# Mandatory Spay & Neuter Laws



## Laurelin

Mandatory Spay and Neuter laws are a very controversial topic these days. Several states including California (Los Angeles), Colorado (Denver), Tennessee, and Massachusetts have been very active in the controversy. Several have even written bills requiring all canines be spayed or neutered. This thread covers LA's AB1634 bill. - Dave|Xoxide

Crossposted as mnay people here are interested in it:



> NEW: Mandatory pet spay, neuter bill advances
> By Steve Geissinger, MEDIANEWS SACRAMENTO BUREAU
> Article Launched: 04/24/2007 12:30:26 PM PDT
> 
> SACRAMENTO -- After a delay to fix what lawmakers called serious flaws, a somewhat less ambitious statewide plan to force household pets to be spayed and neutered easily cleared its first, key legislative hurdle today. The measure by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, was approved by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on a 7-2 vote, along party lines.
> 
> Levine backed off pushing for a vote on AB1634 two weeks ago at the request of the 10-member committee's chairman, Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park.
> 
> Levine vowed to accept amendments fixing mistakes, clarifying confusing provisions and addressing conflicting rules before an end-of-month deadline that would have killed the bill.
> 
> Concerns included no provisions for out-of-state visitors with unaltered pets, contradictory language regarding exemption of show dogs, and unclear exemptions for police and guide dogs.
> 
> Levine said the bill now "contains 20 common-sense exceptions" for a wide variety of pets, including even those that have won titles for contests ranging from obedience to herding.
> 
> The measure would force pet owners to spay or neuter the majority of cats and dogs by the time they're 4 months old.
> 
> Owners who fail to comply would be subject to a $500 fine if their pets are caught anywhere, ranging from the veterinarians' office, to a car, to the front yard.
> 
> Breeders' associations are among those who have opposed the bill, saying it places an unreasonable burden on them, in particular, as it relates to obtaining costly permits.
> 
> But representatives of the state Humane Association and similar groups support the bill, aimed at reducing euthanasia of what's been roughly estimated at a half-million feral and roaming animals annually in California.
> 
> The taxpayer cost is estimated at $250 million annually.
> 
> Levine said he looked at two programs run by Santa Cruz and Los Angeles in authoring his legislation.
> 
> Contact Steve Geissinger at [email protected] or (916) 447-9302.


Bad news guys.


----------



## iwantmypup

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Omg..wait that means that my dog is ilegal? Shes 5 mo and not spayed


----------



## Chloef_2799

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Thats not cool. Puppies should be six months to be spayed and neutered.....thats not safe at all.


----------



## sillylilykitty

*Re: AB1634 advances*

What do they want to do, put dogs on the list of endangered species?


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Bad news guys.


If this helps to reduce by well over 50% of the 800,000 dogs and cats in Californian shelters where most are killed, then some may see this as good news as it's finally a useful means to help remedy a big problem that's been going on for many years.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



iwantmypup said:


> Omg..wait that means that my dog is ilegal? Shes 5 mo and not spayed


It's a proposed new law going through various processes, so currently nobody would be fined for having a sexually entire dog over 4 months old.

If later it was to become law and if then you did want a sexually entire dog then simply apply for a permit to be exempt from the mandatory spay neuter law.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Chloef_2799 said:


> Thats not cool. Puppies should be six months to be spayed and neutered.....thats not safe at all.


I think that you may not have obtained a puppy or kitten from a shelter where for years heaps of young puppies and kittens have been desexed.

Early spay and neuter surgeries performed on cats and dogs before the age of sixteen weeks has been safely and effectively practiced in the United States for over 25 years. The nation’s highest esteemed veterinary medical health professionals all advocate early spay and neuter in cats and dogs to combat pet overpopulation. These animal health leaders include the American Veterinary Medical Association (“AVMA”), the California Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, HSUS, ASPCA, UC Davis Veterinary College and other respected veterinary colleges.
More information and references via this address:-
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/The%20Medical%20Truth%20about%20Early%20Spay%20and%20Neuter%20in%20Cats%20and%20Dogs.pdf
.


----------



## squirt1968

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I only have one comment:Government is too BIG


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



sillylilykitty said:


> What do they want to do, put dogs on the list of endangered species?


It will not put dogs on the list of endangered species. What's proposed in California is based on what happened in Santa Cruz County where there they introduced mandatory spay neutering in 1995, and in Santa Cruz County dogs certainly were not put on the list of endangered species. Maybe you should have a chat to some breeders and pet owners in Santa Cruz.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



squirt1968 said:


> I only have one comment:Government is too BIG


And they have a BIG PROBLEM to deal with in 800,000 dogs and cats in shelters where most will be killed as homes cannot be found. This sort of thing cannot go on year after year and it's about time it was addressed.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This sounds responsible where the American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs, and the below from this address:-
http://www.akc.org/vetoutreach/q&a.cfm

Spaying and Neutering?

The American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs as a responsible means to prevent an accidental breeding resulting in unwanted puppies. The American Kennel Club encourages breeders to discuss spaying and neutering options with puppy buyers who do not wish to participate in conformation events.

The AKC welcomes spayed and neutered dogs to participate in all phases of obedience, tracking, herding, lure coursing, earthdog, agility, Canine Good Citizenship Test and Junior Showmanship, as well as most field work. 
.


----------



## sillylilykitty

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> This sounds responsible where the American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs, and the below from this address:-
> http://www.akc.org/vetoutreach/q&a.cfm
> 
> Spaying and Neutering?
> 
> The American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs as a responsible means to prevent an accidental breeding resulting in unwanted puppies. The American Kennel Club encourages breeders to discuss spaying and neutering options with puppy buyers who do not wish to participate in conformation events.
> 
> The AKC welcomes spayed and neutered dogs to participate in all phases of obedience, tracking, herding, lure coursing, earthdog, agility, Canine Good Citizenship Test and Junior Showmanship, as well as most field work.
> .


If this bill passes it might come up and pass in other states as well. This bill would run Breeders out of their personal money (since they dont make much off the dogs/cats). The rules are too strict! I know in the cat show business, a kitten must be no younger than 4 months before it can attend a show! I heard a dog has to be at least 6 months! So in order for a cat to be in a show the breeding must be done on a schedule where the kitten turns 4 months and goes to a show that month which would be extremely hard to do.

Dont get me wrong, spaying and neutering should be done with all just pet dogs and cats.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



sillylilykitty said:


> If this bill passes it might come up and pass in other states as well. This bill would run Breeders out of their personal money (since they dont make much off the dogs/cats). The rules are too strict! I know in the cat show business,


If the Bill passes and in years to comes if it's proven to be effective in addressing problems as it did in Santa Cruz then probably yes in years to come it certainly might pass in to other states which have similar problems.

If the cat organizations are concerned with anything regarding AB1634 then by now they should have listed their grievances and offered their constructive suggestions in addressing the problems to those who are in the process of making this new law that could help in remedying the problems, the same applies with dogs. At this stage the new law process is pretty well advanced, but there is still time where some constructive amendments maybe added before it is too late. Keep in mind that once the proposed law goes through all the law making process and later becomes law, then it will be very difficult to change or make ammedments.

I don't know about cats as primarily I'm interested in dogs. The Bill will NOT run Dog Breeders out of their personal money. Simply all they have to do is pay for the exemption fee what I feel so far has been proposed at about $100, and when they sell say a litter of 5 pups they pass that on to the puppy purchasers and that would be about $20 per pup, so in effect this new proposed Bill costs Dog Breeder nothing $0.
.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> If this helps to reduce by well over 50% of the 800,000 dogs and cats in Californian shelters where most are killed, then some may see this as good news as it's finally a useful means to help remedy a big problem that's been going on for many years.
> .


People just don't like change even when it's for the better for dogs and cats.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> People just don't like change even when it's for the better for dogs and cats.


No, some people just don't like their rights being stripped away.


----------



## LeRoymydog

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> No, some people just don't like their rights being stripped away.



I agree... our rights. What's next?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

http://www.ab1634.com/Files/BILL_ANALYSIS_4-23-07.pdf

Yes, this is a great law. A law that's written such that industrial breeders are exempt? Does this make any sense to anyone. If the goal is to "reduce" s/n incidents, why aren't industrial breeders included in this bill? Do you know that a puppy mill is an industrial breeder. IF breeders are the problem (which I still believe we're wagging the dog with the tail), why aren't there stricter provisions for the worst offenders? IF euthanasia is so expensive to the state (yes, it's about cost, not lives), why not control owners. How is this law going to be enforced when local jurisdictions can't even enforce thier current licensing laws?


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Quincy, 
There are certain breeds that indeed 4 months is WAY too young. All the large and giant breeds mature much more slowly and early spay nueter puts the dogs at risk of complications such as spay incontenence. 

Also, this law is nearly unenforceable. The majority of people who wish to Back yard breed will simply NOT register their dogs. AC would have to prtty much go door to door to enforce this. Better laws need to be written with the involvement of responsible breeders to target Puppy Mills and BYB. Starting with a law that makes it illegal to sell dogsn and cats in Petstores and swap meets, but allows for 501c3 rescue adoptions in the stores and at adoption fairs. THAT would effect change.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

cshellenberger, the certain breeds you maybe refering to probably would have been present in Santa Cruz County, and all other things you mentioned probably would have also been present and had been thought about. Now think about was there any actual problems from early spay neutering and if there was I feel it would have been splattered everywhere in the media. Now think of the following and similar results maybe obtained throughout California if the Santa Cruz model was similarly applied. 

"Santa Cruz County implemented a mandatory spay and neuter law in 1995. Within two years, the county began to see a noticable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county’s human population, the number of animals entering Santa Cruz County shelters had been cut in half."








.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Personally I think the bill is a good thing, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. The whole purpose of the Bill is to help address this and it does as seen in the Santa Cruz model. Breeders can obtain exemptions and what it costs them they will pass on to puppy buyers, so it's the pet owners that this Bill really targets and it's the pet owners who create the massive demand for puppies. It certainly seems wrong for all of us responsible pet owners to have to pick up the slack and spay neuter, but that's just the way it is like it or not, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. Those who can offer a better solution then please contact those directly involved with the Bill.
.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> cshellenberger, the certain breeds you maybe refering to probably would have been present in Santa Cruz County, and all other things you mentioned probably would have also been present and had been thought about. Now think about was there any actual problems from early spay neutering and if there was I feel it would have been splattered everywhere in the media. Now think of the following and similar results maybe obtained throughout California if the Santa Cruz model was similarly applied.
> 
> "Santa Cruz County implemented a mandatory spay and neuter law in 1995. Within two years, the county began to see a noticable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county’s human population, the number of animals entering Santa Cruz County shelters had been cut in half."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


You keep showing that figure yet, you can't even read the numbers or labels on the axis on it. It could be saying anything. Who preformed the analysis? Where is the raw data? Did they do any tests of statistical significance on it? Show me the study, the data, analysis and tell me who funded and did the research. You can make numbers say basically whatever you want. And correlation does not equal causation anyways. What kind of statistics were done and was statistical significance even proven? Most 'statistics' you see online are horribly biased or not even relevant. 

I have also seen these stats relating to the same thing:



> Posts: 225
> Joined: 3/5/2007
> From: Florida
> Status: online
> Here are the statistics from Santa Cruz county from the last 4 years. They don't have anything on-line further back than that.
> Intake Euthanasia's Euthanasia Rate
> Year Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog
> 2006 2,924 2,101 1,666 486 71.85% 23.13%
> 2005 3,254 2,151 1,712 444 66.10% 20.64%
> 2004 2,165 1,503 1,051 257 69.42% 17.10%
> 2003 1,805 1,403 1,805 225 77.73% 16.04%


http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/files/CA_DHS_DogCat_Stats_summary_95-05.pdf

So until I see either way proven to me by a reliable source, I don't know who to believe.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> No, some people just don't like their rights being stripped away.


What rights are those, the right that irresponsible people have to not S/N a dog or cat so that one male and female dog living for about 7 years could potentially produce thousands and thousands of animals, the majority of which will wind up in shelters to be euthanized, which may be done by drugs, gassing , or electrocution?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> What rights are those, the right that irresponsible people have to not S/N a dog or cat so that one male and female dog living for about 7 years could potentially produce thousands and thousands of animals, the majority of which will wind up in shelters to be euthanized, which may be done by drugs, gassing , or electrocution?


No, the right that _responsible_ people have to decide when, where, and if *their own* dog should undergo an operation. 

You can have intact dogs for many reasons and they do not have pups if you are responsible. 

And i doubt one male and one female could produce thousands of dogs.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> So until I see either way proven to me by a reliable source, I don't know who to believe.


I'm not going to help you as you seem quite determined against what's happening. But I will say that not everything is on the internet and if you want that information then contact Santa Cruz County, ask nicely and someone there can direct you to a person who can provide you with what you seek. Alternatively, contact those directly involved with AB1634 and someone might provide what you seek. 
.


----------



## SFury

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> Personally I think the bill is a good thing, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. The whole purpose of the Bill is to help address this and it does as seen in the Santa Cruz model. Breeders can obtain exemptions and what it costs them they will pass on to puppy buyers, so it's the pet owners that this Bill really targets and it's the pet owners who create the massive demand for puppies. It certainly seems wrong for all of us responsible pet owners to have to pick up the slack and spay neuter, but that's just the way it is like it or not, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. Those who can offer a better solution then please contact those directly involved with the Bill.
> .


Wow. Talk about imposing stupid laws on law abiding citizens. This is the same type of legislation that they try to pass for gun control laws. The only people affected are those that follow the law.

BYBs and puppy mills will still be spitting out dogs. BYBs won't be registering their animals, and the mills will be exempt. Don't be naive to think that people who want an unaltered animal won't have one. This is the same problem with people who want drugs. They can easily get illegal drugs throughout most of America. Why not focus on that instead of an ineffective animal population bill?

They can't keep handguns away from criminals where strict gun bans are enforced. What makes you think that AC personnel can enforce this incredibly broad law?

There is also evidence out there supporting the fact that neutering large dogs too soon can cause problems. There needs to be a more defined neuter/spay policy that addresses the health concerns for those big dogs.

I agree that something needs to be done, but that bill goes too far. Find the root of the problem and fix it.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> No, the right that _responsible_ people have to decide when, where, and if *their own* dog should undergo an operation.
> 
> You can have intact dogs for many reasons and they do not have pups if you are responsible.
> 
> And i doubt one male and one female could produce thousands of dogs.


First of all, if everyone was "responsible" as you put it, we wouldn't need laws about anything. I meet so many people at the park that tell me that they are not S/N their animals for the dumbest reasons. Then you see people on the weekend with cardboard boxes, outside strip malls giving anyone and everyone taht wants one, a six week old pup, because they found out the hardway that their decision not to S/N wasn't too bright. Communities spend millions and millions of dollars to control unwanted animals. The people that have no sense of responsibility for S/N their pets, have to be forced by law to do it. Apparently, they are not smart enough to realize this on their own. 

As for the statistics about reproducing, this was from a Vet college and it simply takes the average number of pups a dog can have in each litter, times the number of litters they can have in a seven year period. Then if all these pups grow up to be adults and have their own litters, it works out to:

Dogs One male and One Female Times 7 years equals 50,000 dogs

Cats One male and One female times 7 years Equals 420,000 Cats. 

Now if you have the credentials to dispute this, I would be interested in hearing your statistics and how you derived them.......

Just a side note, It took me about 3 minutes to type this post. During that time in the US alone, 20 pets were killed in this country due to overpopulation. That is one every nine seconds.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

If anyone read the bill analysis I left in the previous post, there are some alarming points to understand.

For example, there's no provisions for rare breeds, or breeds that are not recognized by the AKC, yet recognized in other parts of the world or dog community.

The law does state that you have 75 days to comply after 4 months to not be fined. However, even for larger breeds like Danes, 6 months is still too early to spay.

The bill states that it's up to jurisdictions to fund education and outreach programs. This is silly! This should be the starting point and the priority.

Jurisdictions have the right to force breeders out of their community, regardless if a breeder meets all the demands of this law.

Jurisdictions can ban breeds. Those of you with powerful animals, you're next. You may have to move because of your dog.

Surprisingly, small communities can give away intact animals out of shelters. Where's the sense in that?

The analysis also listed many arguments for and against this bill, but I did not read a counter argument about how this bill will stop puppy mills. This needs to be addressed.

Of the organizations that registered support or opposition, 267 organizations resgistered support, where 339 registered opposition. The split was clearly defined by rescue versus club.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This bill does ABSOLUTELY nothing about mass production breeders! I'm sorry, but puppy mills are the major contributors to pet overpopulation. I refuse to spay/nueter a giant breed dog before 1 year due to the risks involved. Most Vets who specialize in these breeds will also refuse. 

Also, how is this law going to be enforced? Through licensing? Do you have any idea HOW many dogs are never licensed? I assure you there are not enough AC officers anywhere in CA to go door to door checking licensing. 

If the people who passed this really cared about controlling pet populations they'd have introduced legislation to make it illegal to sell dogs in a store or swap meet. Thereby eliminating one avenue for puppy mills and pet stores to sell thier pups. 

This is from the MCOA code of ethics, it would be excellent legislation to control pet populations and eliminate BYB and Puppy Mills. Keep in mind that this is the code of ethics for most breed clubs and responsible breeders follow this closely. 


I will not allow a bitch to be bred prior to her reaching twenty-two (22) months of age, nor shall any bitch be bred after her seventh (7) birthday. A bitch will not be bred more than once in any (12) month period unless she does not whelp a litter, the litter is stillborn, consists of a single (1) pup, or as part of a veterinarian's recommendation for treatment of pyometra. Any other reason would need to be stated in writing, along with a licensed veterinarian's certification of good health, to be received by the Recording Secretary at least fourteen (14) days prior to the breeding for the Board's approval.
I will sell a Mastiff only to a buyer whom I believe to be interested in the protection of the breed and who would agree in writing to provide the highest quality of care for said Mastiff, including quality food, water, proper shelter from heat or cold; active companionship, appropriate exercise, socialization and professional veterinary care whenever necessary.
An MCOA member will sell each Mastiff puppy/adult on a written contract signed by all parties. Said contract shall contain, but is not limited to the following provisions:
Complete care/feeding instructions.
A record of inoculations and worming with a recommended continuation schedule.
Provide the buyer with a five (5) generation pedigree on the litter.
Furnish a signed AKC registration or transfer form, unless written agreement is made with the buyer that such papers are withheld or are to follow.
A provision that ensures that the breeder is contacted whenever an owner can no longer keep a dog at anytime in the dog's life and that the breeder will take back that dog if asked to do so.
Stipulate that the buyer have a veterinary check-up within five (5) working days of the sale, (or whatever is applicable in your state of residence), to determine that the Mastiff is healthy. If the veterinarian determines that the Mastiff is not in good health, the breeder will, upon the Mastiffs return, refund the purchase price or replace the Mastiff.
I will not knowingly sell or provide a Mastiff for resale, gift or prize or to a broker/agent for resale. I will not engage in the brokering of puppies, (selling or buying), EXCEPT in a case that would prevent a potential rescue situation. ALL SUCH CASES MUST be documented by letter to the MCOA Recording Secretary.
I will not sell a puppy/adult who is sick, nor will I ship or deliver to the buyer a puppy less than eight (8) weeks of age.
I will show good sportsmanship at all times and in all matters relating to Mastiffs. I will maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity. I will not knowingly make a misstatement of fact in any serious discussion of my Mastiffs or the Mastiffs of any other Mastiff owner that I might have with persons not qualified to judge the facts for themselves. When advertising my Mastiffs in any media (magazines, internet websites, mail, email, etc.) I will not make false or misleading statements. I will only use a picture of another owner's Mastiff with the owner's express permission and I will clearly identify that Mastiff and the Mastiff's owner in the ad.
I will take back any Mastiff bred/sold by me who has been displaced. If I am unable to do so, I will assist MCOA Rescue or a regional Mastiff club rescue in the placement of said Mastiff. I will reimburse MCOA Rescue for all costs incurred not to exceed $300.00.
I will require the neutering/spaying of any puppy/adult I place or sell as pet quality as soon as the dog reaches the appropriate age. The MCOA recommends puppies deemed pet quality be placed with "Limited" Registration; puppies whose quality is questionable should be placed with "Limited" Registration which is reversible, if appropriate, when said puppy becomes more mature and a better determination of quality can be rendered; show/breeding quality puppies should be placed with either "Full" or "Limited" Registration.
I will not sell, nor use, a Mastiff for the purpose of attack training, fighting, or any other sport detrimental to the breed and its reputation.
I will not produce more than eight (8) litters in any twenty-four (24) month period per household nor will I permit my stud dog to be used in a program which would exceed eight (8) litters per twenty-four (24) month period per household. I will not purposely evade these guidelines by putting my dogs in the name of friends or other family members.
I will provide the highest quality care to all Mastiffs that I own, or that are in my possession, for as long as they are in my care including quality food, water, proper shelter from heat or cold; active companionship, appropriate exercise, socialization, and professional veterinary care whenever necessary. I will never abuse, nor knowingly allow abuse of these same Mastiffs.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



SFury said:


> There is also evidence out there supporting the fact that neutering large dogs too soon can cause problems. There needs to be a more defined neuter/spay policy that addresses the health concerns for those big dogs.


If that is so then I suggest you gather all that supporting information and immediately present it to those directly involved with this Bill, this so amendments maybe considered and made to the Bill before it becomes Law. Personally I feel that this should have been done ages ago by the Breed Clubs concerned.

Also I suggest you present that supporting information to the media particularly so during this time of the Bill as I feel the media would be interested, but keep in mind I feel that the media may also want to obtain a view regarding this from the veterinary association and veterinary specialists and in what they experienced in actual practice particularly where early spay neuter laws have already been applied.
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

How about controlling the real source of the problem, owners!

http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> This bill does ABSOLUTELY nothing about mass production breeders![/LIST]


The Bill targets pet owners (the demand) and they are the ones this spay neuter Bill really effects, and Breeders can obtain exemptions and also those who compete in showing can obtain exemptions including "working dogs". If you want this Bill or another Bill to target mass production breeders then submit your proposals, and you might consider a collective endevour via Breed Clubs or the AKC which may produce better proposals.

Keep in mind that this Bill is based on Santa Cruz, and which did not target mass production breeders, yet they obtained great results in what they wanted where there was a 63% decrease in dogs and cats in their pounds/shelters, as the numbers were reduced this then gave all those there a chance to find a new home.
.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> I'm not going to help you as you seem quite determined against what's happening. But I will say that not everything is on the internet and if you want that information then contact Santa Cruz County, ask nicely and someone there can direct you to a person who can provide you with what you seek. Alternatively, contact those directly involved with AB1634 and someone might provide what you seek.
> .


Interesting... All I'm asking for is the study you pulled your chart off of, the stats to go along with it and a larger version of it. I find it odd you keep presenting that and do not care to back up your claims with facts. I'm not claiming any statistics, just pointing out I saw other stats for the same thing also supposedly from Santa Cruz Cali and they are conflicting. neither seems to be cited, so what do I believe. Neither. If you have a real study, show me.

I'm also confused as to why you only seem to post on threads relating to AB 1634 and nothing else...

And fyi: I'm in NO means against spaying/neutering. Two of four of my dogs are fixed, and I do believe all purely pet dogs should be fixed.


----------



## sillylilykitty

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> And fyi: I'm in NO means against spaying/neutering. Two of four of my dogs are fixed, and I do believe all purely pet dogs should be fixed.


I agree, all purely pets should be spayed. I only wish the AKC had a different class for spayed/neutered dogs like CFA does. My cat is a spayed show cat and I love showing her. One day I want to show a purebred dog, only problem would be im not sure if I want a whole dog around. Not because I dont like whole dogs, but because I dont want any accidental puppies. Everyone makes mistakes.

I love cat/dog shows.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This is how mandatory s/n can actually cost municipalities more in the long run.

NAIA: A performance analysis of King County Animal Control Ordinance

Great idea, but it doesn't work in all cases...especially when the demand for good dogs is greater than the supply, or when owners are too lazy to educate themselves.


----------



## Quincy

Laurelin said:


> I'm not claiming any statistics, just pointing out I saw other stats for the same thing also supposedly from Santa Cruz Cali and they are conflicting. neither seems to be cited, so what do I believe. Neither.


Sounds like your starting to do a study, continue on and if the information you gather conflicts then I suggest you hand it over to those in direct opposition to the Bill. Also, where you see information mentioned in the media where it conflicts with what you have gathered then contact the media.
.



Curbside Prophet said:


> This is how mandatory s/n can actually cost municipalities more in the long run.
> 
> NAIA: A performance analysis of King County Animal Control Ordinance
> 
> Great idea, but it doesn't work in all cases...especially when the demand for good dogs is greater than the supply, or when owners are too lazy to educate themselves.


I read something that revenue generated by licensing went in to a "general fund", and instead of that money being used for spay neutering programs as intended actually most of it went in to an out-of-control spending spree on parks, playgrounds and social services. Maybe a lesson that money collected from licenses really should go in to it's own "special fund" so it cannot be used by others for other things.
.



sillylilykitty said:


> I only wish the AKC had a different class for spayed/neutered dogs like CFA does. My cat is a spayed show cat and I love showing her.


That might be achieved in the AKC, and maybe it's a matter of getting enough people together to work on a proposal and submit it then see what happens. Also there maybe people interested in showing their young puppies, say in a "baby puppy class" for ages 3 to 6 months old but maybe in this class they are not eligible for points to title, again as above maybe submitting a proposal is required.

It's good to look around to see what others have done and borrow from their experiences, say like in the CFA cat registry, and also include looking around the world. Say like over in Australia I see a "baby puppy class" and also "neuter classes for dogs and bitches", so if they have such things maybe that could be included in AKC shows and maybe it's a matter of submitting proposals, see a Part of the Regulations for Conformation Showing for Australia at this address:-
http://www.ankc.aust.com/regspart5.html
.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Quincy,
to put it quite simply you still haven't told me how this will be enforced. The result of this will simply be that people don't license their dogs to avoid spaying and Nuetering. Spay nueter education has been around for many years and done little good. We are not talking about responsible pet owners, responsible owners seldom give up their pets to shelters. We are talking about people who look at dogs and cats as disposible and will not put out the money to spay/nueter. They would rather allow animal services to take an animal rather than do what they should, then go out to the swap meet or pet store to buy another pet. 

One other thing I don't see is an exemption for dogs with certain medical conditions tht could make a spay/nueter dangerous or complicated. These conditions include von Willibrands and ectopic uterer as well as severe heart murmers. 

Honestly, this legislation does more to protect mass breeders while taking away the choices of responsible owners.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

cshellenberger, if you look at any Law you will find some people who don't abide by them, so yes you will find some people who don't license their dogs to avoid spaying and nuetering, but if they somehow do get caught then they could be made to pay dearly.
BUT, keep in mind situations like you described certainly would have been present in Santa Cruz County, yet even so they did achieve well over 50% less dogs and cats in shelters.
To me the Bill will help to address problems and I am not so concerned by some people who do not abide by Laws, besides as time passes the probability increases that sooner or later they will get caught.

As for certain medical conditions then simply apply for an intact permit, and from the Bill here is what needs to be done:-
"e) The owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal."

I'm not responding to your other comment as I've already posted elsewhere.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

cshellenberger, just to add in regards to those who do not abide to laws, well in time authorities just might look around America and in other countries for solutions to address those who do not abide to laws.

Here is something that works in catching those who do not license their dogs, and here they call licences local registrations, and if you don't have enough staff then simply hire a special private firm to do this, and what's collected in fines and increased licences/registrations pays for it plus there tends to be extra money suddenly available that could be put to good use. Who knows just maybe something like this just might be proposed if there was a need to do so. And the below from this address:-
http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au/Files/MR-PetRegistrationDoorKnock.pdf

Australia 
Mount Alexander Shire Council
Media Release
30 May 2006
Pet Registration Door Knock

Residents of the Mount Alexander Shire are reminder that Dog and Cat registration renewals were due on 10 April 2006. An audit of domestic Dogs and Cats is being undertaken by officers engaged by Bartels Taylor and Associates on behalf of the Council.

Doorknocks of households throughout the Shire will be conducted during the month of June 2006. Owners of dogs and cats are encouraged to register their pets before 1 July 2006.

It is an offence under the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 to not register your dog or cat. Failure to register your pet by 1 July 2006 will result in a $210 infringement being issued to the owner of the animal. Registration forms are available at Council offices.

For more information please contact Mount Alexander Shire Council, Local Laws on 54711700.
.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> cshellenberger, just to add in regards to those who do not abide to laws, well in time authorities just might look around America and in other countries for solutions to address those who do not abide to laws.
> 
> Here is something that works in catching those who do not license their dogs, and here they call licences local registrations, and if you don't have enough staff then simply hire a special private firm to do this, and what's collected in fines and increased licences/registrations pays for it plus there tends to be extra money suddenly available that could be put to good use. Who knows just maybe something like this just might be proposed if there was a need to do so. And the below from this address:-
> http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au/Files/MR-PetRegistrationDoorKnock.pdf
> 
> Australia
> Mount Alexander Shire Council
> Media Release
> 30 May 2006
> Pet Registration Door Knock
> 
> Residents of the Mount Alexander Shire are reminder that Dog and Cat registration renewals were due on 10 April 2006. An audit of domestic Dogs and Cats is being undertaken by officers engaged by Bartels Taylor and Associates on behalf of the Council.
> 
> Doorknocks of households throughout the Shire will be conducted during the month of June 2006. Owners of dogs and cats are encouraged to register their pets before 1 July 2006.
> 
> It is an offence under the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 to not register your dog or cat. Failure to register your pet by 1 July 2006 will result in a $210 infringement being issued to the owner of the animal. Registration forms are available at Council offices.
> 
> For more information please contact Mount Alexander Shire Council, Local Laws on 54711700.
> .



If you consider the millions of dollars that the taxpayers will save in caring for the pet overpopulation, they can certainly hire some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws. They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also.. It is so easy for the naysayers to say " Oh it can't work, so let's just do what we have been doing" and have animals killed by the thousands in Shelters.....


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also


So now veterinarians are being turned into the s/n police? Hopefully vets and their assorted associations will protest and/or refuse to be an enforcement arm of the government. If you support this bill, then YOU pay for the enforcement.

This law is wrong on so many levels, it's just sickening. Another example of good intentions implemented through bad legislation. If it passes, I'm sure it will be challenged in court. Thank doG we still have that little document called the United States Constitution which still protects <some> of our privacy and property rights from those who would wish to erode them...or just get rid of them all together.

...off to thank my lucky stars that I don't live in California.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Oh it can't work, so let's just do what we have been doing" and have animals killed by the thousands in Shelters.....


It's not about being a nay sayer Bob. Poorly written laws, and laws that don't reach the worst offenders should never be passed. This law isn't about animals being euthanized. It's about making money to offset costs for euthanizing dogs. If the money's there, the jusridiction won't have any complaints about euthanizing more dogs. But in the King County example I provided, clearly if it doesn't work the State will be in a larger debt than it is now...and we're not talking the few millions King County saw.

I also don't believe the nay sayers are saying no to reform...just better reform than this law. It does little to target the worst offenders, but the yay sayers tend to overlook that and think s/n is the solution regardless.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> So now veterinarians are being turned into the s/n police? Hopefully vets and their assorted associations will protest and/or refuse to be an enforcement arm of the government. If you support this bill, then YOU pay for the enforcement.
> 
> This law is wrong on so many levels, it's just sickening. Another example of good intentions implemented through bad legislation. If it passes, I'm sure it will be challenged in court. Thank doG we still have that little document called the United States Constitution which still protects <some> of our privacy and property rights from those who would wish to erode them...or just get rid of them all together.
> 
> ...off to thank my lucky stars that I don't live in California.


I am sure that vets are not happy with animals that are not S/N having to be destroyed every day, or being abandoned all of the country. I guess you didn't read my post carefully, so I will restate what I said. The government will save so much money that they are now having to spend because of urresponsible people that don't have their pets S/N, that they could afford to hire people to enforce this law, with no problem. Besides, I think the average person in this country is law abiding. They get Rabies shots for their pets, licenses, etc., so this is something that I feel most people would want to do, to help the overpopulation of pets.

As far as privacy and the constitution, with the Executive Branch of the Government that reads your emails, listens to your phone calls, and throws people in jail with no right to a trial, I think you are worried about the wrong thing.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> It's not about being a nay sayer Bob. Poorly written laws, and laws that don't reach the worst offenders should never be passed. This law isn't about animals being euthanized. It's about making money to offset costs for euthanizing dogs. If the money's there, the jusridiction won't have any complaints about euthanizing more dogs. But in the King County example I provided, clearly if it doesn't work the State will be in a larger debt than it is now...and we're not talking the few millions King County saw.
> 
> I also don't believe the nay sayers are saying no to reform...just better reform than this law. It does little to target the worst offenders, but the yay sayers tend to overlook that and think s/n is the solution regardless.


If this passes, there won't be as many dogs and cats that have to be killed by the government. ( I think killed is more realistic than euthanized, in many cases where gas and electrocution are still used. ) That is not rocket science. I think if this works in California, and other states find out about it and realize the money they can save, it will be adopted by more and more states in a few years.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That is not rocket science.


No, it's not, which makes me wonder how these law writers can be so misguided.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> The government will save so much money that they are now having to spend because of urresponsible people that don't have their pets S/N, that they could afford to hire people to enforce this law, with no problem. Besides, I think the average person in this country is law abiding. They get Rabies shots for their pets, licenses, etc., so this is something that I feel most people would want to do, to help the overpopulation of pets.


If "most people would want to do" this, they already WOULD be doing it (and ARE doing it). It's not about "this law" or nothing...It's that this law is not the solution. It's simply the easiest for the simple minded...er, I mean legislators.  

As for "saving money"...how much do various human welfare benefits cost taxpayers every year? Maybe California's next step is to legislate mandatory "spay/neuter" requirements for their human residents? After all, look how many human children are abused and abandoned every year...born to parents who can't provide health care or even food every day or a roof over their heads. Perhaps only those that registered themselves and were approved as "human breeders" would help prevent all that abuse, neglect and sadness....and save taxpayers a bundle at the same time!! No more welfare, reduced education costs...the money saving possiblities are amazing!


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Wow...a little too socialistic for my tastes. 

Punish all for the deeds of a few? 

I think that it will add a least $100 to the purchase of a well bred puppy for the potential pet buyers. 

Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> If "most people would want to do" this, they already WOULD be doing it (and ARE doing it). It's not about "this law" or nothing...It's that this law is not the solution. It's simply the easiest for the simple minded...er, I mean legislators.
> 
> As for "saving money"...how much do various human welfare benefits cost taxpayers every year? Maybe California's next step is to legislate mandatory "spay/neuter" requirements for their human residents? After all, look how many human children are abused and abandoned every year...born to parents who can't provide health care or even food every day or a roof over their heads. Perhaps only those that registered themselves and were approved as "human breeders" would help prevent all that abuse, neglect and sadness....and save taxpayers a bundle at the same time!! No more welfare, reduced education costs...the money saving possiblities are amazing!


Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Snowshoe said:


> Wow...a little too socialistic for my tastes.
> 
> Punish all for the deeds of a few?
> 
> I think that it will add a least $100 to the purchase of a well bred puppy for the potential pet buyers.
> 
> Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.


I think someone that can spend 1-2 thousand dollars for a dog, can afford another $100 , and if they can't, maybe they should adopt a dog.


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I think someone that can spend 1-2 thousand dollars for a dog, can afford another $100 , and if they can't, maybe they should adopt a dog.


Bob, calm down. Not everyone wants to adopt a dog from the pound. And, if a person can't afford to spend $1000 on a dog, then how will they pay for emergency vet visits? 

No one wants to have to plan for that stuff, but sh*t happens. You can't control life, and bad things happen to good dogs, etc. 

For example, if your dog gets hit by a car, it will cost just as much for the pound puppy to have surgery then it would for a show dog. So, I guess your argument makes no sense to me...

And, my POINT was that it hurts the people who actually care enough to do right by their breeds. The good are punished, and the bad won't listen or care about this stupid law anyway. 

I know how you feel about adoption, and I agree that something needs to be done about these poor animals. I volunteer in my local shelter when I can, so I KNOW how tough it is seeing them in cages waiting for their people to return to them. 

I just don't think this law is going to do anyone any good. Plus, I don't like big government, and that's exactly what this boils down to for me.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone


nope, i don't think it is....i agree w/ lovemygreys.....where does it end, this taking away the rights and freedoms of our people.....let's get real here, our freedom of speech has already been stepped on....sure you can say what you feel, but you better be d#@* careful that it has nothing to do w/ the president, the government, the "minorities", etc....or is said to the wrong person, by the "wrong" person.....because if it does you may just find yourself sitting in Leven (if it has to do w/ anything against the government) or slapped w/ a fine if it "steps on the toes" of the "minorities"....

so tell me, where will it end......if we, the people, don't start fighting back and standing up for our rights we'll be seeing the same trend in people....maybe not in our time, but what about our kids, etc.......this is just another stepping stone.....


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone


Really?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


_Pastor Martin Niemöller_ 


What will you do when the next bill infringes on a right that's important to YOU? I don't have any unaltered dogs...don't really plan to have any in the near future. If I ever do have an unaltered dog, I won't breed them. It's not what I'm "into"...but, I DO have a problem with government deciding what I can and can't do with my life, my property, etc....I'm a mature, responsible tax payer. I can make the appropriate medical decisions for MY dogs. So if a bill of this sort ever came to my state, you can bet your @$$ I'd be fighting against it. It's the principle of what they are doing that is offensive.

When will people learn that you can't legislate social change.


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> When will people learn that you can't legislate social change.


Well, that statement is true, and it's not true at the same time. 

Sometimes, the public doesn't always have good intentions. Segregation, for example. 

I digress, and for the most part I do agree with you. I don't think that this law is going to do what they think it will. 

The people who don't care and let their dogs breed willy-nilly will just ignore it. The people who care enough to get those stupid certifications will just be out of pocket. 

It's a silly law.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Snowshoe said:


> Well, that statement is true, and it's not true at the same time.
> 
> Sometimes, the public doesn't always have good intentions. Segregation, for example.
> 
> I digress, and for the most part I do agree with you. I don't think that this law is going to do what they think it will.
> 
> The people who don't care and let their dogs breed willy-nilly will just ignore it. The people who care enough to get those stupid certifications will just be out of pocket.
> 
> It's a silly law.


That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Honestly, this legislation does more to protect mass breeders while taking away the choices of responsible owners.


Exactly my problem with it, and I'm surprised how many peole can't see what this is really going to do.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.


no, see....the people that are getting all wound up about their right DO care about the rights of the dogs.....all dogs....and see that what will happen here is the ones that don't care will keep right on breeding the "crap" that cause alot of the problems to begin w/.....dogs w/ mental/physical/aggression problems being sold to people that don't give a rats arse about the dog to begin w/ and won't do the right things by it so they end up in the shelters w/ litters of pups to be euthanized.....i the people that care don't stand up for this than the ones that just throw out anything will be the undoing of the canine species.....b/c what we'll end up w/ is a whole mess of genetic problems

the ones that are getting "all wound up here" are the ones that care but know that this is not the answer to the problem......cracking down on the puppymills/BYB is what it is going to take to stop the death of millions of homeless pets......


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.


But it won't keep dogs from being killed. The way I see it and the way it is written will only change WHO is breeding the dogs and it is not for the better. Like everyone's said, the most logical first step to me is to target pet stores and make it illegal to sell dogs and cats there. Target the puppy mills, not people who have intact dogs. 

I'm not against it just because I have intact dogs, but it would make life a huge hassle for me. I just think it is a poorly written piece of.... legistlation... that will not have the 'desired' consequences. (And I don't think the desired consequences are to prevent unwanted litters, it's about money) It infringes on our property rights as well, and under law dogs are property. That's the only way we have any rights to or dogs- as our property. You take away your property rights and then what can they do to your dog? Think about that. 

You can find medical studies going either way to argue spaying and neutering is beneficial to health or to argue that it harms the dog. You can find all sorts of studies debating the age wen it is appropriate to s/n. Some people do this before the first heat, some after, some when the dog is fully mature. I would like to have the right to research all the known data and decide when and if this operation is going to happen for my dogs. Anaesthesia can also be very tough on certain breeds. It's not a light risk in some cases. 

I also don't like the idea that the government can tell me I HAVE to compete with my dog for so long to keep him intact. Many show dogs only show a few months of their life. Why should the government get to say that my retired dog has to go to shows if he wants to keep intact? He hasn't shown in months, and he probably won't be bred for a couple of years. (We're taking our time going about things in a responsible manner, getting health clearances, learning from mentors, etc, yet this law would punish us for waiting) Yeah, he's doing obedience, but still, it's my job to decide what titles and shows he goes into and when he stops competing. 

Very glad I don't live in California.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone


Why do you feel that's silly? Because it involves human reproduction? I honestly do feel that it could come to that as it has in China. The bigger and more involved with our lives government gets, the bigger and more involved it wants to be. There are better ways to control pet populations. 

1.The USDA needs to cut off funding (subsidsies) of Puppy Mills. 

2. Stopping the sale of dogs and cats in stores and swap meets, but allowing said stores to adopt out spayed neutered animals from rescues and animal shelters. 

3. Set up stricter rules, based on breed club code of ethics for those who do breed. Breeders who fail to comply face seizure of their animals and fines. 

It's much easier to regulate breeding and selling than it is to regulate pet owners.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Why do you feel that's silly? Because it involves human reproduction? I honestly do feel that it could come to that as it has in China. The bigger and more involved with our lives government gets, the bigger and more involved it wants to be. There are better ways to control pet populations.
> 
> 1.The USDA needs to cut off funding (subsidsies) of Puppy Mills.
> 
> 2. Stopping the sale of dogs and cats in stores and swap meets, but allowing said stores to adopt out spayed neutered animals from rescues and animal shelters.
> 
> 3. Set up stricter rules, based on breed club code of ethics for those who do breed. Breeders who fail to comply face seizure of their animals and fines.
> 
> It's much easier to regulate breeding and selling than it is to regulate pet owners.


the one thing on this that i would disagree w/ is in #3......set up the stricter rules, yes, but instead of seizure of the animals, just ban them and any offspring from registry.....if they seize them then they have to rehome them and we're back to square one......


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> If you consider the millions of dollars that the taxpayers will save in caring for the pet overpopulation, they can certainly hire some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws. They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also..


They just might consider hiring some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws, and who just may do Door Knock Checks. Who knows maybe someone just might propose this, and if not now as things are quite busy with this Bill then maybe in the future.

Door Knock Checks are another tool that can also help address problems, and using this tool there is absolutely no need for veterinarians to be "spay neuter police".

Door Knock Checks have been proven in many cases around the world to be very effective in checking to see if dogs are licensed, microchipped and even if spay neutered, and particularly effective when conducted at every residence in the community including even those on rural zoned properties. Other things could be included to be checked by Door Knocking Officials, and who just might even be empowered with search warrants under certain circumstances where Laws are being broken.

The American Kennel Club even does Door Knock Checks and which are orientated to help address their problems, such as mentioned here in this copy and paste:-

In 2006, the fourteen Executive Field Staff Inspectors conducted approximately 4800 inspections. The Field Staff's approach to inspections is to educate AKC customers to improve compliance. During inspections, the inspector assists the customer in understanding the rules and regulations regarding record keeping, identification and maintaining proper care of the dogs and kennel conditions. In addition, the inspectors collect DNA samples to verify the parentage of AKC registrable litters through the DNA Compliance Audit Program.

When major deficiencies are detected in record keeping, identification or dog or kennel conditions, the customer's AKC registration privileges are immediately stopped until the customer is re-inspected and determined to be in compliance. A $250.00 fee is required prior to re-inspection. Customers who fail to correct deficiencies and maintain compliance are subject to discipline ranging from letters of reprimand to 10-year suspensions coupled with $2,000 fines. Investigators also work with local authorities to assure proper care of dogs. Fines and suspensions are published monthly in the AKC Gazette and on the AKC Web site in the Board minutes. Any person convicted of animal cruelty involving dogs is suspended from all AKC privileges, and their name is also published in the Board minutes.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Snowshoe said:


> Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.


Contracts are meaningless to some smart people who intend to disappear, then later they could breed heaps of UNregistered dogs or "oodles of doodles". The only way to stop this from ever happening is to spay neuter before you hand over any dog.
.


----------



## sheltiemom

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Door to door checks? *shudder*


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



sheltiemom said:


> Door to door checks? *shudder*


Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> Contracts are meaningless to some smart people who intend to disappear, then later they could breed heaps of UNregistered dogs or "oodles of doodles". The only way to stop this from ever happening is to spay neuter before you hand over any dog.
> .


Not really. Have you ever purchased a dog with a contract? Heck, have you ever rescued a dog with a contract? I think you're making assumptions only for your favor instead of looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



sheltiemom said:


> Door to door checks? *shudder*


Ditto that!

A little too Big Brother for me.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> no, see....the people that are getting all wound up about their right DO care about the rights of the dogs.....all dogs....and see that what will happen here is the ones that don't care will keep right on breeding the "crap" that cause alot of the problems to begin w/.....dogs w/ mental/physical/aggression problems being sold to people that don't give a rats arse about the dog to begin w/ and won't do the right things by it so they end up in the shelters w/ litters of pups to be euthanized.....i the people that care don't stand up for this than the ones that just throw out anything will be the undoing of the canine species.....b/c what we'll end up w/ is a whole mess of genetic problems
> 
> the ones that are getting "all wound up here" are the ones that care but know that this is not the answer to the problem......cracking down on the puppymills/BYB is what it is going to take to stop the death of millions of homeless pets......



Experts in geneology state that the genetic problems are due to the inbreeding that happens with pedigreed dogs and that is why when you look at articles on pedigrees, there is always a list of common disorders for that breed, which is less likely to happen in a crossbreeds.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Experts in geneology state that the genetic problems are due to the inbreeding that happens with pedigreed dogs and that is why when you look at articles on pedigrees, there is always a list of common disorders for that breed, which is less likely to happen in a crossbreeds.


Genetic problems can be enhanced (where they crop up more often) due to inbreeding yes, they aren't caused by inbreeding. They can also be kept out of lines by inbreeding. All depends on who is doing the breeding and how knowledgeable they are.

But I'm really confused as to what that has to do with mandatory spay/neuter. 

The fact of the matter is this: The less reputable people breeding concerned with health and temperament and overall quality in dogs, the more problems that will arise.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> But I'm really confused as to what that has to do with mandatory spay/neuter.
> 
> The fact of the matter is this: The less reputable people breeding concerned with health and temperament and overall quality in dogs, the more problems that will arise.


You answered your own question. However, I'm afraid you're at risk for being called a snob. Not because you're wrong, but because these same expert geneologists would say the same thing as you, and the animal right people don't have any other argument than to call you a snob. 

Again, if you're going to consider the reasons why dogs are surrendered and euthanized, you can't claim dogs being surrendered to rescues, due to age or illness, as being part of the problem. That's a separate issue than the one being claimed by this law. Many of the dogs surrendered are adoptable and perfectly good dogs. But the owner for whatever lame reason decided to surrender the dog, when they shouldn't have owned the dog in the first place. Owners and poor breeders surrender dogs, not reputable breeders.

To include reputable breeders as being a part of the genetic problems facing dogs is to not know the problem.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> You answered your own question. However, I'm afraid you're at risk for being called a snob. Not because you're wrong, but because these same expert geneologists would say the same thing as you, and the animal right people don't have any other argument than to call you a snob.



Eh, I've been called a purebred snob on many a dog forum before. I just laugh in response.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Not really. Have you ever purchased a dog with a contract? Heck, have you ever rescued a dog with a contract? I think you're making assumptions only for your favor instead of looking at the bigger picture.


Yes I have purchased a dog with a contract.

I've answered a question now you answer this question:-
What would you do if you happened to find out a puppy you sold had not been spay neutered and there was a contract regarding this, and on checking their home address they no longer lived there and nobody knew where they had gone, now what are you going to do about enforceing your spay neuter contract and consider they may have used a false name and had false IDs.

Where do you think some backyard breeders and some puppy mills get their breeding stock from, and some would emply some smart ways to obtain what they want and where they couldn't care less if there were contracts as that was already considered in their plan, also their plan at the time included obtaining more breeding stock from other breeders. Also consider that most breeders if they happened to realise that they were in such a situation, most might not want others to know and where they might tend to keep it to themselves.
.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> They just might consider hiring some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws, and who just may do Door Knock Checks. Who knows maybe someone just might propose this, and if not now as things are quite busy with this Bill then maybe in the future.





> The American Kennel Club even does Door Knock Checks and which are orientated to help address their problems, such as mentioned here in this copy and paste:-


Quincy...the difference between the AKC doing door checks on breeders and the GOVERNMENT knocking on my door to take inventory of what I have in my house and whether or not everyone or everything has it's balls is that I can CHOOSE to belong to the AKC or not. If they show up at my door, I don't have to let them in. I may face repercussions per my agreement to be a part of their organization, but that's my CHOICE.

When the government comes banging on my door demanding entry to inventory my family and it's reproductive organs, I have some serious issues with that. EVERYONE should have some serious issues with that. Heck, I believe there may have even been a war fought over this sort of thing in this very country. The government wants to come into THIS house, they better have probable cause or a court ordered search warrant....and feeling up my pups should NOT constitute probable cause in any FREE country.


----------



## georgygirl

*Re: AB1634 advances*

According to this "law", I would have been fined just listening to my vet's advice. He wouldn't even *consider* neutering my dog until he was 6 months old. Boston Terrier's are known to have problems with anesthesia to begin with, so I wanted to be *sure* my dog wouldn't have any unnecessary problems during sugery. I know it's possible to neuter a dog early, but I don't think it was worth the risk to my dog when waiting a few months wouldn't hurt anything. Does that make me a bad owner? According to this bill it does.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> When the government comes banging on my door demanding entry to inventory my family and it's reproductive organs, I have some serious issues with that. EVERYONE should have some serious issues with that. Heck, I believe there may have even been a war fought over this sort of thing in this very country. The government wants to come into THIS house, they better have probable cause or a court ordered search warrant....and feeling up my pups should NOT constitute probable cause in any FREE country.


There are ways and means without even entering into people's homes. Say neighbours who maybe rather upset with roaming or barking dogs or the crying of male cats wanting to get at a female cat, and where they maybe prepared to sign documents or even appear in court where the matter maybe best dealt with in court and where a court summons might be issued.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



georgygirl said:


> According to this "law", I would have been fined just listening to my vet's advice. He wouldn't even *consider* neutering my dog until he was 6 months old. Boston Terrier's are known to have problems with anesthesia to begin with, so I wanted to be *sure* my dog wouldn't have any unnecessary problems during sugery. I know it's possible to neuter a dog early, but I don't think it was worth the risk to my dog when waiting a few months wouldn't hurt anything. Does that make me a bad owner? According to this bill it does.


If there are any medical reasons as to why a dog should not be spay neutered according to this Bill, for an exemption simply provide a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating the reasons.
.


----------



## georgygirl

*Re: AB1634 advances*

but there weren't any specific health reasons. My vet didn't feel comfortable doing the surgery early, and neither did I. The possibility of complications was lessened by waiting a couple months. Is that enough of a reason for the almighty powers that be who apparently want to control my right to make choices on behalf of my dog's health? In fact, most vets that I've talked to aren't comfortable speutering a dog that early.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



georgygirl said:


> but there weren't any specific health reasons. My vet didn't feel comfortable doing the surgery early, and neither did I. The possibility of complications was lessened by waiting a couple months. Is that enough of a reason for the almighty powers that be who apparently want to control my right to make choices on behalf of my dog's health? In fact, most vets that I've talked to aren't comfortable speutering a dog that early.


You mentioned that your dog is "known to have problems with anesthesia" and "possibility of complications", they are both medical reasons. And as I mentioned before, for an exemption to this Californian Bill simply obtain something to that effect in a letter from a California licensed veterinarian.
.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.
> .


 
Sorry, but next is illegal searches and door knocks to see if you own guns, have your kids in school, Communism and dictatorship at it's finest. It's not the role of law enforcment in this country to go door to door to enforce laws. What you are supporting amounts to illegal search and seizure. Obviously that's what you support, I won't let it happen in this country. I think this is one time the ACLU may come in handy, though I personally despise them.


----------



## georgygirl

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Boston Terriers in general are known to have complications with anesthesia as I assume most short muzzled breeds do. I guess I don't understand why they chose 4 months. Most vets I've been to would only neuter at six months. I can understand the pediatric spay/neuter for shelter animals, but I should have the freedom of chosing when I put my dog under for surgery, which always has its risks.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> There are ways and means without even entering into people's homes. Say neighbours who maybe rather upset with roaming or barking dogs or the crying of male cats wanting to get at a female cat, and where they maybe prepared to sign documents or even appear in court where the matter maybe best dealt with in court and where a court summons might be issued.
> .


Owning animals who are creating a public disturbance or other hazards by running at large (both things that are already prohibited by existing noise and leash laws in many/most jurisdictions) are completely different scenarios than someone knocking on my door to make sure my animals are altered. If you can't see that difference then I don't know what to tell you. I know many, many, many unaltered dogs who live in peaceful co-existance with neighbors and never contribute to the shelter or abandoned dog population.

In fact, I'd say there's a bigger problem in our area with ALTERED dogs running wild and barking at all hours. Would you advocate requiring all owners to debark their dogs "for the greater good?"


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Next the government wil tell us we aren't allowed to make medical decisions for our children


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, *and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.*


Oh wait...let me imagine that for a second.......oh, I imagine my response would be "Get the h*ll off my PRIVATE property."


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

That would be MY response!


----------



## Amaya-Mazie-Marley

*Re: AB1634 advances*

My response exactly. The vet my mom works for as a tech, and where all my animals go, go by age and also by weight. They won't spay or nueter under a certain age or weight.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> Quincy...the difference between the AKC doing door checks on breeders and the GOVERNMENT knocking on my door to take inventory of what I have in my house and whether or not everyone or everything has it's balls is that I can CHOOSE to belong to the AKC or not. If they show up at my door, I don't have to let them in. I may face repercussions per my agreement to be a part of their organization, but that's my CHOICE.
> 
> When the government comes banging on my door demanding entry to inventory my family and it's reproductive organs, I have some serious issues with that. EVERYONE should have some serious issues with that. Heck, I believe there may have even been a war fought over this sort of thing in this very country. The government wants to come into THIS house, they better have probable cause or a court ordered search warrant....and feeling up my pups should NOT constitute probable cause in any FREE country.


Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> Yes I have purchased a dog with a contract.


And did you ever think to break the contract? Were you appreciative or turned off that you had a contract?



> I've answered a question now you answer this question:-
> What would you do if you happened to find out a puppy you sold had not been spay neutered and there was a contract regarding this, and on checking their home address they no longer lived there and nobody knew where they had gone, now what are you going to do about enforceing your spay neuter contract and consider they may have used a false name and had false IDs.


The first thing I would do is call my microchip company. And if this dog should turn up at a vet or shelter, guess what? I'm one step closer to catching that loser. At best your example is anecdotal, and would not be prevented by this law. Law breakers are law breakers, and this is a weak example to prove mandatory s/n is necessary.



> Where do you think some backyard breeders and some puppy mills get their breeding stock from.


Hmmm, let me see... Pay $1200 for a breeding stock dog, or buy a pup from a broker in Missouri for $100. Since the motive is profit, they get their dogs from states that treat pets as livestock.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...


In short, the AKC listened to their constituents and decided not to go forward with the contract. I hope the same happens with this silly bill.

AKC's David Roberts Response Regarding Its' Petland Contract and Ron Menaker, Dennis Sprung, and the Board Come to a Conclusi...


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> In short, the AKC listened to their constituents and decided not to go forward with the contract. I hope the same happens with this silly bill.
> 
> AKC's David Roberts Response Regarding Its' Petland Contract and Ron Menaker, Dennis Sprung, and the Board Come to a Conclusi...


This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.


----------



## cshellenberger

Captbob said:


> Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...


Yes, and the Breed Clubs, rescues and membership banded together and got them to retract the Petland contract. The AKC realized that if they got the membership mad enough they could be hurt by such a contract.



Captbob said:


> This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.


Petitions are already being drawn up to bring this to a vote by the PEOPLE of California. As with other unpopular legislation, the people will have their say and it will be repealed if signed into law.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.


If this is true, I feel sorry for the taxpayers, and they'll not have my vote.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...


What does that have to do with anything in this thread? The AKC is a private organization and can do whatever they choose. 



Captbob said:


> This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.


And laws are overturned all the time by the courts.


This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group. First you alter all the dogs and then they get their "one generation and out" dream come true. They count on non-thinking sheeple to take the easiest way out and support crap legislation.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> Oh wait...let me imagine that for a second.......oh, I imagine my response would be "Get the h*ll off my PRIVATE property."


In years to come you might have to actually say that if this Bill does not go through and if the problems still exist, for then I feel alternative proposals will be pushed for and where door knocks maybe included. Many people are starting to get really fed up with the quantity of dogs and cats in pounds/shelters and the killings of so many and this going on for years, something needs to be done soon be it this or that.
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group.


I've been trying to deny this in my head, and I'm reading this too. However, I'm also starting to sense by what I've read from the defense, that if this law is passed, it will be used as a stepping stone for jurisdictions to set up breed bans...I see this laced within thie law as it is currently written. I'm sure it will start out with pits, and will probably end with all black dogs. Let me clarify this by saying this isn't a racial comment. Black dogs are hard to adopt out of some shelters, so why not ban black dogs too since they can also have an image problem? Imagine if this law passed and spread accross the country. It sounds rediculous until you actually read the law.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> something needs to be done soon be it this or that.


Yes, education, low cost spay/neuter, and law binding contracts.


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group. First you alter all the dogs and then they get their "one generation and out" dream come true. They count on non-thinking sheeple to take the easiest way out and support crap legislation.


That really struck me as being on the right idea, ilmgs...

It would not surprise me. PETA has some friends in high places *excuse the song*

Captn- if all dogs were spayed and neutered, we'd not have pets any more. That's what PETA wants. It sounds like its also where your arguments dead end. 

Good, responsible breeding would ensure that there were no dogs in pounds. Any good breeder would A) keep tabs on all puppies and B) make sure that none of their lines ended up in a pound. 

If you can't see the different between someone who pays thousands of dollars out of pocket to produce an excellent quality litter contrasted with a money grubbing puppy mill, then you need to reconsider your thought process. 

Breeding dogs isn't evil. Puppymills are.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

DogGoneCalifornia


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

As someone famous once stated, "It ain't over til it's over!"

Concerned pet owners, breeders, show enthusiasts from all avenues....WAKE UP! THIS IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTS DRIVEN LAW! This law is part of making their ultimate dream come true: "NO ANIMAL OWNERSHIP BY HUMANS!" 

They have been planning their war for the past 20+ years, yet WE have ignored them. They weaved their way into Washington, into towns(Denver, Louisville, Albequerque, etc...) now statewide! Unfortunately for us, the lawmakers are all too eager to listen! 

It will be a cold day in h*ll before I allow the government (and that includes police and animal control) to harass me, or to search my property .......THERE ARE THREE WORDS EVERY DOG OWNER AND CAT OWNER NEEDS TO REMEMBER: "GET A WARRANT!"

Quincy, I don't know where you are from, but here in the United States, it is ILLEGAL for the government (IN ANY FORM), to search, or seize, without a WARRANT TO DO SO!

Please, those that are interested in helping to fight this AR driven law, read the following. It doesn't matter where you live, another state, country, etc...PLEASE WRITE THE POWERS THAT BE IN CALI! For those that don't know, Jackie Hungerland is a respected AKC judge and has many, many years experience in dogs.
Forwarded w/permission:
******************************************************
from Jacklyn Hungerland: 

Feeling the need to face this serious threat to us, some of us have formed a PAC with two divisions: North and South. I will be the contact point/President of the Northern division and will focus on getting grass roots support. Our observations as we visited legislators today was that stacks of letters are there and are making an impression. So the old saying "Keep those cards and letters coming in" still holds.
Please advise people that the web site should be up tomorrow or next day. Please visit CDOCalifornia. org. (That is Concerned Dog Owners of California.) Contributions to the effort can be made through Pay Pal. Our first order of business is to get AB1634 defeated, then hire a lobbyist, then educate, educate, educate. To pull this off we need ALL parties to step up to the plate.
There were actually 350-400 people there from all over California this morning: breeders, judges, Jack Bradshaw, photographers, current and former AKC reps, service and guide dog people, several handlers, kennel club reps and on and on. It was very gratifying but we need continued support and with your help we'll get this done!
********************************************************


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*

The Sky is falling again, The sky is falling again


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> DogGoneCalifornia


I'm very pleased to see some attorney's on their "who we are" page  Great site, thanks for posting!

"Animal rights" whackos will never stop trying to shove their agenda down people's throats. And that includes ending pet ownership. This is simply a foot in the door technique that will, hopefully, fail.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*

first, something just occured to me in reading alot of these post (again), and that is....if they are talking a $500 fine for you animal not being s/n by 4 mo and you get caught, and there's the possibility of "door to door checks" and them fining the people, isn't that going to open up a whole new slew of things?....i can see it now....pet owner has 3 dog and 4 cats and the animal police come and say that they now have a $3500 fine for their animals be unaltered....so, what do you think will happen in alot of cases? "Well, here...have the damn animals and you deal w/ the spaying/neutering." so, where do these animals end up? ....hmmmm...let's think for a minute....shelters, rescues, or PTS.....i don't think that this will end the problem, b/c i can see alot of people doing this just to fight back....they can always go get another animal from another "licensed puppy maker" (aka, puppymill)......


and, second, i just want to comment on this....



> Quincy, I don't know where you are from, but here in the United States, it is ILLEGAL for the government (IN ANY FORM), to search, or seize, without a WARRANT TO DO SO!


don't be so sure about this....it has been put into "law" that if the government has any reason to think that someone is a terrorist or has commited some form of treason (in their eyes), they have the right to come in and search your house, take you computer for checks, etc., etc., and there isn't squat you can do about it (this i was told by a friend in the legal field).....so what's to stop them from taking it to the next level.....


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> don't be so sure about this....it has been put into "law" that if the government has any reason to think that someone is a terrorist or has commited some form of treason (in their eyes), they have the right to come in and search your house, take you computer for checks, etc., etc., and there isn't squat you can do about it (this i was told by a friend in the legal field).....so what's to stop them from taking it to the next level.....


Well...that's not exactly accurate. FBI/police still need a warrant from a judge in a special court. From the Patriot Act:
An investigation can "not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." And every 6 months the attorney general has to report to Congress how many warrants have been requested and granted....The "sneak and peak" searches still require a FISC warrant and still require notification of the search, but that notification can be delayed (as has been done in the case of wire taps for many, many years). Delayed notification must be authorized by the judge and can be granted in certain conditions exist:
endangering the life or physical safety of an individual; 
flight from prosecution; 
destruction of or tampering with evidence; 
intimidation of potential witnesses; or 
otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

The Patriot Act has not turned out to be the anti-Bill of Rights it was originally made out to be. Am I suspicious of it, yep. I say it's dancing on a very fine line...


.....now, back the regularly scheduled topic: AB1634


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> I'm very pleased to see some attorney's on their "who we are" page  Great site, thanks for posting!
> 
> "Animal rights" whackos will never stop trying to shove their agenda down people's throats. And that includes ending pet ownership. This is simply a foot in the door technique that will, hopefully, fail.


I suppose you think that a bill banning dog fighting in Georgia is also being done by animal rights whackos?

Or how about the ASPCA Whackos breaking up this dog fighthing ring http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServe...042707&JServSessionIdr007=2fv0syy5t7.app26b#1

I suppose you think that these dog fighting people are being unfairly picked on, and should be allowed to do what they want with the dogs they own, because it is their "personnal property..."


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> first, something just occured to me in reading alot of these post (again), and that is....if they are talking a $500 fine for you animal not being s/n by 4 mo and you get caught, and there's the possibility of "door to door checks" and them fining the people, isn't that going to open up a whole new slew of things?....i can see it now....pet owner has 3 dog and 4 cats and the animal police come and say that they now have a $3500 fine for their animals be unaltered....so, what do you think will happen in alot of cases? "Well, here...have the damn animals and you deal w/ the spaying/neutering." so, where do these animals end up? ....hmmmm...let's think for a minute....shelters, rescues, or PTS.....i don't think that this will end the problem, b/c i can see alot of people doing this just to fight back....they can always go get another animal from another "licensed puppy maker" (aka, puppymill)......
> 
> .


That's like saying that if a speeding ticket costs $300, you are going to turn in your car, rather than obey the speed limit.


----------



## Quincy

ChRotties said:


> Quincy, I don't know where you are from, but here in the United States, it is ILLEGAL for the government (IN ANY FORM), to search, or seize, without a WARRANT TO DO SO!


Who mentioned anything about seizing dogs. I was talking about an Animal Management Official doing their job in relation to dog matters, and where they might knock on a door and ask things like is that your dog and is it licensed.

On seeing the post prior to yours from Curbside Prophet regarding DogGoneCalifornia, it mentioned there "licensing data (10-20% compliance)", seeing such a very low compliance may provide justification in a State Wide Door Knock concerning licenses, and I feel that might provide sufficient funds for low cost spay neutering plus also might provide living costs where such a huge number of dogs might not have to be killed.

Isn't there something about Laws in the United States where Animal Control Officers would know things like right of entry such as in the power to enter upon and inspect any premises where any animal is kept or harbored when such entry is necessary, and regarding a search warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law.
.



Curbside Prophet said:


> And did you ever think to break the contract? Were you appreciative or turned off that you had a contract?
> 
> The first thing I would do is call my microchip company. And if this dog should turn up at a vet or shelter, guess what? I'm one step closer to catching that loser. At best your example is anecdotal, and would not be prevented by this law. Law breakers are law breakers, and this is a weak example to prove mandatory s/n is necessary.
> 
> Hmmm, let me see... Pay $1200 for a breeding stock dog, or buy a pup from a broker in Missouri for $100. Since the motive is profit, they get their dogs from states that treat pets as livestock.


No I did not think about breaking the contract. And was I appreciative or turned off that I had a contract, well neither of these, and it doesn't matter to me if the dog was desexed as a young pup or after he finished being used at stud by the breeder. If ever need be I could easily get an exemption which wouldn't worry me at all. Also you mentioning $1200 for a breeding stock dog, for some breeds and who have impressive show wins and titles this can easily be thousands more than that.

Veterinarians could easily remove a microchip but they won't unless there is some medical reason to do so. Have you considered that a PuppyMiller might remove a microchip. I assume you might not have much experience removing splinters.

Did you know there are Puppy Mills that own Pet Shops, they tend to be very buisness orientated and where they cut out the third party so that they can make yet more profit, and just hire someone to work in their Pet Shop and where prices for some dogs can be rather high.
.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I suppose you think that a bill banning dog fighting in Georgia is also being done by animal rights whackos?
> 
> Or how about the ASPCA Whackos breaking up this dog fighthing ring http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServe...042707&JServSessionIdr007=2fv0syy5t7.app26b#1
> 
> I suppose you think that these dog fighting people are being unfairly picked on, and should be allowed to do what they want with the dogs they own, because it is their "personnal property..."


To propose that choosing whether or not to spay/neuter a dog is remotely on the same level as wanting to be able to fight dogs is ridiculous  

You made a statement earlier in the thread, which I ignored, to the effect that people who oppose AB1634 must not care about dogs. And, in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I spend thousands of dollars and innumerable volunteer hours supporting dog adoption every year. My life revolves around dogs and adoption. I would appreciate if you would not presume to know what I would or would not support. 

I guess if you can't argue on the basis of the merits of this bill (or lack thereof) you have nothing left but personal attacks. Sad.

FYI - in the eyes of the law, dogs ARE considered property. I have no problem with the government setting reasonable standards in the interest of public health and safety (vaccinations) or minimum standards of care (providing shelter, water, food and - though I would think this is obvious - not engaging in torture activities like dog fighting).

eta: I don't consider the ASPCA animal rights "whackos"...never once in this thread did I ever allude to that or state it outright. I don't know enough about the politics of that particular group to have an opinion one way or the other. PETA, on the other hand....well, as soon as THEY stop killing animals, maybe they'll get an iota of credibility back. Doubt it though.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That's like saying that if a speeding ticket costs $300, you are going to turn in your car, rather than obey the speed limit.


i'm not saying i _would_ on anything.....but there is a vast amount of pet owners out there that would feel this way about it....to most people a car is a physical necessity, whereas a dog is not....it may be on an emotional basis, but then they just turn around and get another dog and do the same thing w/ it......and if they start taking away the rights of people to this extent i can see the vast majority of people doing just that...turning there dogs over to the AC and let them deal w/ the "problem" animals that most likely weren't a problem to begin w/......

and you know, if they were to drop the cost of s/n and make this one of the least cost of pet ownership, there might be more people out there getting their animals fixed.....this is one of the biggest problems people have.....i'm in a relatively small community (compared to others) and the cost is almost or more than $200......i know alot of families that just simply can't afford that but their animals are well cared for and are not producing puppies.......


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> i'm not saying i _would_ on anything.....but there is a vast amount of pet owners out there that would feel this way about it....to most people a car is a physical necessity, whereas a dog is not....it may be on an emotional basis, but then they just turn around and get another dog and do the same thing w/ it......and if they start taking away the rights of people to this extent i can see the vast majority of people doing just that...turning there dogs over to the AC and let them deal w/ the "problem" animals that most likely weren't a problem to begin w/......
> 
> and you know, if they were to drop the cost of s/n and make this one of the least cost of pet ownership, there might be more people out there getting their animals fixed.....this is one of the biggest problems people have.....i'm in a relatively small community (compared to others) and the cost is almost or more than $200......i know alot of families that just simply can't afford that but their animals are well cared for and are not producing puppies.......


If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?


----------



## SFury

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?


Which means that would simply have an unlicensed animal. The law would be meaningless for them because of the difficulty enforcing it. Those folks are the ones causing the need for some type of animal care reform. Those are the ones that need to be affected by any legislation that gets passed. Not law abiding citizens like us.


----------



## Laurelin

Captbob said:


> I suppose you think that a bill banning dog fighting in Georgia is also being done by animal rights whackos?
> 
> Or how about the ASPCA Whackos breaking up this dog fighthing ring http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServe...042707&JServSessionIdr007=2fv0syy5t7.app26b#1
> 
> I suppose you think that these dog fighting people are being unfairly picked on, and should be allowed to do what they want with the dogs they own, because it is their "personnal property..."


ROFL!

Seriously....

Keeping intact dogs does NOT equate to animal cruelty. Yes, my two intact dogs are no better treated than fighting dogs. 



lovemygreys said:


> FYI - in the eyes of the law, dogs ARE considered property. I have no problem with the government setting reasonable standards in the interest of public health and safety (vaccinations) or minimum standards of care (providing shelter, water, food and - though I would think this is obvious - not engaging in torture activities like dog fighting).


Exactly, but when you're dealing with someone's dogs that aren't being remotely a problem, aren't adding to the overpopulation, and are forcing them to undergo surgery at a certain age, then yes I have a problem with that.


----------



## Orange County Ca

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I certainly agree with reducing the surplus population and hate the thought of having to kill all those animals. But....
Will there be a mutt breeder? Will my mutt cost $1000?

The nanny state at work again. My advise to those thinking of moving to California is don't. Paradise is lost.

Spend the money on education, look what education did to smoking in the country. Down 50% since the education laws went into effect and actually 14% in my county. For every 20 people there are 3 smokers. We could do the same on any subject.


----------



## cshellenberger

Captbob said:


> I suppose you think that a bill banning dog fighting in Georgia is also being done by animal rights whackos?
> 
> Or how about the ASPCA Whackos breaking up this dog fighthing ring http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServe...042707&JServSessionIdr007=2fv0syy5t7.app26b#1
> 
> I suppose you think that these dog fighting people are being unfairly picked on, and should be allowed to do what they want with the dogs they own, because it is their "personnal property..."


 
Dog fighting is a completely different subject. We are talking about PET owners, not dog fighters. Yes, I support the bill in GA, though Cesar Milan could potentially be picked up as he owns training equipment (tread mills)



Quincy said:


> Who mentioned anything about seizing dogs. I was talking about an Animal Management Official doing their job in relation to dog matters, and where they might knock on a door and ask things like is that your dog and is it licensed.
> 
> On seeing the post prior to yours from Curbside Prophet regarding DogGoneCalifornia, it mentioned there "licensing data (10-20% compliance)", seeing such a very low compliance may provide justification in a State Wide Door Knock concerning licenses, and I feel that might provide sufficient funds for low cost spay neutering plus also might provide living costs where such a huge number of dogs might not have to be killed.
> 
> Isn't there something about Laws in the United States where Animal Control Officers would know things like right of entry such as in the power to enter upon and inspect any premises where any animal is kept or harbored when such entry is necessary, and regarding a search warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law.
> .


 
There is no justification of illegal searches. The authorities in charge have to have PROBABLE cause to geta warrent. (they look in the window and see a dog that is starved or needs medical attention, then are required to leave notices) Door knocks like you are suggesting would be in CLEAR violation of the law and the constitution.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Orange County Ca said:


> I certainly agree with reducing the surplus population and hate the thought of having to kill all those animals. But....
> Will there be a mutt breeder? Will my mutt cost $1000?
> 
> The nanny state at work again. My advise to those thinking of moving to California is don't. Paradise is lost.
> 
> Spend the money on education, look what education did to smoking in the country. Down 50% since the education laws went into effect and actually 14% in my county. For every 20 people there are 3 smokers. We could do the same on any subject.


There were also a slew of anti-smoking laws inacted which reduced smoking. Naturally the smokers whined and screamed about their *personal rights*, and how they were being violated, because they wouldn't be able to blow smoke in your face in public places anymore. Sound familiar?


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> Did you know there are Puppy Mills that own Pet Shops, they tend to be very buisness orientated and where they cut out the third party so that they can make yet more profit, and just hire someone to work in their Pet Shop and where prices for some dogs can be rather high.
> .


That's why it's better to make the selling of pets in stores and swap meets illegal and pass legislation controlling the breeders. Also, cutting off subsidies to the puppy mills will help to deter the mass breeding going on inthe US.


----------



## tirluc

Captbob said:


> If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?


not everyone that owns unaltered pets are irresponsible....i have had probably upwards of 30 dogs in my life and out of those only 6 have been altered........not one of my dogs has ever had a "mistake" litter or sired a "mistake" litter......i have had 4 litters of pups born to any of my dogs (out of working or showing dogs) and they were all planned and homed b/4 they were even created.....and the reason that mine have not been altered is b/c i couldn't afford the cost (for a part of the time i was a single parent, and thru most of my life we have lived pay check to pay check, but that doesn't mean that i shouldn't be able to own dogs altered or unaltered)......

but if the cost were more affordable to the low income families, they wouldn't have to worry about those litters they don't want.........



Captbob said:


> There were also a slew of anti-smoking laws inacted which reduced smoking. Naturally the smokers whined and screamed about their *personal rights*, and how they were being violated, because they wouldn't be able to blow smoke in your face in public places anymore. Sound familiar?


ok, so we start educating the kids in school.....show them the stats and the pictures just like they did w/ the smoking education.....then enact some laws to the effect that, if your unaltered dog is caught running loose, is a nuisance to the public b/c of being out in a pen while inseason (for the females) or allowing your male to hang around the home of a female in season that is kept "well guarded" (for the males), then stipulate fines for that along w/ laws such as, 1st offense is a fine, 2nd offense is required to s/n, 3rd offense (if #2 is not met), removal of the animal.....or something along those lines.....

my 6 yr old granddaughter is already learning what happens to these unwanted animals and she has talked to her other family members that have "mutts" and want to breed them about the overpopulation.....she learned this from me....and if a 6 yr old can learn it, so can the older kids that parents won't have such a problem w/ the stats and graphic pics being given to......

there are other ways........


----------



## Quincy

cshellenberger said:


> There is no justification of illegal searches. The authorities in charge have to have PROBABLE cause to geta warrent. (they look in the window and see a dog that is starved or needs medical attention, then are required to leave notices) Door knocks like you are suggesting would be in CLEAR violation of the law and the constitution.


I feel that in an Animal Control Officers training it could be made quite clear NOT to go around looking through residential home windows. Anyway, a soft approach with a smile and pleasant nature has been proven to be quite effective in a number of places around the world.

It's incredible that it's estimated only 10 to 20 percent of dogs are licensed, and the total sum estimation of dogs within communities seems rather crude. Maybe Animal Control Officers could conduct "door knocks" in regards to this, and ask residents at their door if they have dogs and if so how many plus if they were licensed, and their assistant could input this information on their laptop.

Then before leaving to go to the next residence maybe they could leave a pamphlet which mentions the importance of dog licenses and that it's mandatory for several reasons and lists those reasons, also it maybe mentioned that in years to come there maybe more "door knocks" in the community.
.



cshellenberger said:


> cutting off subsidies to the puppy mills will help


I did not know that Puppy Mills got subsidies, what subsidies.
.


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lovemygreys said:


> When will people learn that you can't legislate social change.


And yet, every time a discussion of the horrors of kill shelters and puppy mills comes up, somebody always suggests that the problems should be legislated away.

We can't expect big government to save us from ourselves and then complain that government is too big.


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I have a question: 

If this law were enacted, how would it affect the puppy mill industry? 

Would you get off the hook for spaying and neutering your animals if you had a government license to breed "livestock"?

And if puppy millers did get off the hook, what good do you think this law will do? 

I think the gov. makes good money off of these mills, and I don't see them cutting the funding for these cruel places. 

That really takes the teeth out of the law, and renders it useless. 

So, CaptainBob, what have you to say to that?


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> but if the cost were more affordable to the low income families, they wouldn't have to worry about those litters they don't want.........
> 
> 
> 
> .


That is exactly the point of the law. It makes people realize that money has to be spent to S/N their animals. If they can't afford to S/N , then goldfish might be a more appropriate pet for them. Not being able to S/N an animal, is certainly going to vreate a major problem when the litters of pups start arriving, unless you don't want to give the pups any vet care, or shots. It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......


People have unwanted kids because they weren't educated enough to use protection. Seem like the solution really is education. And if the cost of s/n is too high, or is a deterent, seems like low cost s/n would be the solution. How about funding low cost s/n and education instead?


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> People have unwanted kids because they weren't educated enough to use protection. Seem like the solution really is education. And if the cost of s/n is too high, or is a deterent, seems like low cost s/n would be the solution. How about funding low cost s/n and education instead?


You have to be real, in this situation. This law is directed at people that for one reason or another, don't have their pets S/N. Most of those people couldn't care less about being educated about the problems of unwanted pups. The people that alreayd have their pets S/N are probably the type that are interested in finding out the benefits of S/N, and pet overpopulation They are already going to go down that road, with or without a law. Most places have low cost S/N programs, that one can find out about, if they will make the effort.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> I did not know that Puppy Mills got subsidies, what subsidies.
> .


Yes, grants are given to help farmers buy stock to start them. Puppy Mills were started to help farmers post WWII and meet the demand for purebred dogs in the US. Puppy Mills are entitled to many of the same subsidies as other livestock producing farmers. They are overseen by the USDA, any person producing more that 8 litters per year MUST be inspected and licensed by them. Inspections are to the standards of private zoo's and other small livestock. That's why you see so many dogs raised in Rabbit Pens and chicken coops. Also, if you ever see the birth dates, they are often on a Monday, this is so they can get under the 8 weeks rule that applies to all USDA inspected mills and get the pups to market earlier. 

That is why, in most Breed Club code of ethics it stipulates that you can't produce more than 8 litters per year. Most respectable breeders would never produce that many.

http://www.sff.net/people/eluki/puppymill.htm#2


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Most places have low cost S/N programs, that one can find out about, if they will make the effort.


If you've read any of the links I've left, from statistic gatherers to animal shelters, it's been suggested that MORE education and low cost S/N is necessary, and it's been working here in CA, yet I don't see enough of it. Misguided laws are not the answer.


----------



## Orange County Ca

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Door knocks like you are suggesting would be in CLEAR violation of the law and the constitution.


Thanks be to the Founding Fathers.

The enforcement money this law will cost would be more effective if it made low or lower cost s/n available on a walk in basis. Many times I hear moaning about cost, even at the low cost clinics.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That is exactly the point of the law. It makes people realize that money has to be spent to S/N their animals. If they can't afford to S/N , then goldfish might be a more appropriate pet for them. Not being able to S/N an animal, is certainly going to vreate a major problem when the litters of pups start arriving, unless you don't want to give the pups any vet care, or shots. It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......


so what you are saying is that the only people that can have dogs/cats and/or kids is the people that are financially stable.....so then, what happens when a family of say 2-3 kids maybe a dog or 2 and a cat or 2 all of a sudden fall on hard times....then i guess the solution to that is that they have to get rid of the pets and the kids b/c they can no longer afford them.....so, now we're bac to square one.......

i hate the pompous attitude of some people that only the well to do can have pets or kids.....


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> That is exactly the point of the law. It makes people realize that money has to be spent to S/N their animals. If they can't afford to S/N , then goldfish might be a more appropriate pet for them. Not being able to S/N an animal, is certainly going to vreate a major problem when the litters of pups start arriving, unless you don't want to give the pups any vet care, or shots. It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......


Because everyone with intact dogs has litters and litters of puppies?

Yes, everyone with intact dogs has intact dogs because they could care less about their animals and overpopulation. Everyone with intact dogs lets their dogs run around breeding whomever and whatever. It has nothing to do with responsible ownership, competition, or even health benefits of later spays/neuters. 

Let me repeat again, I've had many an intact dog in my life. NONE of my dogs have ever produced puppies. No 'accidents' whatsoever. All my pet only dogs now are spayed/neutered, but if I want to keep my other dogs intact and under control, then shouldn't that be my right to do so?


----------



## Orange County Ca

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> so what you are saying is that the only people that can have dogs/cats and/or kids is the people that are financially stable.....


It's clearly a society wide problem. If the procedure was free, no questions asked, it takes away all the excuses to not have it done. You could even ask your neighbor to take your mutt in. Once the breeders find out they can have the pups done free they would do the same to their for-sale animals.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

And free doesn't mean money wasted. It means money saved at the expense of euthanasia.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Because everyone with intact dogs has litters and litters of puppies?
> 
> Yes, everyone with intact dogs has intact dogs because they could care less about their animals and overpopulation. Everyone with intact dogs lets their dogs run around breeding whomever and whatever. It has nothing to do with responsible ownership, competition, or even health benefits of later spays/neuters.
> 
> Let me repeat again, I've had many an intact dog in my life. NONE of my dogs have ever produced puppies. No 'accidents' whatsoever. All my pet only dogs now are spayed/neutered, but if I want to keep my other dogs intact and under control, then shouldn't that be my right to do so?


Sorry, I should have said " Everyone but you"..........


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

No, not everyone but her, my mother has an intact Male german Shepard, he has NEVER produced a litter, niether have her poodles. The only litters she EVER produced were well planned, the buyers were screened and had to have referrals. They were sold on contract (this was 15 years ago) with the stipulation that if the dog was EVER given up, it had to come back to her and she followed up on all her dog until the day they died. Only TWO of her pups ever ended up in the pound and she went and got them immeadiatly, then took the owners to court for breach of contract. If a pup came up with genetic health problems she reembursed the owners and took the parents out of her program, I can only remember this happening ONCE. Much of her breeding time was before the OFA and other health tests, but she cared about the dogs she produced.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

To make spay neuter free then who is going to pay for it. Vets are not going to do this for free, and in California taxpayers are already spending each year about $250 Million on the dogs and cats in pounds/shelters.
.


----------



## DogueEdaddy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Sorry, I should have said " Everyone but you"..........


Oops, guess you have to add me to that list. In my 61yrs of life, I and/or my parents have had many intact male and female dogs. I am sorry to report, not 1 unplanned litter, only 2 litters that I can even think of and no accidents. I certainly believe in the need for s/n, but I can guarantee that when I get my Dogue De Bordeaux, he will absolutely not be neutered before 1yr old, if then.

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Sorry, I should have said " Everyone but you"..........



and include me.....as i have said, i have owned uwards of 30 dogs in my life and only 6 have been altered.....no unplanned litters from/by ay of them.....

and i never said the s/n should be free.....just lower cost......and guess what?....in reference to this 



> The people that alreayd have their pets S/N are probably the type that are interested in finding out the benefits of S/N, and pet overpopulation They are already going to go down that road, with or without a law. Most places have low cost S/N programs, that one can find out about, if they will make the effort.


....i have made the effort to find a low cost clinic......the closest one that i have found is in the Twin Cities of Minn. (5-6 hrs away from me here in WISCONSIN) if Milwaukee has one, nobody i have talked to knows about it.....


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Sorry, I should have said " Everyone but you"..........


Well, that's a very narrow view of the world then, isn't it?

Maybe you should well verse yourself on research about later spaying and neutering and it's benefits.


----------



## squirt1968

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Turlic I agree with you and being tired of hearing only the people with money should have pets and children. I would have been over 40 before I had a child, well maybe never according to some people, and I think my grown children are glad they were born they have also told me feel they had happy childhood and learned valuable lessons that many of the privileged did not learn,


----------



## Jen D

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Chloef_2799 said:


> Thats not cool. Puppies should be six months to be spayed and neutered.....thats not safe at all.


Larger breeds can be fixed at about five months without a problem, smaller breeds yes I agree with you it could be dangeous for them.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Well, that's a very narrow view of the world then, isn't it?
> 
> Maybe you should well verse yourself on research about later spaying and neutering and it's benefits.


And maybe you should research the benefits of S/N on the animals health and longevity.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> And maybe you should research the benefits of S/N on the animals health and longevity.


Captbob, what you fail to see here, i think, is that NOBODY is disputing s/n'ing dogs and cats......what they are disputing and have a MAJOR problem w/ is the government, once again, taking away our rights as American citizens....mandatory s/n is not the answer....it will hurt nobody that it needs to and will not be able to be enforced w/out taking on a communistic approach to the country.....i, personally, don't want my kids (excuse me, grandkids, as my kids are all grown up, and quite stable even w/out being of a _WEALTHY_ background where we could afford everything) growing up in a "Hitler" type world.....

this c/would be just the beginning of something like this happening.....


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I think that CaptainBob is a PETA activist, LOL, jkjk 

I agree with Tirluc, no one is debating that spaying and neutering for 95% of the dog population would reduce the number of dogs in shelters. 

No one is arguing that there are health benefits to spaying and neutering. 

I just don't want to live in a Socialist regime in my life time. Maybe that's just me, I don't know.


----------



## Captbob

tirluc said:


> Captbob, what you fail to see here, i think, is that NOBODY is disputing s/n'ing dogs and cats......what they are disputing and have a MAJOR problem w/ is the government, once again, taking away our rights as American citizens....mandatory s/n is not the answer....it will hurt nobody that it needs to and will not be able to be enforced w/out taking on a communistic approach to the country.....i, personally, don't want my kids (excuse me, grandkids, as my kids are all grown up, and quite stable even w/out being of a _WEALTHY_ background where we could afford everything) growing up in a "Hitler" type world.....
> 
> this c/would be just the beginning of something like this happening.....


If I am not mistaken, I think we live in a Democracy. That means that the people get together and decide what laws they want to be governed by, as opposed to a dictatorship , where one person decides. That is why we elect officials and vote on different laws that may be enacted, If the people in California decide that they want to make S/N mandatory ( which I am certain they will) , then that is what will happen. Some people will not like it, but if that is what the majority decides, they will have to live with it. If people don't like this system, I am sure there are plenty of places in the world, where they could relocate to.



Snowshoe said:


> I think that CaptainBob is a PETA activist, LOL, jkjk
> 
> I agree with Tirluc, no one is debating that spaying and neutering for 95% of the dog population would reduce the number of dogs in shelters.
> 
> No one is arguing that there are health benefits to spaying and neutering.
> 
> I just don't want to live in a Socialist regime in my life time. Maybe that's just me, I don't know.


How is the majority of people in a community, voting to enact a law, make it socialist? This should be quite an explanation....


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Bob, laws such as this, along with "Breed Bans" and "Gun Bans" ect are chipping away at our rights. 

I still havn't had ANYONE explain HOW this is going to be enforced OTHER than using doorknocks and other illegal search and seizure techniques.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> If I am not mistaken, I think we live in a Democracy. That means that the people get together and decide what laws they want to be governed by, as opposed to a dictatorship , where one person decides. That is why we elect officials and vote on different laws that may be enacted, If the people in California decide that they want to make S/N mandatory ( which I am certain they will) , then that is what will happen. Some people will not like it, but if that is what the majority decides, they will have to live with it. If people don't like this system, I am sure there are plenty of places in the world, where they could relocate to.


but there have been cases where the majority is in favor of something and the government (or the electorates) rule otherwise.....and i'll keep it to myself as to one that comes to mind.........


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> How is the majority of people in a community, voting to enact a law, make it socialist? This should be quite an explanation....


The majority DID NOT make this law. It was passed by the California legislature, encouraged by the MINORITY animal rights groups.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> And maybe you should research the benefits of S/N on the animals health and longevity.



Well obviously there are health benefits to spay/neuter, but there are also health risks to the procedure itself and to having that procedure done this early. Spay/neuter at four months is NOT a simple cookie cutter answer for all dogs and I think you fail to see this. I should be able to weigh the health risks and benefits (and yes there are benefits to leaving a dog intact too) and decide what is best for my dogs.

I'll say it again- I am NOT anti spay/neuter of pet dogs as you would like to make me out to be.


----------



## Orange County Ca

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I also, as a California resident, an getting incensed at our government butting into our lives and that alone is sufficient reason to oppose this type of law.
Since the taxpayers are paying to have all those animals killed lets use that money to s/n all animals for free, walk in, no questions asked, 20 at a time if that's how many you bring in.
Intially we would spend more money, s/n ing and kill ing simultaneously. As the s/n effect took over we should save money. Even if our costs then returned to what it used to be think of all the killing and suffering avoided.
Educate and eliminate cost and I'll bet 99+% of the un s/n animals would disappear. And like the counties already trying it we would notice the differenct in a year.


----------



## DogueEdaddy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Jen D said:


> Larger breeds can be fixed at about five months without a problem, smaller breeds yes I agree with you it could be dangeous for them.


Jen,

I respectfully disagree. When I had my Boxer; my Vet refused to neuter him before 6mos. He definately recommended neutering due to propensity of Boxers for cancers, but stated that it shouldn't be done before 6mos due to growth issues (displaysia, joint forming, etc). When researching my Dogues, it is definately not recommended before 1yr due to joint/bone/displaysia issues. All Dogue De Bordeaux breeders (reputable) who sell with s/n contracts for pets, specify to be done by 1yr.

God Bless......Stan


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

That's right Stan, it's the same for Mastiffs, Great Danes, St Bernard's ect. BTW, many of these Giants don't come into season until 10 months to a year. For them it's equivelent to giving an 8 year old a histerectomy


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I wouldn't put my papillons under until they are fully grown, or as close to being fully grown as possible. (Obviously that isn't true in emergencies) . Anaesthesia is very hard on toys and can be fatal more often than in other breeds. It's not a light decision every time you put a toy under.

So there are several reasons you might opt to let a dog fully mature before neutering.


----------



## Snowshoe

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I think that certain aspects of this thread are somewhat ridiculous, so I'm bowing out. 

To those of you who are against this law because it's silly...I'm on your side. 

To anyone else, namely those who pick and choose which comments they respond to, only to deliver an attempt at a witty one liner that has nothing to really do with the argument at hand, I would consider how what I'm saying may affect how other people view my argument. Especially if it was an argument that I really cared about.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> http://www.ab1634.com/Files/BILL_ANALYSIS_4-23-07.pdf
> 
> Yes, this is a great law. A law that's written such that industrial breeders are exempt? Does this make any sense to anyone. If the goal is to "reduce" s/n incidents, why aren't industrial breeders included in this bill? Do you know that a puppy mill is an industrial breeder. IF breeders are the problem (which I still believe we're wagging the dog with the tail), why aren't there stricter provisions for the worst offenders? IF euthanasia is so expensive to the state (yes, it's about cost, not lives), why not control owners. How is this law going to be enforced when local jurisdictions can't even enforce thier current licensing laws?


Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Quincy,
> There are certain breeds that indeed 4 months is WAY too young. All the large and giant breeds mature much more slowly and early spay nueter puts the dogs at risk of complications such as spay incontenence.
> 
> Also, this law is nearly unenforceable. The majority of people who wish to Back yard breed will simply NOT register their dogs. AC would have to prtty much go door to door to enforce this. Better laws need to be written with the involvement of responsible breeders to target Puppy Mills and BYB. Starting with a law that makes it illegal to sell dogsn and cats in Petstores and swap meets, but allows for 501c3 rescue adoptions in the stores and at adoption fairs. THAT would effect change.


I believe there is a section of the bill that allows exemption to anyone who has documentation from their vet that the puppy is too young to alter. If a giant breed matures more slowly, then surely the owner's vet would be aware of that and give such documentation.

Are you against other unenforceable laws, like speed limit laws?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders?





> (1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
> business license and federal and state tax number, or by other
> means, as determined by the local entity authorized to issue
> permits, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a
> breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
> control agency. _ proof, as requested by the local
> jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she
> _ _ is doing business and is *licensed as a breeder* at a
> location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal
> control agency has issued a breeder permit_.


It's implied by the wording. Pet stores are not licensed as breeders, therefore, they can purchase out-of-state puppies and sell them intact, without control. Ultimately it becomes the owner's responsibility to have the puppy s/n. Fine, however, out of state breeders, industrial breeders in Missouri, are exempt simply because they are out of state.

The way this law is written, only changes the source of the dogs that appear in shelters.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Speed limits are enforcable without door knocks or illegal searches. 

I'm against the government making decisions for me regarding my houshold. I believe this law goes too far on the part of pet owners and does little to solve the problem of overbreeding pets by puppy mills and Back yard breeders. 

There are other ways to reduce the pet overpopulation. The city of Chula Vista has done a fine job by making spay nueters very affordable and bringing the doctors to the people with their Nueter Scooter. Spay is 45, nueter is 35 and either for a Pitbull type is $5.00!!!!! They have reduced their intake by 1/3 with this program and have fewer Pitbulls in comparison with the other San Diego area shelters. They also run education seminars in the Public schools there. They have an excellent working relationship with Rescues and though they aren't completly no kill, they have reduced their kill rates to only dogs that aren't adoptable for medical or temperment reasons. They have the lowest adoption fees and the highest successful adoption rates. The Bulldog you see in my avatar was adopted from there and I've pulled dogs from there for English Mastiff and Neo Mastiff rescue, they call me anytime one of these breeds comes in that is adoptable because of the difficulty they have placing such huge animals. I wish more shelters were like them.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there. 

Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there.
> 
> Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.


Wihich countries are these, and where did your get the statistics to back up your claim?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Wihich countries are these, and where did your get the statistics to back up your claim?


I was actually discussing Sweden and Norway as I know a few people that live over there. They have virtually no overpopulation problems with dogs, though I think Sweden has problems with cats. It is very rare from what I've heard to alter a dog there other than for a medical reason and it is very expensive. I've also read this in many discussions when talking about the US overpopulation problem. 

I have no statistics, but I'll look them up for you. (Even though no one pulled out studies for the Santa Cruz statistics when I asked for them, I'll be nice)

This one discusses Sweden and Norway on page 19- 

http://www.acc-d.org/ACCD docs/2002 Sym

Swedish dog demographics:
http://www.actavetscand.com/content/42/1/71

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10605140&dopt=Abstract

I'll get back to you about the rest. I'm talking to the people I know from Sweden because I know I've seen the stats from them. We've had this discussion many a time.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> If I am not mistaken, I think we live in a Democracy. That means that the people get together and decide what laws they want to be governed by, as opposed to a dictatorship , where one person decides. That is why we elect officials and vote on different laws that may be enacted, If the people in California decide that they want to make S/N mandatory ( which I am certain they will) , then that is what will happen. Some people will not like it, but if that is what the majority decides, they will have to live with it. If people don't like this system, I am sure there are plenty of places in the world, where they could relocate to.


Actually, we live in a constitutional representative republic, NOT a democracy. Also, we do not live by majority rule. We are a country governed by law, not the whims of any nutcase out there...even if there _are _a lot of them. 

By your reasoning, if the majority of people voted to jail all people who use the screen name Captbob and confiscate all their property...you'd pretty much be SOL, wouldn't you? And of course, that's ridiculous...but only because of it's extremity. It would never happen b/c we have LAWS in place to protect the rights of people and we DON'T live by majority rule.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Of the organizations that registered support or opposition, 267 organizations resgistered support, where 339 registered opposition. The split was clearly defined by rescue versus club.


It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected. 

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there.
> 
> Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.


I agree that our throw-away society is a big part of the problem, but I also think that a spay/neuter law will reduce the numbers and make dogs less disposable. Gold is valued over sand because it's less prevalent. If responsible breeders were the only ones producing dogs, then potential dog owners would be screened and the quality of homes would improve. Quality homes don't view their animal companions as disposable commodities. On the other hand, how much more disposable can you get than having someone give away their unwanted puppies in front of a supermarket to anyone that has an impulse to take one because it's cute? What are the odds the latter will be a quality lifetime home?

The less dogs there are, the more they will be appreciated, and the only way to assure that is to stop trying to educate those that don't care and don't want to listen. No dog should be born without a lifetime home waiting for it. Responsible breeders make sure of this. Most of the dogs produced today, whether pure or mixed, are not bred by responsible breeders. And it's these irresponsible breeders we need to stop. 

What I don't understand is how responsible breeders prefer to promote paranoia about limitations on their hobby instead of realizing that we need laws to require irresponsible breeders to be as reputable as the responsible breeders are.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Orange County Ca said:


> I also, as a California resident, an getting incensed at our government butting into our lives and that alone is sufficient reason to oppose this type of law.
> Since the taxpayers are paying to have all those animals killed lets use that money to s/n all animals for free, walk in, no questions asked, 20 at a time if that's how many you bring in.
> Intially we would spend more money, s/n ing and kill ing simultaneously. As the s/n effect took over we should save money. Even if our costs then returned to what it used to be think of all the killing and suffering avoided.
> Educate and eliminate cost and I'll bet 99+% of the un s/n animals would disappear. And like the counties already trying it we would notice the differenct in a year.


How do you propose that initial increase in cost would stem from? Who pays that bill? In my town, it was decided that it was more important to beautify the median strip on the freeway with plants than to do anything about shelter issues. Shelters (pounds) are a place where our problems disappear, and it's done at minimum cost - even to the point of giving the contract to the shelter managers that can do it the most inexpensively. And how do you get past the complaint that those taxpayers who haven't contributed to the problem don't think they should have to pay for the solution? Why is it okay to throw money at the problem from a non-descript source (the government) rather than making those creating dogs, and those potential puppymakers (the unaltered dog's owner) pay for the problem? 

And all this under the guise of wanting the FREEDOM to be irresponsible? Such a lofty goal.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I agree with you on a lot of that, except I can't see this law as helping due to about everything anyone's said.

Oh and to Captbob, my intent on bringing up other countries was not to say that them not spaying and neutering was a good thing, simply to point out that they can control population without bans and mandatory s/n.

It just comes down to the society, it's values, and what they believe they are responsible for. Unfortunately in the US, too many people don't feel much responsiblity when it comes to pets. People here want something when they want it and when it is convenient for them. then they expect other people to deal with their problem.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat 
Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders? 

Quote:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other
means, as determined by the local entity authorized to issue
permits, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a
breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency. proof, as requested by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she
is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a
location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal
control agency has issued a breeder permit. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> It's implied by the wording. Pet stores are not licensed as breeders, therefore, they can purchase out-of-state puppies and sell them intact, without control. Ultimately it becomes the owner's responsibility to have the puppy s/n. Fine, however, out of state breeders, industrial breeders in Missouri, are exempt simply because they are out of state.
> 
> The way this law is written, only changes the source of the dogs that appear in shelters.


I think this is debatable. IMO, implied by the wording is the idea that the owner (pet store in this case) must be licensed as a breeder in the local jurisdiction. That would mean in CA, IMO. But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Do you really think that PIJAC wouldn't create a huge fuss and do anything they could to stop a bill that would prohibit pet stores from selling dogs and cats? This is personal property, a commodity, an object not unlike all the other commodities sold in stores. Under what legal theory could it be stopped, especially when there are no real industry guidelines? And of course if we tried to mandate industry guidelines, the breeders would fight it because it might somehow inhibit their hobby.

One of the things about proposing a bill is that it has to have a chance of getting past the opposition. The more restrictions put on a pet store, the bigger the fight by the pet industry.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> I agree with you on a lot of that, except I can't see this law as helping due to about everything anyone's said.
> 
> Oh and to Captbob, my intent on bringing up other countries was not to say that them not spaying and neutering was a good thing, simply to point out that they can control population without bans and mandatory s/n.
> 
> It just comes down to the society, it's values, and what they believe they are responsible for. Unfortunately in the US, too many people don't feel much responsiblity when it comes to pets. People here want something when they want it and when it is convenient for them. then they expect other people to deal with their problem.


I have nothing to back this up, and I'm too lazy today to go looking for it, but it's my understanding that some European countries have a system where those planning on breeding their dogs are required to seek approval by the officiating registry. This prevents too many dogs from being bred, as well as polices the type of breeding done. If memory serves, Germany is one of the countries that has this. It is common for some of the breeders in these countries to restrict sales of their dogs to Americans because of our reputation for homeless dogs and the shelter death rates we have. It's been several years since I read a discussion on this, but I remember thinking it's too bad that we don't follow their example.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I think this is debatable.
> 
> The more restrictions put on a pet store, the bigger the fight by the pet industry.


It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear. People want puppies. People are going to get puppies. If the bill works as intended to cease operations of small time breeders, there will be an unsupplied demand for puppies. If there is no convenience store in your neighborhood, the person who opens a convenience store can make a good profit. If there are no puppies, the person who begins mass producing puppies can do the same.

Most California milled puppies come from out of state, and those will certainly continue to arrive. (puppy millers don't care where their puppies go) However, the people who are breeding for profit in California already are not going to wish to lose that profit. If they're already breeding a few litters a year, it won't be too much harder to ramp up production, get a business license, and start operating a full fledged business. I agree, the state would hate to lose the sales tax.

Maybe it's just me wanting too much again. BTW, it's nice to have you back DA. I know Tamara has been looking for you.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.
> 
> Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.


I was at the shelter today trying to work with a 50 pound Black Lab-Pit mix, that I am training in our weekly training classes. She lived in a cage prior to being brought to our No-Kill shelter. The poor dog is terrified, and when I try to walk her in our wooded area, she will walk for maybe 15-30 feet and then lie down. Some moron that owned her, had her debarked, so nobody is interested in adopting her, and that is the reason that she has been with the shelter for over 2 years. As time goes on, she becomes more and more withdrawn. At one point, I sat down on one of the benches, and finally she came over and sat next to me and put her head in my lap and looked up at me, and I couldn't help tearing up looking at her. I realized that I was probably this dog's last hope of getting her to the point where she could be adopted by someone. 

Then I thought of all the people on this thread whining and complaining about the fact that their world is coming to an end, because some community wants to enact a law to help with the pet overpopulation problem, and keep so many dogs from winding up like that poor dog that I am holding now. I then thought about the fact that the people that do this, will never learn. They are so self absorbed and only worried about their own agendas, that they can't even begin to empathize with the countless number of animals that suffer on a day to day basis. 

I decided that I am wasting my time trying to explain how I feel about this pending law, and about helping to reduce the number of unwanted pets in our society. People either get it , or they don't, and for the one's that don't, I can only feel sorry for them. I am glad I am not one of them.....


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.

I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that. 

I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed. 

This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*

It seems there are only two people in the entire world who care at all about the plight of shelter dogs: Vanbum and Captbob. Maybe three, counting Doggies4evers.

The rest of us should be deeply ashamed.

I wonder what happened to Vanbum. The last we heard from him he was congratulating the new moderators.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



RonE said:


> I wonder what happened to Vanbum. The last we heard from him he was congratulating the new moderators.


He joined another forum I'm on but vanished from that one as well. Dunno what happened after that.


----------



## lovemygreys

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Captbob - give me a freaking break. You think you are the only person who cares about dogs? You aren't. I certainly care about dogs. I give my time, energy, heart and soul to dogs...not just mine. Homeless dogs. Dogs who've been returned because their owners moved or had a baby or just don't want them anymore. I can drudge up stories that would make your soul crumble they are so sad and pathetic. A couple of those dogs never left my home because I couldn't bear the thought that they would ever have another unhappy or painful day in their life or ever be abandoned again.

You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Since some people can't be responsible, no one gets the chance to be responsible. It just doesn't make sense and it's bad legislation. Instead of taking away people's rights...why not give a tax break to dog owners who DO have their pets altered? I'm not saying that's an end-all-be-all solution, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than just passing inane legislation that won't do anything but punish the people who don't need to be punished to begin with.

I do agree with you on one thing. I'm tired of beating this dead horse. I don't think anyone's opinion is going to be swayed at this point...so, really, why waste my time anymore.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Besides, who said this bill was about saving animals anyway? The intent of this law is to save taxpayers money, money that is spent on euthanizing dogs. Just because we can think of another means to an end does not mean we're whining or cold hearted. The plight of one mixed dog does not make this law the best solution to saving dogs. There are too many unanswered questions with this bill, and you bet for the benefit of dogs I'm going to point them out. You can turn a blind eye to the possible repurcussions of this law, but that would only negate your care. I personally don't doubt that you care, but that does not mean I have to agree with this law as it is written.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that.
> 
> I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed.
> 
> This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.



ditto, on this.....the difference being, i don't show and i will breed my one bitch that i have.....she is a working dog...titled?...no...but she's great at what she does.....and she is certified.....i have homes for 5 of the pups (all on contracts) and plan on keeping one (maybe 2) for myself to train up for working and hopefully trialing.....this will most likely be the only litter i get out of this girl (she will be 4 when this litter is born and i don't believe in breeding after 6, and it's nearly impossible to find good, certified Borders around this area).....i have rescued, fostered, trained, rehab'd, etc....and i know that the problem lies in the irresponsible idiots out there.....but, unfortunately, as pointed out b/4, this law will not affect these people, it will affect the ones that are already being responsible, so where do we go from there?....the ones that need to be targeted are the puppy millers.....crack down on them, first then work on the rest......


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

CaptBob,
Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I was at the shelter today trying to work with a 50 pound Black Lab-Pit mix, that I am training in our weekly training classes. She lived in a cage prior to being brought to our No-Kill shelter. The poor dog is terrified, and when I try to walk her in our wooded area, she will walk for maybe 15-30 feet and then lie down. Some moron that owned her, had her debarked, so nobody is interested in adopting her, and that is the reason that she has been with the shelter for over 2 years. As time goes on, she becomes more and more withdrawn. At one point, I sat down on one of the benches, and finally she came over and sat next to me and put her head in my lap and looked up at me, and I couldn't help tearing up looking at her. I realized that I was probably this dog's last hope of getting her to the point where she could be adopted by someone.
> 
> Then I thought of all the people on this thread whining and complaining about the fact that their world is coming to an end, because some community wants to enact a law to help with the pet overpopulation problem, and keep so many dogs from winding up like that poor dog that I am holding now. I then thought about the fact that the people that do this, will never learn. They are so self absorbed and only worried about their own agendas, that they can't even begin to empathize with the countless number of animals that suffer on a day to day basis.
> 
> I decided that I am wasting my time trying to explain how I feel about this pending law, and about helping to reduce the number of unwanted pets in our society. People either get it , or they don't, and for the one's that don't, I can only feel sorry for them. I am glad I am not one of them.....


I can't help thinking that this is such a powerful post, but then I'm in the choir, so maybe it's not as powerful to people outside the choir. It's hard to fathom that this doesn't change minds and hearts. Please don't stop talking - if only as an encouragement to the choir, so that we know that we aren't alone.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.
> 
> Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.


It's not as black and white as your last statement would suggest. What is important to me is that better dogs are placed in better homes. This points to education and contractual obligations at the point of purchase, not necessarily s/n. This law says that jurisdiction can commit to education after the bills are paid. That's nice, but what happens when jurisdictions fail to fund enforcement of the law? The short answer is licensing will drop dramatically, and there are examples in California (San Mateo comes to mind) where mandatory s/n failed miserably, and euthanasia totals actually increased 126%. This is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of this law actually diminishing the choice for life.

I'm of the opinion that we should learn from the lessons of successful breeders and do what they do to place good dogs in good homes. I'm of the opinion that excellent breeders keep pups in a home. 

My brother recently purchased a yellow labrador. Frankly I would have preferred he adopted a dog from a shelter. However, his 9 week old puppy (now 12 weeks) has had zero potty accidents since being in his home...the dog even knows how to go to the door for elimination. Big whoop, right? But how many people would love to not go through housetraining? Well what the breeder did to rear this pup will keep her in his home forever. Not because my brother would ever surrender the dog for a few accidents, but many people would, and have because of housetraining issues. People surrender adoptable dog for many reasons, but I've seen first hand how commited a good breeder can be, and I wouldn't be so quick to minimize their effect on keeping dogs out of shelters. 

This is not to say s/n programs, do not work. If the goal is simply to reduce shelter intake and deaths and not to ban most if not all breeding, there are successful s/n programs implemented by local governments throughout the U.S. These, however, are limited in scope and also rely on positive incentives including, in particular, government subsidies to help pet owners with the cost of s/n. I read about a study in Minnesota where taxpayers saved about $20 over ten years (per person) in low cost s/n alone. I think if this law did more to to target areas where low cost s/n would benefit dog owners in conjunction with education on dog ownership, I would be more for it. But in it's current state, I know of too many examples where this type of law has failed and had a reverse effect on its intention. This can't be overlooked.


----------



## DogAdvocat

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear. People want puppies. People are going to get puppies. If the bill works as intended to cease operations of small time breeders, there will be an unsupplied demand for puppies. If there is no convenience store in your neighborhood, the person who opens a convenience store can make a good profit. If there are no puppies, the person who begins mass producing puppies can do the same.
> 
> Most California milled puppies come from out of state, and those will certainly continue to arrive. (puppy millers don't care where their puppies go) However, the people who are breeding for profit in California already are not going to wish to lose that profit. If they're already breeding a few litters a year, it won't be too much harder to ramp up production, get a business license, and start operating a full fledged business. I agree, the state would hate to lose the sales tax.
> 
> Maybe it's just me wanting too much again. BTW, it's nice to have you back DA. I know Tamara has been looking for you.


Thanks for the welcome, Curbside.  I think that subsequent laws are going to have to cover puppymills, and I would guess that the best way to do that would be by addressing humane issues and consumer rights to be sold "products" that aren't dangerous to their families. Of course we'd still have misguided breeders, who claim to be responsible but fight against any legislation that would require other breeders to also be responsible - and that's a mystery to me.

But wouldn't it be easier to address consumer issues if the only people that were breeding were licensed breeders? With AB1634, puppymills may still exist and may even ramp up production, but at least the those puppymill dogs won't go on to produce more puppymill dogs by backyard breeders who are encouraged to recoup their purchase price by breeding their dog just once.

The question is, is it possible to develop a perfect law that no one will fight and that will cover every issue? I really doubt it. But I do know that education alone isn't solving the problem.



Laurelin said:


> Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.
> 
> I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that.
> 
> I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed.
> 
> This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.


How can you possibly know whether it will work unless it's tried? How many more dogs are you willing to see die while the public goes blithely along producing more dogs who will never have lifetime homes because they believe that there is nothing wrong with it because it's legal? I don't know if you have an agenda or not, but I do know what mine is -- to stop the killing of dogs that deserve more than they're getting.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

LOL, my friends and I are still over here rolling about 'my agenda'. Not that the issues are funny, but the insinuations are rather ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows I'm just a girl who loves dogs of all sorts and I involve them in all aspects of my life. Of course, I do show and not all of my dogs are rescues, which makes me the devil in many peoples' books apparently. 

As for the law...

I know it will not work because of the loopholes regarding mills. I know it will not work because bans such as these never do. I know it will not work because supply and demand simply states people will get their dogs from other sources- most often non reputable ones. I know that it will not work because the people who do not care will still not care. 

I also know that me arguing with you won't change your belief that it will work. I suppose if it's adopted one of us will be proven wrong. We'll see.

And Curbside Prophet brought up some wonderful points in the last post. I agree totally.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> CaptBob,
> Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!


Count me out when you speak for "everyone." I can only speak for myself, but I fully understand why someone who daily works with animals who are not the cause of their homelessness, and who deals with the public daily who want quick fixes to their animal problems, and feels that those fighting against laws to change it all, just aren't getting it. It's hard not to feel like one is on a soapbox when the arguments most frequently heard are about rights to a hobby and AR paranoia. There is desperation in efforts to save animals that can't be saved because of people's selfishness. Yes, selfishness.

CaptBob, keep up the good work.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please. 

This attitude has caused problems before both here and on other forums. It's sad, because I think Captbob has a lot to offer forums in the way of advice and experience.


----------



## DogAdvocat

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat 
It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected. 

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life. 




Curbside Prophet said:


> It's not as black and white as your last statement would suggest. What is important to me is that better dogs are placed in better homes. This points to education and contractual obligations at the point of purchase, not necessarily s/n. This law says that jurisdiction can commit to education after the bills are paid. That's nice, but what happens when jurisdictions fail to fund enforcement of the law? The short answer is licensing will drop dramatically, and there are examples in California (San Mateo comes to mind) where mandatory s/n failed miserably, and euthanasia totals actually increased 126%. This is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of this law actually diminishing the choice for life.
> 
> I'm of the opinion that we should learn from the lessons of successful breeders and do what they do to place good dogs in good homes. I'm of the opinion that excellent breeders keep pups in a home.
> 
> My brother recently purchased a yellow labrador. Frankly I would have preferred he adopted a dog from a shelter. However, his 9 week old puppy (now 12 weeks) has had zero potty accidents since being in his home...the dog even knows how to go to the door for elimination. Big whoop, right? But how many people would love to not go through housetraining? Well what the breeder did to rear this pup will keep her in his home forever. Not because my brother would ever surrender the dog for a few accidents, but many people would, and have because of housetraining issues. People surrender adoptable dog for many reasons, but I've seen first hand how commited a good breeder can be, and I wouldn't be so quick to minimize their effect on keeping dogs out of shelters.
> 
> This is not to say s/n programs, do not work. If the goal is simply to reduce shelter intake and deaths and not to ban most if not all breeding, there are successful s/n programs implemented by local governments throughout the U.S. These, however, are limited in scope and also rely on positive incentives including, in particular, government subsidies to help pet owners with the cost of s/n. I read about a study in Minnesota where taxpayers saved about $20 over ten years (per person) in low cost s/n alone. I think if this law did more to to target areas where low cost s/n would benefit dog owners in conjunction with education on dog ownership, I would be more for it. But in it's current state, I know of too many examples where this type of law has failed and had a reverse effect on its intention. This can't be overlooked.


I have seen nothing in this law that stops responsible breeding. Part of responsible breeding is obtaining governing licenses and proving one's dog in whatever competitions pertain. Those that aren't doing this shouldn't be breeding, and their dogs should be altered.

You talk about government subsidies for s/n incentives. You also ask what happens when the government doesn't find the funds to enforce this law. Well what happens when the government doesn't find the funds for s/n incentives? If the government is inept at funding for one, why wouldn't they be just as inept in funding the other?

Your suggestion about s/n incentives, IMO, is a good one, to a point. At the heart of incentives though, is the idea that it's going to reach those people who now REFUSE to alter their dogs, and even those who object to their rights being taken away by mandatory s/n. No matter what the incentive, short of handing over the winning lottery, the moron down the street whose own manhood is bolstered by how many neighborhood dogs his own dog can impregnate, is not going to be influenced by either education or incentive. Any attempt at educating such a person is going to prompt him to say that it's his right, and there's nothing wrong with it because it's not against the law.

I've just heard too many excuses over the years for people that allowed their dogs to produce puppies instead of having them altered - and none of them were responsibly bred, and none of them was because a lack of financial incentive or aid in getting it done.



Laurelin said:


> Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please.
> 
> This attitude has caused problems before both here and on other forums. It's sad, because I think Captbob has a lot to offer forums in the way of advice and experience.


I think maybe I must be missing an important point. In my area there is a limitation on the number of dogs I can have. If, because my oldest dog has gone to Rainbow Bridge, I'm left with room for another dog - what would possibly convince me to buy a dog rather than rescue one that is going to die for lack of a home? I'm told that I can compete with a purchased dog, or use it in some other hobby that I may want to take part in -- but then there's that dog that will die if I do. It's hard enough to justify rescuing one and knowing that others will die, but if I can't even rescue the one because I'm buying one -- please, tell me how I could live with myself. 

A dog doesn't need to be born. A dog DOES need a home.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I guess I'm in the same evil boat as Laurelin...so , tar and feather us for having unaltered dogs...that have never produced a litter, whoops or otherwise.

I've never adopted from a shelter. Does that make me evil? No, but to read the remarks made by Captbob and DA, those of us that choose to buy from a reputable breeder are responsible for a dog being killed in a shelter. BuLL!

Have I rescued? Yes, there are 3 dogs on my property that I took in. One is a Rottweiler, the other two are mutts. 

Do I volunteer at a shelter? No, our county doesn't have a shelter/pound. But if it gains me brownie points, about 3.5 yrs ago, I tried to start one myself on my own property. Why did I give it up? B/c my hubby was diagnosed with a chronic illness and could no longer work...and no one else was willing to help. It was a matter of taking care of my own...which I have always done.

Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the self righteous attitude that if you don't rescue a dog from a shelter, you're scum. Or if you don't volunteer, you just don't understand. 

I enjoy my purebred dogs that I've purchased from reputable breeders...and if that makes me have an agenda, or the devil encarnate, then so be it. I've been called a h*lluva lot worse.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> I guess I'm in the same evil boat as Laurelin...so , tar and feather us for having unaltered dogs...that have never produced a litter, whoops or otherwise.
> 
> I've never adopted from a shelter. Does that make me evil? No, but to read the remarks made by Captbob and DA, those of us that choose to buy from a reputable breeder are responsible for a dog being killed in a shelter. BuLL!
> 
> Have I rescued? Yes, there are 3 dogs on my property that I took in. One is a Rottweiler, the other two are mutts.
> 
> Do I volunteer at a shelter? No, our county doesn't have a shelter/pound. But if it gains me brownie points, about 3.5 yrs ago, I tried to start one myself on my own property. Why did I give it up? B/c my hubby was diagnosed with a chronic illness and could no longer work...and no one else was willing to help. It was a matter of taking care of my own...which I have always done.
> 
> Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the self righteous attitude that if you don't rescue a dog from a shelter, you're scum. Or if you don't volunteer, you just don't understand.
> 
> I enjoy my purebred dogs that I've purchased from reputable breeders...and if that makes me have an agenda, or the devil encarnate, then so be it. I've been called a h*lluva lot worse.


A dog is in need of a home. A home has a legally available space. The home decides to fill that space with a dog from a breeder that is now encouraged to breed more. How is that not leaving the homeless dog homeless? Please explain your logic. 

As for the rest, it's kind of amusing that CaptBob and I are being called names like arrogant and self righeous, with claims that we're the ones calling names. I haven't read all of CaptBob's posts, but I sure never called anyone evil, scum, the devil incarnate or anything else. Can't we discuss the issue without attacking? If you (generic) feel you are being called evil, I'd suggest you look within first, and figure out if maybe dying homeless dogs trigger the conscience.


----------



## lurcherloopy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> CaptBob,
> Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!


I must say it was attitudes like these that put me off these boards, just because someone disagrees then someone has to be board bully and drag everyone else into it. I really would like to know what gives you the right to speak for everyone on a forum?!?




Laurelin said:


> Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please.


So calling someone snide, rude and self righteous are not personal attacks.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Ok, it's like this: I want a purebred Rottweiler that I can show...shelter/rescue dogs won't work for me. It's my choice. Just as it is a couple's right to have their own children vs adoption. 

As has been implied on this forum, and others, unless you get your dog from a shelter/rescue, then you are less than human. Buying a dog from a reputable , responsible breeder does not take a home away from a shelter dog. Responsible breeders aren't the problem...byb and pm/petstores are!


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> The question is, is it possible to develop a perfect law that no one will fight and that will cover every issue? I really doubt it. But I do know that education alone isn't solving the problem.


Is there an education protocol set-up by jurisdictions? Hardly. Is perfect ideal? Of course. Can this law be perfect? Probably not, but it certainly can be better than the how it is currently written.

You mentioned what would happen if subsidised s/n should fail. I'd say lets model the State law after subsidised s/n programs that have succeeded. A subsidised s/n clinic opened in Santa Barbara CA in 1975 and within a decade the number of euthanised animals fell 80%. San Francisco CA (SFSPCA) began subsidizing s/n in 1976. By 1991 euthanasia of adoptable dogs and cats ceased altogether. (Interestingly, the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco recently tabled the issue of a mandatory s/n bill in view of concerns about cost and effectiveness.) 

Yet complaints about this bill are construed as whining. Fine, then I shall whine. I'll whine about how Camden County, New Jersey has a mandatory s/n law, yet there are shelters in their county that have the highest kill rates in the state. Or how about Fort Woth TX...a mandatory s/n program has ended because od a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an increase in rabies in the city. These kinds of things scare me, and they should scare those in favor of this bill.

I want to save dogs too, but I don't want laws that haven't proved their worth, and have shown to be counter productive. The excuses are not excuses. They are reasons to be considered. By how this bill is drafted, what in it proves to me that the authors understand breeding practices? 

Sometimes I wish I could follow my heart more, but if I trip over my brain, I have to pause and think. And that's all I ask of people who see this issue as being black and white...to pause and think. There can be a better law than this one, and we should demand it.


----------



## Tamara

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Sometimes I wish I could follow my heart more, but if I trip over my brain, I have to pause and think. And that's all I ask of people who see this issue as being black and white...to pause and think. There can be a better law than this one, and we should demand it.


*You are absolutely right*. IMO there should be a s/n law but not this one. It is unfortunate that we don't live in an ideal world where education can cure everything - there are too many stupid people that don't want it.


----------



## Orange County Ca

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear./quote]
> 
> Right, prohibition of liquor didn't work. The "drug war" is a farce. Cigarette running to Canada works.
> 
> But this law will make a statement "We want this to end".
> 
> All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.*
> 
> *Paraphrasing Edmund Burke of the 1800's. Interestingly no one can be found who actually said that so I didn't put it in quotes.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> Ok, it's like this: I want a purebred Rottweiler that I can show...shelter/rescue dogs won't work for me. It's my choice. Just as it is a couple's right to have their own children vs adoption.
> 
> As has been implied on this forum, and others, unless you get your dog from a shelter/rescue, then you are less than human. Buying a dog from a reputable , responsible breeder does not take a home away from a shelter dog. Responsible breeders aren't the problem...byb and pm/petstores are!


Yes, it is your choice. But that's an important word -- choice. The dog has none. It can't make a choice to live or die. Only you (generic) can make the choice whether it lives or dies, and frankly, I just don't see how my making a choice to buy a puppy, responsibly bred or otherwise, isn't refusing that homeless dog a home. Exactly what is the difference between the "responsibly bred" dog and the byb/pm/petstore dog -- after all, people buying them are also making a choice. Are they encouraging an industry to just breed more dogs? Yep, but then so is the buyer of the responsibly bred dog because it's doubtful that a responsible breeder would continue to breed if no one every bought her dogs - especially with the breeds that produce a large number of puppies - like rottweilers. So if I buy a dog from a responsible breeder, I'm effectively clearing the way for him/her to bring more puppies into the world - even if that breeder is not breeding to fill a demand. On the other hand, if I adopt the shelter dog, it is NOT the cause of more dogs being born.

So though you're theory has been stated many times before, I've never quite bought it. It still comes down to making a life saving choice, or not.

As for children and adoption, that argument will fly when the government is euthanizing children because there aren't enough homes for them.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lurcherloopy said:


> So calling someone snide, rude and self righteous are not personal attacks.


No I called the remarks snide, rude, and self righteous, not Captbob, who was quick to point out that I was self absorbed and only cared about my own 'agenda'. I do try to refrain from personal attacks but when people keep on inferring untrue things about me, sometimes it's hard.

I have no problems with specific people here, only specific attitudes and certain comments. I think it's great Captbob works in rescue. More people should. I still think it's rude to make the assumptions that were made in that post.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> I want to save dogs too, but I don't want laws that haven't proved their worth, and have shown to be counter productive. The excuses are not excuses. They are reasons to be considered. By how this bill is drafted, what in it proves to me that the authors understand breeding practices?
> 
> Sometimes I wish I could follow my heart more, but if I trip over my brain, I have to pause and think. And that's all I ask of people who see this issue as being black and white...to pause and think. There can be a better law than this one, and we should demand it.


That's very well said.


----------



## DogAdvocat

Curbside Prophet said:


> Is there an education protocol set-up by jurisdictions? Hardly. Is perfect ideal? Of course. Can this law be perfect? Probably not, but it certainly can be better than the how it is currently written.
> 
> You mentioned what would happen if subsidised s/n should fail. I'd say lets model the State law after subsidised s/n programs that have succeeded. A subsidised s/n clinic opened in Santa Barbara CA in 1975 and within a decade the number of euthanised animals fell 80%. San Francisco CA (SFSPCA) began subsidizing s/n in 1976. By 1991 euthanasia of adoptable dogs and cats ceased altogether. (Interestingly, the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco recently tabled the issue of a mandatory s/n bill in view of concerns about cost and effectiveness.)


I question that success. First, when citing a subsidized s/n clinic in Santa Barbara resulting in an 80% drop in euthanasia, are you also factoring in the volunteer force that would foster and board at local kennels when the shelter became too crowded, and then returning them to the shelter when room permitted? That's not something seen in Los Angeles, as an example. Are you factoring in just the municipal shelter euthanizations, or are you also factoring in the kill rate at the local humane society, which is higher than that of the municipal shelter - something that most people figure is just the opposite.

As for San Francisco - it's simply not true. Did their euthanization rate drop? I'm sure it did, but it's not true that it stopped, unless you buy into the idea that reclassifying an adoptable dog as unadoptable means that no adoptable dog is killed. Pit bulls are an example. Pit bulls without a history were not selected by the SFSPCA, whether or not they were friendly. And the dogs not selected by the SFSPCA were left at the pound to die.

But even beyond that, it took a lot of money to enact the programs that caused the euth rate to drop in San Francisco. Where is that money supposed to come from to replicate it in the rest of the state? Do you really think that the state assembly is going to make this a priority when they are still trying to turn the state around after it was so near bankruptcy? It hasn't been all that long since Animal Control meant protecting people against animals, and a lot of jurisdictions probably still hold that idea. What's the simplest way to protect people against animals? Kill them. A few years back I attended a meeting if local vets, kennel clubs, rescue, shelter staff, etc. - where a plan was being sought to develop a spay/neuter program - and I'll never forget one of the vets who stated that if the goal was to reduce the number of animals, why not just kill more of them. 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Yet complaints about this bill are construed as whining. Fine, then I shall whine. I'll whine about how Camden County, New Jersey has a mandatory s/n law, yet there are shelters in their county that have the highest kill rates in the state. Or how about Fort Woth TX...a mandatory s/n program has ended because od a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an increase in rabies in the city. These kinds of things scare me, and they should scare those in favor of this bill.


Oh, I don't consider it whining. I do think a lot of people are knee-jerk reacting to the fear mongering that's being perpetrated by breeders, and I do question the statistics about success and lack of it in other areas. I think that it's really hard to get the full picture on any of this. For instance, it was cited in another post that the euth rate in Los Angeles has gone down, but does anyone factor in that the number of rescuers has gone up? The dogs are still homeless, they are just being fostered by rescuers who are overwhelmed and at their wits end - which is one of the reasons that so many of them endorse this bill. Having more rescuers does not decrease the number of dogs in need, but it sure does give a false sense of the issue to those that claim the numbers are dropping so that breeding isn't a problem. Again, it's hard to see the big picture. And that includes extreme temperament testing that relables almost every dog as unadoptable.



Curbside Prophet said:


> I want to save dogs too, but I don't want laws that haven't proved their worth, and have shown to be counter productive. The excuses are not excuses. They are reasons to be considered. By how this bill is drafted, what in it proves to me that the authors understand breeding practices?


You're right, the bill's authors may not understand breeding practices, but then I have found that a consensus of opinion about breeding practices is even hard to find when a group of breeders get in a discussion. How hard must it be to draft a law that makes all breeders happy? Especially when the breeders just sit back and complain as each proposed law is developed and never step forward and draft a law of their own? 



Curbside Prophet said:


> Sometimes I wish I could follow my heart more, but if I trip over my brain, I have to pause and think. And that's all I ask of people who see this issue as being black and white...to pause and think. There can be a better law than this one, and we should demand it.


What will demanding it get us? It will still be fought by breeders. If not because it hampers them, then because it might be a slippery slope. If we are going to demand a better law, then we should be demanding that the breeders sit down and come up with one. Nothing is going to change as long as they just sit back and take organized pot shots at anything anyone else develops. But the problem is, they won't. Personally I've seen too many breeders saying things like "none of my dogs will ever end up in a shelter" as if they were protected by an invisible force field. That kind of attitude also means to me that they really don't care about the dogs that do become homeless. They may think it's not their problem, but it is a societal problem, and as part of society, I don't think breeders should have the right to block counter measures by fear mongering and lying to the public. When I see this going on, it sure doesn't help me to consider them ethical and responsible -- except maybe responsible for the problem. Responsible breeders say they didn't cause the problem, but if they keep fighting the solutions, then they certainly are the cause of the problem continuing.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet 
I want to save dogs too, but I don't want laws that haven't proved their worth, and have shown to be counter productive. <<<

In looking back over this one sentence, I have to ask you how a s/n law can prove it's worth if it isn't tried? This exact law has not been tried elsewhere, has it? Did the area where other such laws were tried have the same problems and conditions as we have here? Even within California there is a wide range of conditions, so comparing one area to another is almost impossible. Do other states have the huge rescue efforts that we have in So. California? Do they have the available manpower via those rescue volunteers to help police a law? There's one group of volunteers here that go door-to-door in depressed neighborhoods trying to get people to spay/neuter their animals. I know darned well that their job would be a lot easier if they had a law behind them.

I think one of your concerns is that people will go underground and hide their dogs. Are you aware that it used to be (maybe still is) the norm for meter readers to make notations about dogs they saw on the property where they were checking the meters, and that L.A. Animal Control would then use that information to enforce dog licensing and rabies certifications? 

My point is, can we really point at another city's failure and assume that we have the same conditions that would cause failure here as well?


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*



lurcherloopy said:


> I must say it was attitudes like these that put me off these boards, just because someone disagrees then someone has to be board bully and drag everyone else into it. I really would like to know what gives you the right to speak for everyone on a forum?!?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So calling someone snide, rude and self righteous are not personal attacks.


 
No, not a bully. I'm just stating fact, which you would know if you read the posts of this person for months. The fact is, when you find yourself in a disagreement with the person in question, he will do the same to you. Especially when you post the facts and studies as I have. 

If you disagree with his preferred training methods, you don't know what your talking about

If you disagree with his politics, your stupid and know nothing about hte issues. 

The fact is, I'm a rescuer. I pull adoptable dogs from shelters, Take relinquishments from individuals, transport them to foster homes, do home inspections, help get them spayed nuetered trained and into forever homes, which I also randomly spot inspect and check up on. I work with four different AC facilities to do this and I see the problem every day. 

Right now I'm trying to talk a woman who got a Neo for her Birthday out of selling the pup and get it into rescue. The dog got "too big" and she doesn't "have time for it" and it "knocks he kids down". I hear the ALL the excuses believe me! Oh, and the dog was NEVER licensed because they didn't "Have time" to drive three miles the the shelter to have it done!!!! Thankfully the she hasn't come into season yet so HOPEFULLY we have time to get her spayed (she's 8 months). 

The fact is this law won't work because of the lazyness and throw away attitude of Americans. Until that attitude changes we will continue to have probelms with pet overpopulation.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> The fact is this law won't work because of the lazyness and throw away attitude of Americans. Until that attitude changes we will continue to have probelms with pet overpopulation.


Sorry, but that's not a fact, it's an opinion. The fact is that you don't know if the law will work or not. The fact is that what we have now is not working. An alternate opinion is that this law could change attitudes because if there were less dogs available, and people actually had to qualify to have a dog, like the qualifications required by responsible breeders, then people would appreciate dogs more and euthanizing dogs for lack of homes would be unacceptable.


----------



## iwantmypup

*Re: AB1634 advances*

When they do this law they better not charge so much at my vet..b/c a family with kids and two dogs...well I don't think that would be easy for 600$ for a spay


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



iwantmypup said:


> When they do this law they better not charge so much at my vet..b/c a family with kids and two dogs...well I don't think that would be easy for 600$ for a spay


If your vet is charging that much for a spay, you need a new vet. This is one of those arguments designed to scare people about this law.


----------



## cshellenberger

DogAdvocat said:


> Sorry, but that's not a fact, it's an opinion. The fact is that you don't know if the law will work or not. The fact is that what we have now is not working. An alternate opinion is that this law could change attitudes because if there were less dogs available, and people actually had to qualify to have a dog, like the qualifications required by responsible breeders, then people would appreciate dogs more and euthanizing dogs for lack of homes would be unacceptable.


Once again you fail to address the entirety of the point. Just picking apart the what you want to respond to. Fine, I'll address YOUR post in it's entirety.

How are pet stores going to "Qualify" people for a dog? The person with the most money gets it? I don't think so! This law does NOTHING to help responsible breeders or pet owners, it only hurts them by having them spay nueter dogs prematurely. I see NO regulations on how many litters a producing dog is allowed per years or how many litters a 'licensed' business is allowed to produce or sell. I see NO regulations on pet stores or puppy mills. How much does someone pay for 'business license" so they can breed and what kind of regulations are there on the business? 

What kind of accomodations are instituted for those who can't afford the spay/nueter? NONE! Many areas, even in California have NO low cost program, therefore, people who can't afford 200-300 for a vet to do it simply DON'T and then you end up with unwanted litters because of it. Those pups are given to friends and family who also can't afford to spay nueter and the cycle continues. Often these dogs are also NEVER licensed. How will this be enforced? Are you going to take away the right to own a pet based on houshold income? I'm sure if you try SOME lawyer will take you on Pro bono for discrimination.

I see programs that DO work, I sited a prime candidate in the Chula Vista program, which has been at least as successful as any in this state and has been done with NO manditory spay nueter law. They have brought the accomodations INTO the community and made it affordable. Is it 100% successful, no, because you'll alway have those who don't care. Take a program like that and putit state wide and MAKE each county and city accountable for their programs if they don't meet requirements. 

THEN MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO SELL DOGS OR CATS IN STORES, SWAPMEETS OR THROUGH OTHER THIRD PARTY MEANS. Continue by making laws that regulate the breeding industry in a way that won't hurt responsible breeders by using the Breed Club code of ethics as a model for the law. This will get to the ROOT of the problem with out hurting those who have household pets.



DogAdvocat said:


> If your vet is charging that much for a spay, you need a new vet. This is one of those arguments designed to scare people about this law.


It's the view of a 13 year old who's family is struggling to afford a spay.


----------



## Tamara

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Well when a s/n law comes about I think it should be no more than 50 bucks and that should be stipulated in the law.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

DA
Those of us that show and purchase dogs from responsible breeders do so because we love our chosen breeds and enjoy showing...

Buying a dog from a responsible breeder does not sentence a dog in a shelter to die...buying from a byb/pm, on the other hand does, since that's where the unwanted dogs come from...not the truly responsible breeders.

This law will not work....those that are the root of the problem will either surrender their dogs because they won't pay the fines/fees, or just keep on doing what they are doing. They don't care about current licensing laws, so what makes anyone think they will care about this new draconian piece of garbage?


----------



## iwantmypup

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I hope so...because its hard enough for a mother - daughter and one dog....but a couple with like 3 kids..and maybe 2 dogs...wow...


oh and Pepper is getting spayed tomorrow...so ..yeah..We are super nervous!


----------



## DINGODOG

*Re: AB1634 advances*



iwantmypup said:


> I hope so...because its hard enough for a mother - daughter and one dog....but a couple with like 3 kids..and maybe 2 dogs...wow...
> 
> 
> oh and Pepper is getting spayed tomorrow...so ..yeah..We are super nervous!


  
She'll do great. 
Congratulations for spaying her, and being responsible. Wish there were more people like you, then we could breath a sigh of relief because the killing would stop.
Until then, we need laws for those who are invested in the current situation--the irresponsible breeders


----------



## xoxluvablexox

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Since so many people on this site are against this law for legit resons could you give us all a clue as to how this law could be fixed for the better of the dogs and good breeders out there? Also a few people have said there should be laws against petstores and those kind of things, maybe some of those same people should be out there doing something about what they have to say. There are people out there, people some of you insist on calling "terrorist", that are trying to make a difference for the abused and unrightfully treated animals in this world. Couldn't you be out there trying to do the same instead of sitting there in your computer chairs just complaining about everything that is wrong with the laws and ideas instead of focusing on what's good about them and working from there. Honestly people, complaining and being angry about it isn't getting us anywhere and isn't helping all the homeless dogs out there, it's just setting everything back and making it even more difficult to get something good and usefull done for these animals.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



xoxluvablexox said:


> Since so many people on this site are against this law for legit resons could you give us all a clue as to how this law could be fixed for the better of the dogs and good breeders out there? Also a few people have said there should be laws against petstores and those kind of things, maybe some of those same people should be out there doing something about what they have to say. There are people out there, people some of you insist on calling "terrorist", that are trying to make a difference for the abused and unrightfully treated animals in this world. Couldn't you be out there trying to do the same instead of sitting there in your computer chairs just complaining about everything that is wrong with the laws and ideas instead of focusing on what's good about them and working from there. Honestly people, complaining and being angry about it isn't getting us anywhere and isn't helping all the homeless dogs out there, it's just setting everything back and making it even more difficult to get something good and usefull done for these animals.


Are you talking about PETA blowing up facilities and labs, because to me that is definitely terrorism.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Once again you fail to address the entirety of the point. Just picking apart the what you want to respond to. Fine, I'll address YOUR post in it's entirety.


I don't understand your problem with this. If I pick one part of your post to respond to, it's because that's the only point I want to make. I think you can safely assume that either the rest of it has been hashed out elsewhere, or that I have no disagreement with it, and only wanted to clarify one particular section.

My point this time is that you apparently are confusing fact with opinion, and when you say it's a fact that the law won't work - you can't declare something as a fact when it hasn't even happened yet. An assumption is not synonymous with fact.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*

ok, let's pose a hypothetical scene here....under this law everyone is to s/n their animal.....ok, so now, let's say, no one is breeding dogs or cats at all (no puppymills, no BYB, no responsible breeders).....so, there are how many dogs/cats in rescue/shelters?....just how long do you think these dogs or cats are going to last?....so then what do we do?...start cloning?

now, if the law were to state something along the lines of ANY breeder could not "put out", say, more than 3 litter in a yr and any 1 bitch could not have, say, more than 3 litters in their lifetime, and the stud could not sire more than, say, 2 litters in a yr and that ALL breeding dogs had to be registered w/ the county and certified on genetic problems (and i would put in there titled, but, i'm sorry, i don't believe that the only dogs to produce "quality" are the titled ones), alot of this would stop your BYB/PM (well, at least as good as a _mandatory s/n is going to_).....

and, on this note....
Originally Posted by iwantmypup 
When they do this law they better not charge so much at my vet..b/c a family with kids and two dogs...well I don't think that would be easy for 600$ for a spay
i can guaran-damn-tee you that i know exactly what she is talking about....right now we are living on my income only......we went from a 2 person income to a 1 person income which cut the income in half.....and in a situation like this it makes no never mind if the cost is $200 (which is the norm for here) or $600....it is still an impossibility to come up w/ and still make sure your living expenses are met....my dogs want for nothing cuz i will go w/ out things to make sure that the rest is taken care of....but if i had to s/n a dog right now, they'd be going w/out it......but i'd also be making sure that they were not producing anything either.......

as i said b/4, i get real tired of hearing these self righteous , pompous people (generic) out there telling me that i shouldn't have dogs b/c of my income.....these dogs are my life line (literally)......


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I have been doing something, being active in rescue. Working to change the laws and educate. No, I'm not involved in AR organization NOT because they don't do good work, but because of the type of people they are associated with. That said, I have NO problem protesting pet shops or puppy mills or handing out flyers in malls and shopping centers that have them. I will be at a rescue rally in Temecula this weekend. Yes, we will have flyers on Puppy mills and why it's wrong to buy from pet stores. 

I have outlined what I think would be good, enforcable laws in this thread a couple of times. I really don't feel like going over them again as frankly I have a migraine coming on and need to take some meds.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



cshellenberger said:


> Once again you fail to address the entirety of the point. Just picking apart the what you want to respond to. Fine, I'll address YOUR post in it's entirety.
> 
> How are pet stores going to "Qualify" people for a dog? The person with the most money gets it? I don't think so! This law does NOTHING to help responsible breeders or pet owners, it only hurts them by having them spay nueter dogs prematurely. I see NO regulations on how many litters a producing dog is allowed per years or how many litters a 'licensed' business is allowed to produce or sell. I see NO regulations on pet stores or puppy mills. How much does someone pay for 'business license" so they can breed and what kind of regulations are there on the business?


If responsible breeders are identified by their commitment to the breed through competing with their dogs, then an assumption could be made that responsible breeders are the ones that will be licensed. I personally think it takes a lot more than that to qualify a breeder as responsible, but do you know of any responsible breeders that sell their dogs through pet shops? That's an oxymoron. If they are responsible, they don't do business that way, and if they do business that way, they aren't responsible. My reading of this proposal indicates to me that the law attempts to eliminate irresponsible breeders who they define, maybe a little too broadly. But defining them more narrowly would bring even more objections to the law.



cshellenberger said:


> What kind of accomodations are instituted for those who can't afford the spay/nueter? NONE! Many areas, even in California have NO low cost program, therefore, people who can't afford 200-300 for a vet to do it simply DON'T and then you end up with unwanted litters because of it. Those pups are given to friends and family who also can't afford to spay nueter and the cycle continues. Often these dogs are also NEVER licensed. How will this be enforced? Are you going to take away the right to own a pet based on houshold income? I'm sure if you try SOME lawyer will take you on Pro bono for discrimination.


So you're saying that where there are no low-cost s/n programs people won't alter there dogs and it will result in unwanted litters? Isn't that already happening now? Isn't that the point of all this? And no one is taking away the right to own a pet based on income. If people can't afford to pay the registrations on their cars, and can't afford the smog devices and checks, can't afford the upkeep, are there lawyers that are suing for discrimination? Do you realize that there are people that do have their dogs taken from them because they aren't getting them adequate veterinary care and it becomes an humane issue? Is that discrimination? What happens when their dog develops reproductive cancer or pyometra because they couldn't afford the spay/neuter? So yes, if one can't afford the upkeep, including spay/neuter, on a dog, then one shouldn't have a dog.



cshellenberger said:


> I see programs that DO work, I sited a prime candidate in the Chula Vista program, which has been at least as successful as any in this state and has been done with NO manditory spay nueter law. They have brought the accomodations INTO the community and made it affordable. Is it 100% successful, no, because you'll alway have those who don't care. Take a program like that and putit state wide and MAKE each county and city accountable for their programs if they don't meet requirements.


Ok, how would you suggest we do that? How do we find the funding to take such a program state wide? Who pays for it? With AB1634, monies are being generated through licensing and fines. What monies are generated with the program you suggest? Or is this one of those things where we have to convince the legislature that they should take funding away from some other program whose proponents are also promoting in order to fund spay/neuter - something responsible dog owners should be doing on their own? As I said previously, in my area it was deemed more important to beautify the median strip on the freeway with plants than it was to improve the plight of companion animals. Unless you have an alternate funding source in mind, I don't believe we can depend on the government to pick up the tab.



cshellenberger said:


> THEN MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO SELL DOGS OR CATS IN STORES, SWAPMEETS OR THROUGH OTHER THIRD PARTY MEANS. Continue by making laws that regulate the breeding industry in a way that won't hurt responsible breeders by using the Breed Club code of ethics as a model for the law. This will get to the ROOT of the problem with out hurting those who have household pets.


Let's assume for the moment that breeders won't fight any legislation that regulates the breeding industry, which I think is a huge assumption, even if we can assume that there is one standard Breed Club COE - which there isn't. The ROOT of the problem is still going to be unaltered dogs and cats. Restricting sales in stores, swapmeets, and third parties is not going to stop the moron down the block from producing litter after litter and handing them out to impulse buyers at the park, outside the supermarket, or even just dumping them off in remote neighborhoods. If we were only talking about purebred dogs, then your solution might solve the problem, but since an approximate 75% of the homeless dogs are mixed breed, then it IS Joe Public that is the problem. I suppose I need to add a disclaimer about designer breeds coming from breeders - but it's still mostly mixed breeds in the shelters.

Remember the statistics where one impregnated dog/cat can produce thousands of offspring? How many do you have to alter through government subsidized s/n programs before you offset the effect of that one dog/cat? How many do you have to alter to offset the damage done by the one household pet whose owner refuses to alter because he doesn't legally have to do so? 

Improvements may still need to be made in this law. We may find that subsequent laws need to be passed as well (like pet shop restrictions). Personally I'd like to see a law passed restricting the number of dogs allowed in a licensed breeding kennel. It's just not possible, IMO, to properly care for and socialize 100+ dogs in a profitable business. Corners have to be cut and the dogs suffer for it, and so does the puppy buyer. But the way I look at it is this law is like having a bird in the hand vs. 2 in the bush. When every law that is proposed is successfully fought by breeders banned together to diseminate disinformation, then I don't have a lot of hope for a better law actually making it on the books in the future. You want to restrict pet shops? How do you propose we fight PIJAC?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Tamara said:


> Well when a s/n law comes about I think it should be no more than 50 bucks and that should be stipulated in the law.


Who eats the rest of the cost of that? Should the vets reduce their prices to $50? They have bills to pay too, you know. Should the government pay for it? What program would you cut in order for that to happen, and how do you tell the proponents of that cut program that their issue isn't as important as yours? 

The only way I can see a reduced cost s/n program working statewide is if there is some sort of user fee that will fund it, and I do believe AB1634 does include user fees in the form of licensing and fines. And of course the bottom line is that those that are already responsible enough to have had their dogs altered, won't have to worry about it.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> DA
> Those of us that show and purchase dogs from responsible breeders do so because we love our chosen breeds and enjoy showing...
> 
> Buying a dog from a responsible breeder does not sentence a dog in a shelter to die...buying from a byb/pm, on the other hand does, since that's where the unwanted dogs come from...not the truly responsible breeders.


So if I had bought dogs from a responsible breeder, the pound dogs laying on my couch now wouldn't have died? How do you figure? They live because I adopted them. There's only so much space, and my chosen enjoyable activity just doesn't stack up against a dog dying. My question to you is whether this is all theoretical, or whether you could actually take part in making such a choice if the dog was right in front of you? Could you pet "Barney" and then let him go to the green room in order to go buy your new puppy from a breeder? Can you look Barney in the eye and tell him he's not as worthy as the puppy you want instead because you enjoy showing? I think it's a lot easier to do if we don't see the dog that's going to die, but for me, I know he exists.... for the moment.



ChRotties said:


> This law will not work....those that are the root of the problem will either surrender their dogs because they won't pay the fines/fees, or just keep on doing what they are doing. They don't care about current licensing laws, so what makes anyone think they will care about this new draconian piece of garbage?


A person that would surrender a dog for this reason probably wouldn't have kept it a lifetime anyway, but how many of it's offspring do you think will show up in the shelter if we allow them to keep it intact?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> ok, let's pose a hypothetical scene here....under this law everyone is to s/n their animal.....ok, so now, let's say, no one is breeding dogs or cats at all (no puppymills, no BYB, no responsible breeders).....so, there are how many dogs/cats in rescue/shelters?....just how long do you think these dogs or cats are going to last?....so then what do we do?...start cloning?


That's a false hypothesis because this law allows breeding for those licensed to do so. But even if it didn't, there will never be 100% compliance, but that's not a reason to not have a law, anymore than lack of 100% compliance is a reason to abolish speed limit laws.



tirluc said:


> now, if the law were to state something along the lines of ANY breeder could not "put out", say, more than 3 litter in a yr and any 1 bitch could not have, say, more than 3 litters in their lifetime, and the stud could not sire more than, say, 2 litters in a yr and that ALL breeding dogs had to be registered w/ the county and certified on genetic problems (and i would put in there titled, but, i'm sorry, i don't believe that the only dogs to produce "quality" are the titled ones), alot of this would stop your BYB/PM (well, at least as good as a _mandatory s/n is going to_).....


The breeders would fight it every step of the way. First, if breeders were only allowed to have 3 litters a year, that means you'd be unfairly penalizing the toy breed breeders whose dogs only produce 1 or 2 puppies, while the large breed breeders dogs can produce 8+ puppies. I agree with you about genetic certification, but who decides what the various breeds need to be certified in? Even OFA which is commonly done in responsible bred large breeds, is not normally done in a lot of the small breeds - which I think is a mistake because CHD is creeping into some of those small breeds. As for titles indicating quality - if the hallmark of responsible breeding is to only breed the best to the best, how do you know what's best without some sort of competition? And if the dog is competing, and is not titled, then how can it be the best?



tirluc said:


> and, on this note....
> Originally Posted by iwantmypup
> When they do this law they better not charge so much at my vet..b/c a family with kids and two dogs...well I don't think that would be easy for 600$ for a spay
> i can guaran-damn-tee you that i know exactly what she is talking about....right now we are living on my income only......we went from a 2 person income to a 1 person income which cut the income in half.....and in a situation like this it makes no never mind if the cost is $200 (which is the norm for here) or $600....it is still an impossibility to come up w/ and still make sure your living expenses are met....my dogs want for nothing cuz i will go w/ out things to make sure that the rest is taken care of....but if i had to s/n a dog right now, they'd be going w/out it......but i'd also be making sure that they were not producing anything either.......
> 
> as i said b/4, i get real tired of hearing these self righteous , pompous people (generic) out there telling me that i shouldn't have dogs b/c of my income.....these dogs are my life line (literally)......


Logistically, since this bill requires dogs be altered by 4 months, don't you think provisions should be made for the cost of altering before people add a dog to their family? How many people do you think will lose their jobs between the time they buy the dog at 8 weeks and they have to alter at 16 weeks? If this truly is an issue, maybe it should be added to the bill that a spay/neuter deposit will be added to the cost of the puppy. 

If you are talking about adult dogs, I think that brings us back to the fact that this bill is only requiring people to meet the responsibility that they already should have. This bill won't effect me, and people like me, at all because my dogs are already altered. It wouldn't effect you either if yours was already altered. Your reduction in income wouldn't cause a problem with spaying/neutering if your dog was already altered. So the question is, why are thinking up excuses and reasons why people shouldn't be responsible? They should already be responsible.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

So, I'm not looking for a rescue.....I suppose that makes me a terrible person?

Don't preach to me about dogs dying....or about looking into a dog's eyes....been there, done that. I wish every dog that got dumped in my yard was adoptable or wanted....I wish someone hadn't dumped a box full of puppies at my door that were so ravaged by mange that all you could see was scabbed skin.....I wish I hadn't been the one that had to do the right thing ....It's not a perfect world, nor will it ever be. 

So, since the answer seems to be if you can't afford s/n, you don't need a dog, what is one to do when "life" happens and the extra money needed for s/n just isn't there? Does that person give up their dog?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> So, I'm not looking for a rescue.....I suppose that makes me a terrible person?


Why ask? Does it matter what I think about you? It shouldn't. I'm not judging anyone. What I'm doing is discussing and advocating an ethic I believe in. It would be nice if I could change your mind, but educating isn't about judging. 



ChRotties said:


> Don't preach to me about dogs dying....or about looking into a dog's eyes....been there, done that. I wish every dog that got dumped in my yard was adoptable or wanted....I wish someone hadn't dumped a box full of puppies at my door that were so ravaged by mange that all you could see was scabbed skin.....I wish I hadn't been the one that had to do the right thing ....It's not a perfect world, nor will it ever be.


You're right, it's not a perfect world. But to my way of thinking, that's all the more reason for one to try to improve it, and to extend one's hand to those in need. "Been there, done that" is something that doesn't stop me from continuing to be there and do that. I may look for improved ways of doing it, but to stop doing it is not an option for me. And IMO, legislation is an improved way of doing it. The status quo is not acceptable to me.



ChRotties said:


> So, since the answer seems to be if you can't afford s/n, you don't need a dog, what is one to do when "life" happens and the extra money needed for s/n just isn't there? Does that person give up their dog?


Ideally they would find the money. If they truly can't afford what the dog needs, then yes, for the sake of the dog, the dog needs to be rescued. Speaking personally again, I would equate it with my child. If I couldn't find a way to pay for what my child needs, I'd hope that I'd make an ethical choice to find someone to care for my child until I could. But IMO, things usually aren't that cut and dried. Sometimes people just don't put forth the effort to find alternative solutions, and don't prioritize the dog in their life. Too often I've seen people smoking cigarettes, having their nails done, having their hair done, dining out and enjoying other forms of entertainment, planning their vacation, and then complaining that they don't have the money for a spay/neuter. Others don't take the time to find available spay/neuter assistance.

Out of curiousity, are you of the opinion that no one should have to sign a spay/neuter contract as part of buying a puppy from a responsible breeder? After all, what if "life" happens and the money just isn't there when the time comes? Should they have to give up their dog to satisfy the contract in lieu of spay/neuter? Are you critical of breeders who enforce the contract? They lose their right to be considered responsible breeders if they don't enforce the contract, you know.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

As AB1634 has already gone through processes to make it law and where only some ammendments were made, so far it appears that the majority want this Bill to go through. Next AB1634 will be heard by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in a few weeks (no date set), before moving to the Assembly Floor. The Assembly Appropriations Committee will take public comment and everyone who attends will be counted. I'm very interested in seeing what happens, and I hope those who are strongly for or against this Bill have already contacted their Assemby representative.

.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> The breeders would fight it every step of the way. First, if breeders were only allowed to have 3 litters a year, that means you'd be unfairly penalizing the toy breed breeders whose dogs only produce 1 or 2 puppies, while the large breed breeders dogs can produce 8+ puppies. I agree with you about genetic certification, but who decides what the various breeds need to be certified in? Even OFA which is commonly done in responsible bred large breeds, is not normally done in a lot of the small breeds - which I think is a mistake because CHD is creeping into some of those small breeds. As for titles indicating quality - if the hallmark of responsible breeding is to only breed the best to the best, how do you know what's best without some sort of competition? And if the dog is competing, and is not titled, then how can it be the best?
> 
> Logistically, since this bill requires dogs be altered by 4 months, don't you think provisions should be made for the cost of altering before people add a dog to their family? How many people do you think will lose their jobs between the time they buy the dog at 8 weeks and they have to alter at 16 weeks? If this truly is an issue, maybe it should be added to the bill that a spay/neuter deposit will be added to the cost of the puppy.
> 
> If you are talking about adult dogs, I think that brings us back to the fact that this bill is only requiring people to meet the responsibility that they already should have. This bill won't effect me, and people like me, at all because my dogs are already altered. It wouldn't effect you either if yours was already altered. Your reduction in income wouldn't cause a problem with spaying/neutering if your dog was already altered. So the question is, why are thinking up excuses and reasons why people shouldn't be responsible? They should already be responsible.


first, you're right, breeders would fight it every step of the way.....just like we're arguing this right now about our rights to alter or not...this is America, or it was the last time i looked.....for the genetic problems, it would be determined by the breed....you go by what is prevalant in each breed...and i think the HD is pretty much prevalant in most breeds, large or small......

how many people do you think would lose there jobs insude of 8 wks?.....my spouse lost his job in 4 wk after starting a new position......did we see it coming? hell no.....luckily we didn't have anything at the time that wasn't already there for quite some time......and on this note:


> If they truly can't afford what the dog needs, then yes, for the sake of the dog, the dog needs to be rescued. Speaking personally again, I would equate it with my child. If I couldn't find a way to pay for what my child needs, I'd hope that I'd make an ethical choice to find someone to care for my child until I could.


this, to me, is not an option, cuz you see, my dogs are my kids.....and having to rehome them for any reason is not an answer.....and w/ your part about making the effort for providing for them.....everything you mentioned in that section doesn't happen in this household....the kids (2 or 4 legged come first)....but i still wouldn't have the money to s/n if i had to.....but that's where the responsibility comes into play....s/n isn't the only way to be responsible....

and on the bill not effecting me, yeah it would, b/c i have one that is not spayed, and she is not titled in herding for the simple fact that, again, i don't have the money for the training and trialing anymore.....just like i don't have the money to have her spayed......and she has been in season 3x since we have gone down on income......hey, and guess what....she hasn't gotten pregnant, even tho i take care of an intact male Golden at times.....it's called RESPONSIBILITY 

oh, and by the way, i don't show in conformation.....my dogs are all straight working bred......and i have seen some farm dogs that can hold their own or run circles around some of the trialing dogs.....but they are not title


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> First, when citing a subsidized s/n clinic in Santa Barbara resulting in an 80% drop in euthanasia, are you also factoring in the volunteer force that would foster and board at local kennels when the shelter became too crowded, and then returning them to the shelter when room permitted?


An 80% drop in any kind of life savings is significant nonetheless. However, it may be nearly impossible to understand the stats when they were recorded...besides the fact that I was only 3 when this clinic opened. I can only hypothesis that the stats were recorded the same as they were in 1974. That is my working hypothesis. There are other hypotheses which other investigators believe are plausible, claiming that different data support their ideas. Fair enough. Our sceintific trade is to accumulate data that support (or deny) a hypothesis. If someone can show me that subsidized s/n clinics are not relevant I would be required to adjust, adapt, or abandon my hypothesis.

I have a gut feeling that all this isn't about what's better for dogs...which is sad. In the end I think it will be nothing more than a battle of ideologies. To this end I do feel it's black and white. There are those who want to punish all dirty deeds by mandating controls, and then there are those who want to bring out the best in everyone. I'm of the later as I feel as though more people would be willing to participate if there is a sense that one is not being controlled. Maybe I'm just silly for thinking of people too. 



> Pit bulls are an example. Pit bulls without a history were not selected by the SFSPCA, whether or not they were friendly. And the dogs not selected by the SFSPCA were left at the pound to die.


I have personal experience that this is not a fair statement. I visited the SFSPCA at least half a dozen times in the past year, and I've always seen adoptable pits and mixes, and not all had a defined history. Furthermore, as I read the agreement between the San Francisco Department of Animal Control and SFSPCA there are no terms segregating what is an adoptable or treatable dog by breed. In fact the agreement states that the SFSPCA must guarantee that it will take any adoptable cat or dog. I would imagine that many pits have been adopted out by the SFSPCA.



> But even beyond that, it took a lot of money to enact the programs that caused the euth rate to drop in San Francisco. Where is that money supposed to come from to replicate it in the rest of the state? Do you really think that the state assembly is going to make this a priority when they are still trying to turn the state around after it was so near bankruptcy?


Excellent point. Imagine if the State could enforce their current laws for licensing. We might not even be discussing this bill because the economics wouldn't be there. Sadly, only money makes the wheel go around, so I can't even imagine this law will have any effect on enforcement capabilities. 



> and I'll never forget one of the vets who stated that if the goal was to reduce the number of animals, why not just kill more of them.


I seriously hope not all vets think this way, or we're in big trouble. This law needs vets to be in agreement with it if it were ever to succeed. 



> Especially when the breeders just sit back and complain as each proposed law is developed and never step forward and draft a law of their own?


If there's anyone who's peaked my understanding in this idea, it's been you DA, and I'm with you on this point. I do believe breeders, no different than bully breed owners, need to form a communal will. 



> In looking back over this one sentence, I have to ask you how a s/n law can prove it's worth if it isn't tried? This exact law has not been tried elsewhere, has it? Did the area where other such laws were tried have the same problems and conditions as we have here? Even within California there is a wide range of conditions, so comparing one area to another is almost impossible. Do other states have the huge rescue efforts that we have in So. California? Do they have the available manpower via those rescue volunteers to help police a law? There's one group of volunteers here that go door-to-door in depressed neighborhoods trying to get people to spay/neuter their animals. I know darned well that their job would be a lot easier if they had a law behind them.


In many respects I feel as though the authors of this bill are placing the cart before the horse. I believe there is more work to be done in targetting communities in most need of low cost s/n, education, and in tightening up enforcement. My largest fear is that without a firm grasp on these points this law will fail, and we may never have the opportunity to get to a point where some form of mandatory s/n would work, and work in a way that benefits everyone. That's why I hesitate in approving this law. To think of a stupid analogy, I'm not going to prime paint the walls in my home after I've already painted them. It's just not going to look as good, or be as lasting as I want it to be. I'm sure there will follow a comment of "well what we're doing now isn't working", which is true, but I think we need a better independant-understanding of why it isn't working, and not just opinions.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> Excellent point. Imagine if the State could enforce their current laws for licensing. We might not even be discussing this bill because the economics wouldn't be there. Sadly, only money makes the wheel go around, so I can't even imagine this law will have any effect on enforcement capabilities.


Talking about San Francisco and enforcement.
Incredibly, there are an estimated 120,000 dogs living in San Francisco, and only about 20,000 of them are licensed at this time. These figures indicate that the authorities are not sufficiently enforcing the mandatory dog license laws, then comes the question regarding how many dogs have actually had their rabies vaccinations.
SF License Stats mentioned at this address:-
http://www.sfgov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id=6619

Personally I feel that due to the situation above and this maybe used as justification, that maybe it might be just a matter of time till Animal Control Officers start knocking on doors, this to conduct a census and to remind unlicensed dog owners regarding the reasons why dog licenses are needed.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> first, you're right, breeders would fight it every step of the way.....just like we're arguing this right now about our rights to alter or not...this is America, or it was the last time i looked.....


I wonder why it is that so many people only fight for their freedom of choice when an impending law cramps their own style? America is also a land of laws so that our society will run more smoothly. If I'm truly free, then I should have the choice to decide whether my child goes to school or not. But making the wrong choice would hurt my child. Having the freedom to produce more dogs in a country already having to euthanize them because there are too many for the available homes, is a freedom that hurts the dogs, and it hurts the taxpayers, and it shows how inhumane our society really is. I think most people on these boards are against puppymills, but isn't that a choice that the miller should have the freedom to make? What right do we have in taking that choice away from him? Is it okay to infringe on his freedoms because he is being inhumane? If so, then why isn't it just as acceptable to infringe on our freedoms when our choices to leave our dogs unaltered lead to the inhumane killings in this nations shelters? And yes, no matter how gently it's done, it's still inhumane when an animal is killed for no other reason than being homeless.



tirluc said:


> for the genetic problems, it would be determined by the breed....you go by what is prevalant in each breed...and i think the HD is pretty much prevalant in most breeds, large or small......


Who would determine it by the breed? What gives you the right to take away the freedom of choice on whether or not to OFA a dog? What if I feel that it's too hard on my dog, that it's painful without anesthetic, and giving the dog anesthetic will risk her life as well as blow her coat? What if I feel penalized by having to pay for health testing when I know for a "fact" that there is no such diseases in my line? Is it possible that you want such testing because it's something you already do and so wouldn't be affected by it -- kind of like my dogs already being altered so I'm not affected by AB1634 that would require people to be as responsible with their dogs as I am? I think this is when the bigger picture should be considered, not just how it's going to affect you.



tirluc said:


> how many people do you think would lose there jobs insude of 8 wks?.....my spouse lost his job in 4 wk after starting a new position......did we see it coming? hell no.....luckily we didn't have anything at the time that wasn't already there for quite some time......and on this note:


That really doesn't answer the question. I've had problems in my life too, but to base legislation on a "what if" that would affect a small percentage of the populace just doesn't make sense. As an analogy - I don't know how we're ever going to pay for the services we get from government, but let's abolish taxes because some poor guy might lose his job and not be able to pay for them. 



tirluc said:


> this, to me, is not an option, cuz you see, my dogs are my kids.....and having to rehome them for any reason is not an answer.....and w/ your part about making the effort for providing for them.....everything you mentioned in that section doesn't happen in this household....the kids (2 or 4 legged come first)....but i still wouldn't have the money to s/n if i had to.....but that's where the responsibility comes into play....s/n isn't the only way to be responsible....


But to my way of thinking, not taking care of the needs of the family member, no matter whether human or non-human, is not an option for me either. I see s/n as not only a social issue, but also a health issue, and I would not risk my dog's health by not providing what it needs to stay healthy - including s/n, and if I can't do that, then maybe I shouldn't have the dog. The fact is, I would and have gone without in order to provide for my dogs. And I'm sorry, but s/n IS the only way to be 100% responsible. How come you think it's plausible to argue "what if" when it comes to losing a job, but you apparently don't think about "what if" a door is accidentally left open? You have children? Children make mistakes. This law tries to prevent those mistakes before they happen.



tirluc said:


> and on the bill not effecting me, yeah it would, b/c i have one that is not spayed, and she is not titled in herding for the simple fact that, again, i don't have the money for the training and trialing anymore.....just like i don't have the money to have her spayed......and she has been in season 3x since we have gone down on income......hey, and guess what....she hasn't gotten pregnant, even tho i take care of an intact male Golden at times.....it's called RESPONSIBILITY


No, it's called luck. It's also called luck that she hasn't developed pyometra or mammary tumors. You certainly have increased her chances of doing so by continuing to allow her to go into heat. Sorry, I don't call that responsible.



tirluc said:


> oh, and by the way, i don't show in conformation.....my dogs are all straight working bred......and i have seen some farm dogs that can hold their own or run circles around some of the trialing dogs.....but they are not title


You're a walking example of why I have no faith in breeders who claim they are responsible. Too often they end up making too many excuses why they don't have to fit the mold of what a responsible breeder should be. Another good reason why we need a law.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*

you know what..... i really think that we are all beating a dead horse on this issue.....nobody is going to be "swayed" one way or the other......i know that, even tho my 1 female is not spayed that she will not have an unwanted litter b/c she is not out of my site during the whole time she is in season (even when she is crated).....and i know all about the "possible problems" w/ tumors and such, but you know what?....men/women stand the same chances so should we make sure that all people are "fixed" as well?....there seems to be alot of people out there that "can't" afford to raise their kids unless they are on welfare or such, not to mention all the people that "go whacko" and beat their kids to death.....maybe people below a certain income level should be "fixed" also.....that might solve some of those problems as well......you see, there is no easy solution to any of it.....and i'm not against it b/c it "cramps my style"....3 of my 4 are altered, so that has nothing to do w/ it.....but when the government starts taking away the rights of the people that are not the problem (and, yes, i see the puppymillers that throw out, what, probably a couple dozen litters a yr, more of a problem than even people like myself who have maybe 1-2 litters in a yr [in my case only one as i only have one breedable bitch]) then i have a problem......

but as i said, this is definitely beating a dead horse......


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I was just reminded once again of how many bad breeders there are out here. My friend went and bought a puppy at 6 weeks. She's already talking about breeding her and whatnot...

I try to educate but she's already had her dogs have litters. When I was talking about getting a fourth dog she told me flat out to buy a girl so I could sell pups. 

I tried to slip in comments about things like 'Well, now since Beau's got his Ch title, I'm going to go for at least a CGC or maybe a rally title and go ahead and get his patellas OFA'd and CERF his eyes and such this summer' but of course all that went over not so well. 

Conversations like that make me depressed but I doubt people like this will do anything differently if it is law. Her response for everything was 'I've done it before with no problems'. I also got a lecture about responsible breeders from her too. If only more people had better morals, but isn't that the way it always is?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> I was just reminded once again of how many bad breeders there are out here. My friend went and bought a puppy at 6 weeks. She's already talking about breeding her and whatnot...
> 
> I try to educate but she's already had her dogs have litters. When I was talking about getting a fourth dog she told me flat out to buy a girl so I could sell pups.
> 
> I tried to slip in comments about things like 'Well, now since Beau's got his Ch title, I'm going to go for at least a CGC or maybe a rally title and go ahead and get his patellas OFA'd and CERF his eyes and such this summer' but of course all that went over not so well.
> 
> Conversations like that make me depressed but I doubt people like this will do anything differently if it is law. Her response for everything was 'I've done it before with no problems'. I also got a lecture about responsible breeders from her too. If only more people had better morals, but isn't that the way it always is?


Yes, it is discouraging, and sometimes family and friends are the hardest to educate. I've frequently run into those that have had prior litters and are sure they were good enough judges of character (with no screening) to tell whether their dogs were going into good homes (with no follow-up). I then talk to people who impulse bought without considering their rental agreement, and now the landlord won't let them bring the dog in -- so if you put these two people together, the breeder has a false sense of security that will never be contradicted because these people will never see each other again. The dog is now out in the cold, depending on rescue hopefully, or the shelter when all else fails. But you could talk yourself blue in the face to that original breeder, and they're not going to get it. This is why I think that society needs to step in and put a stop to it. Those that are doing it right are the only ones that should be doing it at all. And without a law to tell people what's right and wrong, it's never going to change. Too few people see the whole picture, too many people insist they aren't the problem as they continue to produce puppies, who go on to produce more puppies in someone else's hands. Too many breeders don't look beyond the puppy stage to insure the dog will still be wanted in it's rowdy juvenile stage. Too many people expect dogs to train themselves and dump them when they don't. And too many people don't want to adopt an untrained dog. Not enough shelters have the time, space, and manpower to train the dog. And this goes on year after year after year while we wait for people to wake up, or the perfect law to be proposed. It's just so frustrating.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This will probably be my last post on this topic for a few days as I am going out of town to a show....besides, there are clearly those that are for and against this bill on this forum and there is nothing that either side can say that will change the other's minds.

But to clear up a few things and to answer DA's question from a few posts back: I absolutely have NO problem buying a dog on a s/n contract, if in fact I'm buying a PET quality dog....been there, done that and probably will again. That's part of being a responsible breeder...require s/n for all pet quality animals, or for this medical reason or whatever. And part of being a responsible owner AND a caring owner is to do right by their dogs, and that means s/n if the situation warrants.

And no, DA, I personally don't care what you think of me, you don't know me, ....but I do tire of the _implications_ in your posts that just bc someone has an unaltered animal that they aren't capable of preventing unwanted litters.....I"ve had Rottweilers for 15 yrs, both altered and not...I've attempted 2 litters, and have NEVER had a whoops. All people that have unaltered dogs aren't irresponsible. But then there are too many to count that don't deserve goldfish, much less dogs...but that is not the government's right to decide (except in cases of abuse or neglect), nor should the gov't make it financially difficult....

As for the health issues, I personally, will never alter a dog under one year of age...unless for some life/death situation....and WOULD NEVER CONSIDER altering at 4-6 mos, especially in a large breed. And that is MY and MY vet's decision to make, not the government....

One last comment, for those that are calling us "whiners"....we (the responsible fanciers, and that includes dogs and cats) have (and still are trying) tried to work with these folks on rewriting portions of this bill...I live outside of CA and I have sent letters and emails to the powers that be, making my voice heard as a concerned dog owner....it has fallen on mostly deaf ears (tho, there are some in the CA legislature that are seeing that this bill isn't as great as they first thought) A new PAC has been formed to fight for dog owners rights, and propose better legislation that what has been presented thus far. This has happened within the last week or so I believe.

I will try to find the email I received and post the info for those interested.


----------



## cshellenberger

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I would love that info! Thank you.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> A new PAC has been formed to fight for dog owners rights, and propose better legislation that what has been presented thus far. This has happened within the last week or so I believe.
> 
> I will try to find the email I received and post the info for those interested.


I look forward to seeing this information. I still can't help but wonder how someone who objects to government interference can support government interference with other people. You don't want them telling you what to do, but it's okay if they tell other breeders (i.e. puppymillers) what to do. Those other breeders are just as adamant about their freedoms as you are about yours. So what's up with that?

On the news tonight was a story about a big dog fighting ring that was busted in Los Angeles today. I couldn't have been happier to see that, but then I got to thinking about these discussions of freedom as it applies to our dogs (legal property), and I had to wonder why the dog fighters freedoms were trampled on when dog fighting was made illegal. Understand that I'm happy it happened, and I support the law, but for those who use "freedom of choice" as one of their main arguments against a s/n law, do you also object to a dog fighting law?


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Here is the link to a website that has been set up for those OPPOSED to AB1634...it contains valuable information that EVERYONE that owns a pet should read and consider.

http://www.ab1634.com/index.htm


I have inadvertently deleted the info concerning the new PAC...but I have requested it again, and I will post it as soon as I get it. It has been a very crazy day here as I spent the entire day at the ER with hubby.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ChRotties said:


> Here is the link to a website that has been set up for those OPPOSED to AB1634...it contains valuable information that EVERYONE that owns a pet should read and consider.
> 
> http://www.ab1634.com/index.htm
> 
> 
> I have inadvertently deleted the info concerning the new PAC...but I have requested it again, and I will post it as soon as I get it. It has been a very crazy day here as I spent the entire day at the ER with hubby.


I feel that people who live in a democracy need to hear all views and what information maybe presented. ChRotties supplied a website for those OPPOSED to AB1634, and here is another website that seems to SUPPORT AB1634, please read the information contained on both websites, and here is a link to the other website:-
http://www.cahealthypets.com/

Also edited in - If anyone has any ideas for amendments to the Bill, then contact those directly involved with the Bill, and here is one avenue to do so.

Comment on an Assembly Bill
The members of the California Assembly welcome your input on their bills. The screens that follow will help you to communicate with your legislators in a way that is designed to be similar to commenting through the mail. All you need to do is enter your comments - support, opposition, ideas for amendments - and the Assembly's network will deliver your comments to the author of the bill you are interested in.
See via this link:-
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*

All the people complaining about this Bill, should watch this video. If you still complain after you see it, I guess nothing will ever convince you. http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This bill isn't about emotion Bob. I appreciate the sentiment but this argument is no different than someone claiming _don't mess with my property_. I liken both approaches to McCain when asked how he can continue to support the war, his answer "the troops want to serve their country". That's not an answer or a solution, nor is pleading to emotion. Good intentions alone does not make for good laws.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> This bill isn't about emotion Bob. I appreciate the sentiment but this argument is no different than someone claiming _don't mess with my property_. I liken both approaches to McCain when asked how he can continue to support the war, his answer "the troops want to serve their country". That's not an answer or a solution, nor is pleading to emotion. Good intentions alone does not make for good laws.


I agree with your opinion about "weather Vane McCain". That has nothing to do with this issue, however.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I look forward to seeing this information. I still can't help but wonder how someone who objects to government interference can support government interference with other people. You don't want them telling you what to do, but it's okay if they tell other breeders (i.e. puppymillers) what to do. Those other breeders are just as adamant about their freedoms as you are about yours. So what's up with that?
> 
> On the news tonight was a story about a big dog fighting ring that was busted in Los Angeles today. I couldn't have been happier to see that, but then I got to thinking about these discussions of freedom as it applies to our dogs (legal property), and I had to wonder why the dog fighters freedoms were trampled on when dog fighting was made illegal. Understand that I'm happy it happened, and I support the law, but for those who use "freedom of choice" as one of their main arguments against a s/n law, do you also object to a dog fighting law?


the difference here, since you obviously can't see it, is that in one the animals are being abused, neglected, etc.....puppymillers breed a bitch from the first heat till they produce no more then "do away" w/ them, during which time they are fed poor diets, live in filth-ridden, tiny cages, most likely see no vet care, etc.....and the dog fighters are....well, you should know this.....
not s/n'ing is not abuse nor neglect......many dogs have lived to a rip old age w/out any reproductive tumors.......as i said in another post, i have owned upwards of 30 dogs and only 6 have been altered....none of them have had any problems from being intact.......

that is the difference between the "freedoms".....


----------



## iwantmypup

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Dog fighting is abusing animals...thats diffferent then S/N "freedom "


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I look forward to seeing this information. I still can't help but wonder how someone who objects to government interference can support government interference with other people. You don't want them telling you what to do, but it's okay if they tell other breeders (i.e. puppymillers) what to do. Those other breeders are just as adamant about their freedoms as you are about yours. So what's up with that?
> 
> On the news tonight was a story about a big dog fighting ring that was busted in Los Angeles today. I couldn't have been happier to see that, but then I got to thinking about these discussions of freedom as it applies to our dogs (legal property), and I had to wonder why the dog fighters freedoms were trampled on when dog fighting was made illegal. Understand that I'm happy it happened, and I support the law, but for those who use "freedom of choice" as one of their main arguments against a s/n law, do you also object to a dog fighting law?


Dog fighting is abuse. It is not abuse to leave a dog intact. Leaving a dog intact itself is not a problem. Breeding a dog repeatedly is abuse imo. Allowing a dog to wander and get pregnant is neglect. But a simply intact animal is not being abused one bit. The two scenarios are completely different. Beau being intact is not harming him. If I were fighting him, then yes, I'd have no right to do so.

It is like many things. The thing itself is not abuse, however the way things are treated by humans that cause the problems.

To me it's kind of like outlawing treadmills because dog fighting people use treadmills. But so do other people who DON'T use treadmills for abusive purposes. It's not the treadmill that's the problem, it's the people operating it that are.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> This bill isn't about emotion Bob. I appreciate the sentiment but this argument is no different than someone claiming _don't mess with my property_. I liken both approaches to McCain when asked how he can continue to support the war, his answer "the troops want to serve their country". That's not an answer or a solution, nor is pleading to emotion. Good intentions alone does not make for good laws.


How can it not be about emotions? It's lack of emotions that allow animals to be born without a lifetime home. It's lack of emotions that allow them to die because there is no home for them. It's lack of emotions that allows the abandonment of so many because they are inconvenient. We need more people with emotions and a conscience to stop the killing and the suffering. I think that our society is still suffering from the disconnect from emotions that was embraced and promoted by the philosophy of Rene Descartes, who saw animals only as machines, lacking any sentience. If they can't feel, then it doesn't matter what we do to them.

Are there not other laws based on emotions? Aren't most laws developed to prevent victimization? Someone suffers, and a law is passed to prevent such suffering in the future. I note that someone's response to my question about dog fighting in this thread, says that it's a humane issue -- how can you look at the video that CaptBob posted and not consider the lack of s/n and the lack of owner responsibility to be a humane issue? How can someone allowing their female dog to go through heat after heat until she develops pyometra not be a humane issue? 

It's our emotions and our capacity for empathy that guides us to decide what is humane and what isn't, IMO. So where is the line drawn and how much cruelty do we allow before our emotions kick in and we decide that the curtailing of suffering should trump property rights and the freedom to be irresponsible?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> the difference here, since you obviously can't see it, is that in one the animals are being abused, neglected, etc.....puppymillers breed a bitch from the first heat till they produce no more then "do away" w/ them, during which time they are fed poor diets, live in filth-ridden, tiny cages, most likely see no vet care, etc.....and the dog fighters are....well, you should know this.....
> not s/n'ing is not abuse nor neglect......many dogs have lived to a rip old age w/out any reproductive tumors.......as i said in another post, i have owned upwards of 30 dogs and only 6 have been altered....none of them have had any problems from being intact.......
> 
> that is the difference between the "freedoms".....


This reminds me of the people that are shocked because their dog was hit by a car because it had never happened all the other times it roamed the neighborhood. "Gee, it never happened before" makes a lousy tombstone. Do you even realize that your excuses are the same ones used by those whose dogs do develop medical problems and do produce unexpected puppies? No one EXPECTS to have a "whoops" breeding.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> This reminds me of the people that are shocked because their dog was hit by a car because it had never happened all the other times it roamed the neighborhood. "Gee, it never happened before" makes a lousy tombstone. Do you even realize that your excuses are the same ones used by those whose dogs do develop medical problems and do produce unexpected puppies? No one EXPECTS to have a "whoops" breeding.


Like the farmer said when his horse dropped dead," Gee, that's the first time he's done that.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



iwantmypup said:


> Dog fighting is abusing animals...thats diffferent then S/N "freedom "


No it isn't. Both are abuse of animals if it ends up with lack of s/n leading to dogs dying in the pounds. Both lead to death of animals. The argument could be made that the winning dog in a dog fight is quite happy. And again, dogs are legal property and it's a loss of freedom when the owners are told they can't do what they want with their own property - whether it be fighting, or failing to s/n and producing unexpected puppies.

The only real difference between the two is that we see the results right away with dog fighting, but the results of failure to s/n usually aren't seen at all, except for those people that are seeing it up-close and personal in the euthanasia rooms across this country. That's one of the worst parts about our shelter system - it allows too many people to think that there are no repurcussions to their actions - or lack thereof. We can fool ourselves that the puppies we produce are going to good homes because the people seemed so nice, but we don't see when those dogs are abandoned because they became inconvenient. And the people abandoning them can console themselves (if they care at all) with the idea that someone will adopt it from the shelter, or someone will pick it up off the road and give it a home. That makes it that much easier to do it all again, and again, and again.

So yes, there is cruelty involved whether it be from dog fighting, or failure to spay/neuter.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



iwantmypup said:


> Dog fighting is abusing animals...thats diffferent then S/N "freedom "


Allowing animals to breed because they are not spayed and neuterred which leads to the enormous pet overpopluation which results in thousands of these animals killed in shelters every day, is animal abuse of the worst kind.


----------



## xoxluvablexox

*Re: AB1634 advances*

If your worried about your rights then go out and fight for your right to say god in school or something that actually threatens your rights. We have no rights over other animals, just as we never have had rights over people that were considered of lower status in this world. We don't have a right to control the breeding habits of another animal other then ourselves. We don't have a right to go out and stop there ability to create young and live out there lives but that is the suffering that comes with being a domesticated animal. So sadly we have to help dogs to stay healthy and safe from suffering and sometimes we have to go out of are ways to stop horrible people from hurting innocent souls. If you think that this law is taking a right, that you never had, away sorry to say but it's not. Just as you would never take a young child to a doctor to stop his ability to have kids, we shouldn't have to do that to a young dog but sadly for their sake we must. Just as you would never sit a young teenage boy in a room with a young girl every year of their life so that you can up the population on a certain group of people, lets say an Irish/Italian, you don't have the right to do that to a dog. Your "rights" that your conserned about were never rights. That was just the ability to cause harm to another animal but yourself and get away with it. I love that fact that there are people out there breeding for the better and health of the breed but as far as any other person goes that decides they think it's okay to control how a dog breeds just so thay can make a few bucks, they deserve nothing better then hell. That's my opinion and I'm not trying to change any of yours. All I'm trying to do is help you see the light. Dogs are not just yours to have. They are living and breathing. They feel pain and loss and if you think they don't care that you taking away there right to breed and be a living thing your wrong but if you think that you have any right over them, you are also VERY wrong. You can't own an animal, humans included ofcourse.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Dog fighting is abuse. It is not abuse to leave a dog intact. Leaving a dog intact itself is not a problem. Breeding a dog repeatedly is abuse imo. Allowing a dog to wander and get pregnant is neglect. But a simply intact animal is not being abused one bit. The two scenarios are completely different. Beau being intact is not harming him. If I were fighting him, then yes, I'd have no right to do so.
> 
> It is like many things. The thing itself is not abuse, however the way things are treated by humans that cause the problems.
> 
> To me it's kind of like outlawing treadmills because dog fighting people use treadmills. But so do other people who DON'T use treadmills for abusive purposes. It's not the treadmill that's the problem, it's the people operating it that are.


I think I pretty much covered this in prior posts. I do disagree with you about abuse, because you may not think Beau is being abused, though I don't think you're considering the risk to his health as abuse, and I do. Where the abuse comes in is to his resultant puppies if there is a whoops breeding and they become like all the others that end up in the shelter. Here again we have a disconnect -- you can look at your dog and only see him, not the abuse that will occur to his offspring. You have to look at the bigger picture.

Your treadmill analogy is interesting. It's not quite on the mark because AB1634 is not outlawing breeding, it's just regulating it. A better analogy would be to over-the-counter medications that are being abused by teenagers and now require an adult to buy them from the pharmacist. Same thing with hobby glue - it wasn't being used responsibly so it was limited to those thought to be more responsible.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Like the farmer said when his horse dropped dead," Gee, that's the first time he's done that.


LOL. Very good.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I think I pretty much covered this in prior posts. I do disagree with you about abuse, because you may not think Beau is being abused, though I don't think you're considering the risk to his health as abuse, and I do. Where the abuse comes in is to his resultant puppies if there is a whoops breeding and they become like all the others that end up in the shelter. Here again we have a disconnect -- you can look at your dog and only see him, not the abuse that will occur to his offspring. You have to look at the bigger picture.
> 
> Your treadmill analogy is interesting. It's not quite on the mark because AB1634 is not outlawing breeding, it's just regulating it. A better analogy would be to over-the-counter medications that are being abused by teenagers and now require an adult to buy them from the pharmacist. Same thing with hobby glue - it wasn't being used responsibly so it was limited to those thought to be more responsible.


What about the health risk of neutering him? Is that abuse? Papillons can be VERY sensative to anaesthesia. They can die from it more often than dogs with higher body mass. It's a health risk either way and I feel that I know which risks are which and can weigh them on my own. It is NOT abuse, it's a decision. It is not harming him any more than any other decision on what to eat, where to go, etc. You can argue anything in caring for dogs. You can find health reasons to keep a dog intact, you can find health reasons to alter a dog. You can find health reasons to feed a dog high quality kibble over raw or raw over a high quality kibble. Bad things happen at dog parks, is taking a dog to a dog park abuse? Is everything inherently abuse then? You are defining abuse as it suits you.

Tell my dog he is being abused then. He has more toys than most children, he's fed high quality food. He gets all needed vet care. He's been obedience trained. He gets a ton of love. And he's perfectly content. 

I see my dog and I see other dogs as a big picture, thank you. I see a need to breed quality dogs to maintain at least a source of quality in the world. If repsonsible people stop, then all dogs will suffer. More genetic issues will crop up and less sound dogs will be born. Especially in my breed, there's a plethora of horrible breeders and only a few responsible ones. I love the breed so much that I will do anything to save it from these people. Responsible breeding is part of this as is education. My dog may have a litter in the future. It's been quite a process to decide to go through with. You won't agree with me on this, but I don't really care. If his OFAs and CERFs come back this summer and the results are good, then he will be bred. It is already four years in the making, with at least 2 more years of research and titling to go. Maybe if everyone put that kind of care into breeding then there would be no problem. Unfortunately people are a problem.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> What about the health risk of neutering him? Is that abuse? Papillons can be VERY sensative to anaesthesia. They can die from it more often than dogs with higher body mass. It's a health risk either way and I feel that I know which risks are which and can weigh them on my own. It is NOT abuse, it's a decision. It is not harming him any more than any other decision on what to eat, where to go, etc. You can argue anything in caring for dogs. You can find health reasons to keep a dog intact, you can find health reasons to alter a dog. You can find health reasons to feed a dog high quality kibble over raw or raw over a high quality kibble. Bad things happen at dog parks, is taking a dog to a dog park abuse? Is everything inherently abuse then? You are defining abuse as it suits you.


What about the health risk of removing perianal tumors, or any surgical procedure involved with reproductive cancers? For that matter, if sensitivity to anesthesia is so high in your breed, why continue to breed dogs that are so fragile with such easily broken legs? Recently my vet had a client in the waiting room, with a papillon on her lap, and the dog unexpectedly jumped down and broke it's leg. This was a young dog. I don't know the statistical prevalence of it, but how do you justify even promoting and preserving a breed with these kinds of problems, including sensitivity to anesthesia?



Laurelin said:


> Tell my dog he is being abused then. He has more toys than most children, he's fed high quality food. He gets all needed vet care. He's been obedience trained. He gets a ton of love. And he's perfectly content.


Good for him. Why so defensive? If my repeating his name in a post, after you'd already used him as an example, is offensive to you, then I apologize. I'm not familiar with your specific situation, nor your intentions for your dog. I was only talking about s/n in general. My point was that IMO, unaltered dogs, both for health reasons and because of their unwanted offspring, is a form of cruelty just like dog fighting. Dogs die because of both, and they die unnecessarily.



Laurelin said:


> I see my dog and I see other dogs as a big picture, thank you. I see a need to breed quality dogs to maintain at least a source of quality in the world. If repsonsible people stop, then all dogs will suffer. More genetic issues will crop up and less sound dogs will be born. Especially in my breed, there's a plethora of horrible breeders and only a few responsible ones. I love the breed so much that I will do anything to save it from these people. Responsible breeding is part of this as is education. My dog may have a litter in the future. It's been quite a process to decide to go through with. You won't agree with me on this, but I don't really care. If his OFAs and CERFs come back this summer and the results are good, then he will be bred. It is already four years in the making, with at least 2 more years of research and titling to go. Maybe if everyone put that kind of care into breeding then there would be no problem. Unfortunately people are a problem.


But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> What about the health risk of removing perianal tumors, or any surgical procedure involved with reproductive cancers? For that matter, if sensitivity to anesthesia is so high in your breed, why continue to breed dogs that are so fragile with such easily broken legs? Recently my vet had a client in the waiting room, with a papillon on her lap, and the dog unexpectedly jumped down and broke it's leg. This was a young dog. I don't know the statistical prevalence of it, but how do you justify even promoting and preserving a breed with these kinds of problems, including sensitivity to anesthesia?


Well that comes across as ignorant. Paps are pretty healthy for a toy breed. They don't break that easily, of course if you step on them they get hurt. They're small. We've had no broken bones with any of our dogs. Most paps I know are very healthy guys. We lost one to some sort of epilepsy, but that was a complete shock. Anaesthisia is hard on many breeds- shelties/collies for example, and I think greys have a problem too. All I'm saying is there is a risk either way. There's a risk no matter what you do and a risk is a risk, not abuse. If it's a needed surgery, then he'll go under. He's been under before for a dental procedure. When I decide to neuter him, he'll go under again. It just may be a while. I feel confident in weighing out all the risks and options. Let me do so. 



> Good for him. Why so defensive? If my repeating his name in a post, after you'd already used him as an example, is offensive to you, then I apologize. I'm not familiar with your specific situation, nor your intentions for your dog. I was only talking about s/n in general. My point was that IMO, unaltered dogs, both for health reasons and because of their unwanted offspring, is a form of cruelty just like dog fighting. Dogs die because of both, and they die unnecessarily.


Okay, your opinion, but a very silly one in my opinion. Allowing a dog to be unaltered and overbred or allowing indescriminate breeding is not right in my opinion as well. Simply keeping a dog intact is not. I f you need any specifics of my personal situation and the reasons I may breed my dog and why he's intact, just ask, don't assume. I have nothing to hide.



> But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed.


Mmmm... hmm, but I still can't see this law as helping where it should. Puppy mills have jumped on the 'lets breed crappy toy dogs and charge thousands for them' the most. They're exempt. 

And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:



> To me, all the spay/neuter thing is for one reason, population control. I see it no other way. There are risks both ways. One side doesn't cancel out the other. Health effects are often used as a major point in convincing people they need to get it done because fear is a great motivator, especially our human fear of having our pets die. The fact of the matter is, there are health risks on both sides. If you think those parts and hormones aren't important for something during their development I'd highly recommend you take any anat/phys class and you'll see just how important they are.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:


Well the person on the other forum doesn't know what they are talking about. The health risks of not S/N animals far outweigh possible problems in S/N opeartions to the pet. That is just fact......It's this kind of illogical and non-scientific hysteria that causes uneducated people not to have the kids innoculated, or to have their pets innnoculated and S/N. The results of that are often tragic.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Papillons can be VERY sensative to anaesthesia. They can die from it more often than dogs with higher body mass. It's a health risk either way and I feel that I know which risks are which and can weigh them on my own.


If your dog has a valid health medical reason then simply apply for an exemption, this by obtaining a letter from a California licensed veterinarian mentioning that it is unsafe to spay or neuter your dog, then present that letter to your local jurisdiction or its local animal control agency for an exemption.
.


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*



xoxluvablexox said:


> If your worried about your rights . . .


I read your whole post and I'll be damned if I can figure out if you like the mandatory s/n law or not. 

Maybe I was distracted by all the PETA talk.


----------



## DogueEdaddy

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me. 

What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.

Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> If your dog has a valid health medical reason then simply apply for an exemption, this by obtaining a letter from a California licensed veterinarian mentioning that it is unsafe to spay or neuter your dog, then present that letter to your local jurisdiction or its local animal control agency for an exemption.
> .



According to the way the law is written, a breed predispostion to anesthesia reactions would NOT be a legitimate reason. And a letter from a vet is only good for a certain time period. The letter has to state when the dog can have an ovario hysterectomy. 
This is serious surgery, not to be taken lightly. 
According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> No it isn't. Both are abuse of animals if it ends up with lack of s/n leading to dogs dying in the pounds. Both lead to death of animals. The argument could be made that the winning dog in a dog fight is quite happy. And again, dogs are legal property and it's a loss of freedom when the owners are told they can't do what they want with their own property - whether it be fighting, or failing to s/n and producing unexpected puppies.
> 
> The only real difference between the two is that we see the results right away with dog fighting, but the results of failure to s/n usually aren't seen at all, except for those people that are seeing it up-close and personal in the euthanasia rooms across this country. That's one of the worst parts about our shelter system - it allows too many people to think that there are no repurcussions to their actions - or lack thereof. We can fool ourselves that the puppies we produce are going to good homes because the people seemed so nice, but we don't see when those dogs are abandoned because they became inconvenient. And the people abandoning them can console themselves (if they care at all) with the idea that someone will adopt it from the shelter, or someone will pick it up off the road and give it a home. That makes it that much easier to do it all again, and again, and again.
> 
> So yes, there is cruelty involved whether it be from dog fighting, or failure to spay/neuter.


This is YOUR opinion, NOT FACT. Actually, sterilizing your dog, ie giving it an ovario hysterctomy is very very serious surgery. It is not to be taken lightly. 
It is not physical abuse to not give your dog an ovariohysterectomy.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> According to the way the law is written, a breed predispostion to anesthesia reactions would NOT be a legitimate reason. And a letter from a vet is only good for a certain time period. The letter has to state when the dog can have an ovario hysterectomy.
> This is serious surgery, not to be taken lightly.
> According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.


Can I hug you?


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> How can it not be about emotions?


When it affects your (someone's, not necessarily you) ability to reason, and communicate ideas to help the betterment of everyone. I know dogs die in shelters, it's sad, and I proceed in my life wanting to prevent it from happening. But I'm only one person, and if I seek to divide opinions by using emotion, I'm going to single out people who I know can help too. I'm of the ilk that level heads find better solutions, but this doesn't impair my ability to feel, thank you.



> Are there not other laws based on emotions? Aren't most laws developed to prevent victimization? Someone suffers, and a law is passed to prevent such suffering in the future. I note that someone's response to my question about dog fighting in this thread, says that it's a humane issue -- how can you look at the video that CaptBob posted and not consider the lack of s/n and the lack of owner responsibility to be a humane issue? How can someone allowing their female dog to go through heat after heat until she develops pyometra not be a humane issue?


This is the day and age when everyone is a victim. In this case the breeders are victims, or the dogs are victims, someone or something always is victimized. SO if I feel sorry for all these victims are my emotions out of place? Who's to say, and what makes them right to judge how I feel? All I hear in this debate is how stupid owners are. And to this comment I agree. But what in this law will make stupid people better owners? Unenforced madates? Stupid is as stupid does, and these madates can be a huge waste of taxpayers time and money. I guess like speeding you're only breaking the law until you get caught. Fine, let's not collect all ideas to form a better understanding of a realistic solution and instead dictate what breeders are suppose to do...but in the back of our minds we know owners are still the bigger problem and can't or won't follow. Crutches are helpful until you need to go up a flight of stairs, and we've got a long way to go up. 



> It's our emotions and our capacity for empathy that guides us to decide what is humane and what isn't, IMO. So where is the line drawn and how much cruelty do we allow before our emotions kick in and we decide that the curtailing of suffering should trump property rights and the freedom to be irresponsible?


It seems only when the dollars make sense. I don't know that this bill will make any cents. If you think this bill is about anything other than cents, you'll prove my point on the need to be level headed. Because the last time I used emotion to make sense of the dollars, I had 16 and hit of an 8. My gamble with emotion lost me dollars. And if this bill loses dollars that will mean lives. The same live you and I both want to save.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Can I hug you?


They obviously have not read the bill and seen what really is contained in it. It is pretty scary. And pretty pretty harsh. 

You have to have your dog given an ovario hysterectomy by 4 months of age unless it is competing in shows. That is impossible. Dogs can't compete in shows until they are 6 months old. 
And they have to be spayed as soon as thier career is over. That is when their breeding career starts. But the law says no, they now need an ovariohysterectomy.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Hi, I’d like to introduce myself, this is my first post. I show and breed purebred dogs. I have been lurking on this list and have been reading the debate on the ‘healthy pets act' A misnomer. This is pure AR legislation. This should be called the ‘pet extinction act’. It will end breeding by serious, hobby breeders. Breeders who know their pedigrees, know genetics, do health testing, sell responsibly (i.e. take the dog back, sell on non-breeding contracts). 
One thing I’ve come to realize is that those on this list that are for this legislation are not realistic at all. It is one thing to have a law. It is quite another to see how it actually works. 
I invite you all to join the pet-law yahoo email list. It has taught me a lot about animal legislation and how it really works. 

To refute a few points:
1)	There is NO pet overpopulation crisis. This is propagated by AR fanatics with distorted facts and other outright lies. The figures quoted about the number of animals that are euthanized is exaggerated, i.e. a big fat lie. There are not millions of animals killed in shelters each year. 

2)	The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. Each and every year. Some shelters import dogs from other states and foreign countries

3)	Not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some have temperament problems. I will NEVER EVER adopt a dog at a shelter. There was an incidence in my town where someone adopted a dog and it ripped her face off a few days later. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. Not all dogs have good temperaments. Many are turned in because the owners would not responsibly bring them to their own vet to euthanize them when they are sick and/or old. 

4)	The majority of dogs in shelters are pit bull crosses and lab crosses. Bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament. A shelter dog is not the right fit for every household. 

5)	The actual numbers of dogs in shelters that are actually adoptable are a small percentage of those that actually is turned in. 

6)	The dogs in shelters are not due to breeders but owner irresponsibility. The breeder did not drop them off, the owner did. How is the breeder responsible for that? 

7)	I am NOT a nasty, rotten person like some of you would like you to believe since I don’t feel a shelter dog is the right fit in my household. It is rude and crude of you to judge people like that. 

8)	Just because a dog is not spayed does not mean it will have puppies. It takes owner responsibility. I have in season bitches all the time. They have puppies when I decide. 

9)	It is NOT cruel to not alter your pet. That is rude and crude to think that or say that.

10)	There are many studies that show that early altering is harmful to the dog. It stunts growth. The dogs are healthier actually not altered. That is what recent studies have shown. A dog will NOT automatically get cancer if not spayed. 

11)	This law is not necessary and will NOT end the problem of the number of dogs in shelters.

12) It will decrease the number of well bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public. 

13)	There is only a 10% rate of licensing. Why would you think that these people will automatically obey this law?


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogueEdaddy said:


> Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me.
> 
> What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.
> 
> Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> It's a proposed new law going through various processes, so currently nobody would be fined for having a sexually entire dog over 4 months old.
> 
> If later it was to become law and if then you did want a sexually entire dog then simply apply for a permit to be exempt from the mandatory spay neuter law.
> .


Not so simple. The ONLY way that it is actually realistic is to be a commercial breeder, with a business license, on commercially zoned property. 

The way the law is worded it is actually impossible to get an intact permit. The dog has to be purebred, win at shows, be AKC registered, and be shown at 4 months of age. which is not possible. no shows at 4 months. 
AKC rules you have to be at least 6 months.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Hi, I’d like to introduce myself, this is my first post. I show and breed purebred dogs. I have been lurking on this list and have been reading the debate on the ‘healthy pets act' A misnomer. This is pure AR legislation. This should be called the ‘pet extinction act’. It will end breeding by serious, hobby breeders. Breeders who know their pedigrees, know genetics, do health testing, sell responsibly (i.e. take the dog back, sell on non-breeding contracts).
> One thing I’ve come to realize is that those on this list that are for this legislation are not realistic at all. It is one thing to have a law. It is quite another to see how it actually works.
> I invite you all to join the pet-law yahoo email list. It has taught me a lot about animal legislation and how it really works.
> 
> To refute a few points:
> 1)	There is NO pet overpopulation crisis. This is propagated by AR fanatics with distorted facts and other outright lies. The figures quoted about the number of animals that are euthanized is exaggerated, i.e. a big fat lie. There are not millions of animals killed in shelters each year.
> 
> 2)	The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. Each and every year. Some shelters import dogs from other states and foreign countries
> 
> 3)	Not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some have temperament problems. I will NEVER EVER adopt a dog at a shelter. There was an incidence in my town where someone adopted a dog and it ripped her face off a few days later. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. Not all dogs have good temperaments. Many are turned in because the owners would not responsibly bring them to their own vet to euthanize them when they are sick and/or old.
> 
> 4)	The majority of dogs in shelters are pit bull crosses and lab crosses. Bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament. A shelter dog is not the right fit for every household.
> 
> 5)	The actual numbers of dogs in shelters that are actually adoptable are a small percentage of those that actually is turned in.
> 
> 6)	The dogs in shelters are not due to breeders but owner irresponsibility. The breeder did not drop them off, the owner did. How is the breeder responsible for that?
> 
> 7)	I am NOT a nasty, rotten person like some of you would like you to believe since I don’t feel a shelter dog is the right fit in my household. It is rude and crude of you to judge people like that.
> 
> 8)	Just because a dog is not spayed does not mean it will have puppies. It takes owner responsibility. I have in season bitches all the time. They have puppies when I decide.
> 
> 9)	It is NOT cruel to not alter your pet. That is rude and crude to think that or say that.
> 
> 10)	There are many studies that show that early altering is harmful to the dog. It stunts growth. The dogs are healthier actually not altered. That is what recent studies have shown. A dog will NOT automatically get cancer if not spayed.
> 
> 11)	This law is not necessary and will NOT end the problem of the number of dogs in shelters.
> 
> 12) It will decrease the number of well bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public.
> 
> 13)	There is only a 10% rate of licensing. Why would you think that these people will automatically obey this law?


Where did you hatch this stuff from??


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.


Recent studies refute this claim.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.


You can find just as many articles going the other way, just depends on where you look, who funded them, and what the intent of the study was to promote.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Recent studies refute this claim.


Show us some proof. I work in a shelter, and much of what you say is ridiculous.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Where did you hatch this stuff from??


Sorry you can't understand facts and logic. And why are you so rude?


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Show us some proof. I work in a shelter, and much of what you say is ridiculous.


No, ALL of what I say is the absolute truth. You just can't see the truth and the obvious.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> You can find just as many articles going the other way, just depends on where you look, who funded them, and what the intent of the study was to promote.


Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> No, ALL of what I say is the absolute truth. You just can't see the truth and the obvious.


Could you explain that in a different way, I can't quite get what your point is..


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Sorry you can't understand facts and logic. And why are you so rude?


I am not rude, I am just making a statement that much of what you posted is bunk. If you say it isn't, prove it.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.



Really, EVERYONE I KNOW is AGAINST this legislation. some don't even breed dogs. And I am not friends with commercial breeders. I am a hobby breeder, not for the money. I make no money. I lose much more money on my hobby than I make in puppy sales. So no profit margin is involved. We just do not see the reasoning behind this. Again, there is NO overpopulation of dogs. If you choose to believe the lies of the ARs. then that is your business. 

And the NRA is breeding dogs for profit? They have come out against this.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.


The truth with almost any study done is it is biased. True, either way the people involved usually have an agenda and the studies are designed to reinforce what they want you to believe.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Really, EVERYONE I KNOW is AGAINST this legislation. some don't even breed dogs. And I am not friends with commercial breeders. I am a hobby breeder, not for the money. I make no money. I lose much more money on my hobby than I make in puppy sales. So no profit margin is involved. We just do not see the reasoning behind this. Again, there is NO overpopulation of dogs. If you choose to believe the lies of the ARs. then that is your business.
> 
> And the NRA is breeding dogs for profit? They have come out against this.


http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I am not rude, I am just making a statement that much of what you posted is bunk. If you say it isn't, prove it.



No you are RUDE! You have a disdain in your tone when someone doesn't adopt from a shelter, when someone doesn't agree with you that it is cruel to not give thier dog an ovariohysterectomy. 

Your posts reek of tone and nastiness. Others have commented on it in this and other threads. So it is not just me. I'm just new to this board and I call them as I see them.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> No you are RUDE! You have a disdain in your tone when someone doesn't adopt from a shelter, when someone doesn't agree with you that it is cruel to not give thier dog an ovariohysterectomy.
> 
> Your posts reek of tone and nastiness. Others have commented on it in this and other threads. So it is not just me. I'm just new to this board and I call them as I see them.


OK, you are a breeder of pure breed dogs, and this law is going to cause you some problems, especially if you are not a legitimate breeder. Practically every post you have made so far is bashing this proposed law and bashing spaying... No vested interest there, I would guess....


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

All of this is getting rather ridiculous.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> OK, you are a breeder of pure breed dogs, and this law is going to cause you some problems, especially if you are not a legitimate breeder. Practically every post you have made so far is bashing this proposed law and bashing spaying... No vested interest there, I would guess....



But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this. 
Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists. 

This legislation will NOT work. Simple. 

i am unclear why you think it will. The other legislation on the books already like license laws and leash laws don't work and are no enforced. 

Why will this magically work? Simple, it won't. 

This will simply cost the people of CA MORE money for more AC workers. That is what really will happen if this is passed and it is enforced.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.


There are no facts that this law will succeed or fail. Everyone, including you, should be looking for the best law possible. The best law possible translates into lives saved. Gamble and fail...what emotions will you appeal to then?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this.
> Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists.



Just the fact that you make the above statement ( highlighted in red) , tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about. It is like listening to someone trying to convince us that the world is really flat, and everyone that thinks it is round, is wrong. I am not going to argue with you about this anymore, because obviously you think you are correct, despite all the evidnce to the contrary, so you just go on believing what you believe......


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Just the fact that you make the above statement ( highlighted in red) , tells me that you have no idea what you are talking about.


If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?


I have never seen any data that supports that conclusion. 

http://www.chai-online.org/en/companion/overpopulation_sn_early.htm


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Curbside Prophet said:


> If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.


Point to one where I said that, and was proven wrong.....


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*

To me here are some ridiculous statements made:

1) There is no pet overpopulation crisis.

Obviously, there are way too many unwanted dogs being born every year. 

2) A bill that allows for commercial breeders is seriously trying to lower euthanasia stats.

Mills are the worst of the worst to me. They're not being addressed, this leads me to think the bill is all about money.

3) Intact dogs are being abused.

Intact dogs are not being abused, it is simply a choice that an owner makes regarding what operations are to be performed on their own dogs.

4) Neither side is using emotional appeals/scare tactics.

Both arguments are relying on it.


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Well I did think it was generally accepted that there are a lot more dogs out there than there are people willing and able to care for them.

I thought that was the one thing we could all agree on, even if the solution seems less obvious. Oh, well.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I have never seen any data that supports that conclusion.
> 
> http://www.chai-online.org/en/companion/overpopulation_sn_early.htm


Here's a link- http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

http://www.dogtorj.net/id57.html

I'm not trying to prove you should or shouldn't neuter your dog, just that there are health risks either way and it's ridiculous to call one abusive for allowing your dog to be intact because there are health risks. If health risk = abusive, then all raw feeders are abusive, as are all kibble feeders (there's health debates with both) as are practically anyone doing anything with their dogs.

Here's one that discusses risks and benefits:

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

Look there are both risks and benefits.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Here's a link- http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
> 
> http://www.dogtorj.net/id57.html
> 
> I'm not trying to prove you should or shouldn't neuter your dog, just that there are health risks either way and it's ridiculous to call one abusive for allowing your dog to be intact because there are health risks. If health risk = abusive, then all raw feeders are abusive, as are all kibble feeders (there's health debates with both) as are practically anyone doing anything with their dogs.
> 
> Here's one that discusses risks and benefits:
> 
> http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
> 
> Look there are both risks and benefits.


It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.


Are you a vet? 

*Sigh* Nothing I say will change your mind, I get that. Believe what you want about my own decisions regarding my dogs, my apathy towards the homeless animals, whatever you want to. I just don't care anymore.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



RonE said:


> Well I did think it was generally accepted that there are a lot more dogs out there than there are people willing and able to care for them.
> 
> I thought that was the one thing we could all agree on, even if the solution seems less obvious. Oh, well.


No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much. 

The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners. 

The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION. 

Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years. 

The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout. 

And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture. 

The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> It seems that both of these links contain a very small minority opinion on the effects of early S/N.as opposed to what is considered mainstream by Vets today.


That is YOUR opinion, not the truth. More and more people every day are realizing that ovariohysterectomy/castration is not an innocuous procedure. 

There are real health aspects to later altering. Early altering messes with the hormones and affects growth and development.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much.
> 
> The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners.
> 
> The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION.
> 
> Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years.
> 
> The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout.
> 
> And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture.
> 
> The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.



You talk about being rude, and you call people that run animal rescues and shelters liars? As I stated before, you have no idea what you are talking about. Many of the statements that you make in your post,are false. Just posting misinformation that has no truth to it all , is like the old propaganda method called the "Big Lie". where you keep stating something that has no basis in fact, and is totally ridiculous, hoping that if people hear it often enough, they will start to believe it. I think you are going to have trouble on this forum, trying to pull that off.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_aff...istics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> You talk about being rude, and you call people that run animal rescues and shelters liars? As I stated before, you have no idea what you are talking about. Many of the statements that you make in your post,are false. Just posting misinformation that has no truth to it all , is like the old propaganda method called the "Big Lie". where you keep stating something that has no basis in fact, and is totally ridiculous, hoping that if people hear it often enough, they will start to believe it. I think you are going to have trouble on this forum, trying to pull that off.
> 
> http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_aff...istics/hsus_pet_overpopulation_estimates.html



The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true. 

You talk about quoting numbers that have no basis in fact, well the HSUS figures fit that bill. It is pure propoganda and lies. Not one ounce of truth or fact. 

there is simply no way to know what the true numbers of animals that are euthanized in the US is and why they where euthanized. Was it due to temperament? health? Age? Or simply because no one wanted to adopt them. No way to know. So therefore, there is no truth to the AR numbers spouted by HSUS.


----------



## ritabooker

*Re: AB1634 advances*

"According to figures gathered by Mancuso from the California Department of Health
Services, Veterinary Public Health, 841,000 dogs and cats entered state shelters in
2005. Of those 430,240, or approximately 51 percent, were euthanized, at an estimated
cost of $132,513,899." 

This is in California alone. Here is a link to the article. They know the numbers because records are kept.

http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ritabooker said:


> "According to figures gathered by Mancuso from the California Department of Health
> Services, Veterinary Public Health, 841,000 dogs and cats entered state shelters in
> 2005. Of those 430,240, or approximately 51 percent, were euthanized, at an estimated
> cost of $132,513,899."
> 
> This is in California alone. Here is a link to the article. They know the numbers because records are kept.
> 
> http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf


Some people hate to be confronted with facts.......


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true.
> 
> You talk about quoting numbers that have no basis in fact, well the HSUS figures fit that bill. It is pure propoganda and lies. Not one ounce of truth or fact.
> 
> there is simply no way to know what the true numbers of animals that are euthanized in the US is and why they where euthanized. Was it due to temperament? health? Age? Or simply because no one wanted to adopt them. No way to know. So therefore, there is no truth to the AR numbers spouted by HSUS.


You are way beyond ridiculous......


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> You are way beyond ridiculous......


Why is it ridiculous to know how many of those dogs euthanized where actually adoptable? That is the true number of dogs that are homeless. It is a distortion to include dogs that are not adoptable. 

You are just name calling because you don't have facts to back up your arguments.


----------



## ritabooker

*Re: AB1634 advances*

'When so many healthy lives are being lost, something has to change." Mancuso said.

This is a quote from a newspaper article here:
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf

It talks about euthanizing "unwanted" and "healthy" animals, not "unadoptable" animals.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



ritabooker said:


> 'When so many healthy lives are being lost, something has to change." Mancuso said.
> 
> This is a quote from a newspaper article here:
> http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf
> 
> It talks about euthanizing "unwanted" and "healthy" animals, not "unadoptable" animals.


right, but unadoptable animals and cats are included in those numbers. 
That scews the number of those that actually where adoptable. Those are the ones that are homeless. Not the old dogs turned into the shelter because the owner did not have the responsibility to bring them to thier vet and pay to have it humanely euthanized. 

The total number of those euthanized is not an indication of the number of dogs that are adoptable. The number of dogs that are old, sick, infirm, bad tempered does not matter. This is about a perceived overpopulation issue. Those animals are included in these figures to scew the data to show that there is an 'overpopulation' issue. I don't understand why you can't see that?


----------



## ritabooker

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I can see what you are saying. I just have go by what my own eyes see at every shelter or humane society I have ever been inside of...95% of the dogs are young or middle aged, healthy and eager for a home.

You have every right to be opposed to this bill. That is certainly your right.


----------



## ChRotties

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I agree with Saveourdogs: statistics can be manipulated ...for the true numbers to be known, you have to take out the ones that were euth bc of old age, temperament, illness..those aren't adoptable...


----------



## ritabooker

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Whatever your opinion on this Bill, I am glad it is being discussed.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.


YES BUT, I feel that it would be a very brave person in a jurisdiction who did not accept a letter from a veterinarian where they provided a medical health valid reason, this even one letter for life for a life long medical health valid reason. Keep in mind that jurisdictions must also comply to "all laws", and where even jurisdictions could be held liable under various laws.

Also, there has been a mandatory spay neuter law in Santa Cruz since 1995, has anyone heard of any dog being killed because of anaesthesia due to the Santa Cruz Law. I feel that under the current political situation if there was particularly if involving a number of dogs, then by now would have heard something about it as it would have been spread throughout all the media.
.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I think I pretty much covered this in prior posts. I do disagree with you about abuse, because you may not think Beau is being abused, though I don't think you're considering the risk to his health as abuse, and I do. Where the abuse comes in is to his resultant puppies if there is a whoops breeding and they become like all the others that end up in the shelter. Here again we have a disconnect -- you can look at your dog and only see him, not the abuse that will occur to his offspring. You have to look at the bigger picture.


I'm not going to argue about this law, but I've got to say this. Laurelin is a RESPONSIBLE dog owner. She is not abusing her show dog. She loves all her dogs very much, and even said that all her PET dogs are altered. I don't have any problems with somebody keeping a dog intact if they are actively showing it and plan on breeding to better the breed.

I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*

DogA Quote:
But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed. 

Laurelin Quote: Mmmm... hmm, but I still can't see this law as helping where it should. Puppy mills have jumped on the 'lets breed crappy toy dogs and charge thousands for them' the most. They're exempt. 

And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people. <<<

If irresponsible breeders are allowed to continue to produce substandard dogs, it won't be an assumption that your breed is ruined. By refusing to back s/n laws, you are enabling irresponsible breeders to ruin the breeds.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:


Quote:
To me, all the spay/neuter thing is for one reason, population control. I see it no other way. There are risks both ways. One side doesn't cancel out the other. Health effects are often used as a major point in convincing people they need to get it done because fear is a great motivator, especially our human fear of having our pets die. The fact of the matter is, there are health risks on both sides. If you think those parts and hormones aren't important for something during their development I'd highly recommend you take any anat/phys class and you'll see just how important they are. 
<<<

Earlier you cited that you had something like 30 dogs that had never had reproductive cancers or pyometra though not altered. I've had several hundred dogs that I've had altered and have not had any problem with anesthetic, and I've early s/n at least a hundred pups, and none of them have had any negative after affects from it, even later in life. If your personal experience proves your point, then may I assume that my personal experience proves mine as well?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> DogA Quote:
> But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding. It's all those other guys that aren't breeding responsibly that need to stop. That's why we need regulations, because all those horrible breeders think they're doing it right too. And they're not going to stop until they are forced to stop. Why support them continuing to ruin the breed you love? For that matter, come to think of it, maybe it was one of those horrible breeders that bred the dog that broke it's leg. Look at the assumption I made that it was the breed, and not the result of bad breeding that caused that. I know I'm not the only one to make such an assumption. Do you really want your breed to have a reputation of being substandard, simply because of all the horrible breeders that are making them that way, and the small minority of responsible breeders that are trying to improve the breed in vain? Think of what a limitation to only responsible breeders breeding would mean to your breed.
> 
> Laurelin Quote: Mmmm... hmm, but I still can't see this law as helping where it should. Puppy mills have jumped on the 'lets breed crappy toy dogs and charge thousands for them' the most. They're exempt.
> 
> And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people. <<<
> 
> If irresponsible breeders are allowed to continue to produce substandard dogs, it won't be an assumption that your breed is ruined. By refusing to back s/n laws, you are enabling irresponsible breeders to ruin the breeds.


By backing this law, you are providing the industrial breeders a nice pat on the back imo.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Quote:
> 
> Earlier you cited that you had something like 30 dogs that had never had reproductive cancers or pyometra though not altered. I've had several hundred dogs that I've had altered and have not had any problem with anesthetic, and I've early s/n at least a hundred pups, and none of them have had any negative after affects from it, even later in life. If your personal experience proves your point, then may I assume that my personal experience proves mine as well?


I'm NOT anti spay/neuter. Your statement that unaltered dogs were being indirectly abused is complete bogus. That's why I was citing sources. There ARE small risks either way- altering a dog or keeping a dog intact. You can believe there is only way to do things responsibly, but that would be wrong and woefully ignorant. Whatever a person does with their dogs is a risk. By saying that I am choosing to accept the risk of leaving my dog intact for however long he is intact is abusing him means to me that you are in turn abusing your dogs by putting them at higher risk for other things. We've never had a problem putting a dog under- it's still a risk. It should still be taken into account. I suppose all my dogs- neutered and unneutered alike are being abused because my decisions for them have increased certain risks and lowered other risks?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Cheetah said:


> I'm not going to argue about this law, but I've got to say this. Laurelin is a RESPONSIBLE dog owner. She is not abusing her show dog. She loves all her dogs very much, and even said that all her PET dogs are altered. I don't have any problems with somebody keeping a dog intact if they are actively showing it and plan on breeding to better the breed.
> 
> I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.


Thank you very much.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogueEdaddy said:


> Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me.
> 
> What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.
> 
> Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


Actually, I think it's a valid question. All nature requires of wild animals is that they live long enough to produce the next generation, and raise their offspring long enough so that they can exist on their own. So yes, wolves have lived a very long time, as a species, but what about the individual wolf? With domestic animals, our pets, we hope for much more than that. If one of my dogs doesn't live to at least 16, I feel cheated. I just lost my oldest one who passed her 20th birthday. How often is that seen in the wilds? How many wolves live that long? Does anyone really know? 

So when talking about s/n as a health issue, there's no question in my mind that it's an important preventative to future health problems.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat 
No it isn't. Both are abuse of animals if it ends up with lack of s/n leading to dogs dying in the pounds. Both lead to death of animals. The argument could be made that the winning dog in a dog fight is quite happy. And again, dogs are legal property and it's a loss of freedom when the owners are told they can't do what they want with their own property - whether it be fighting, or failing to s/n and producing unexpected puppies.

The only real difference between the two is that we see the results right away with dog fighting, but the results of failure to s/n usually aren't seen at all, except for those people that are seeing it up-close and personal in the euthanasia rooms across this country. That's one of the worst parts about our shelter system - it allows too many people to think that there are no repurcussions to their actions - or lack thereof. We can fool ourselves that the puppies we produce are going to good homes because the people seemed so nice, but we don't see when those dogs are abandoned because they became inconvenient. And the people abandoning them can console themselves (if they care at all) with the idea that someone will adopt it from the shelter, or someone will pick it up off the road and give it a home. That makes it that much easier to do it all again, and again, and again.

So yes, there is cruelty involved whether it be from dog fighting, or failure to spay/neuter.



saveourdogs said:


> This is YOUR opinion, NOT FACT. Actually, sterilizing your dog, ie giving it an ovario hysterctomy is very very serious surgery. It is not to be taken lightly.
> It is not physical abuse to not give your dog an ovariohysterectomy.


Of course it's my opinion. Did I say it was FACT???? And who's not taking s/n seriously? Certainly not me. But I disagree with you about not spaying not being considered abuse -- when a dog is dying of pyometra, then not having spayed certainly is abuse, IMO, because the pyometra was totally preventable. But the abuse I was talking about was the death by euthanasia and the suffering of the offspring produced by that unspayed dog compared to the death of fighting dogs. Both are inhumane, IMO.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> By backing this law, you are providing the industrial breeders a nice pat on the back imo.


Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, don't you realize that most of the shelter animals are mixed breeds, and most of the dogs dying are mixed breeds, and other than the designer breeds, that means that most of the dogs that are at risk are the ones being produced by irresponsible and neglegent owners that are not breeding for profit or for hobby. Those are the people that are targetted most by this law. And by not backing this law, you are enabling them.


----------



## Quincy

DogAdvocat said:


> DogA Quote:
> But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding.


YES no one is suggesting that there will be an end to responsible breeding. Responsible breeders CAN EASILY OBTAIN AN EXEMPTION, and what they pay for an exemption they will do as other breeders do and pass the costs onto those who buy puppies, and say on a litter of 5 puppies that will be about $20 per puppy, and in effect this Bill will cost responsible breeders NOTHING and will not effect them at all.
.



Curbside Prophet said:


> Imagine if the State could enforce their current laws for licensing. We might not even be discussing this bill because the economics wouldn't be there. Sadly, only money makes the wheel go around, so I can't even imagine this law will have any effect on enforcement capabilities.


Talking about San Francisco and enforcement.
Incredibly, there are an estimated 120,000 dogs living in San Francisco, and only about 20,000 of them are licensed at this time. These figures indicate that the authorities are not sufficiently enforcing the mandatory dog license laws, then comes the question regarding how many dogs have actually had their rabies vaccinations.
SF License Stats mentioned at this address:-
http://www.sfgov.org/site/acc_page.asp?id=6619

Personally I feel that due to the situation above and this maybe used as justification to really start enforcing laws adequately, that maybe it might be just a matter of time till Animal Control Officers start knocking on doors, this to conduct a census and to remind unlicensed dog owners regarding the reasons why dog licenses are needed.

Things happened elsewhere in the world where local authorities in time were forced to enforce the law, and such as seen here with this community at this address:-
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/media070606.pdf
.


----------



## DogAdvocat

saveourdogs said:


> Hi, I’d like to introduce myself, this is my first post. I show and breed purebred dogs. I have been lurking on this list and have been reading the debate on the ‘healthy pets act' A misnomer. This is pure AR legislation.


The only thing AR about is it will hopefully give cats and dogs the right to a life where it's wanted since it was purposely brought into this world. Any legislation that would regulate breeders is considered AR by breeders. Paranoia abounds.



saveourdogs said:


> This should be called the ‘pet extinction act’. It will end breeding by serious, hobby breeders. Breeders who know their pedigrees, know genetics, do health testing, sell responsibly (i.e. take the dog back, sell on non-breeding contracts).
> One thing I’ve come to realize is that those on this list that are for this legislation are not realistic at all. It is one thing to have a law. It is quite another to see how it actually works.
> I invite you all to join the pet-law yahoo email list. It has taught me a lot about animal legislation and how it really works.
> 
> To refute a few points:
> 1) There is NO pet overpopulation crisis. This is propagated by AR fanatics with distorted facts and other outright lies. The figures quoted about the number of animals that are euthanized is exaggerated, i.e. a big fat lie. There are not millions of animals killed in shelters each year.


Good grief, what nonsense. I have heard some try to put a spin on it and claim that there is no overpopulation, just not enough homes. If it wasn't so sad, that would be laughable. I've wondered if their suggestion would be that we need to breed more people to provide more homes. But to say that the death toll is a lie is just ludicrous. If anything, it's underreported, IMO. The death toll doesn't take into account the number euthanized by rescue because they couldn't be placed after being bailed out of the pound, for instance.



saveourdogs said:


> 2) The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. Each and every year. Some shelters import dogs from other states and foreign countries


Yes, I do believe the numbers have been going down, but that doesn't indicate there isn't a problem. How many of those dogs go to rescue, who is overwhelmed, sometimes to the point of having to shut down? But the increase in rescue doesn't mean there isn't an overpopulation problem. Rescue is only a halfway house, and those animals need to be factored right in with the shelter animals. 



saveourdogs said:


> 3) Not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some have temperament problems. I will NEVER EVER adopt a dog at a shelter. There was an incidence in my town where someone adopted a dog and it ripped her face off a few days later. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. Not all dogs have good temperaments. Many are turned in because the owners would not responsibly bring them to their own vet to euthanize them when they are sick and/or old.


You'll never adopt from a shelter? That says a whole lot. All but two of my dogs have been shelter dogs, and it physically hurts to think that if all people had your way of thinking, they wouldn't ever get a home.

You're right, not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some should have been taken to a vet to be euthanized because they are terminally ill and in unalterable pain, and their owners preferred to dump them in a strange shelter than to make their last moments as easy as possible. And yes, some dogs would not make good family dogs, but many shelters these days are using overly harsh temperament testing methods so that they can claim that they are only killing unadoptable dogs while also claiming that their death rate of adoptable dogs is going down. Another spin. Most of the dogs that are considered temperamentally unsound only need some training, but the shelter constrictions don't allow enough time to train them. It's not unusual for the shelter to deem a dog unadoptable and it's then taken by rescue who rehab it and place it in a lifetime home. Ideally if there were less dogs being born, the remaining ones wouldn't be overwhelming rescue and they could all be saved.



saveourdogs said:


> 4) The majority of dogs in shelters are pit bull crosses and lab crosses. Bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament. A shelter dog is not the right fit for every household.


That's odd, according to responsible breeders, since none of their dogs will ever end up in a shelter, the ONLY ones there have been bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament - whether it's a Great Dane, a Chihuahua, or anything in between. But you're right, a shelter dog is not the right fit for every household, but that can be said about any of the breeds too. No dog is right for everyone.



saveourdogs said:


> 5) The actual numbers of dogs in shelters that are actually adoptable are a small percentage of those that actually is turned in.


What's that? A Sue Sternberg quote? Extreme temperament testing could pretty much condemn any dog, whether well socialized or not. "Actually adoptable" is a relative term. After 200 chihuahuas were confiscated from a puppymiller in CA, and the pound decided that most of them were not adoptable, the court system upheld rescues request to take the dogs, and most of those dogs are now in lifetime homes. So much for "actually adoptable."



saveourdogs said:


> 6) The dogs in shelters are not due to breeders but owner irresponsibility. The breeder did not drop them off, the owner did. How is the breeder responsible for that?


A responsible breeder would know the answer to that question. It's really quite simple. It's the breeder that chooses the owner. It's the breeder that should be following up on his/her dogs to make sure that if there is any reason why the owner would want to give up the dog, it would go back to the breeder. It's the breeder that should be microchipping his/her dogs so that if they do end up in the shelter, they can immediately go back to the breeder. The dogs in shelters certainly are due to breeders because it's breeders that make the decisions on the lifetime care of the dog.



saveourdogs said:


> 7) I am NOT a nasty, rotten person like some of you would like you to believe since I don’t feel a shelter dog is the right fit in my household. It is rude and crude of you to judge people like that.


Nasty and rotten? No, but I don't think you're showing a lot of caring about the shelter dogs when you try to downplay their plight, and indicate that they aren't adoptable. I also question someone's commitment to their breed if they can say a shelter dog of their breed wouldn't fit in their household. And it's hard for me to believe that someone cares when they have the room, but would rather fill it with dog that doesn't need a home.



saveourdogs said:


> 8) Just because a dog is not spayed does not mean it will have puppies. It takes owner responsibility. I have in season bitches all the time. They have puppies when I decide.


You have "in season bitches all the time"? Hey - I can answer that one - it's what a puppymiller would say. But you're right, an unspayed dog might not have puppies, but a spayed dog definitely won't. And since most people don't have a clue about responsible breeding, much less than know how to responsibly care for a dog, then it's no wonder that there are so many dogs in need. And of course it's even worse for cats.



saveourdogs said:


> 9) It is NOT cruel to not alter your pet. That is rude and crude to think that or say that.


Rude and crude? LOL. Killing unwanted offspring of unaltered pets IS cruel. But it's necessary because of failure to alter. 



saveourdogs said:


> 10) There are many studies that show that early altering is harmful to the dog. It stunts growth. The dogs are healthier actually not altered. That is what recent studies have shown. A dog will NOT automatically get cancer if not spayed.


You're right, it might die of pyometra first. As for your studies, could you explain why the AVMA endorses early s/n? Maybe the AVMA is really an AR organization that is out to harm out dogs????? LOL. Stunted growth? Since most of the dogs in this country are bred by irresponsible breeders that aren't breeding to standard, how would anyone even know that their dog's growth was stunted? If my dog's growth is stunted fractions of an inch by altering that will prevent his puppies from dying in a shelter, then I'll risk it.



saveourdogs said:


> 11) This law is not necessary and will NOT end the problem of the number of dogs in shelters.


"A" law is necessary because what's happening now is not stopping the killing. If you don't like this law, where is your alternative? I hear a lot about what this law won't do, but I never hear any solutions to the problem, except to do more of what isn't working now. 



saveourdogs said:


> 12) It will decrease the number of well bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public.


No, it will decrease the number of badly bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public. It will also decrease the number of random bred dogs needing homes. How could it not if it increases the number of spay/neuters? 



saveourdogs said:


> 13) There is only a 10% rate of licensing. Why would you think that these people will automatically obey this law?


Actually I'd heard that it was more like a 30% compliance rate on licensing. And though that still leaves plenty of room for improvement, it's a whole lot easier to hide the fact that your dog isn't licensed than it is to hide the fact that your dog has puppies.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> The way the law is worded it is actually impossible to get an intact permit. The dog has to be purebred, win at shows, be AKC registered, and be shown at 4 months of age. which is not possible. no shows at 4 months.
> AKC rules you have to be at least 6 months.


What about puppy matches through breed clubs?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Really, EVERYONE I KNOW is AGAINST this legislation. some don't even breed dogs. And I am not friends with commercial breeders. I am a hobby breeder, not for the money. I make no money. I lose much more money on my hobby than I make in puppy sales. So no profit margin is involved. We just do not see the reasoning behind this. Again, there is NO overpopulation of dogs. If you choose to believe the lies of the ARs. then that is your business.


Hobby breeder? With bitches constantly in heat? I don't think it's the ARs that are lying.

Everyone you know is against it? I guess you don't know any of the following supporters then? I do. They're all people that deal with the problem on a daily basis. I guess they don't let their "hobby" distract them.

California Animal Control Directors Association (sponsor) 
California Veterinary Medical Association (sponsor) 
City of Los Angeles (sponsor) 
Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor) 
State Humane Association of California (sponsor)

Ace of Hearts 
Adopt-A-Chow Los Angeles 
All Creatures Great & Small Animal Rescue 
Alpha Canine Sanctuary 
American Humane Association 
American Tortoise Rescue 
Animal Advocates 
Animal Advocates Harbor City 
Animal Alliance 
Animal Assistance League of Orange County 
Animal Avengers 
Animal Friends Rescue Project 
Animal Kind Rescue 
Animal Kingdom Welfare 
Animal Lovers of South Bay 
Animal Match Rescue Team 
Animal Place 
Animal Protection Institute 
Animal Protection & Rescue League 
Animal Rescue of Fresno 
Animal Rescue Volunteers Inc 
Animal Rules Placement Foundation 
Animal Switchboard 
Animal Welfare Committee - Studio City 
Animals Anonymous 
Animals, People and Environment 
Another Chance Animal Welfare League 
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights 
Auburn Area Animal Rescue Foundation 
Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls 
Beagles and Buddies 
Bellflower Veterinary Hospital 
Bill Foundation 
Boston Buddies 
Boxer Rescue 
Boxer Rescue Fund 
Boxer Rescue Los Angeles 
Bumper Foundation 
Bunny Bunch 
California Federation for Animal Legislation 
California Lobby for Animal Welfare 
Canine Communications 
Canine Crusaders 
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 
Cat AdopTion Service 
Cat Assistance Referral and Education 
Cat Care Network of Colorado and New Mexico 
Cat Connection 
Cat Crossing 
Cat House on the Kings Rescue 
Cat/Canine Assistance Referral & Education 
Catherine Fund 
Cats At The Studio, Inc. 
Center for Animal Protection and Education 
Central Valley Coalition for Animals 
Cesar and Ilusion Millan Foundation 
Cesar Millan Inc. 
Chateau DuMeow 
Chateau DuMeow 
Chico Boxer Rescue 
Citizens for a Humane Los Angeles 
City of Clovis Animal Services 
City of Elk Grove, Animal Services 
City of Fremont Animal Services Unit 
City of Fremont Police Department, Animal Services Unit 
City of Lathrop Animal Services 
City of Long Beach Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga 
City of Long Beach Councilmember Val Lerch 
City of Los Angeles Animal Services 
City of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa 
City of San Jose Animal Care Services 
City of Stockton Animal Control 
City of Turlock Animal Control 
City of Yucaipa Mayor **** Riddell 
Coalition for Cats and Dogs 
Coalition for Pets & Public Safety 
Coast Dematorology Medical Associates 
Community Animal Network 
County of Contra Costa Animal Services 
County of Madera Department of Animal Control 
County of Monterey SPCA 
County of San Bernadino Animal Care and Control 
Dana Point / San Clemente Animal Rescue 
Daschshund Rescue 
Dawnwatch 
Death Row Dogs Rescue 
Deborah's Rescues and Fosters 
Dedicated Animal Welfare Group 
Directors of Animal Welfare, Studio City Neighborhood Council 
Dog Adoption and Welfare Group 
Dog Land Spay & Neuter Hotline 
Dog Psychology Center of Los Angeles 
Dog's Life Rescue 
Downtown Dog Rescue 
East Bay SPCA 
Echo Park Animal Alliance 
Emmie's Animal Rescue - Fresno 
Erika Brunson Design 
Feral Cat Alliance 
Feral Cat Coalition - San Diego 
Fight for Animal Rights 
Forte Animal Rescue 
Foundation for the Care of Indigent Animals 
Four Legged Friends Foundation 
Fox Companion Care 
Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter 
Friends of Fred 
Friends of Long Beach Animals 
Friends of Madera Animal Shelter 
German Shorthaired Pointer Rescue 
Give a Dog a Home Rescue 
Glendale Humane Society 
Halt Overpopulation with Prevention and Education 
Happy Tails Sanctuary 
Heaven on Earth Society for Animals 
Helping Out Pets Everyday 
Herald Publications 
High Desert Angels for Animals 
HMB Catworks, Penn Valley 
Home for Every Living Pet 
Hopalong Animal Rescue 
HOPE Animal Foundation 
Humane Education Network 
Humane Society of the United States 
In Defense of Animals 
Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA 
INXS 
It's The Pits 
Jacqueline Green Public Relations Inc 
K-9 Pals - Santa Barbara 
K-9 Rescue 
Karma Rescue 
Katcep Associates 
Kellen Rescue 
Kinder4Rescue 
Kitten Rescue 
Kris Kelly Foundation 
Lake Tahoe Humane Society 
Lange Foundation 
Last Chance for Animals 
Last Chance for Animals - San Diego 
League of Human Voters - California Chapter 
Leg Up Rescue 
Lhasa Happy Homes 
Life 4 Paws 
Linda Blair WorldHeart Foundation 
Little Angels Pug Rescue 
Little Company of Mary San Pedro 
Los Angeles Directors of Animal Welfare 
Love of Animals Inc 
Ma Snak Superior Treats 
Madera County Animal Control 
Marley's Pit Stop Rescue 
MaryJo and Hank Greenberg Animal Welfare Foundation 
Matilija Canyon Wildlife Refuge 
Milo Foundation 
Miss Kitty's Rescue 
Missing Pet Partnership 
Much Love Animal Rescue 
Network of Humane Organizations 
New Beginnings for Animals 
New Leash on Life 
No Voice Unheard 
Noah's Bark 
NorCal Aussie Rescue 
North Star Pet Assistance 
Open Arms Network 
Orange County People for Animals 
Pacific Coast Dog Rescue 
PAL Animal Sanctuary 
PAL Humane Society 
Pam's People Pals 
Panzar, Inc. 
Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA 
Passion for Paws Rescue 
Paw Project 
Paws and Cues Dog Training 
PAWS San Diego County, Inc. 
PearlParadise.com 
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals 
People and Cats Together 
Pet Adoption Fund 
Pet Adoption League 
Pet Assistance Foundation 
Pet Care Foundation 
Pet Orphans of Southern California 
Pet Press 
Pet Project Foundation 
Pet Save Foundation 
Peter Zippi Fund for Animals 
Pets 90210 
Pit Bull Rescue - San Diego 
Placer SPCA 
Pooch Potty 
Progressive Animal Welfare Society 
Pryor's Planet 
Purr-fect Solutions Feline Rescue 
Rancho Coastal Humane Society 
Rescue & Humane Alliance - Los Angeles 
Rescue House 
Rescue House - San Diego 
Rescue Me Inc 
Rescue Train 
River City Cat Rescue 
Robin and Friends Rescue 
Rover Rescue 
Roy Dunlap Spay/Neuter Foundation 
Ruff Riders Animal Rescue 
Sacramento Area Animal Coalition 
Sacramento SPCA 
San Clemente/Dana Point Animal Shelter 
San Diego Animal Advocates 
San Diego Special Needs Rescue 
Santa Cruz SPCA 
Santa Monica Boxer Rescue 
Sara Ford Foundation Rescue Group 
Second Chance Canine Rescue 
Seeds for Change, Humane Education 
Senior & Special Needs Animal Assistance 
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation and Education 
Senior Dogs Project 
Senior Special Needs Animal Assistance 
Shelter Pet Alliance 
Shelter Pet Partners 
Shelter Watch Inc 
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority 
Sisters Animal Sanctuary 
Small Paws Rescue - Tulsa, Oklahoma 
Social Compassion 
Sounds of Silent Spirits Rescue and Sanctuary 
Southeast Area Animal Control Authority 
Southern California Labrador Retriever Rescue 
Southern California Siamese Rescue 
Southern California University People for Animal Welfare 
Southland Collie Rescue 
Southland Sheltie Rescue 
Sparky & The Gang 
Spay and Neuter Intermountain Pets and Pet Placement 
Spay Neuter Action Program - San Diego 
Spay Neuter Action Project 
Stop Torture Abuse & Neglect of Dogs Foundation 
Stray Cat Alliance 
Streetsmarts Rescue 
Take Me Home 
Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment 
Teaching Everyone Animals Matter 
Tehachapi Humane Society 
Tehama Wild Care 
Thumping Tails Rescue 
TopCats on the Ridge Inc. 
Underdog Rescue 
United Animal Nations 
Victorville PAL Humane Society 
Voice for Animals 
Volunteers for Inter-Valley Animals 
Weil Public Relations 
Wendy's Pet Sitting Service 
Westie Rescue 
Westside German Shepard Rescue 
Winogradsky Company 
Wish For Animals


----------



## DogAdvocat

saveourdogs said:


> But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this.
> Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists.
> 
> This legislation will NOT work. Simple.
> 
> i am unclear why you think it will. The other legislation on the books already like license laws and leash laws don't work and are no enforced.
> 
> Why will this magically work? Simple, it won't.
> 
> This will simply cost the people of CA MORE money for more AC workers. That is what really will happen if this is passed and it is enforced.


You do realize that you are spouting opinion as fact? You cite email lists of serious knowledgeable people as being some sort of authority on the issue, but just because you choose to believe what they say doesn't mean what they say is right, or even honest. Much of what you say is rhetoric I've heard a thousand times from people who blame any legislation on AR factions, when in fact, it's mostly animal welfare activists, shelter personnel, and rescue volunteers who are the ones promoting this legislation. Don't you think they are more in a position to know the facts than a bunch of paranoid breeders who fight any legislation that they think might hamper their businesses and hobbies? Think about the motives behind each side. I can tell you one thing, the motive from the proponents is not a selfish one. Can you say the same thing about the motives of those objecting to the bill?

Have you ever noticed that your side seems to straddle the fence with the argument that it's an AR plot that will wipe out dogs/cats, while at the same time saying that it won't work because no one will obey the law?



Curbside Prophet said:


> There are no facts that this law will succeed or fail. Everyone, including you, should be looking for the best law possible. The best law possible translates into lives saved. Gamble and fail...what emotions will you appeal to then?


The best law possible will be fought by breeders just as strongly as this one is. Breeders don't want any laws. Breeders have traditionally, probably because of the already established breed clubs, been able to ban together to present a united front against any law. How many dogs/cats are going to suffer and die before that can be overcome?



Laurelin said:


> I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?


Can you cite statistical information on how many cases of bone cancer post neutering there are, and how many cases of testicular cancer there are?



Curbside Prophet said:


> If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.


I don't know about the other times, but he sure is right this time. No overpopulation problem? Unless this person is buying into some spin doctor's reassessment of the problem, he just isn't making sense.



saveourdogs said:


> No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much.


Ahhh, I figured there might be a spin doctor at work. There is an owner relinquishment problem because:

1) Breeders put dogs in unqualified, inappropriate homes.
2) Dogs are disposable because there are so many of them that it's easier to dump a current problem and just get another dog.
3) Society doesn't put the onus on those that abandon their dogs that they should. Just think what would happen if people thought of dog/cat abandonment the way they do about child abandonment.

No matter what the reason for owner relinquishment, the fact is that there aren't enough homes to house the relinquished animals as well as the new puppies being born. THAT is an overpopulation problem. There's just TOO MANY. 



saveourdogs said:


> The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners.


This is the mantra that breeders use to absolve themselves of all culpability for the problem, but the problem stems from breeders who choose homes that will ultimately dump their animals. A breeder should be prepared to be a dog's safety net for all of it's life. Those of us in rescue do that, and a breeder should do no less than rescue would. You produced it, it's yours to protect, no matter where it goes.



saveourdogs said:


> The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION.


Education is obviously not working if breeders like you think it's not your problem. Try manning a shelter intake desk for a week and then say that education is working. 



saveourdogs said:


> Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years.


If shelter populations are going down each year, why are more shelters being built? Los Angeles, for instance, has a new shelter pending. The call went out today that the East Valley shelter is seriously overcrowded. As for euth rates going down, I don't think that's been an issue, even with ARs. The numbers have decreased, but it's just not fast enough. Adoptable dogs are dying, and with all the education out there, that's just not acceptable. Something else needs to be done. As long as adoptable dogs are dying, they should have priority over future breedings.



saveourdogs said:


> The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout.
> 
> And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture.
> 
> The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.


The numbers are questionable, you're right about that. Not because of any AR plot, but because shelters aren't always up-to-date on their statistical information, and it's difficult to break down some of the information into useful information - like the differential between mixed and purebred dogs in the shelter. Some shelters classify a dog as pure as long as it predominately looks like a given breed. Some won't classify anything as pure that doesn't come in with papers proving it's pure. I've seen some gorgeous purebred dogs that were marked as mixes. And adoptable vs. unadoptable is questionable as well, since the temperament testing used is not objective. Even the older animals aren't unadoptable. There are many rescue groups that specialize in rescuing and placing the older dogs. I know of several groups that consider themselves "11th hour" rescues who practically take dogs out of the euthanasia room and then rehab and find good homes for. But that still leaves the problem of more dogs in need than homes to accommodate them. And that's overpopulation, clear and simple.



saveourdogs said:


> The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true.


And your choice to believe it doesn't make it true either.


----------



## DogAdvocat

saveourdogs said:


> right, but unadoptable animals and cats are included in those numbers.
> That scews the number of those that actually where adoptable. Those are the ones that are homeless. Not the old dogs turned into the shelter because the owner did not have the responsibility to bring them to thier vet and pay to have it humanely euthanized.
> 
> The total number of those euthanized is not an indication of the number of dogs that are adoptable. The number of dogs that are old, sick, infirm, bad tempered does not matter. This is about a perceived overpopulation issue. Those animals are included in these figures to scew the data to show that there is an 'overpopulation' issue. I don't understand why you can't see that?


Maybe we can't see it because you are counting adoptable animals as unadoptable. Age shouldn't be a death sentence. The only reason it is, is because there are too many dogs and not enough homes, in other words, an overpopulation. If there weren't so many dogs available, people would be more likely to adopt older dogs. Do you realize that because of the demands of the public, and the number of available homeless dogs, some rescue groups won't take dogs that are over 3 years of age because they can't place them? What don't you understand about the phrase "TOO MANY"?



ChRotties said:


> I agree with Saveourdogs: statistics can be manipulated ...for the true numbers to be known, you have to take out the ones that were euth bc of old age, temperament, illness..those aren't adoptable...


Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.



Cheetah said:


> I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.


I think you'd find debate about that, since there are a lot of people that think abortion is wrong, even with their pets. I've run into quite a bit of resistance when suggesting that to people whose pets are in unplanned pregnancies. And somehow I doubt that becoming a responsible breeder automatically changes one's mind about abortion. But then I think that's one of the problems with breeding, there is no standardized criteria for what is considered responsible, and what is not.


----------



## saveourdogs

DogAdvocat said:


> Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.


Hum, I'm not talking about a dog that is up in years. I'm talking about a dog that is up in years and is about to die from old age, disease. But the owner refuses to take him to his vet and pay to euthanize him humanely, but instead drops him off at the shelter. This happens a lot and skews the number of dogs that a shelter takes in. 

Yes some older dogs can be adopted. 

I also do not believe in spending thousands of dollars on saving a rescue/shelter dog. You have to be realistic. That thousand of dollars can go to treat 10 other dogs. I would much rather help the 10 than just 1.



DogAdvocat said:


> Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.


A dog that is dying of old age, cancer, ie on its last legs, can NOT be saved and are routinely turned in to shelters. 

Illness in old dogs most often can NOT be cured. They need to be humanely euthanized by thier owners, not turned in so that you and I have to pay for thier responsibility. 

And in my town, someone last week adopted a dog from the shelter and it ripped her face off. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. I can put a link to the article. I saw this on the local news. They showed her all bandaged up and purple. It was awful. No not all dogs can be rehabilitated. They are a danger to the public and need to be euthanized.



DogAdvocat said:


> And your choice to believe it doesn't make it true either.


 
Anyone that uses simple logic skills knows the numbers are not true. They can't be. The numbers of dogs in shelters and killed in shelters all over the US are NOT kept by anyone. Each shelter, though skewed as unadoptable animals are included, probably does keep that number. No where is that figure from each shelter collected. The numbere that the ARs spout is made up. You dont have to be a math major to understand the term 'interpolation' or 'estimate' ie guess. That number is an inaccurate guess. If you choose to believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, feel free. I believe in actual figures that can be proven, not an incorrect guess.


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I hope those of you that think you can win this fight through sheer volume of posts (all two of you) realize that you left almost everyone else behind about 28 pages ago.


----------



## saveourdogs

"


DogAdvocat said:


> Ahhh, I figured there might be a spin doctor at work. There is an owner relinquishment problem because:
> 
> 1) Breeders put dogs in unqualified, inappropriate homes.
> 2) Dogs are disposable because there are so many of them that it's easier to dump a current problem and just get another dog."
> 
> 
> 
> "3) Society doesn't put the onus on those that abandon their dogs that they should. Just think what would happen if people thought of dog/cat abandonment the way they do about child abandonment."
> "
> 
> "No matter what the reason for owner relinquishment, the fact is that there aren't enough homes to house the relinquished animals as well as the new puppies being born. THAT is an overpopulation problem. There's just TOO MANY."
> 
> "
> 
> "This is the mantra that breeders use to absolve themselves of all culpability for the problem, but the problem stems from breeders who choose homes that will ultimately dump their animals. A breeder should be prepared to be a dog's safety net for all of it's life. Those of us in rescue do that, and a breeder should do no less than rescue would. You produced it, it's yours to protect, no matter where it goes."
> 
> "Absolve of culpability? Breeders are not turning these dogs in. Therefore they are not the reason for the problem. Simple logic. i agree that breeders should take thier dogs back. I do. I have it in my sales contract that they are required to contact me if they can't keep the dog. I also screen buyers and don't sell a dog to someone that does not seem to be a responsible owner. But that still doesn't make me responsible if that person does turn it into shelter or rescue. Not everyone contacts the breeder. "
> 
> 
> "Education is obviously not working if breeders like you think it's not your problem. Try manning a shelter intake desk for a week and then say that education is working. "
> 
> 
> "If shelter populations are going down each year, why are more shelters being built? Los Angeles, for instance, has a new shelter pending. The call went out today that the East Valley shelter is seriously overcrowded. As for euth rates going down, I don't think that's been an issue, even with ARs. The numbers have decreased, but it's just not fast enough. Adoptable dogs are dying, and with all the education out there, that's just not acceptable. Something else needs to be done. As long as adoptable dogs are dying, they should have priority over future breedings."
> 
> That is irresponsible ownership, nothing to do with the breeder.
> 
> 
> "So than the onus should be on the breeder? That makes NO sense.
> 
> That is your opinion, not fact. Just because not everyone doesn't want to rescue a shelter dog and the baggage that goes along with it, ie former abuse, lack of training, possible temperament problems due to poor breeding, possible health problems due to poor breeding, the breeds/mixes that are available and the fit with that family does not mean that there are too many dogs.
> It means there are too many irresponsible owners turning thier dogs in. The fact that not everyone wants to clean that up ie adopt them is another issue. "
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. Very good question. if this law is supposed to be the panacea, why are there new shelters in CA costing millions and millions of dollars in the works? I thought they won't be needed?
> 
> "Education is certainly working. The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. And has gone down dramatically each year. Now cats, that's another kettle of fish."
> 
> 
> Again, shelter dogs are not a fit for every household. The person that I sell my quality bred and raised puppy with socialization, housebreaking, health testing, health tested and pedigree researched parents of a specific breed is different than the lab mixes and pit bull mixes that are in my shelter with thier unknown history and temperaments and size and coat type that differ drastically from my breed.
> 
> There are different breeds. Each own has a unique size, coat type (some require more grooming, some shed, some don't), body style, temperament. Not everyone wants a pit bull or lab. That is 90% of the dogs in shelters, in my shelter anyways and I understand in the majority of shelters in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> RonE said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope those of you that think you can win this fight through sheer volume of posts (all two of you) realize that you left almost everyone else behind about 28 pages ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, if you are referring to me? You never know who reads these posts. Maybe I can talk reality and sense into someone. Certainly not these 2 characters who refuse to see reality and think that morals and ethics can be legislated and that this legislation might actually work. No logic there since the laws already on the books, such as leash laws and abuse laws don't work. and are not enforced. Why would this be any different .
> 
> If I can make just one person realize the lies of the AR shelter figues, my work here is done .
Click to expand...


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, don't you realize that most of the shelter animals are mixed breeds, and most of the dogs dying are mixed breeds, and other than the designer breeds, that means that most of the dogs that are at risk are the ones being produced by irresponsible and neglegent owners that are not breeding for profit or for hobby. Those are the people that are targetted most by this law. And by not backing this law, you are enabling them.



No it is the hobby breeder who sells on non-breeding contracts, takes dogs back, does health testing that will be most affected. They are the ones that are out there in public and can be found by the ACs to come barging into thier home to see if they have dogs and if they have permits. The average person who lets thier dog wander and get pregnant, will not be affected what so ever. Leash laws being enforced would have prevented that dog from getting pregnant. So how do you think this will work? 

The good breeders will stop breeding because of the exhorbitant taxes imposed, hundreds of dollars per dog. And if you dont think that the municipalities will see this as a gold mine and charge hundreds of dollars per 'permit' per dog plus a fee to breed the litter as LA charges, I have some swamp land for sale.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Hum, I'm not talking about a dog that is up in years. I'm talking about a dog that is up in years and is about to die from old age, disease. But the owner refuses to take him to his vet and pay to euthanize him humanely, but instead drops him off at the shelter. This happens a lot and skews the number of dogs that a shelter takes in.
> 
> Yes some older dogs can be adopted.
> 
> I also do not believe in spending thousands of dollars on saving a rescue/shelter dog. You have to be realistic. That thousand of dollars can go to treat 10 other dogs. I would much rather help the 10 than just 1.


Everyone is different in their approach to rescue. Some don't believe it is a true rescue unless the dog is truly in desperate need. Some rescue believe their calling is to help those that no one else wants. Some feel the way that you do and want their money to help the most dogs possible. I value all points of view on this, as long as it's helping the dogs.

And where you would rather help 10 than just 1, I would rather help one than breed ten. With the number of dogs that need homes right now, none need to be bred, but plenty need to be rescued.

Your point about inaccurate numbers is being heard, but I think you think it's more important than I do. Yes, the statistics are not broken down in a way that we can know exactly what's happening, but you seem to think that means we don't need changes because we don't know that exact breakdown. While you are bemoaning the statistical analysis, dogs are dying - many of which are young and adoptable. And as long as that is happening to any of them, the status quo is not acceptable to me.

There is a big movement in this country to embrace the no-kill concept. Don't you think that if it was possible for shelters to claim high numbers of unadoptable dogs, they would do so and call themselves no-kill? Many have. They figure anything they can't adopt out is unadoptable, and therefore their killing isn't really killing adoptable dogs. But most shelters aren't using this ploy, and it's really to their detriment because they would get a lot more approval from the public. 

Please, stop listening to the AR obsessed paranoics and go spend some time at an urban shelter and watch the type of dogs that come in. I think you'll find that the majority are young (approx. 1.5 years) that are full of nonsense and untrained, but perfectly sweet and adoptable. A good percentage of them will probably be large and black and that will condemn them right there, because people don't want BBDs, and there are soooo many of them. Then follow their progress, and note how many become depressed, stressed, and even come down with kennel cough, which may condemn them because it's easier for a shelter to euthanize than to let the disease spread. Do you want to claim that among the sick dogs that you don't want to count? Kennel cough is an easily cured disease, and in no way should make a dog unadoptable, but between the shelters limited resources, and the public seeing a snotty, coughing BBD - it quickly becomes unadoptable - unless, of course, there is a rescue that isn't already so overwhelmed with dogs that s/he can take him and give him that extra time to recover and be put in a new home -- see? He was adoptable after all. So where does he go on these statistics that you think are a must? 

Screw the statistics, dogs are dying, and it has to stop.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Quincy said:


> YES no one is suggesting that there will be an end to responsible breeding. Responsible breeders CAN EASILY OBTAIN AN EXEMPTION, and what they pay for an exemption they will do as other breeders do and pass the costs onto those who buy puppies, and say on a litter of 5 puppies that will be about $20 per puppy, and in effect this Bill will cost responsible breeders NOTHING and will not effect them at all.
> .



Easily obtain an exemption? That is simply not true. It is practically impossible to do so. They have to have thier CH by 2 years of age. Some dogs are not even shown by then, they aren't totally mature. And if they dont get it they have to be altered. If they receive a Ch, they have to be spayed. They can't be bred, they aren't being shown anymore so they can't get an intact permit. They have to be being shown to get an intact permit. They can't be shown when they are bred. And they have to continue to be shown. Their career can never end or they will not be eligible for a permit. That cost of shows needs to be added into the price of a puppy. This permit will be hundreds of dollars yearly per dog, if they qualify, which very very few will qualify. 

And if the dog is not shown it has to be altered by 4 months. Well you can't show a dog until it's 6 months. 

No it is practically impossible to get an intact permit. Read the law.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



> "Absolve of culpability? Breeders are not turning these dogs in. Therefore they are not the reason for the problem. Simple logic. i agree that breeders should take thier dogs back. I do. I have it in my sales contract that they are required to contact me if they can't keep the dog. I also screen buyers and don't sell a dog to someone that does not seem to be a responsible owner. But that still doesn't make me responsible if that person does turn it into shelter or rescue. Not everyone contacts the breeder. "
> 
> That is irresponsible ownership, nothing to do with the breeder.


No, the simple logic you seem to have missed is that YOU (the breeder) picks the owner. If you pick an irresponsible owner, then YOU are the one that put that dog in danger. If you choose a good home, then the dog is safe. YOU are the common factor. That common factor is there for every dog in the shelter, because all of them were bred (intentionally or unintentionally) by someone who chose the home they would go into. 



> Good question. Very good question. if this law is supposed to be the panacea, why are there new shelters in CA costing millions and millions of dollars in the works? I thought they won't be needed?


Because the law hasn't passed yet !!!! If the pending law had been passed before the shelter was approved, it probably wouldn't have been approved. Remember logic?



> Again, shelter dogs are not a fit for every household. The person that I sell my quality bred and raised puppy with socialization, housebreaking, health testing, health tested and pedigree researched parents of a specific breed is different than the lab mixes and pit bull mixes that are in my shelter with thier unknown history and temperaments and size and coat type that differ drastically from my breed.
> 
> There are different breeds. Each own has a unique size, coat type (some require more grooming, some shed, some don't), body style, temperament. Not everyone wants a pit bull or lab. That is 90% of the dogs in shelters, in my shelter anyways and I understand in the majority of shelters in the US.


Ok, let's take this from another angle. Let's choose one breed. It's a fairly popular breed, which means that way too many unscrupulous breeders are trying to make a buck off of it. It's still a fairly healthy breed, and though it has developed a few problems from being irresponsibly bred, it's still pretty healthy in comparison to some of the other breeds. It's a small breed, and people melt at how adorable it is. It's pretty easy to get along with, so temperament problems are rare. Now here's the problem. Rescue can't keep up with the number of this breed that shows up in the shelters. Today, one breed rescue has 625 of them listed on petfinders - all ages. Desperate pleas go out from other rescues for foster homes to try to prevent this breed from dying in the pounds. Many are lost because the foster homes are all full. And anyone that truly loves this breed isn't sitting there condemning shelter dogs as being inferior, like you've been doing.

So how many of those have to die before you get your itch scratched about statistical information?


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*

This is going to sound ironic coming from a guy with a gazillion posts, but do either of you work for a living? Do you have dogs or families?

I'm teasing, but only a little. This is really out of control.

I'm going to go play with the dog and then go to work.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



RonE said:


> This is going to sound ironic coming from a guy with a gazillion posts, but do either of you work for a living? Do you have dogs or families?
> 
> I'm teasing, but only a little. This is really out of control.
> 
> I'm going to go play with the dog and then go to work.


I know I've posted a lot tonight, but while I was off doing doggie things this afternoon and evening, everyone else was posting. Now it looks like I'm the only one doing anything. I'm just trying to play catchup. Sorry.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I have a feeling that our new member with the wild and nonsensical claims is either a troll or is someone that has a dual membership on this forum which is easy to do , and uses the newest one to just stir the pot with stuff guaranteed to get people upset. I may be wrong, but after spending 20 plus years on usenet and web forums, I doubt it.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> I think you'd find debate about that, since there are a lot of people that think abortion is wrong, even with their pets. I've run into quite a bit of resistance when suggesting that to people whose pets are in unplanned pregnancies. And somehow I doubt that becoming a responsible breeder automatically changes one's mind about abortion. But then I think that's one of the problems with breeding, there is no standardized criteria for what is considered responsible, and what is not.


If a breeder had an "oops" and then refused to fix it by immediately altering the dog, you would still consider them "responsible"? Because I wouldn't, and that was my key word. >9.9<


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> Easily obtain an exemption? That is simply not true. It is practically impossible to do so. They have to have thier CH by 2 years of age. Some dogs are not even shown by then, they aren't totally mature. And if they dont get it they have to be altered. If they receive a Ch, they have to be spayed. They can't be bred, they aren't being shown anymore so they can't get an intact permit. They have to be being shown to get an intact permit. They can't be shown when they are bred. And they have to continue to be shown. Their career can never end or they will not be eligible for a permit. That cost of shows needs to be added into the price of a puppy. This permit will be hundreds of dollars yearly per dog, if they qualify, which very very few will qualify.
> 
> And if the dog is not shown it has to be altered by 4 months. Well you can't show a dog until it's 6 months.
> 
> No it is practically impossible to get an intact permit. Read the law.


Maybe what's below might be what you are referring to, and AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007. If you think that it's practically impossible to get an intact permit then maybe you might like to propose some ammendments to the Bill, if so then I suggest you contact those involved with the Bill, and I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you. The below from this address:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.html

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if any of the following conditions is met:

(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, all of the following:

(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition, hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007, within the last two years, or by whatever proof is requested by the authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007.

(C) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved purebred registry or association.
.


----------



## Quincy

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> .Easily obtain an exemption? That is simply not true. It is practically impossible to do so. They have to have thier CH by 2 years of age. Some dogs are not even shown by then, they aren't totally mature. And if they dont get it they have to be altered. If they receive a Ch, they have to be spayed. They can't be bred, they aren't being shown anymore so they can't get an intact permit. They have to be being shown to get an intact permit. They can't be shown when they are bred. And they have to continue to be shown. Their career can never end or they will not be eligible for a permit. That cost of shows needs to be added into the price of a puppy. This permit will be hundreds of dollars yearly per dog, if they qualify, which very very few will qualify.
> 
> And if the dog is not shown it has to be altered by 4 months. Well you can't show a dog until it's 6 months.
> 
> No it is practically impossible to get an intact permit. Read the law.


 
Maybe what's below might be what you are referring to, and AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007. If you think that it's practically impossible to get an intact permit then maybe you might like to propose some ammendments to the Bill, if so then I suggest you contact those involved with the Bill, and I'm sure they would be happy to hear from you. The below from this address:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.html

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if any of the following conditions is met:

(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, all of the following:

(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition, hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007, within the last two years, or by whatever proof is requested by the authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007.

(C) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved purebred registry or association.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Cheetah said:


> If a breeder had an "oops" and then refused to fix it by immediately altering the dog, you would still consider them "responsible"? Because I wouldn't, and that was my key word. >9.9<


Actually, my definition of a responsible breeder doesn't include any oopses at all. What they did about it afterwards wouldn't change my mind. But that's one of the problems, the "responsible" label should be black and white, and too many people want it to be gray. When a responsible breeder does something irresponsible, s/he shouldn't get to still use the label "responsible" just because s/he thinks s/he should be excused for a little faux pas. And I think there are too many people on both sides of the abortion issue to definitively decide whether abortion is the responsible thing to do or not. I even see it in rescue - there are a lot of rescues that won't abort, and a lot that wouldn't dream of allowing puppies to be born. I can see both sides of that issue, though my main concern is for the ones already here, not the ones unborn yet.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Rude and crude? LOL. Killing unwanted offspring of unaltered pets IS cruel. But it's necessary because of failure to alter.


No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



RonE said:


> I hope those of you that think you can win this fight through sheer volume of posts (all two of you) realize that you left almost everyone else behind about 28 pages ago.


Lol, really. I went to bed and woke up with 5 more pages of the same two people saying the same two things.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*

The whole point of me posting on this god forsaken thread was not to argue over what "responsible" means. It was to point out that I know for a FACT that Laurelin is a responsible dog owner, and that it's uncalled for to tell her that she's abusing her SHOW dog, simply by having him intact. It's pointless to argue the word "responsible" on a heated thread such as this.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.


Ok, I can agree with that. But s/n is the only 100% sure way of insuring responsibility and preventing unwanted puppies. Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Cheetah said:


> The whole point of me posting on this god forsaken thread was not to argue over what "responsible" means. It was to point out that I know for a FACT that Laurelin is a responsible dog owner, and that it's uncalled for to tell her that she's abusing her SHOW dog, simply by having him intact. It's pointless to argue the word "responsible" on a heated thread such as this.


How can it be pointless when there is no meeting of the minds about what responsible means? If we can't even agree on that, how can we ever agree on anything else?


----------



## RonE

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?


As a matter of fact . . .

Does anybody else remember that post a few months ago?

Of course, there's no way to verify it, just like there's no way to very most of what we read on an Internet forum.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



RonE said:


> As a matter of fact . . .
> 
> Does anybody else remember that post a few months ago?
> 
> Of course, there's no way to verify it, just like there's no way to very most of what we read on an Internet forum.


No but that sounds interesting.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.


Every dog that is having puppies is unaltered, if the dog is not intact, no puppies. You can't count on people to make surethat their pets don't have litters, because by this time, it is prettty clear that many of them couldn't care less about it, hence the millions of dogs destroyed every year just in the US. . So who suffers, the dogs that are born everyday into a world where they are no wanted, because their parent's owners were too dumb to have their arents S/N. That is why you need a law, to force people to S/N their pets.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Ok, I can agree with that. But s/n is the only 100% sure way of insuring responsibility and preventing unwanted puppies. Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?


I sure haven't, and I do agree that if properly contained, there will be no oops either. This is why mine are all fixed... I would never want to deal with this kind of thing (had to deal with it when my grandmother brought over her INTACT, IN HEAT pekingese when Shippo had just reached sexual maturity, and it was a NIGHTMARE).

Just because I argued with you doesn't mean I'm against spay and neuter. Look at the back of my car for god's sake. You're preaching to the choir with that one:









But I don't have show dogs. And I don't believe it's abuse to have an intact show dog, if the person is actively showing, keeps the dog away from intact dogs of the opposite sex, and plans on bettering a breed, and isn't leaving the dog intact for the hell of it.


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> Every dog that is having puppies is unaltered, if the dog is not intact, no puppies. You can't count on people to make surethat their pets don't have litters, because by this time, it is prettty clear that many of them couldn't care less about it, hence the millions of dogs destroyed every year just in the US. . So who suffers, the dogs that are born everyday into a world where they are no wanted, because their parent's owners* were too dumb *to have their arents S/N. That is why you need a law, to force people to S/N their pets.


Please stop using the words 'too dumb to have neutered'. There are many reasons a person wouldn't neuter their dogs- financial reasons, performance reasons, not being educated - whatever. Not all are stupid reasons, many are. It is not a 'dumb' decision on my part to keep Beau intact. Some people actually have legitimate reasons, whether you agree with them or not. 

You can't cause people to be intelligent or responsible- it's a 'quick fix' to a bigger problem. People just don't care. They don't see their dogs as a commitment and something they are 100% responsible for. You can neuter the dogs, yes the dog won't have puppies, but these same people that do this over and over from my experience are the ones that dump their dogs more often than not. They just don't care. You can stop a part of it by forcing an operation on their animal, but it won't stop the problem. Industrial breeders keep on breeding, these people that shouldn't have dogs keep on getting dogs and dumping them only to get another. 

The group of owners that keep dogs intact is a big group of people. Some of these people just don't care. Some of these people are among the MOST responsible of pet owners. You're generalizing everyone to try to find a 'one shoe fits all' solution to a problem that's really much more complicated. People don't value dogs at very much- they're disposable. Bad breeders don't value dogs because they keep cranking them out with no concern. Yes, this helps the problem, but if the owners weren't the same way, it'd slow down. Owners don't care either. They want a dog when they want it and no longer. People repeatedly dumping dogs then buying more is to me the most guilty party. The problem isn't dogs being intact, the problem is people being careless. By making people spay/neuter you can't force them to care, you can't force tem to start taking better care of their dogs. The people who will spay/neuter thier unaltered dogs are the ones that are already not causing a problem. The ones that allow their dogs to help with the overpopulation to me fall into two categories- the uneducated and the uncaring. The uneducated can be educated- I see it all the time. Unfortunately most people just don't care. There's not much you can do with them. I'm around these people all the time- actually I'm related to many of them. New dog here, dump it a year later, get a new dog, breed it to the neighbor's dog, dump it, etc... Those people could care less no matter what. They skirt the laws already in many other things. They just don't get it, and I'm not sure how they ever will.

If you can find a piece of legislation that can force people into caring and to treat their dogs the way they should, then I'd be all for it. AB1634 just seems so pointless.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Laurelin said:


> Please stop using the words 'too dumb to have neutered'. There are many reasons a person wouldn't neuter their dogs- financial reasons, performance reasons, not being educated - whatever. Not all are stupid reasons, many are. It is not a 'dumb' decision on my part to keep Beau intact. Some people actually have legitimate reasons, whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> You can't cause people to be intelligent or responsible- it's a 'quick fix' to a bigger problem. People just don't care. They don't see their dogs as a commitment and something they are 100% responsible for. You can neuter the dogs, yes the dog won't have puppies, but these same people that do this over and over from my experience are the ones that dump their dogs more often than not. They just don't care. You can stop a part of it by forcing an operation on their animal, but it won't stop the problem. Industrial breeders keep on breeding, these people that shouldn't have dogs keep on getting dogs and dumping them only to get another.
> 
> The group of owners that keep dogs intact is a big group of people. Some of these people just don't care. Some of these people are among the MOST responsible of pet owners. You're generalizing everyone to try to find a 'one shoe fits all' solution to a problem that's really much more complicated. People don't value dogs at very much- they're disposable. Bad breeders don't value dogs because they keep cranking them out with no concern. Yes, this helps the problem, but if the owners weren't the same way, it'd slow down. Owners don't care either. They want a dog when they want it and no longer. People repeatedly dumping dogs then buying more is to me the most guilty party. The problem isn't dogs being intact, the problem is people being careless. By making people spay/neuter you can't force them to care, you can't force tem to start taking better care of their dogs. The people who will spay/neuter thier unaltered dogs are the ones that are already not causing a problem. The ones that allow their dogs to help with the overpopulation to me fall into two categories- the uneducated and the uncaring. The uneducated can be educated- I see it all the time. Unfortunately most people just don't care. There's not much you can do with them. I'm around these people all the time- actually I'm related to many of them. New dog here, dump it a year later, get a new dog, breed it to the neighbor's dog, dump it, etc... Those people could care less no matter what. They skirt the laws already in many other things. They just don't get it, and I'm not sure how they ever will.
> 
> If you can find a piece of legislation that can force people into caring and to treat their dogs the way they should, then I'd be all for it. AB1634 just seems so pointless.


I have met quite a few people in the last couple of years that refuse to have their dogs S/N. Most of these people I have met don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. First of all, if someone can't afford to S/N their pet, they shouldn't get a dog or cat. They can get gerbils, or fish, or turtles , or something else more affordable. What the heck are they going to do, when their dog gets sick, have it put down cause they can't afford to bring it to a vet? You can never force people to care. You have to make the penalty for breaking the law, enough of a hassle, that people will just not bother to get a dog at all. Then the market will slow down, and the breeders will stop breeding animals and selling them to people. Nothing wrong with any of that, and most importantly, it saves dogs from being destroyed and mistreated. In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?


----------



## Laurelin

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I have met quite a few people in the last couple of years that refuse to have their dogs S/N. Most of these people I have met don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. First of all, if someone can't afford to S/N their pet, they shouldn't get a dog or cat. They can get gerbils, or fish, or turtles , or something else more affordable. What the heck are they going to do, when their dog gets sick, have it put down cause they can't afford to bring it to a vet? You can never force people to care. You have to make the penalty for breaking the law, enough of a hassle, that people will just not bother to get a dog at all. Then the market will slow down, and the breeders will stop breeding animals and selling them to people. Nothing wrong with any of that, and most importantly, it saves dogs from being destroyed and mistreated. In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?


Thank you for insinuating that I have no concern for the health and well being of dogs. It's very kind of you.


----------



## Curbside Prophet

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?


It's not strange that you would have this view. I know I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with this bill, or deam it logical at face value because it argees with my humanity. It's not that simple.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*

If this thread turns toward personal attacks, it's going to be locked. >-\/-<


----------



## [email protected]

*Re: AB1634 advances*

certainly we are all concerned about pet overpopulation, however...lets be honest here it is all about the bucks!!!
there is nothing inexpensive about eutanizing animals.
i have greater issues with the lack of law enforcement in the area of pet cruelty.
if we can oulaw irresponsible pet reproduction, perhaps we can enact laws to prevent irresponsible human reproduction. prevention of cruelty to children is a more pressing issue... how about outlawing childbearing of crack addicts, alcoholics and people who have serious mental health problems, retardation, or even can't or won't support the children they produce. seems both humane & economically advisable.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



[email protected] said:


> certainly we are all concerned about pet overpopulation, however...lets be honest here it is all about the bucks!!!
> there is nothing inexpensive about eutanizing animals.
> i have greater issues with the lack of law enforcement in the area of pet cruelty.
> if we can oulaw irresponsible pet reproduction, perhaps we can enact laws to prevent irresponsible human reproduction. prevention of cruelty to children is a more pressing issue... how about outlawing childbearing of crack addicts, alcoholics and people who have serious mental health problems, retardation, or even can't or won't support the children they produce. seems both humane & economically advisable.


I believe the Chinese sterilize people that have over one or two children....


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I believe the Chinese sterilize people that have over one or two children....


They allowed them to have 1 child. And that backfired. They where euthanizing/aborting female children. now there are not enough girls for the boys to marry. Another law that had unintended consequences, just like this one.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> They allowed them to have 1 child. And that backfired. They where euthanizing/aborting female children. now there are not enough girls for the boys to marry. Another law that had unintended consequences, just like this one.


You mean like the unintended consequences of breeding dogs -- dogs dying in shelters for lack of homes?


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> You mean like the unintended consequences of breeding dogs -- dogs dying in shelters for lack of homes?


No like the unintended consequences of this law which will only increase the numbers in shelters and increase the number of sick dogs sold in the state. The good breeders will go out of business or have to drive up thier prices so high that no one can afford them. I estimate from the increased dog license fee, intact fee, litter fee would drive my puppy price up at least $200 per puppy considering the amount of puppies I average each year. If I lived in CA. I would quit breeding or move if this passes. 

These taxes will go up each year and be hundreds of dollars. No doubt about it.


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> If I lived in CA. I would quit breeding or move if this passes.
> 
> .


That would probably be a good thing, for multiple reasons.


----------



## tirluc

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I have met quite a few people in the last couple of years that refuse to have their dogs S/N. Most of these people I have met don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. First of all, if someone can't afford to S/N their pet, they shouldn't get a dog or cat. They can get gerbils, or fish, or turtles , or something else more affordable. What the heck are they going to do, when their dog gets sick, have it put down cause they can't afford to bring it to a vet? You can never force people to care. You have to make the penalty for breaking the law, enough of a hassle, that people will just not bother to get a dog at all. Then the market will slow down, and the breeders will stop breeding animals and selling them to people. Nothing wrong with any of that, and most importantly, it saves dogs from being destroyed and mistreated. In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?


i agree w/ Laurelin.....thank you, very little, for insinuating i don't care about my dogs.....they are all well cared for and even my vet will attest to that.....but you know what?....it costs to have a gerbil, hamster, or whatever else, to take it into the vet....and guess what else?....i am one that does/has taken my rats (when i had them) into the vet....b/c, just like my dogs, i care about them......but, unfortunately, you can't do the same things w/ rats, gerbils, birds, etc....you can't do agility, flyball, herding, etc w/ a goldfish....and this is why i prefer to have my dogs...for the companionship that they give me....and the love and so on and so on......and again, 3 of my 4 are altered, and my 4th one will have pups only if and when i determine it B/C I'M A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER.....and there are many of us out here.......

i quit looking at this topic at about the 26th page, and just came back on to check it out last night and guess what....it's just like a soap opera...you can go away for a while and come back and nothing has changed.....the posts just keep repeating themselves over and over and over (sounds like a broken record)


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



saveourdogs said:


> No like the unintended consequences of this law which will only increase the numbers in shelters and increase the number of sick dogs sold in the state. The good breeders will go out of business or have to drive up thier prices so high that no one can afford them. I estimate from the increased dog license fee, intact fee, litter fee would drive my puppy price up at least $200 per puppy considering the amount of puppies I average each year. If I lived in CA. I would quit breeding or move if this passes.
> 
> These taxes will go up each year and be hundreds of dollars. No doubt about it.


When I think of all the money spent on rescuing dogs from shelters and from homes who find their dogs too inconvenient to honor their commitment to give them a lifetime home, I find your $200 per puppy to be paltry. There are many ads in the newspapers for puppies being sold for $300 to $500, and yet people go to pet stores and pay $1000 for worse quality puppies. Do you really think that $200 hike is going to stop puppy sales? And frankly, what if it did? First, if people don't want one of your puppies bad enough to pay the extra money, what happens the first time a vet charges them $1000 for a medical procedure? Aren't they worth an extra $200? Aren't the lives of the pound dogs worth $200 if it reduces the amount of irresponsible breeders and random bred dogs in California? If you can't absorb and/or pass on $200 extra, then frankly I think you should get out of the business. I wouldn't even blink at that amount when it comes to doing rescue.

Your statement about moving out of California if you lived here, says a whole lot. You obviously have no first hand information of the troubles we are seeing here. This is just another case of breeders who are outside agitators, and who want to dictate what goes on in our state, but when the dust settles, will not be here to pick up the pieces if this bill fails. If the bill passes, on the other hand, I WILL be here, and I will continue to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to aid California dogs to survive and be treasured by caring families, even if they come from puppymillers in your state. Have you ever even been in a California shelter? Have you ever been in any municipal shelter at all?


----------



## Captbob

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> Your statement about moving out of California if you lived here, says a whole lot. You obviously have no first hand information of the troubles we are seeing here. This is just another case of breeders who are outside agitators, and who want to dictate what goes on in our state, but when the dust settles, will not be here to pick up the pieces if this bill fails. If the bill passes, on the other hand, I WILL be here, and I will continue to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to aid California dogs to survive and be treasured by caring families, even if they come from puppymillers in your state. Have you ever even been in a California shelter? Have you ever been in any municipal shelter at all?


I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.

The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



tirluc said:


> i agree w/ Laurelin.....thank you, very little, for insinuating i don't care about my dogs.....they are all well cared for and even my vet will attest to that.....but you know what?....it costs to have a gerbil, hamster, or whatever else, to take it into the vet....and guess what else?....i am one that does/has taken my rats (when i had them) into the vet....b/c, just like my dogs, i care about them......but, unfortunately, you can't do the same things w/ rats, gerbils, birds, etc....you can't do agility, flyball, herding, etc w/ a goldfish....and this is why i prefer to have my dogs...for the companionship that they give me....and the love and so on and so on......and again, 3 of my 4 are altered, and my 4th one will have pups only if and when i determine it B/C I'M A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER.....and there are many of us out here.......
> 
> i quit looking at this topic at about the 26th page, and just came back on to check it out last night and guess what....it's just like a soap opera...you can go away for a while and come back and nothing has changed.....the posts just keep repeating themselves over and over and over (sounds like a broken record)


And your record isn't cracked a bit? You keep saying the same things over and over too. You keep being offended that anyone might think you aren't responsible, though you profess to not care what anyone thinks of you. You keep protesting how responsible you are, as if you cared what we thought. When we discuss the philosophy of responsibility and how many people there are who aren't responsible - there you pop up, acting as if it's all about you.

And speaking of "all about you" - I think there is a basic philosophical difference between some of us in how we perceive dogs and our desire to live with them. On one side is the philosophy that a dog should satisfy some sort of desire of the owner, that it should be all about what the owner wants to do with the dog. You want a dog that can do this, that, or the other thing, and you don't want a dog that can't satisfy those desires, most of which are apparently recreational.

On the other side, there's those of us who feel it's about the dog - what does the dog need. My dog doesn't have to fulfill my recreational desires. When it comes to recreation, I do what he wants to do. If he wants to dig in the garden, then we dig in the garden. He's not here to entertain me, though I do find him entertaining. He isn't here to give me a hobby. He's here because he needed a home and he deserves it just by being here. To me, he's a gift from God, and so are the other dogs I have, and have had, and not one of them had to be something beyond what they naturally were. 

It's about them and their needs and desires, not about me and my whims. And I feel blessed every day that they're in my life. And that's why, when I look at my pound dogs and realize how close they came to dying, and realize that they might have died because someone preferred to buy a dog that would satisfy some recreational whim, I find it hard to comprehend that's done out of any sort of love for dogs. It's kind of like having a best friend around because you have a bond between you, and having a maid to serve you. You could even try to convince people that you loved your maid, but how long lasting will that relationship be if the maid can't dog the job you require of her?


----------



## DogAdvocat

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.
> 
> The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.


CaptBob, you too our obviously outside of our state, but I want to thank you for your interest in trying to help us solve our problems, unlike those that are fighting what we're trying to do to remedy the situation. Thank you for the support.

A few years ago California passed the Haydn law that has done a lot to help the animals. It's mainly been aimed at cleaning up shelters, requiring them to spay/neuter, and requiring them to let rescue have a chance at dogs that aren't readily suitable for the public, and it requires various waiting periods, including a waiting period when people bring in their dog to be euthanized. Of course with that last one, I believe that there is a vet evaluation, and if the vet deems the animal to be terminally ill or in unalterable pain, then the waiting period is waived. These waiting periods, and the other parts of the law, have saved a lot of lives. But it's also caused some problems that we continue to work on. One, of course, is if they are required to wait longer, then there is a bigger risk of overcrowding, which can also lead to disease and injury. It's sooo much better than it used to be, but I think there is a major disconnect with the public. The public needs to see that their support of a law that included longer waiting periods means that the public needs to do more to prevent that overcrowding - either by reducing the birth rate, or adopting more, or fixing more of their own problems so that dogs don't end up in the shelter at all. 

But it's all a work in progress, and I marvel at those who complain that a law won't immediately fix a problem. It never does, but it sets things going in the right direction, and it lets people know what is acceptable and what is not. No longer should California residents be able to say that they can let their cat or dog have all the litters they want to because it's legal. I don't talk much about the cat situation here, mainly because my thing is dogs, but it's even worse for cats here. Not only do we have a huge feral cat problem, but it's more common for people to let their unaltered cats roam, and "kitten season" just explodes here.

Speaking of kitten season, there's another issue that is frequently seen here with dogs. And this is something that AB1634 would address. It's common here for people to dump their pregnant dogs in the shelter. They don't alter the dog, and when the "slut" (and I have heard that said) gets pregnant, then she's too much trouble to keep around. So they dump her on the pound, sometimes in the process of giving birth, and the shelters have to cope with her and her new litter. Now here's the main problem - she can't stay the eight weeks that it would take for her to raise her puppies, and people don't want to adopt a mama dog and her eight puppies. The shelter won't let her be adopted and just leave the puppies motherless - they don't usually even have the manpower to bottlefeed. Some shelters do have volunteer foster homes for this kind of thing, but there aren't nearly enough to go around. And of course there's also the disease factor of having infant puppies in a shelter that copes with kennel cough and occasional outbreaks of distemper or parvo. So, what they end up doing is euthanizing the puppies almost immediately. My hope is that this law would prevent a lot of that. What possible sense is there in letting people negligently produce puppies to only live a few days? "Welcome to the world, you're slated to die in 4 days." But this is the reality that most people don't even know about, and it happens to cats even more than to dogs.

Can you blame me for fighting back when someone is more concerned that he would have to raise the cost of his puppies $200, than he is about those puppies that won't even live for a week? Their puppy breath is just as sweet as his puppies. But I know, it's not about the dogs, it's about him and his rights to use dogs any way he sees fit.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



Captbob said:


> I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.
> 
> The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.



You know, I am tired of your lies, ignorance and insults. You have no business making these insintuations about someone else. Especially when they aren't even close to being true. Frankly I am surprised you are not banned from this forum for such nasty remarks.


----------



## saveourdogs

*Re: AB1634 advances*



DogAdvocat said:


> CaptBob, you too our obviously outside of our state, but I want to thank you for your interest in trying to help us solve our problems, unlike those that are fighting what we're trying to do to remedy the situation. Thank you for the support.
> 
> A few years ago California passed the Haydn law that has done a lot to help the animals. It's mainly been aimed at cleaning up shelters, requiring them to spay/neuter, and requiring them to let rescue have a chance at dogs that aren't readily suitable for the public, and it requires various waiting periods, including a waiting period when people bring in their dog to be euthanized. Of course with that last one, I believe that there is a vet evaluation, and if the vet deems the animal to be terminally ill or in unalterable pain, then the waiting period is waived. These waiting periods, and the other parts of the law, have saved a lot of lives. But it's also caused some problems that we continue to work on. One, of course, is if they are required to wait longer, then there is a bigger risk of overcrowding, which can also lead to disease and injury. It's sooo much better than it used to be, but I think there is a major disconnect with the public. The public needs to see that their support of a law that included longer waiting periods means that the public needs to do more to prevent that overcrowding - either by reducing the birth rate, or adopting more, or fixing more of their own problems so that dogs don't end up in the shelter at all.
> 
> But it's all a work in progress, and I marvel at those who complain that a law won't immediately fix a problem. It never does, but it sets things going in the right direction, and it lets people know what is acceptable and what is not. No longer should California residents be able to say that they can let their cat or dog have all the litters they want to because it's legal. I don't talk much about the cat situation here, mainly because my thing is dogs, but it's even worse for cats here. Not only do we have a huge feral cat problem, but it's more common for people to let their unaltered cats roam, and "kitten season" just explodes here.
> 
> Speaking of kitten season, there's another issue that is frequently seen here with dogs. And this is something that AB1634 would address. It's common here for people to dump their pregnant dogs in the shelter. They don't alter the dog, and when the "slut" (and I have heard that said) gets pregnant, then she's too much trouble to keep around. So they dump her on the pound, sometimes in the process of giving birth, and the shelters have to cope with her and her new litter. Now here's the main problem - she can't stay the eight weeks that it would take for her to raise her puppies, and people don't want to adopt a mama dog and her eight puppies. The shelter won't let her be adopted and just leave the puppies motherless - they don't usually even have the manpower to bottlefeed. Some shelters do have volunteer foster homes for this kind of thing, but there aren't nearly enough to go around. And of course there's also the disease factor of having infant puppies in a shelter that copes with kennel cough and occasional outbreaks of distemper or parvo. So, what they end up doing is euthanizing the puppies almost immediately. My hope is that this law would prevent a lot of that. What possible sense is there in letting people negligently produce puppies to only live a few days? "Welcome to the world, you're slated to die in 4 days." But this is the reality that most people don't even know about, and it happens to cats even more than to dogs.
> 
> Can you blame me for fighting back when someone is more concerned that he would have to raise the cost of his puppies $200, than he is about those puppies that won't even live for a week? Their puppy breath is just as sweet as his puppies. But I know, it's not about the dogs, it's about him and his rights to use dogs any way he sees fit.



Your heart is in the right place even if your brain is closed. No one says there are NO dogs in shelters. Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? Then no strays, no sluts getting pregant. How easy is that? The answer to a problem is not always to throw a law at it. And even if it was, you have to make sure it actually will solve the problem and affect those that are causing the problem. It is an owner relinquishment problem. NOT an overpopulation problem. 

The animals in your shelter are due to lack of enforcement of existing laws and lack or responsibility of the owners. Why punish the breeders? They are NOT the ones letting thier dog roam the neighborhood or turning it into the shelter. 

The problem will not be solved while so many are so closed minded.


----------



## Cheetah

*Re: AB1634 advances*

I did warn you guys. >u.u< CLOSED.


----------

