Dogs and dog feeding

[Adloud]

Disclaimer: I am a huge fan of dogs. I own a dog and would do anything for him. I'm biased on this topic but will try to stay open-minded. I know this topic was probably already discussed on this forum but maybe some kind souls will want to discuss it once more. I will discuss having a dog as a pet, not a working animal.

First of all, I understand vegans that say owning dogs is unethical (especially cats, but I'm focusing on dogs in this post), although I disagree. Owning a dog entices people to stay healthy, both in the physical and mental sense. It can help people be more empathetic and loving, find happiness and give a happy life to their dog. This relationship can be a mix between a friendship and a parent-child relationship. You might find this to be an irrational argument (it is) but I think the world would be a very sad place without dogs.

One thing that has been a concern to me lately is the question of how to feed your dog. I know dogs can theoretically be vegetarian or even vegan. There are, however, a few things to consider:
1. Dogs' anatomy and digestive system - I'm not a doctor but from what I read there is a difference in how dogs digest plants to how humans do it. If you know any studies that disprove that claim, I would be more than happy to know them.
2. It's very hard to meet dog's nutritional needs. When I first got my dog, I tried to feed him a mixed diet of kibble, wet food and homemade. Later I attended a lecture about dog's nutrition, where the presenting veterinary showed us how much it takes to balance dog's nutritional needs. Needless to say, I switched to high-quality kibble soon after. This brings us to number 3:
3. There's no affordable vegetarian or vegan balanced dry food for dogs where I live. And I definitely won't be attempting making my dog's food myself - the stakes are too high.
4. A dog won't tell you if he's feeling unwell - you can tell when a dog is in pain but the many symptoms of a bad diet may go unnoticed - I feel I can't let that happen.

To me the risk is just too big. I realize the harm it is causing, I think it's love over reason for me in this instance. But please do try to convince me.

I will maybe write later about dog breeding - for now I wanted to keep it fairly short.

[Lay Vegan]

Many vegans take no issue with pet ownership. Typically the schism between pro and anti-pet ownership stems from different approaches to ethics. Deontological vegans reject any and all forms of animal ownership regardless of context, but consequentialist vegans are concerned with whether the pet is well off and not harmed. For us, the general rule is to adopt pets from local shelters and have them spayed/neutered over purchasing them from pet stores.

There aren't any longitudinal studies or RCT's on vegan companion animals, but a growing body of evidence indicates that dogs who are fed a nutritionally complete and well balanced diet can be healthy. https://www.cliniciansbrief.com/article ... rian-diets . if you're considering doing so, I'd urge you to proceed carefully under the guidance of your vet to minimize potential health risks, and to select pet foods that meet AAFCO guidelines. You can read more about it here. https://vegan.org/vegetarian-dogs/

[Adloud]

I do agree with the "adopt, don't shop" movement and I think were I to choose again I would probably adopt. Anyhow, I think the two industries can co-exist. Adopting is a morally superior choice but we should not stigmatize responsible ownership. Most people don't think there's something wrong with wanting to have a biological child.

Buying a puppy from a good breeder does have its benefits:
1. You're supporting responsible breeding and assuming you chose a healthy breed, you contributed to spreading of good genes leading to healthier dogs in future generations.
2. You have more control over your pet's temperament, ie. choosing the breed and getting to know the parents.
3. While of course unnecessary to have a great relationship with your dog, being with them as a puppy is an amazing experience and can help first-time owners (eg. me) follow their development and understand them better.

For now, I think I will focus on myself in regard to fully transitioning to veganism. I will pay closer attention to what snacks I give my dog and opt for fish-based ones. I am waiting for a publication of a longitudinal study in anticipation.

[Lay Vegan]

I do agree with the "adopt, don't shop" movement and I think were I to choose again I would probably adopt. Anyhow, I think the two industries can co-exist. Adopting is a morally superior choice but we should not stigmatize responsible ownership. Most people don't think there's something wrong with wanting to have a biological child.

Again, the issue lies with how the pet was acquired. Rescuing a potentially carnivorous animal from death and sacrificing other animals to do it (feeding it non vegan) is one thing. Paying someone to create a carnivorous pet for you, where there was none before, no matter how much you love a particular breed, is not ethical because it creates a market that incentives animal neglect and abuse.

Buying a puppy from a good breeder does have its benefits:
1. You're supporting responsible breeding and assuming you chose a healthy breed, you contributed to spreading of good genes leading to healthier dogs in future generations.
2. You have more control over your pet's temperament, ie. choosing the breed and getting to know the parents.

Consumers typically look to purchase dogs from breeders because they’re told that the puppy has been raised ethically and will grow up to have a friendly disposition toward humans, but there’s no definitive rule that guarantees these animals won’t suffer from health or behavioral problems later on. The incidence of genetic disorders and heightened health issues due to their bodily frames and shapes is actually significantly greater in purebred dogs. https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.or ... s-the-data

You and your breeder may claim to love animals and even be well-intentioned, but continuously breeding animals for years to produce litters for profit jeopardizes animal welfare. Breeders exist first and foremost to make a profit. It also helps to contribute to the problem of pet overpopulation. Feral cats in particular are an issue that can disrupt native wildlife populations. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... t-problem/

The reality is that breeders have a business to run, and their commercial breeding facilities often prioritize profit over welfare by overcrowding animals into small kennels, breeding them continuously until they can no longer produce, and neglecting veterinary care (too costly).

I am waiting for a publication of a longitudinal study in anticipation.

Please read this thread.

viewtopic.php?t=3910

It's professional and veterinary consensus that dogs can do fine on properly balanced vegetarian diets, and there are even mainstream vegetarian dog food formulations (essentially vegan, I think, except the D3 which shouldn't be expected to be any different from lichen based D3 and really shouldn't be a big issue).
And many more formulation that are almost completely vegetarian (with only traces of highly processed animal products).

Animals who have to go on these diets due to allergies have no alternatives; they don't suffer from survivorship bias even if it were reasonable to believe that a tiny trace of animal products is meaningful.

The important thing is that the pet food is professionally certified, and there are no significantly greater portion of cases of problems with the food than with any other kibble. Ideally, if using foods newer on the market I might hedge my bets and feed a mix, not because vegan pet food is questionable in itself but because a new brand might be.

Asking for some long term study on dogs is disingenuous; we have plenty of existing cases of healthy long lived vegan fed dogs, and we're familiar with their nutritional needs and potential health issues from improperly fortified meat-containing diets which have long been mostly grain.

3.While of course unnecessary to have a great relationship with your dog, being with them as a puppy is an amazing experience and can help first-time owners (eg. me) follow their development and understand them better.

Is there evidence that store-bought pets develop stronger relationships with their owners that adopted ones? This seems like an appeal to emotion.

Purchasing pets from breeders doesn’t appear to have any real advantage over adopting. The main differences are an ethical matter.

[Adloud]

Again, the issue lies with how the pet was acquired. Rescuing a potentially carnivorous animal from death and sacrificing other animals to do it (feeding it non vegan) is one thing. Paying someone to create a carnivorous pet for you, where there was none before, no matter how much you love a particular breed, is not ethical because it creates a market that incentives animal neglect and abuse.

I agree completely - that is the main reason of my struggle right now.

Consumers typically look to purchase dogs from breeders because they’re told that the puppy has been raised ethically and will grow up to have a friendly disposition toward humans, but there’s no definitive rule that guarantees these animals won’t suffer from health or behavioral problems later on. The incidence of genetic disorders and heightened health issues due to their bodily frames and shapes is actually significantly greater in purebred dogs. https://www.instituteofcaninebiology.or ... s-the-data

Again, I agree with that. I think the looks-based approach is awful when it comes to pets. The main objective of breeders should be to make sure their dogs are the healthiest and happiest they can be.

You and your breeder may claim to love animals and even be well-intentioned, but continuously breeding animals for years to produce litters for profit jeopardizes animal welfare. Breeders exist first and foremost to make a profit. It also helps to contribute to the problem of pet overpopulation. Feral cats in particular are an issue that can disrupt native wildlife populations. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/anim ... t-problem/

It's very interesting you say that. I actually did notice some small things my breeder does that I didn't prioritize welfare over looks (minor things, like praising the dog with good looks but weak character over a less pretty but more intelligent dog). I think it might be inevitable, considering how expensive it is to run this business ethically (which she still does, by the way).

The reality is that breeders have a business to run, and their commercial breeding facilities often prioritize profit over welfare by overcrowding animals into small kennels, breeding them continuously until they can no longer produce, and neglecting veterinary care (too costly).

Of course, I'm not advocating for that. It's plain abuse, arguably the worst thing that can happen to a dog.

The important thing is that the pet food is professionally certified, and there are no significantly greater portion of cases of problems with the food than with any other kibble. Ideally, if using foods newer on the market I might hedge my bets and feed a mix, not because vegan pet food is questionable in itself but because a new brand might be.

Asking for some long term study on dogs is disingenuous; we have plenty of existing cases of healthy long lived vegan fed dogs, and we're familiar with their nutritional needs and potential health issues from improperly fortified meat-containing diets which have long been mostly grain.

I read the entire thread, it was very helpful, thank you. In this specific post, I disagree with two things, though. Firstly, many certified brands of kibble are bad for the dogs, I always judge the kibble based on its ingredient list, not the certifications, as I have noticed it to be very deceiving sometimes. Secondly, I don't see it as a convincing argument that there are lots of healthy vegan dogs.

Is there evidence that store-bought pets develop stronger relationships with their owners that adopted ones? This seems like an appeal to emotion.

Purchasing pets from breeders doesn’t appear to have any real advantage over adopting. The main differences are an ethical matter.

I did not mean that dogs from the breeder have a stronger relationship with their owner than adopted ones. I meant it might be easier to develop that bond. There aren't any studies on the subject as far as I'm concerned. I know I have been able to shape my dog's personality by encouraging certain behaviours when he was a puppy. I think you'd agree that adopting a dog from a shelter that has probably been through a lot is harder than buying one, with regard to forming a relationship. I don't think the relationship is of a worse kind, mind you.

With regards to breeding, I don't think it's an inherently evil practice. It is problematic, that I will agree with. I do regret not adopting from a shelter, though I love my dog to death and right now, of course, can't imagine living without him. As for dog food, I think after reading the thread you provided I am convinced it is safe to feed my dog a vegetarian diet. First things first, though. For now I will transition to veganism myself and slowly but surely try to replace my dog's food (starting with snacks, then kibble) for vegetarian, consulting my veterinarian on the matter first, of course. Thank you for your time, you did really help me clear things up a bit with regards to this topic.

[Lay Vegan]

I think it might be inevitable, considering how expensive it is to run this business ethically (which she still does, by the way).

It’s not only highly probable. Ethically it’s not a good wager to take when considering the scope and scale of potential outcomes. Companion animals can and do suffer serious health/behavioral problems as a result of neglect and lack of proper veterinary care at breeding facilities. Not necessarily because breeders are malicious animal-haters, but because proper veterinary may be too costly, for example. My question to you is why you believe there are potential benefits that offset the risk of those negative outcomes?

Why risk breeding animals who may later suffer from genetic and health defects when you can easily adopt an animal from a shelter whose fate is sealed?

Of course, I'm not advocating for that. It's plain abuse, arguably the worst thing that can happen to a dog.

Yet you seem to think pouring money into animal breeders is a good wager.

I disagree with two things, though. Firstly, many certified brands of kibble are bad for the dogs, I always judge the kibble based on its ingredient list, not the certifications, as I have noticed it to be very deceiving sometimes.

You don’t seem to know what AAFCO is. It doesn’t approve or “certify” pet foods because it isn’t really a federal regulatory agency. It’s basically a non-profit aiming to protect consumers through labeling and nutritional requirements for pet food brands. Their guidelines are based on the the maximum and/or minimum levels of the nutrients that are essential to a pet’s health. That’s all. It’s only determining whether pet foods are adequate for an animal’s health.

Anyway, it’s only a good place to start. But in your journey of being a pet owner, you may realize that not all foods that are “recommend” by AAFCO is the best option for your dog. When feeding your dog a strict vegetarian diet, purchasing only foods that meet AAFCO guidelines is a great place to start.

If you want the highest quality foods that go beyond providing "adequate" nutrition, then you need to work very closely with an experienced veterinarian to make well informed decisions in assessing pet foods.

Secondly, I don't see it as a convincing argument that there are lots of healthy vegan dogs.

You probably just haven’t bothered to look.

There are plenty of existing cases of healthy long lived vegetarian dogs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... s-06-00057

It is problematic, that I will agree with. I do regret not adopting from a shelter, though I love my dog to death and right now, of course, can't imagine living without him.

What’s done is done, and I’m happy to hear your dog is well off! I hope I've done a decent job explaining why you shouldn't purchase from breeders.

[brimstoneSalad]

Adopting is a morally superior choice but we should not stigmatize responsible ownership. Most people don't think there's something wrong with wanting to have a biological child.

Aside from the basic fact that a lot of biological children are ultimately "accidental" and the practical matter that adoption is more expensive than having a biological child (and emotionally more taxing because it can be reversed after you bonded), there's also a fundamental difference in the the environment of adoption for the children.
Not only are young children in much higher demand from infertile couples (changing the supply/demand relationship drastically vs. the situation with dogs) but children in orphanages aren't being euthanized if they're not adopted. Please think about how that might be relevant to the distinction and why the human vs. animal adoption analogy falls apart.

Change all of that to be the same with dogs and you'd start to have something that looks like a good analogy.

However, beyond those commonly understood factors there are also other very important differences, particularly for intelligent parents without severe genetic diseases. Traits like IQ are mostly heritable in humans and dogs, but in dogs it barely matters -- even if the bred dog were smarter it wouldn't have major implications. For humans who grow up and leave home, or are even expected to support their parents later in life, there are serious ramifications for IQ differences of 20-30 points.

For a dog you really just need one who is nice and won't bite you. No reason to think that an adopted dog is going to be fundamentally worse there. The stakes there are both much lower and the meaningful differences much smaller.

Considerations like that would only apply if for some reason you needed a working dog.

Buying a puppy from a good breeder does have its benefits:
1. You're supporting responsible breeding and assuming you chose a healthy breed, you contributed to spreading of good genes leading to healthier dogs in future generations.

This is not a good argument.
Dogs have plenty of genetic diversity, and unlike humans we can readily practice eugenics or even genetic engineering at any time to spread those genes far and wide at a moment's notice.

There's no reason to "support responsible breeding", all you're doing is taking a risk of doing harm (because you really don't know what that breeder is doing behind closed doors as much as you'd like to believe it's all good) and displacing a potential spot in your home for an adopted animal.

2. You have more control over your pet's temperament, ie. choosing the breed and getting to know the parents.

If you want control of temperament, then adopt a dog who you can GET TO KNOW personally and not have to rely on wild guesses based on the parents and the genetic lottery. It may be that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" but why trust the wind when you can literally see the result yourself? You can (and should) spend time with shelter animals before adopting them. It's far superior than a guess based on the probable personality of the breed and parents.

3. While of course unnecessary to have a great relationship with your dog, being with them as a puppy is an amazing experience and can help first-time owners (eg. me) follow their development and understand them better.

That's a very odd claim.
Puppies are cute and fun, and I think that's it. Not having experience with puppy behavior isn't going to handicap you in understanding adult dog behavior. Reading a book or watching some lectures on canine ethology will do you a lot more good than trying to intuit something from watching a puppy. Nobody really has the expertise to properly interpret those behaviors with a sample of one without some real background in the subject.

If you want to play with puppies, there are often puppies at shelters. You're not fundamentally going to miss out on an experience.
While most puppies are already spoken for, dogs who are available are often still very young.

These breeder defenses I expect are rooted more in emotion. You love your dog and had a good friendly experience with your breeder. You don't want to believe that was a fundamentally bad thing. That's very human.

The fact that breeding is wrong and purchasing from breeders is wrong shouldn't lessen your bond or relationship with your dog; good things can come from bad things too. And it shouldn't mean you need to condemn or hate the person who sold you your dog either. It was wrong, but it's likely something he or she can't or won't understand right now and in terms of evils in the world it's not like this person is a Nazi or something.
You can disagree with something and understand it's wrong while still being sympathetic for people's reasons for doing it, even if they're based in bad reasoning.

If some day all of the shelters are empty and people need dogs for emotional companionship maybe there will be an argument for starting some limited breeding programs; but that distant possible scenario doesn't in any way justify supporting or continuing contemporary breeding programs.

[brimstoneSalad]

2. It's very hard to meet dog's nutritional needs.[...]
3. There's no affordable vegetarian or vegan balanced dry food for dogs where I live. And I definitely won't be attempting making my dog's food myself - the stakes are too high.

If you can't afford something you can't afford something; nothing to be done about it. However, there are pretty affordable pre-made supplement mixes available to help you make a good dog food. Dogs aren't so difficult like cats; no risk of serious urinary blockages, for instance. The only significant risk would be in puppies of very large breeds (their hearts grow too fast).
So the stakes really aren't that high. Your dog isn't going to fall over dead from a sub-optimal diet even if that were the case.

4. A dog won't tell you if he's feeling unwell - you can tell when a dog is in pain but the many symptoms of a bad diet may go unnoticed - I feel I can't let that happen.

They would only go unnoticed if you are habitually neglecting your dog. If you're playing with and walking/running your dog, picking up his or her poop, etc. you'd notice any significant difference in energy levels pretty quickly, or diarrhea etc.

If you're working with your vet, you can also order basic blood work a couple times just to make sure. It doesn't need to be a long term thing, just as you transition the diet. So that's not a long-term ongoing expense.

1. Dogs' anatomy and digestive system - I'm not a doctor but from what I read there is a difference in how dogs digest plants to how humans do it. If you know any studies that disprove that claim, I would be more than happy to know them.

Dogs evolved with humans upon domestication and adapted to digesting starch rich diets.
If you have a wolf or wolf-dog, however, there may be some meaningful differences there. It's said that wolves do not do well on high carbohydrate diets to which they are not well adapted. Wolf-dogs are apparently mostly fine, but it is a genetic lottery so you might have missed out on the genes that let them deal well with carbs.

To me the risk is just too big. I realize the harm it is causing, I think it's love over reason for me in this instance. But please do try to convince me.

I think you are incorrect about the risk, but if you're not convinced then why not feed 95% vegan and throw in some mix of lower animals like worms, bugs, oysters, etc.? Or, frankly, even freegan meat table scraps scooped up at the mall. Just make the portion of the dog's diet that can be tolerably composed of people food freegan meat.

[Adloud]

It’s not only highly probable. Ethically it’s not a good wager to take when considering the scope and scale of potential outcomes. Companion animals can and do suffer serious health/behavioral problems as a result of neglect and lack of proper veterinary care at breeding facilities. Not necessarily because breeders are malicious animal-haters, but because proper veterinary may be too costly, for example. My question to you is why you believe there are potential benefits that offset the risk of those negative outcomes?
Why risk breeding animals who may later suffer from genetic and health defects when you can easily adopt an animal from a shelter whose fate is sealed?

In my case, it's simply not true. I saw my breeder's receipts for veterinary care, both for the mother and the puppies. Pregnant dogs always have at least one ultrasound, and when another dog had trouble with birth, my breeder paid for the veterinary to stay overnight and care for her. I won't be convinced that ALL breeders' practices are evil. I think that my breeder might be an exeption, however, as puppies were extraordinarily expensive (to cover all the costs of veterinary bills, care, toys, food, etc.).
I am strictly against industrializing any practices involving animals. Just as one could argue a century or two ago keeping backyard hens wasn't the biggest problem of the time, now the industry is a huge problem. It's the same with breeders, I think. For my own part, I think breed as a concept is wrong and we should go back to pre-XIX-century standards (going by type, function and health of a dog). To give you a perspective, my dog is of a working-class breed and I always prioritize health over anything else. That said, in my opinion, breeding is going in a very wrong direction, and could be beneficial (even when the shelters aren't empty) as small businesses, rather than facilities. It is, however, very hard to keep those high standards as a breeder due to high costs, so many "good" breeders quit or turn to wrong practices.

Yet you seem to think pouring money into animal breeders is a good wager.

I don't regret "pouring" money into making sure my dog will be well cared for in the first stages of his life. I don't regret supporting a breeder that I trust is good to her animals and always has their well-being in mind.

You don’t seem to know what AAFCO is. It doesn’t approve or “certify” pet foods because it isn’t really a federal regulatory agency. It’s basically a non-profit aiming to protect consumers through labeling and nutritional requirements for pet food brands. Their guidelines are based on the the maximum and/or minimum levels of the nutrients that are essential to a pet’s health. That’s all. It’s only determining whether pet foods are adequate for an animal’s health.

Anyway, it’s only a good place to start. But in your journey of being a pet owner, you may realize that not all foods that are “recommend” by AAFCO is the best option for your dog. When feeding your dog a strict vegetarian diet, purchasing only foods that meet AAFCO guidelines is a great place to start.

If you want the highest quality foods that go beyond providing "adequate" nutrition, then you need to work very closely with an experienced veterinarian to make well informed decisions in assessing pet foods.

I find this response a little bit rude, to be honest. First of all, I don't live in the US (AAFCO doesn't apply) and most of the pet food from the US isn't available in my country. Second of all, before getting my dog I made sure to find out about proper animal nutrition and contacted a veterinarian for information and consulted my dog's diet with them.

You probably just haven’t bothered to look.

There are plenty of existing cases of healthy long lived vegetarian dogs. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... s-06-00057

Again, that's unnecessarily rude. I don't care that there are cases of healthy vegan dogs, as long as I'm not sure MY dog will be healthy on a vegan diet. I am convinced otherwise, just not by these kinds of arguments.

What’s done is done, and I’m happy to hear your dog is well off! I hope I've done a decent job explaining why you shouldn't purchase from breeders.

Thank you very much! He's great. You are very helpful and I appreciate having someone so well-informed to talk about this topic with.

[Adloud]

Aside from the basic fact that a lot of biological children are ultimately "accidental" and the practical matter that adoption is more expensive than having a biological child (and emotionally more taxing because it can be reversed after you bonded), there's also a fundamental difference in the the environment of adoption for the children.
Not only are young children in much higher demand from infertile couples (changing the supply/demand relationship drastically vs. the situation with dogs) but children in orphanages aren't being euthanized if they're not adopted. Please think about how that might be relevant to the distinction and why the human vs. animal adoption analogy falls apart.

The analogy is far from perfect but I think my point still stands. Where I live dogs in shelters are euthanized only when they are dying and in great pain. When I learned that in the US dogs are euthanized I was surprised, to say the least. Maybe it's the case with funding, or with donations. I would argue that the potential of indirect harm caused by having a biological child/buying from a breeder, when having the resources, is similar to the children in orphanages and dogs in shelters. I'm not trying to shame either choice, to the contrary, I think shaming people for a not-inherently-bad choice is a bad idea in most instances. I wanted to add that my arguments might be weak in terms of not being objective, as I base them solely on my experience and limited knowledge, not extensive research.

However, beyond those commonly understood factors there are also other very important differences, particularly for intelligent parents without severe genetic diseases. Traits like IQ are mostly heritable in humans and dogs, but in dogs it barely matters -- even if the bred dog were smarter it wouldn't have major implications. For humans who grow up and leave home, or are even expected to support their parents later in life, there are serious ramifications for IQ differences of 20-30 points.

For a dog you really just need one who is nice and won't bite you. No reason to think that an adopted dog is going to be fundamentally worse there. The stakes there are both much lower and the meaningful differences much smaller.

Considerations like that would only apply if for some reason you needed a working dog.

I disagree entirely. Dog's intelligence is extremely important. Having a dog that is too intelligent might not be optimal for some people - for example, dogs that are independent thinkers and "strong" in terms of character (react less to stimuli) might not be ideal as family dogs when not properly trained. And Yorkshire Terriers might not be a great choice for an active person that wants to train their dog. The same applies to crossbreed dogs - temperament and intelligence should always be considered when getting a dog. That's one of the main reasons that pure-breed dogs end up in shelters!
When getting a dog I wanted a companion and a friend. I train with him in dog sport. He communicates extremely well with me, and he's of great support to me.

This is not a good argument.
Dogs have plenty of genetic diversity, and unlike humans we can readily practice eugenics or even genetic engineering at any time to spread those genes far and wide at a moment's notice.

It's an argument for breeding itself, not breeding over shelters, I should've made that clear.

There's no reason to "support responsible breeding", all you're doing is taking a risk of doing harm (because you really don't know what that breeder is doing behind closed doors as much as you'd like to believe it's all good) and displacing a potential spot in your home for an adopted animal.

The second part I agree with, and as I said earlier, I do regret it a bit. I don't regret having my boy, though, and I never will. The "behind closed doors" argument is valid in the case of unknown facilities dealing with animals. In my case, I would say the chance of there being any improper treatment of those animals is extremely low - believe me, I'm as certain as I could be in these circumstances. I know we can't be certain of anything - but we have to be able to judge values of things based on probability.

If you want control of temperament, then adopt a dog who you can GET TO KNOW personally and not have to rely on wild guesses based on the parents and the genetic lottery. It may be that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" but why trust the wind when you can literally see the result yourself? You can (and should) spend time with shelter animals before adopting them. It's far superior than a guess based on the probable personality of the breed and parents.

You do raise your puppy. You can influence his/her future temperament and personality, despite what inherent traits he/she might have. It's not a strong argument (again) in the breeder/shelter debacle but is true for the breeder's case.

That's a very odd claim.
Puppies are cute and fun, and I think that's it. Not having experience with puppy behavior isn't going to handicap you in understanding adult dog behavior. Reading a book or watching some lectures on canine ethology will do you a lot more good than trying to intuit something from watching a puppy. Nobody really has the expertise to properly interpret those behaviors with a sample of one without some real background in the subject.

If you want to play with puppies, there are often puppies at shelters. You're not fundamentally going to miss out on an experience.
While most puppies are already spoken for, dogs who are available are often still very young.

You make strange assumptions here. I don't think of puppies only as "cute and fun". It's a time in their life when they learn the most, socialize and learn about the world. Being a part of that process is amazing, despite all the inherent difficulties (similarly to having a child). I did educate myself thoroughly before getting a dog - enough to be able to interpret certain behaviours and shape them for his sake and mine. Puppies are great and all, but I really don't feel the need to play with them - you misinterpreted my argument completely.

These breeder defenses I expect are rooted more in emotion. You love your dog and had a good friendly experience with your breeder. You don't want to believe that was a fundamentally bad thing. That's very human.

The fact that breeding is wrong and purchasing from breeders is wrong shouldn't lessen your bond or relationship with your dog; good things can come from bad things too. And it shouldn't mean you need to condemn or hate the person who sold you your dog either. It was wrong, but it's likely something he or she can't or won't understand right now and in terms of evils in the world it's not like this person is a Nazi or something.
You can disagree with something and understand it's wrong while still being sympathetic for people's reasons for doing it, even if they're based in bad reasoning.

If some day all of the shelters are empty and people need dogs for emotional companionship maybe there will be an argument for starting some limited breeding programs; but that distant possible scenario doesn't in any way justify supporting or continuing contemporary breeding programs.

As I said in the disclaimer, I'm trying to get rid of the bias and being successful so far thanks to you. I'm against calling the purchase wrong. It was an action that didn't cause suffering - it also didn't save any dogs from it. Buying a dog can be a neutral action - that's what I'm advocating for. I don't think my breeder is a bad person in regards to her professional self. It's a gripe I have with veganism that bothers me a lot - do you assume that most of the modern world is evil/bad? Most people work for companies with some evil practices, most actions do not carry good - that does not mean they are evil. I cannot accept this grime of an outlook - more importantly, I can't judge people this way.