An equation --
If there is one spot open in a household to be filled with an animal -- a "pet" --, there are two possible outcomes: that space can be filled with an animal who is currently in existence, or that spot can be filled with a non-existent animal that will be brought into existence for the specific end of filling that spot.
Given that animals are currently in existence, the latter option, if selected, by bringing another being into existence, will necessarily end in a homeless animal. If the former option is selected, this outcome will not come to pass given that the non-existent animal isn't brought into existence in the first place.
Let's assume, then, that the breeders' claim that they "Do what they do for the sake of the breed." is true. Say an individual breeds poodles for profit. Given the realities of our society (just Google search "adopt poodles") there are literally thousands upon thousands of "pure bred" poodles, of all ages, currently in existence awaiting homes.
Back to our equation. Given this reality, for those who force female poodles to procreate for human profit, their efforts to bring these non-existent poodles into existence will necessarily force existing poodles out of these empty spots.
What does "...for the love of the breed" mean then? Do they love the individual living, feeling animals who make-up the breed itself, or some abstract concept -- "the poodle"?
If it is the former, it stands to reason that breeders, if they are to be consistent in their claims about "loving the breed," ought to spend their time securing homes for these thousands of existing poodles -- whom they love, of course --, and then, once all these animals have safe and secure lives, they can then move onto other ventures.
However, if it is the latter, and the individual poodles really aren't of any real concern to these breeders-for-profit, then the concept -- as we humans have defined it -- has all the importance. Therefore, correcting any "flaws," again, as we humans understand them, in the breed becomes the only end. Breeding, then, is the means to this end. But remember the equation: individual poodles will, necessarily -- it is unavoidable --, be forced into exile, suffering, and death. (Unless we can find a way to fund those many, many rescue organizations who step in to aid these homeless poodles -- whom are "loved" by breeders.)
I would label this a "paradox" because the premise -- "I don't force animals to have sex for my profit (alone), I do it because I love the breed itself." -- logically leads to a conclusion that would imply the wrongness of breeding itself. The premise, it would seem, implies the contradiction.
How can the breeder resolve to avoid this contradiction?
It can be argued that those who purchase animals from a breeder would not adopt or rescue a poodle anyways. Therefore, that "open spot" equation doesn't work because it wouldn't be filled by any animal besides the one purchased from a breeder. But that response doesn't really follow does it. Without the actions of a breeder -- thus bringing a non-existent poodle into this world --, this person who won't adopt or rescue would not really have an open spot at all. Therefore, in effect, an open spot is created because the breeder is there to accommodate. Now, this raises the "pre-existence problem" (which really isn't that big of a problem), however, it is a non-issue as far as this post is concerned.
Actually, however, the equation does change. Again! Given the realities of our society, we know that some poodles bred specifically for this segment of our population will either not be purchased and end up somewhere else (Perhaps a rescue org because of the actions of these breeders who "love" poodles?), or they will be purchased and discarded at some point throughout their lives. As such, the equation actually gets worse: more homeless poodles.
I cannot think of any other responses available besides honesty from the breeder: "I do it for the profit of the thing" -- or euphemistically, "It's tradition....."
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Spot on, Alex!
I appreciate the comment Kelly.
The claim by breeders that their customers wouldn't adopt rescue animals is suspect and insincere. First of all, breeders advertise -directly or through "pet stores" - to attract customers. Secondly, if all breeders redirected their potential customers to shelters and rescue groups, I have no doubt that many would adopt rescued animals and be quite happy with their new family members.
I think you are absolutely correct Gary. Anecdotally, I have evidence to this effect.
I think another end of this argument are the 'alterations' that are done to fit a breed, such as tail docking or ear cropping.
One of our dogs, Pete, looks like a tiny little Doberman. A woman informed me that his tail is supposed to be short, and his ears cropped. I think if he was meant to look that way, then he would have. Dobermans are 'supposed' to have docked tails because that's what we've decided they are supposed to look like. Maybe at one point, in working dogs, these sorts of things served a purpose, but they no longer do.
I've worked in a vet clinic where they do tail docking, and think that if people had to be present for these procedures, they wouldn't have them done anymore.
Thanks for the comment Caroline!
Bernard E. Rollin, an animal ethicist, tells a story very similar to yours in his book "Animal Rights & Human Morality."
As he was walking his rescued Great Dane's, a lady approached him and made the comment: "Why aren't their ears and tails docked?" Rollin responded (paraphrasing): "Because I don't see the point of needlessly mutilating an animal simply because humans have decided that they "look better" that way." This lady was apparently quite upset, arguing that "That's how they are supposed to look."
What strange logic right?