (especially), and rabbits, and guinea pigs, and ...
Breeders
- Thread starter Caeser
- Start date
Help Support The Rat Shack Forum:
and cats (especially), and rabbits, and guinea pigs, and ...
SterlingRats0408
Senior Member
Agree with what was said.
I don't support breeders of any kind, rat, dog, cat etc. Working in the pet industry I see all these "designer breeds"which is just stupid! Doodle isn't a breed, its a mutt! Don't get me wrong they are lovely animals (given the right care and attention) but its not a breed.
I rescued my dogs, cat and all my small animals from either rescues or dire circumstances.
People who breed 99% of the time just want to make a quick buck and don't care about bettering the species. Look at my dogs, puppymilled dogs supposed to be "rat terriers" there are characteristics of 4 "breeds" combined to get their look. And now I have two dogs that have chronic issues that I am paying for because someone made them, made their mother have litter after litter, just to make some money!
I'm ranting now but just making another example point of how "breeding" isn't creating any more healthy dogs then strays do on the streets. Around here there is a small island that dogs are constantly found running wild, pregnant and unkempt. We call them "Walpole specials" because there is no telling what breeds they are. Some lovely dogs have come from the rescues that pick these dogs up, they catch neuter/spay, and place the dogs for adoption. There is a chocolate lab breeder nearby and 9/10 of them are high strung, mental cases and I would guess 2-3 of them are returned or turned over to the SPCA due to their high needs.
I have one boy (rat) I'm very certain is an Atlantis rat. He is doing well but was extremely aggressive at first. He's not the nicest rat still but he's happy and behaves well when free ranging. Just cannot handle him long he will attempt a bite. He's rat friendly which is good, though selective of his cagemates. When out and about he plays with other rats outside his cage group but that also took time. He was very standoffish in the beginning.
My first two rats were retiree breeders. The male was so misused he didn't know how to be handled, snuggled, he showed signs of long term neglected medical needs including stroke, inner ear infections and URIs. He became so sweet. The female didn't know how to just be a rat, that she didn't need to seek out the male immediately and could just play and explore. She also came around and had two little companions to take care of and she immediately went into mommy mode with them. Proof they weren't seen as a pet, just a money machine.
I don't support breeders of any kind, rat, dog, cat etc. Working in the pet industry I see all these "designer breeds"which is just stupid! Doodle isn't a breed, its a mutt! Don't get me wrong they are lovely animals (given the right care and attention) but its not a breed.
I rescued my dogs, cat and all my small animals from either rescues or dire circumstances.
People who breed 99% of the time just want to make a quick buck and don't care about bettering the species. Look at my dogs, puppymilled dogs supposed to be "rat terriers" there are characteristics of 4 "breeds" combined to get their look. And now I have two dogs that have chronic issues that I am paying for because someone made them, made their mother have litter after litter, just to make some money!
I'm ranting now but just making another example point of how "breeding" isn't creating any more healthy dogs then strays do on the streets. Around here there is a small island that dogs are constantly found running wild, pregnant and unkempt. We call them "Walpole specials" because there is no telling what breeds they are. Some lovely dogs have come from the rescues that pick these dogs up, they catch neuter/spay, and place the dogs for adoption. There is a chocolate lab breeder nearby and 9/10 of them are high strung, mental cases and I would guess 2-3 of them are returned or turned over to the SPCA due to their high needs.
I have one boy (rat) I'm very certain is an Atlantis rat. He is doing well but was extremely aggressive at first. He's not the nicest rat still but he's happy and behaves well when free ranging. Just cannot handle him long he will attempt a bite. He's rat friendly which is good, though selective of his cagemates. When out and about he plays with other rats outside his cage group but that also took time. He was very standoffish in the beginning.
My first two rats were retiree breeders. The male was so misused he didn't know how to be handled, snuggled, he showed signs of long term neglected medical needs including stroke, inner ear infections and URIs. He became so sweet. The female didn't know how to just be a rat, that she didn't need to seek out the male immediately and could just play and explore. She also came around and had two little companions to take care of and she immediately went into mommy mode with them. Proof they weren't seen as a pet, just a money machine.
I've done a lot of thinking on this topic, as my previous boys were from a crappy Ontario breeder. I had hoped that by going to a breeder, the boys would be better socialized and more healthy, which would allow them to live a much higher quality of life than the boys before them, who didn't like to be handled and were ill with upper respiratory illness a lot (they were pet shop rats).
I have mixed opinions on breeding in general. One of the core issues I find with breeding is that there is far too much focus on appearance standards. At first, focusing on appearances seems relatively harmless, provided health and temperament are kept in mind. However, in order to produce the rare mutations that such appearance standards depend on, this by definition requires a very small genetic pool. This is why dogs bred primarily for appearances tend to have more health issues, or have them at a higher percentage (English bulldog, Dalmatian, pug, etc.), in comparison to most working lines or landraces (those that breed naturally, such as the Carolina dog).
Rat breeding usually goes the same way, and there are inherent problems with that because that's how biology works. Small genetic pool = limited diversity = unhealthy animals. If rats were bred with little or no focus on appearances, and only heavy focus on health, longevity, and temperament, you'd end up with a population that was better for everybody, including the rats.
In order to do that successfully, you need a lot of stock, and a lot of breeders who practice the same ethics and have the same focus. Ontario has never, and probably will never have that. I don't know anywhere that does. That's not how people breed dogs, cats, or any other animal that I am aware of, with the exception of working lines. If anything, laboratories do a better job of breeding for health than the majority of breeders, not to say that I condone animal testing.
Even if we lived in a world where that was the goal of most breeders, you'd still end up with a situation where there are accidental litters and horrible people who toss their animals outside, and thus there would still be over-saturation to some extent in most areas. They breed so easily and the result is an ethical decision on the part of a new pet owner. Is it more ethical to give a homeless rat a chance at life, or take in a rat who comes with a higher potential for a greater quality of life? Rats live such short lives, that this question makes a difference.
For me, I will always choose the latter. However, I don't think the first option is necessarily the wrong one. I think it depends on the person, the "rat market", and the availability of homes.
It is nice to read others' opinions and ideas about these things.
I have mixed opinions on breeding in general. One of the core issues I find with breeding is that there is far too much focus on appearance standards. At first, focusing on appearances seems relatively harmless, provided health and temperament are kept in mind. However, in order to produce the rare mutations that such appearance standards depend on, this by definition requires a very small genetic pool. This is why dogs bred primarily for appearances tend to have more health issues, or have them at a higher percentage (English bulldog, Dalmatian, pug, etc.), in comparison to most working lines or landraces (those that breed naturally, such as the Carolina dog).
Rat breeding usually goes the same way, and there are inherent problems with that because that's how biology works. Small genetic pool = limited diversity = unhealthy animals. If rats were bred with little or no focus on appearances, and only heavy focus on health, longevity, and temperament, you'd end up with a population that was better for everybody, including the rats.
In order to do that successfully, you need a lot of stock, and a lot of breeders who practice the same ethics and have the same focus. Ontario has never, and probably will never have that. I don't know anywhere that does. That's not how people breed dogs, cats, or any other animal that I am aware of, with the exception of working lines. If anything, laboratories do a better job of breeding for health than the majority of breeders, not to say that I condone animal testing.
Even if we lived in a world where that was the goal of most breeders, you'd still end up with a situation where there are accidental litters and horrible people who toss their animals outside, and thus there would still be over-saturation to some extent in most areas. They breed so easily and the result is an ethical decision on the part of a new pet owner. Is it more ethical to give a homeless rat a chance at life, or take in a rat who comes with a higher potential for a greater quality of life? Rats live such short lives, that this question makes a difference.
For me, I will always choose the latter. However, I don't think the first option is necessarily the wrong one. I think it depends on the person, the "rat market", and the availability of homes.
It is nice to read others' opinions and ideas about these things.
Last edited:
smilez_n_hugs
Senior Member
Ethical is not the correct word for that question. Ethically it is wrong to bring more animals into an already over populated market or support someone who does. For me there is no question it is the choice between saving countless lives by supporting a rescue or encouraging someone to add to the over population of a species for their own gain.
I hope that as you spend more time on this forum and see the heart breaking situations that our amazing rescues on here save rats from that you will change your mind. Just as you said choosing a breeder is a chance. Choosing a rescue will get you a wonderful pet and provide the rescue with space to rescue more animals in need 100% of the time.
I mis-typed when I said I'll choose the latter. I will always choose rescue rats, however I do not judge those who would choose the latter because they feel they are getting a pet who has a greater chance at a good, healthy, long life.
PlumpusMaximus
plump as a wump
I'm confused - honestly, please don't think I'm trolling here, I'd really like some insight -
If it's completely unethical to breed AT ALL... then are you* happy with the continued decline of pet rat genetics as a whole? Because it seems like that's what would happen, in real life or in a hypothetical scenario where breeders stopped existing. In real life, if you discourage any thoughtful breeding whatsoever, it'll be the truly crappy breeders who keep churning them out, and it'll be people like those on this forum eternally paying for their sins, in a twisted circle of life sort of thing. If everyone actually stopped breeding altogether, the only source of new baby rats would be "oops" litters, which as we all know are most frequently brother-sister or other close relation matings. Will THAT help solve the problems facing rats? Facing rescuers? Facing average pet owners?
I mean, sure, if there are no rats, there aren't any that need rescuing. Huzzah...? But that seems like it shouldn't be the goal, to me.
(*collective you, not aimed at anyone specific, as many seem to agree with this premise)
If it's completely unethical to breed AT ALL... then are you* happy with the continued decline of pet rat genetics as a whole? Because it seems like that's what would happen, in real life or in a hypothetical scenario where breeders stopped existing. In real life, if you discourage any thoughtful breeding whatsoever, it'll be the truly crappy breeders who keep churning them out, and it'll be people like those on this forum eternally paying for their sins, in a twisted circle of life sort of thing. If everyone actually stopped breeding altogether, the only source of new baby rats would be "oops" litters, which as we all know are most frequently brother-sister or other close relation matings. Will THAT help solve the problems facing rats? Facing rescuers? Facing average pet owners?
I mean, sure, if there are no rats, there aren't any that need rescuing. Huzzah...? But that seems like it shouldn't be the goal, to me.
(*collective you, not aimed at anyone specific, as many seem to agree with this premise)
smilez_n_hugs
Senior Member
I'm confused - honestly, please don't think I'm trolling here, I'd really like some insight -
If it's completely unethical to breed AT ALL... then are you* happy with the continued decline of pet rat genetics as a whole? Because it seems like that's what would happen, in real life or in a hypothetical scenario where breeders stopped existing. In real life, if you discourage any thoughtful breeding whatsoever, it'll be the truly crappy breeders who keep churning them out, and it'll be people like those on this forum eternally paying for their sins, in a twisted circle of life sort of thing. If everyone actually stopped breeding altogether, the only source of new baby rats would be "oops" litters, which as we all know are most frequently brother-sister or other close relation matings. Will THAT help solve the problems facing rats? Facing rescuers? Facing average pet owners?
I mean, sure, if there are no rats, there aren't any that need rescuing. Huzzah...? But that seems like it shouldn't be the goal, to me.
(*collective you, not aimed at anyone specific, as many seem to agree with this premise)
Sadly I don't think we will ever see the day where there are no animals in need of rescuing so I don't see any point in worrying about it.
With the amount of unwanted and abused animals in the world I personally am against breeding of any kind. I would give up ever having a pet of any kind again if it meant never having an animal suffer at the hands of a human. I'll admit it would be a very sad life but I would deal with it in order to end all the suffering.
The real question is why do humans like to play god? What gives us the right to keep and use animals for personal gain? Why do we think we have the ability to better a population? It takes years of schooling to understand genetics and we still don't know everything. So unless a breeder has years of schooling they can't be sure that they are actually bettering a species.
http://www.ratshackforum.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/
I don't view keeping companion animals as "using" them for personal gain. There is a mutual, symbiotic relationship there that is entirely natural and normal.
It is possible there is a middle ground. If the market became saturated with strong, healthy rats with positive behavior tendencies, even rats who were from rescue situations might be better off genetically at least. I would still prefer it if even backyard bred rats weren't so prone to respiratory disease, because that would give them a better shot at life.
I would say one of many problems with that "middle ground" is that you'd end up with a situation where some rats are viewed as "better" than others, and have even fewer people going the rescue route.
SQ
Senior Member - Vegan for the animals
I'm confused - honestly, please don't think I'm trolling here, I'd really like some insight -
If it's completely unethical to breed AT ALL... then are you* happy with the continued decline of pet rat genetics as a whole? Because it seems like that's what would happen, in real life or in a hypothetical scenario where breeders stopped existing. In real life, if you discourage any thoughtful breeding whatsoever, it'll be the truly crappy breeders who keep churning them out, and it'll be people like those on this forum eternally paying for their sins, in a twisted circle of life sort of thing. If everyone actually stopped breeding altogether, the only source of new baby rats would be "oops" litters, which as we all know are most frequently brother-sister or other close relation matings. Will THAT help solve the problems facing rats? Facing rescuers? Facing average pet owners?
I mean, sure, if there are no rats, there aren't any that need rescuing. Huzzah...? But that seems like it shouldn't be the goal, to me.
(*collective you, not aimed at anyone specific, as many seem to agree with this premise)
If there were any people actually breeding like that their rats would have fewer health issues and live much longer - they would live at least as long as rats lived not that many years ago, back when resources were not available to provide proper diets and vet care.
Back then rats lived 3 to 4 years or longer .... so if breeders were improving anything, then their rats would be living much longer than this
As for me, I will always prefer to save someone's life then encourage to support breeding more animals
jorats
Loving rats since 2002.
The amount of breeding that goes on with breeders who believe they are breeding for the betterment of the species...my god, rats should be living to 6 years by now and have no tumours but that simply isn't so. I have had pet store rats, breeder rats and rescue rats and they are all the same. Mine started to be healthier and live longer because I gave them the best foods and clean homes and lots of mental and physical stimulation... not because they were selectively bred. Mine are all rescues found in different situations, some born in rescue, some from breeders...
crumbilina
Well-Known Member
Personally, I believe that if someone breeds they should do so to improve the species and should ensure that none of their animals end up in the rescue world. I have nothing against breeders who study the genetics and follow the health of their lines. Usually these are the kind of breeders who only have a few litters of babies each year, and in the grand scheme of things, don't really contribute to the rescue pool.
I rescue rats, I have (with help) cleaned up people's breeding/"oopsie" messes, I have seen the horrors that can happen when breeding goes wrong.
That said, never would I ever say that all breeding is bad. I believe that CARELESS breeding is bad.
I rescue rats, I have (with help) cleaned up people's breeding/"oopsie" messes, I have seen the horrors that can happen when breeding goes wrong.
That said, never would I ever say that all breeding is bad. I believe that CARELESS breeding is bad.
I would agree that in today's state of affairs, breeding does not add value to a bad situation. However, I would also say that I have never met or heard of a breeder who bred any animal just for health or temperament, with the notable exception of certain working animals.
