April 29, 2026, 4:11 am | Read time: 8 minutes
“Adopt, don’t shop”–four words that have become as fundamental in the dog world as a constitutional law. Anyone who buys a dog instead of adopting must justify themselves. Conversely, those who adopt from abroad are almost automatically seen as morally superior. I think this slogan is well-intentioned. But well-intentioned is not always well-executed–and that’s exactly what dog trainer and PETBOOK author Katharina Marioth wants to say out loud. Because behind the appealing promise lie contradictions that we as dog lovers should no longer ignore.
What the Slogan Means–and What It Doesn’t
The idea is simple and fundamentally correct: Animal shelters are full, breeders make money, so it’s better to adopt than to buy. In Germany, this image is partly true. There are shelters looking for homes for dogs, and there are people who want a dog–and both could come together. So far, so good.
The problem begins when the slogan becomes an absolute. When every purchase from a breeder is universally condemned and every foreign adoption is seen as a heroic act. This simplified black-and-white thinking ignores what actually happens behind the scenes–on both sides. And it does something I find particularly dangerous: It replaces rational thinking with moral autopilot.
Romania: The Business of Suffering
A look at Romania makes it clear how complex the reality is. An estimated 600,000 stray dogs live there, many under catastrophic conditions. Since 2013, a law allows municipalities to euthanize captured dogs after 14 days if they are not adopted. What has become of this was recently documented by BILD based on a parliamentary report by Romanian MP Aurora Tasica Simu, which was also presented to the European Parliament: It describes massive abuses–corruption, lack of controls, false accounting, and a system where money is simply made from capturing and killing dogs.
According to the report, more than one billion euros in public funds–including hundreds of millions in EU subsidies, according to animal rights activists–have indirectly flowed into structures where stray dogs are killed. Between 2001 and 2025, around 2.76 million dogs were captured, about 1.285 million of them died, according to PETA. In the past three years alone, around 70,000 animals are said to have been euthanized–about half of them in just four private facilities. In one of them, the euthanasia rate was 81 percent, according to the Romanian veterinary office.
Images That Disturb
The images brought back by animal rights activists and influencers like Nathan Goldblat, Christian Wolf, and Jan Kraume from these facilities are hard to bear: freezers full of dead dogs, garbage bags with carcasses, animals pressed against walls with catch poles. Investigators found large amounts of antifreeze in a toilet–whether it was used for killing is currently under investigation. “The animals are often not fed and not given medical care,” says activist Nathan Goldblat, who helps on-site with the organization “VETO”.
The EU denies the allegations of direct co-financing. Animal rights activists do not accept this: While EU funds are officially provided for areas like waste management–this includes the so-called “stray dog management,” which involves capturing and disposing of stray animals. “The EU Commission must disclose where the funds actually go. As long as this is not traceable, there is reason to believe that the system is also supported by public funds,” says a VETO spokesperson. And the real point of this story? “If the same money had gone into widespread neutering, the problem would have been solved long ago–without a single dog having to die,” says Goldblat. This is not radical activism; it’s simple logic.
What Does This Have to Do with “Adopt, Don’t Shop”?
A lot. Because a significant portion of the dogs placed in Germany through animal welfare organizations come from these regions. This is not fundamentally wrong, and I say this without any reproach to the many dedicated organizations that are true lifesavers under the most difficult conditions. But it’s worth taking a closer look.
Because the demand from Western Europe for foreign dogs also has a downside: It creates a market. And where a market emerges, structures arise to serve it–not always with the welfare of the animals as the top priority.
There are reputable organizations that work transparently, provide veterinary care for dogs, honestly inform about backgrounds, and carefully vet potential adopters. And there are bad actors who transport dogs under questionable conditions, conceal pre-existing conditions, and primarily want to place them quickly. Recognizing the difference is not always easy–but it is crucial.
“I Rescued Him from Euthanasia”–and Other Phrases You Should Know
There are phrases that set off alarm bells for me as a trainer–not because they are always lies, but because they deliberately target emotions and short-circuit rational thinking. And they come from both sides.
In international animal rescue, it’s phrases like: “This dog only has hours left.” “He was abused and urgently needs a chance.” “If you don’t agree, someone else will.” The accompanying photo shows an emaciated dog behind bars, looking directly into the camera. The heart breaks. The commitment comes before a single critical question is asked. And four weeks later, a traumatized, behaviorally challenged dog stands in an apartment, unprepared for both the owner and the animal.
I do not doubt that the need is real. It is–the conditions in Romanian euthanasia stations are documented and shocking. But this genuine need is exploited by some intermediaries to force quick decisions. Time pressure, emotional language, dramatic images–these are classic sales mechanisms. That they are used in animal welfare does not make them any less effective. And no less problematic.
On the other side are breeders with their own repertoire: “This puppy is made for you.” “He has only ever turned to you from the start.” “We haven’t had a litter like this in years.” Along with a fluffy bundle in your arms, pressing against your chest–and reason quietly slips out the back door. Professional breeders know that the moment of first physical contact with a puppy has an enormous psychological impact. Some use this deliberately.
Why This Is Particularly Insidious
Both mechanisms are based on the same principle: When overwhelmed emotionally, people stop scrutinizing. And when they stop scrutinizing, they make decisions they later regret–and ultimately, the dog pays the price.
The counter-strategy is not heartlessness. It is preparation. Those who write down clear questions before the first contact–whether with a rescue profile or a breeder–and commit to asking them are much better protected. And those who respond to time pressure by explicitly taking more time are doing the right thing. Reputable organizations and breeders accept this. Those who don’t have already said everything.
And the Good Breeder? They Deserve Rehabilitation
At this point, I want to say something that hardly anyone dares to say in the current debate: A truly good breeder is an absolutely legitimate–and sometimes even better–choice. Not despite “Adopt, don’t shop,” but independently of it.
What makes a good breeder? They breed with the goal of producing healthy, well-tempered dogs. They know their breeding animals inside and out, conduct health checks, only give puppies away when they are ready, and ask the new owner more questions than vice versa. They have a genuine interest in where their dogs go–and they take a dog back if necessary. This breeder is not an animal abuser, not a profiteer, and not an opponent of animal welfare. They are someone who loves their breed and takes responsibility.
The opposite of this are puppy mills, dubious online sellers, and dealers who treat dogs like commodities. And here lies the real scandal–not with the responsible breeder who invests years of experience, passion, and significant financial resources into their breeding animals. Putting them in the same category as a puppy dealer is not only unfair, it is also factually incorrect.
Why a Rescue Dog Isn’t Always the Best Choice
How sustainable is it to bring in animals from abroad?
The Local Animal Shelter–Often Forgotten
Meanwhile, dogs are waiting in German animal shelters. Not puppies, not the Instagram-friendly mixed breeds with big eyes–but older dogs, dogs with history, dogs that might need a little more patience. These animals are adopted less often since many potential adopters are looking at foreign platforms. I don’t want to condemn this. Everyone has the right to choose the dog that suits them. But I think this aspect belongs in the honest debate–especially when “Adopt don’t shop” is shouted so loudly.
My Conclusion
Adopting is good. Buying from a reputable breeder is equally legitimate. What is neither good nor legitimate are simplified slogans that cover up real grievances and simultaneously lead to not critically questioning one’s own decision.
Those who truly want to do something for dogs take a close look–at the organization, the breeder, the transport, the papers, and themselves. They are not pressured into a decision by dramatic photos, expiration dates, or a puppy in their arms. And they ask themselves the question that is ultimately the only relevant one: Am I prepared for this dog–and is this dog truly well cared for with me?
The slogan alone does not answer this question. A cool head does.
About the Author
Katharina Marioth is the founder of the brand Stadthundetraining and the KEML principle. She is an IHK- and government-certified dog trainer and behavioral assessor for dangerous dogs in the state of Berlin. In her daily work, she collaborates closely with veterinarians, scientists, and other specialists on dog-related topics. With her knowledge and skills, she secured the title of Dog Trainer of the Year 2023 in the Sat.1 show “The Dog Trainer Champion.”