Would you be equally as harsh to people who know they have a higher than average chance of producing offspring with genetic defects, but go ahead and have children? Do you think some higher authority, like the government, has the right to prevent them from reproducing?
First of all, this isn't a political issue, it is a moral one. And to answer your questions, yes I would. I have family members with bi-polar disorder who have chosen not to have children because the chance is one in four that their child will have it.
And bless you for providing a loving home and safe harbor for a dog that many, including his breeder, are unwilling to take on. Do you happen to know whether his breeder produces dogs to show, or is his breeder a puppy mill operator, or perhaps a backyard breeder who thinks that producing 'rare' white Shelties makes them more valuable on the open market. I would be very surprised to find puppies from a kennel like Shadow Hill foisted upon the rescue community.
I don't know where Cooper's life originated. But you would never be able to convince me that just because a "reputable breeder" bred the double merle that it would never end up in rescue. People take on things thinking they'll be able to handle it and then they cannot. A reputable breeder could easier place a dog with someone who eventually turns that dog over to rescue because they can't take care of them. You can't force someone to give the dog back to you and if you don't know they're doing it you can't stop them.
I absolutely agree, which is why I pointed out that an educated breeder who chooses to do merle to merle breeding to produce a stud or bitch that has great value to their breeding program also has to be prepared to deal with the results for the life of the dog(s) that may be produced.
Fine, I can accept that. Are you able to accept that others may have a differing opinion that they feel is equally valid?
