# New Website: OPPOSE AB 1634



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

This website has been established for those who want to help DEFEAT AB1634

There is valuable information on this site, as well as addys and sample letters to send to the powers that be in CA.

If you are a concerned dog owner, it doesn't matter WHERE you live, please send your comments!

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

************************************************

A new PAC has also been formed to fight for the defeat of this bill. I believe they are still working on the website. When I find out more, I will post.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Awesome! Thanks for posting! I've bookmarked it so I can read through it tomorrow when I have more time.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

I feel that people who live in a democracy need to hear all views and what information maybe presented. ChRotties supplied a website which seems to OPPOSE AB1634, and here is another website that seems to SUPPORT AB1634, please read the information contained on BOTH websites as by doing so you maybe more informed, and here is a link to the other website:-
http://www.cahealthypets.com/

Also, there is yet other website for those with either views of support or opposition, and also for those who may want to offer any ideas for amendments to the Bill, simply contact those directly involved with the Bill this even via this other website:-
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
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Thanks Quincy.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

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

Watch this and then start telling me about how S/N mandates are wrong.....


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

> I would imagine that it would be an unfunded mandate that we will have to figure out how to enforce. We will just absorb the cost. It's got such a long way to go, so we're kind of in a wait-and-see mode.


---Dan Olsen, animal control manager for the town of Truckee.

This raises the question... Aren't local municipalities, which have differing needs and populations (human and animal) better able to determine such policies for themselves? Not all solutions are one-size fits all. And the answer to every problem isn't necessarily state mandates.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

I had the time to read some of the material on this site, after I got back this morning. To say that it is a distortion of the truth, is an understatement. According to them all the shelters will be closed in a year or two due, to lack of dogs and cats because they were killed by getting S/N ........ What a crock.....


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

Captbob said:


> I had the time to read some of the material on this site, after I got back this morning. To say that it is a distortion of the truth, is an understatement. According to them all the shelters will be closed in a year or two due, to lack of dogs and cats because they were killed by getting S/N ........ What a crock.....


Captbob, I haven't agreed with some of the things you have wrote but everyone is intitled to their opinion. This topic I couldn't agree more good for you!


----------



## DOBERMAN_07 (Jan 17, 2007)

Do these online petitions work?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> According to them all the shelters will be closed in a year or two due, to lack of dogs and cats because they were killed by getting S/N


Can you cite where this was inferred, I couldn't find a statement like this anywhere in the above link. This would be the ideal, would it not?...to have all dogs in homes and no shelters? Doesn't sound like something someone would say opposing this bill.

IMO, the distortion goes both ways...and this points to conclusions that are unsubstantiated. There are too many variables that need to be defined first.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> IMO, the distortion goes both ways...and this points to conclusions that are unsubstantiated. There are too many variables that need to be defined first.



I agree, much of both sides is emotional appeals or scare tactics. 

I haven't gone through the links yet. I'm bookmarking them though, so I can go through them someday when it's not finals week.


----------



## DINGODOG (May 1, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> I agree, much of both sides is emotional appeals or scare tactics.
> 
> I haven't gone through the links yet. I'm bookmarking them though, so I can go through them someday when it's not finals week.



Those who are rescuing the refuse of the breeders, have donated thousands of dollars of free labor, and are paying taxes to the tune of $250,000,000 to kill the byproduct of unregulated breeding, have a right to be a little emotional, don't you think? How do YOU feel about cleaning up someone else's mess over, and over, and over, and over, and there being no end to it?

As for scare tactis---that is the AKC's MO--everything from "they are coming for your kids" to "dogs and cats will be extinct". All entirely implausable, and all to scare pet owners and distort the truth.

Breeders don't want to be legitimate. They want to continue breeding in an unregulated fashion, without any one holding them accountable for taxes, fees, or the quality of the breeding.

It is time to stop the killing. It is time for breeders to acknowledge that they or their brethren are responsible.
Support AB1634


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DINGODOG said:


> Support AB1634


No thank you.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DINGODOG said:


> How do YOU feel about cleaning up someone else's mess over, and over, and over, and over, and there being no end to it?


How one helps is a personal choice, is it not? At some point I would teach that someone how not to make a mess. I'm sure they'll understand more if I treat them as a human being and with respect. I doubt they'll listen if I yell at them or try to control them. At some point it needs to stop being about the dogs and start to be about humans working together for a solution. 

My neighbor likes to play loud music on Friday night until the wee hours of the night. I enjoy my sleep, but not to 50 cent. I brought them a dozen freshly baked cookies one day and asked them politely to end their music past a certain time. I now get knocks on the door requesting for music past a certain time. My sleep is no longer disturbed. What do you think would happen if I left them a note on the door stating they must end their music as 9M. I guarantee you, out of spite, they would have turned it up. This law is no different. Breeders are being yelled at to end a problem cause by those that surrender dogs. We're missing the mark, and I prefer better aim, at the very least. 



> It is time to stop the killing. It is time for breeders to acknowledge that they or their brethren are responsible.
> Support AB1634


Until breeders are responsible for surrendering all dogs, this law will not own my support.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DINGODOG said:


> Those who are rescuing the refuse of the breeders, have donated thousands of dollars of free labor, and are paying taxes to the tune of $250,000,000 to kill the byproduct of unregulated breeding, have a right to be a little emotional, don't you think? How do YOU feel about cleaning up someone else's mess over, and over, and over, and over, and there being no end to it?
> 
> As for scare tactis---that is the AKC's MO--everything from "they are coming for your kids" to "dogs and cats will be extinct". All entirely implausable, and all to scare pet owners and distort the truth.
> 
> ...


Exactly!!!


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> How one helps is a personal choice, is it not? At some point I would teach that someone how not to make a mess. I'm sure they'll understand more if I treat them as a human being and with respect. I doubt they'll listen if I yell at them or try to control them. At some point it needs to stop being about the dogs and start to be about humans working together for a solution.
> 
> My neighbor likes to play loud music on Friday night until the wee hours of the night. I enjoy my sleep, but not to 50 cent. I brought them a dozen freshly baked cookies one day and asked them politely to end their music past a certain time. I now get knocks on the door requesting for music past a certain time. My sleep is no longer disturbed. What do you think would happen if I left them a note on the door stating they must end their music as 9M. I guarantee you, out of spite, they would have turned it up. This law is no different. Breeders are being yelled at to end a problem cause by those that surrender dogs. We're missing the mark, and I prefer better aim, at the very least.
> 
> ...


What has that got to do with what this law is about? You are suggesting that we should be nice to the people that don't S/N their animals and eventually they will change their ways.. The breeders are screaming and yelling because they are going to suffer some financial burden when this law is enacted. The millions and millions of dollars of tax money, that the government has to spend to take care of this pet overpulation that we currently have , the breeders couldn't care less about. They are just being selfish, in my opinion, and what really bothers me is the almost total lack of empathy that they have for the pets that are being killed every day, by the thousands due to lack of S/N laws.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

This law would just be cleaning up a mess. How about people stop making a mess that way there is none to clean up! BYB, Puppy Mills and Pet Shops that sell puppies, that is where the problem lies.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> This law would just be cleaning up a mess. How about people stop making a mess that way there is none to clean up! BYB, Puppy Mills and Pet Shops that sell puppies, that is where the problem lies.


I think that is only part of the problem. I see people all the time in front of pet stores and at supermarket parking lots , with cardboard boxes full of puppies, trying to give them away, because they didn't want them in the first place. Many times, they drive to a shelter at night , when nobody is around, and leave the box full of pups there. Vets have the same problem, of coming to work in the morning and finding dogs and cats abandoned on their front door. Shelters spend alot of money on S/N to try and reduce this type problem, prior to putting a dog up for adoption. One upnspayed female can turn out 10 pups or more in a year and a half. Multiply that by the countless number of unspayed animals running around, and yoou have an epidemic problem.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> I think that is only part of the problem. I see people all the time in front of pet stores and at supermarket parking lots , with cardboard boxes full of puppies, trying to give them away, because they didn't want them in the first place. Many times, they drive to a shelter at night , when nobody is around, and leave the box full of pups there. Vets have the same problem, of coming to work in the morning and finding dogs and cats abandoned on their front door. Shelters spend alot of money on S/N to try and reduce this type problem, prior to putting a dog up for adoption. One upnspayed female can turn out 10 pups or more in a year and a half. Multiply that by the countless number of unspayed animals running around, and yoou have an epidemic problem.


That does happen, but extremely infrequently. Litters of puppies are NOT abandoned at shelters on a regular basis. Most shelters do not even have young puppies, but adult dogs that are not trained.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> This law would just be cleaning up a mess. How about people stop making a mess that way there is none to clean up! BYB, Puppy Mills and Pet Shops that sell puppies, that is where the problem lies.


It is not the breeders who are abandoning these dogs or turning them into the shelters, but the owners. Why blame the breeders? They are not the ones giving up these dogs.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> That does happen, but extremely infrequently. Litters of puppies are NOT abandoned at shelters on a regular basis. Most shelters do not even have young puppies, but adult dogs that are not trained.


More nonsence. The three shelters that are close to where I live, all have quite a few puppies up for adoption. They usually get adopted quicker than the adult dogs, so they don't stay around as long. If it is not a no-kill shelter, after 5 days they are euthanized just like the adult dogs, due to lack of room.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

The Bill has been amended a couple of times. Here is a link to the text of the Bill 
as it stands now. The nuts and bolts of the Bill start with Article 3.

As for enforcement, the local Animal Control agencies will be enforcing it. The enforcement will be funded by the fees.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070417_amended_asm_v97.html


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> It is not the breeders who are abandoning these dogs or turning them into the shelters, but the owners. Why blame the breeders? They are not the ones giving up these dogs.


No, not responsible breeders, YES Back yard breeders YES puppy mills. They just sell sell sell! They dont care who the puppies are going to they just dump the puppies with the people and take the money. Sure their not physically dumping the dogs at the shelters but thats why I said get rid of the SOURCE of the problem!

If you have a hole in your boat are you going to plug the hole or are you just going to scoop and dump the water out over the side?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> The Bill has been amended a couple of times. Here is a link to the text of the Bill
> as it stands now. The nuts and bolts of the Bill start with Article 3.
> 
> As for enforcement, the local Animal Control agencies will be enforcing it. The enforcement will be funded by the fees.
> ...



The reality is that it will cost much more to enforce than the fees taken in. 

Read the rest of the bill, NO ONE except commercial breeders can qualify for a breeder permit. So where are they getting thier money from?

The number of breeder permits they will give is extremely small, not enough to pay 1 AC officer 1 months' salary.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> No, not responsible breeders, YES Back yard breeders YES puppy mills. They just sell sell sell! They dont care who the puppies are going to they just dump the puppies with the people and take the money. Sure their not physically dumping the dogs at the shelters but thats why I said get rid of the SOURCE of the problem!
> 
> If you have a hole in your boat are you going to plug the hole or are you just going to scoop and dump the water out over the side?



pet stores are not affected by this legislation. Commercial breeders are the only one that can get an unaltered permit. Bybs will always skirt the law like they do now with no licenses. 
So how is this going to help?

Maybe we need to legislate who can own dog? Who can buy a dog? 
How does that sound? It is the owners that are not being responsible. So why not have someone have to pass a test or such to own a dog?


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

Here is an article stating the euthanasia statistics for the California:

http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> Here is an article stating the euthanasia statistics for the California:
> 
> http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf


Again, NO ONE can know the statistics. They are not kept. This is a site by activists trying to pass this law. These numbers are distorted to make thier point. 

What number of those dogs was old? Ill? unadoptable due to temperament? Those numbers are not there. So the REAL number is not known.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Maybe we need to legislate who can own dog? Who can buy a dog?
> How does that sound? It is the owners that are not being responsible. So why not have someone have to pass a test or such to own a dog?


If that was in anyway possible that would be it. But if you ask me this overpopulation will never be solved unless we culled dogs, which would never be allowed to happen in the US (thank goodness).


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

"Again, NO ONE can know the statistics. They are not kept. This is a site by activists trying to pass this law. "


They know the statistics because records are kept.

In the State of California alone, $132,513,899 per year is spent on euthanasia.

Here is the article:http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/02-24-07-maderatribune.pdf

The State of California keeps statistics on this stuff. It is not at all impossible to know the numbers.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Again, NO ONE can know the statistics. They are not kept. This is a site by activists trying to pass this law. These numbers are distorted to make thier point.
> 
> What number of those dogs was old? Ill? unadoptable due to temperament? Those numbers are not there. So the REAL number is not known.


I don't think you clicked on this link in the post that you are responding to here. It does not go to a site, it goes to an article full of statistics from the records of the State of California.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> I don't think you clicked on this link in the post that you are responding to here. It does not go to a site, it goes to an article full of statistics from the records of the State of California.


why would you think that I didn't click on the link? It doesn't say how many of those dogs where dying, sick, old, bad temperament? Does it? no. So the true number of adoptable dogs that where reported as euthanized is not known.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> why would you think that I didn't click on the link? It doesn't say how many of those dogs where dying, sick, old, bad temperament? Does it? no. So the true number of adoptable dogs that where reported as euthanized is not known.


I said you did not click on the link because you said it was a website by activists when in fact in goes to a detailed newspaper article stating the euthanasia statistics for the State of California.

The article refers to "unwanted" pets, it does not refer to "unadoptable" pets.
If these pets were all "unadoptable" then I don't think it would be an issue.

From the article:"When so many healthy lives are being lost, something has to change." Mancuso said.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> I said you did not click on the link because you said it was a website by activists when in fact in goes to a detailed newspaper article stating the euthanasia statistics for the State of California.
> 
> The article refers to "unwanted" pets, it does not refer to "unadoptable" pets.
> If these pets were all "unadoptable" then I don't think it would be an issue.
> ...


The site IS done by an activist group wanting to pass this legislation. That is a fact. That means the numbers are scewed to what they want. Why is that hard to understand?


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

I have never even read the sites pro or con on this issue.
I only have searched out sources of statistics...and the actual text of the bill itself.

This article may have been used by a pro-bill site to further their cause. I only think the article is important because of the numbers revealed.

Every shelter or Humane Society I have been inside of is chock full of young, middle-aged and even old dogs. 95% of these animals are healthy and desperate for a loving home. 

You have every right to oppose this bill. I would never dispute that.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The site IS done by an activist group wanting to pass this legislation. That is a fact. That means the numbers are scewed to what they want. Why is that hard to understand?


If it is a fact where is the proof?


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

Here is the info on the new PetPac, as well as other sites for those of us opposing this garbage of a bill:
********************************************************
Hi everyone,
I wanted to let you all know that there will be a
meeting concerning AB1634 held
at noon at the Coyote Hills KC show, in Vallejo, CA
on May 19 th.
Mr Hemby, our lobbyist, will be there to answer any
questions that you may have
regarding this bill and the newly formed PetPAC, and
how we will proceed in our
fight against AB1634.
See you there,
Deb
ToyvilleChis

Members,

As of today, no date has been set for the
Appropriations Committee to hear AB 1634. The earliest
that the bill can be heard is May 16, 2007. More
information regarding the timing should be forthcoming
by the end of the week. Please continue to write both
the Appropriations Committee and the Governor. In
addition, e-mail letters should be sent to Tony
Easley. His email address is: [email protected].
I have been informed that he is very competent and
will personally see to it that the mail is put in the
proper folder. 

I've complied a list of websites are in opposition to
AB 1634 (I'm sure there are more out there, but these
were the ones that came to mind quickly). I also
encourage each of you to join the following Yahoo
groups: (1) http://pet-law.com/ (laws and discussions
impacting the US) and (2) 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CApetlaw (laws and
discussions impacting California - you can also access
the link to sign up for this group from the pet laws
link).

There are a number websites that have updated
information relative to AB 1634 and its opposition. If
you are wondering how you can help in the fight (in
addition to sending your letters), please see the
following (listed in no particular order):

California Federation of Dog Clubs www.cfodconline.org

National Animal Interest Alliance
http://naiaonline.org/
PetPac http://www.petPAC.net - professional lobbyists
with a proven track record
Oppose AB 1634 http://www.ab1634.com/ - sample letters
and other information
No On AB 1634 http://noab1634.com/
Dog Gone California http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/
Save Our Dogs www.saveourdogs.com 
My Dog Votes www.mydogvotes.com 
www.MySpace.com/Oppose_AB1634 (you must be a member
to view pages 
and send emails...)
California Farm Bureau's PAC
http://www.cfbf.com/farmpac/index.cfm 

******************************************************
And this just in today: permission to cross post as needed.
*******************************************************
THURSDAY, MAY 3

WE HAVE JUST HEARD.
IT'S OFFICIAL.
MAY 16TH IS THE OFFICIAL APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING DATE.
ROOM - 4202

THIS IS THE HEARING WE ALL NEED TO ATTEND. 
WE NEED TO OUTNUMBER THE NUMBER WHO OF US WHO WERE THERE ON APRIL 24TH IN OPPOSITION.

WE CAN DO THIS.
WE CAN DEFEAT THIS BILL!
BUT...WE NEED YOU!

WE NEED BODIES TO BE COUNTED IN THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION.
BRING YOUR SO's, FRIENDS, RELATIVES - EVERYONE!!!!

THIS TIME WE DO GET TO WALK UP THE MICROPHONE AND STATE WHO WE ARE AND THAT WE OPPOSE AB 1634.

GET YOUR LETTERS IN IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO ALREADY.

CROSS POST TO EVERYONE.
********************************************************


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

Whether you are pro or con on this issue, I am glad to see it is being discussed.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

While I agree that something needs to be done about pet overpopulation, I oppose this bill. I don't oppose it for the same reason most do though. This law would be unenforceable, the only people this bill will hurt/affect are the honest ones and the people that are part of the problem will still be part of the problem. I think a more valid way is to offer a reward of sorts for having a pet that is s/n. Maybe a tax break or something for having a pet that is s/n, even though that might be hard to enforce it would be easier to enforce than what is now being offered. Why would we waste time passing a law that can't or won't be enforced?


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The reality is that it will cost much more to enforce than the fees taken in.


In this other country gradually more cities and counties are conducting home to home door knock checks for UNlicensed (UNregistered) dogs and cats, and where funds from dog licenses certainly pays for the running of shelters plus pays for sufficient Animal Control Officers to enforce laws, have a read via this link of what happens:-
http://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/content/content.asp?cid=383&tid=383&tpid=369&sid=&spid=&cnid=1893

I hear that in California only a very small percentage bother to license their dogs and then there is the matter regarding how many rabies vaccinate their dogs, who knows this just might provide justification that one day something like the above might start happening in California. Also I wonder if some cities and counties in California maybe interested in seeing some figures from the other country.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> It is not the breeders who are abandoning these dogs or turning them into the shelters, but the owners. Why blame the breeders? They are not the ones giving up these dogs.


Breeders sell their puppies to homes that will abandon them. Breeders need to be more choosy where their puppies go. The breeder started they cycle by producing a life that is dependent on people, and then put that life into a home that was inadequate, negligent, or worse. How can it not be the fault of the breeder?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Maybe we need to legislate who can own dog? Who can buy a dog?
> How does that sound? It is the owners that are not being responsible. So why not have someone have to pass a test or such to own a dog?


It sounds great to me. It's something that breeders should already be doing. It's called qualifying as a good home. Those of us in rescue do it by taking applications and doing interviews, homechecks, and follow-ups. How many breeders are doing that? How many breeders are microchipping so that if the dog ends up in a shelter, the breeder can reclaim the dog? How many breeders even want their dogs back if there's a problem in the home? Over 20+ years of rescuing papered dogs, not once have I had a breeder agree to take their dog back. They got their money, that's all they are interested in. To hell with the dog.

Stop trying to pass the buck. Accept the responsibility of the life that you produce. When it comes to classifying breeders responsible or not, one that repeatedly blamed the buyer for the problems of the dog, is not one that I'd consider a responsible breeder.

Do you need help with qualifying the people you place your pups with?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> If that was in anyway possible that would be it. But if you ask me this overpopulation will never be solved unless we culled dogs, which would never be allowed to happen in the US (thank goodness).


Huh? We are culling dogs in shelter euthanasia rooms across the country. Culling dogs is a commonly performed act by breeders. Where did you get the idea that culling is not allowed?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

ScareCrow said:


> While I agree that something needs to be done about pet overpopulation, I oppose this bill. I don't oppose it for the same reason most do though. This law would be unenforceable, the only people this bill will hurt/affect are the honest ones and the people that are part of the problem will still be part of the problem. I think a more valid way is to offer a reward of sorts for having a pet that is s/n. Maybe a tax break or something for having a pet that is s/n, even though that might be hard to enforce it would be easier to enforce than what is now being offered. Why would we waste time passing a law that can't or won't be enforced?


Are you against speed limit laws? They are also considered unenforceable because there are too many motorists and too few traffic officers. But can you imagine what speeds would be driven if there were no laws at all? If there were no speed limit law, people would think they were free to drive any speed they want, and they would be right, of course. You can't convincingly tell them it's wrong if it's legal.

The same way with s/n laws. Most of the point of such laws is to let people know what's acceptable in civilized society. For most people, that's enough. They'll follow the law because it's the right thing to do. For some, they'll do what they want, no matter what the law is, and their cooperation hinges on their fear of reprisals. It may take work on all our parts to get law enforcement to enforce a new law, but at least they have something to enforce. Now it's acceptable to produce more dogs and cats to die in the pound because it's legal to do so.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Huh? We are culling dogs in shelter euthanasia rooms across the country. Culling dogs is a commonly performed act by breeders. Where did you get the idea that culling is not allowed?


I wouldnt call that culling. In a certain part of Africa they cull elephants, it is a means of population control (though they dont need to do it). Every so many years, at a certain time they go out and shoot a ton of elephants. If we were culling dogs and cats we wouldnt have a population problem and this law wouldnt be needed in the first place.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Are you against speed limit laws? They are also considered unenforceable because there are too many motorists and too few traffic officers. But can you imagine what speeds would be driven if there were no laws at all? If there were no speed limit law, people would think they were free to drive any speed they want, and they would be right, of course. You can't convincingly tell them it's wrong if it's legal.
> 
> The same way with s/n laws. Most of the point of such laws is to let people know what's acceptable in civilized society. For most people, that's enough. They'll follow the law because it's the right thing to do. For some, they'll do what they want, no matter what the law is, and their cooperation hinges on their fear of reprisals. It may take work on all our parts to get law enforcement to enforce a new law, but at least they have something to enforce. Now it's acceptable to produce more dogs and cats to die in the pound because it's legal to do so.


You should visit Atlanta, some time. It is common for people to go 85mph in a 55 mph zone, ilke on I-285. The only time you see cops, is if there is a wreck. Without the 55MPH signs, I would guess people would be going almost 100mph......


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> What has that got to do with what this law is about? You are suggesting that we should be nice to the people that don't S/N their animals and eventually they will change their ways.. The breeders are screaming and yelling because they are going to suffer some financial burden when this law is enacted. The millions and millions of dollars of tax money, that the government has to spend to take care of this pet overpulation that we currently have , the breeders couldn't care less about. They are just being selfish, in my opinion, and what really bothers me is the almost total lack of empathy that they have for the pets that are being killed every day, by the thousands due to lack of S/N laws.


It's called respect Bob, that doesn't necessarily mean being nice. Your "opinion" doesn't matter if you can't work with people to find a solution. Your "opinion" only becomes a deterant when you play the hollier than thou card. Like I've said before, at some point this debate needs to stop being about saving dogs and start being about the people who love their dogs, and many breeders are NOT excluded from this group. What's selfish is to not look at the whole for your own disjointed parts.


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> I wouldnt call that culling. In a certain part of Africa they cull elephants, it is a means of population control (though they dont need to do it). Every so many years, at a certain time they go out and shoot a ton of elephants. If we were culling dogs and cats we wouldnt have a population problem and this law wouldnt be needed in the first place.


Culling can also simply mean removal of the undesirable and this is what shelters accomodate. So when dogs are killed in shelters they are being culled. Puppymills also cull dogs that are too old to breed and dogs that might just need veterinary care.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

Tamara said:


> Culling can also simply mean removal of the undesirable and this is what shelters accomodate. So when dogs are killed in shelters they are being culled. Puppymills also cull dogs that are too old to breed and dogs that might just need veterinary care.


Ok, im done talking about culling, I just hate thinking that we are culling dogs and cats. But I want to thank you Tamara for saying puppymills and not breeders.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Having read the latest form of the proposal I definately think this is garbage. It does not address the issue of puppy mills at all. In fact it appears that your respectable breeders/showers, folks like Laurelin, will have a substantial burden put onto themselves to keep their animals intact while the puppy mills keep pumping out dogs.

I'm not against S/N laws, but dealing with contract negotiations I know how to spot bad contract language. A law that deals with the living conditions for all breeders and includes a S/N proposal that isn't so limiting would be far better.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's called respect Bob, that doesn't necessarily mean being nice. Your "opinion" doesn't matter if you can't work with people to find a solution. Your "opinion" only becomes a deterant when you play the hollier than thou card. Like I've said before, at some point this debate needs to stop being about saving dogs and start being about the people who love their dogs, and many breeders are NOT excluded from this group. What's selfish is to not look at the whole for your own disjointed parts.


If I am not mistaken, the *entire point of this proposed law* is to save dogs from going to shelters and being euthanized. That is what this law is about, besides saving the government enormous amounts of money that is now being spent on housing the dog overpopulation and euthanizing them ( I actually prefer to use killing them, because that is what we really are doing) . Who is complaining and trying to stop this law from being enacted, people that breed dogs for money. That is it, no matter which way people try to twist it to fit their agenda, it boils down to many breeders feeling inconvienced as a consequence of a law that will save countless dogs from being destroyed in shelters. Do I feel sorry for these breeders, not really. They will add the money that this is costing them to the price of the dogs that they sell. People that would rather buy a dog from a breeder. than adopting a dog, will pay it and life will go on. What will not go on is the slaughter that happens everyday, of Pets that can't find homes.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

SFury said:


> Having read the latest form of the proposal I definately think this is garbage. It does not address the issue of puppy mills at all. In fact it appears that your respectable breeders/showers, folks like Laurelin, will have a substantial burden put onto themselves to keep their animals intact while the puppy mills keep pumping out dogs.
> 
> I'm not against S/N laws, but dealing with contract negotiations I know how to spot bad contract language. A law that deals with the living conditions for all breeders and includes a S/N proposal that isn't so limiting would be far better.



I am sure that once the law is enacted, that it will be modified as time goes on, just as many laws in this country are.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Are you against speed limit laws? They are also considered unenforceable because there are too many motorists and too few traffic officers. But can you imagine what speeds would be driven if there were no laws at all? If there were no speed limit law, people would think they were free to drive any speed they want, and they would be right, of course. You can't convincingly tell them it's wrong if it's legal.
> 
> The same way with s/n laws. Most of the point of such laws is to let people know what's acceptable in civilized society. For most people, that's enough. They'll follow the law because it's the right thing to do. For some, they'll do what they want, no matter what the law is, and their cooperation hinges on their fear of reprisals. It may take work on all our parts to get law enforcement to enforce a new law, but at least they have something to enforce. Now it's acceptable to produce more dogs and cats to die in the pound because it's legal to do so.


There are several places that now have radar set up with a camera to catch a speeder. People who speed still get caught, inevitably you will get pulled over if you break the speed limit laws. Now if I have a dog or cat on my property and I refuse to follow a s/n law how am I going to get caught? They can't go knocking door to door, as has been mentioned happens in other countries, because in America that would be illegal search and seizure(spelling). When we are out driving there will always be the idiots who think they are above the law and won't get caught but the odds are against them and they will eventually get caught. I would really like to know how anyone is going to get caught if they don't s/n their pet though. Most people only follow a law because of the fear of repercussion if they don't but if they feel they can get away without being caught they will break the law. 

I agree that laws need to be passed to help stop pet overpopulation but I think there are better ways to do it. For a start, the puppy mills should have all their dogs taxed at an extremely high rate. Say every puppy they sold was going to have an additional $200 tax, these puppy mills would still be selling puppy's but not nearly as many and people who bought them would be shelling out a lot more for those dogs and be less likely to get rid of them. Then give something like a $200 tax credit for each pet that a person has had s/n during the year. My vet charges $100 for a dog to be spayed, and I think he's a little expensive, how many people would get their dog/cat s/n if they knew they would get a little extra break at the end of the year. Look how many people make donations to charity because of a tax break. I honestly feel a reward for doing a responsible thing is going to be more effective than this current proposed law. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

Captbob said:


> If I am not mistaken, the *entire point of this proposed law* is to save dogs from going to shelters and being euthanized. That is what this law is about, besides saving the government enormous amounts of money that is now being spent on housing the dog overpopulation and euthanizing them ( I actually prefer to use killing them, because that is what we really are doing) . Who is complaining and trying to stop this law from being enacted, people that breed dogs for money. That is it, no matter which way people try to twist it to fit their agenda, it boils down to many breeders feeling inconvienced as a consequence of a law that will save countless dogs from being destroyed in shelters. Do I feel sorry for these breeders, not really. They will add the money that this is costing them to the price of the dogs that they sell. People that would rather buy a dog from a breeder. than adopting a dog, will pay it and life will go on. What will not go on is the slaughter that happens everyday, of Pets that can't find homes.


Which is more expensive, one of the puppy mill dogs that are unaffected by this bill that you can buy at a pet shop, or a breeders dog? If this bill passes could it be possible that it drives more people away from responsible breeders and toward the cheaper puppy mill dogs? If that were to happen would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> I wouldnt call that culling. In a certain part of Africa they cull elephants, it is a means of population control (though they dont need to do it). Every so many years, at a certain time they go out and shoot a ton of elephants. If we were culling dogs and cats we wouldnt have a population problem and this law wouldnt be needed in the first place.


Oh ok, I guess you have a different definition for culling. The definition I've heard is to remove dogs from the gene pool that are inferior. Sometimes this is just done by neutering, but more often it's done by killing. At one time, for instance (and some may still do it) it was common for breeders to kill any puppy suspected of being deaf in Bull Terriers or Dalmatians. It's also common to cull dogs used in sledding if they can't measure up. Some breeders even cull for color.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It's called respect Bob, that doesn't necessarily mean being nice. Your "opinion" doesn't matter if you can't work with people to find a solution. Your "opinion" only becomes a deterant when you play the hollier than thou card. Like I've said before, at some point this debate needs to stop being about saving dogs and start being about the people who love their dogs, and many breeders are NOT excluded from this group. What's selfish is to not look at the whole for your own disjointed parts.


Are you suggesting we approach this from a non-accusatory way? I don't know how to make that work when people are the cause of the problem. If you don't point out what they're doing to cause the problem, then they will continue to do it. It seems to me that another definition of kennel blindness is those breeders that want to blame the problem on both ARs and the idiots that the breeders have sold their dogs to. This is the heighth of passing the buck. Even trying to get them to propose a law that they can accept has been met with protests because they don't think they are the problem so they needn't be part of the solution. 

Do they love their dogs too? They think they do, but does putting one's dog in harm's way for profit or for fun show true love? They say they love the breed, while they ignore that members of the breed are dying for lack of homes, so they create more. Isn't that just love of self, not love of the dog? I see so much unselfish love of dogs in rescue. Rescue agonizes over finding a way to save them all. How does that equate with the things that concern breeders - shows, hobbies, points, and their own happiness? It's like Venus and Mars. It's polar opposites. Can you please give me an example of the kind of respect that you think will turn us into yin and yang? 

I don't think anyone starts out being disrespectful in these debates, unless you consider it disrespect to believe that breeders should aspire to a higher standard of life for the dogs. Where I lose my patience and ability to be respectful is when met with accusations and lies designed to place the blame everyplace else but on the source of the problem.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

ScareCrow said:


> There are several places that now have radar set up with a camera to catch a speeder. People who speed still get caught, inevitably you will get pulled over if you break the speed limit laws. Now if I have a dog or cat on my property and I refuse to follow a s/n law how am I going to get caught? They can't go knocking door to door, as has been mentioned happens in other countries, because in America that would be illegal search and seizure(spelling). When we are out driving there will always be the idiots who think they are above the law and won't get caught but the odds are against them and they will eventually get caught. I would really like to know how anyone is going to get caught if they don't s/n their pet though. Most people only follow a law because of the fear of repercussion if they don't but if they feel they can get away without being caught they will break the law.


You are probably right about high-profile speeders getting caught, but what I'm referring to is the people who normally drive a little faster than the speed limit. When driving on the freeway, with clear traffic, the rate of flow is normally faster than the speed limit, until a cop joins in. Then everyone slows down, showing they were going too fast in the first place. But if everyone is doing 70 in a 65 mile zone, there is no way that they're all going to get tickets. The fact that they slow down for the cop though, shows that they know what they should be doing. That wouldn't happen if there was no speed limit at all. It's not enforceable, but it serves as a tool to show people what they should do, and it gives options to the police for those that flagrantly break the law.

The same would be true of a s/n law, and the way it would be enforced is not only by letting people know what society expects, but also there are just as many ways a law breaker could be tripped up - vets will certainly know whether the dog is altered or not. When the dog has puppies, unless you plan on hiding them in the closet, people are going to know your dog wasn't altered. In my area they already know my dogs are altered because proof is required when I license the. It costs more to license and unaltered dog. And as I mentioned elsewhere, it's fairly easy to tell who has a dog and who doesn't - the meter readers know.




ScareCrow said:


> I agree that laws need to be passed to help stop pet overpopulation but I think there are better ways to do it. For a start, the puppy mills should have all their dogs taxed at an extremely high rate. Say every puppy they sold was going to have an additional $200 tax, these puppy mills would still be selling puppy's but not nearly as many and people who bought them would be shelling out a lot more for those dogs and be less likely to get rid of them. Then give something like a $200 tax credit for each pet that a person has had s/n during the year. My vet charges $100 for a dog to be spayed, and I think he's a little expensive, how many people would get their dog/cat s/n if they knew they would get a little extra break at the end of the year. Look how many people make donations to charity because of a tax break. I honestly feel a reward for doing a responsible thing is going to be more effective than this current proposed law. You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.


Why should puppymillers have to pay more than other breeders? They're not doing anything illegal. In fact, odds are they are more legal than the average breeder - who is likely to be unlicensed and uninspected. Whatever mandates there are, they need to be indiscriminate. You can make it illegal to sell puppies under 8 weeks of age, but you can't say that applies only to puppymillers. And if you apply the $200 tax to all breeders, you'll have fight on your hands, just like the current one where they object to $100.

As for incentives, I suspect you'll get just as many people whether you do it by incentive or mandate - but incentives won't get the guy who adamantly refuses to alter his dog, nor will you get the guy who isn't impressed by the money. When someone buys a pet shop puppy for $1000+, they're not going to be impressed by a $200 tax credit, especially when pet stores are telling him how easily he could get his $1000 back by just breeding a litter. You're also probably not going to get the person whose fear of surgical procedures keep them from altering their dog. What you may get is those who want to cash in on the extra money after they have a litter or two, but then that's after the damage is done. 

I think incentives can be one of the tools that's used, but I don't think that's going to solve the problem. And I don't see where the money is going to come from. For some breeds, s/n is free now in some areas, and yet the pounds are still filled with those breeds.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

ScareCrow said:


> Which is more expensive, one of the puppy mill dogs that are unaffected by this bill that you can buy at a pet shop, or a breeders dog? If this bill passes could it be possible that it drives more people away from responsible breeders and toward the cheaper puppy mill dogs? If that were to happen would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing?


From what I've seen breeders charge far less than pet stores puppymilled dogs go for. Newspaper ads show them for about half the price of a pet store dog. And I don't think most people know what a responsible breeder is. The ones that do are likely to be more interested in quality than saving a buck.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Oh ok, I guess you have a different definition for culling. The definition I've heard is to remove dogs from the gene pool that are inferior. Sometimes this is just done by neutering, but more often it's done by killing. At one time, for instance (and some may still do it) it was common for breeders to kill any puppy suspected of being deaf in Bull Terriers or Dalmatians. It's also common to cull dogs used in sledding if they can't measure up. Some breeders even cull for color.


Ok would you stop calling them breeders?! They are called PUPPY MILLS! Real breeders wont cull their dogs, they will S/N and put them in a pet home. Real breeders care for their dogs and will take good care of them.

Puppy millers pretend to be breeders and give real responsible breeders a bad name. Responsible breeders are not puppy mills and puppy mills are not breeders.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> Ok would you stop calling them breeders?! They are called PUPPY MILLS! Real breeders wont cull their dogs, they will S/N and put them in a pet home. Real breeders care for their dogs and will take good care of them.
> 
> Puppy millers pretend to be breeders and give real responsible breeders a bad name. Responsible breeders are not puppy mills and puppy mills are not breeders.


I'm sorry, but I disagree, so no, I won't stop calling them breeders. The definition of a breeder is someone that breeds. That can be puppymillers, commercial kennels, backyard breeders, hobby breeders, responsible breeders, and I think even those that allow their dogs to have puppies through their own negligence should be called breeders as well. You produce puppies - then you're a breeder.

Now, having said that, we can add the type of breeder, like responsible, puppymill, BYB, etc. They are all real breeders because they are all really breeding. It's just the manner in which they are breeding that is at question, and it's just way to easy for breeders to cross the line from responsible to BYB, from BYB to puppymilling.

Also, about culling, breeders who show, test, and do all the other things that you would consider qualifies them for being a responsible breeder, sometimes think that part of being responsible is to cull their dogs. Are you aware that some allegedly responsible breeders do test breedings, and cull the puppies that don't measure up - even as many as the whole litter - because they don't want substandard puppies in their line? It's not uncommon, for instance for collie breeders to test breed a PRA female with a champion male to see if they throw blind puppies - and if the puppies are blind, they kill them. And if you asked them why, one of the ways they justify it is that they are doing the blind puppy a favor by not making it suffer with it's blindness, and that there are not enough homes that want blind puppies. Having had a blind dog that I would have never dreamed of killing because of her blindness, I have a hard time with this concept, but it is an method accepted by many breeders considered responsible in the dog fancy.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> Ok would you stop calling them breeders?! They are called PUPPY MILLS! Real breeders wont cull their dogs, they will S/N and put them in a pet home. Real breeders care for their dogs and will take good care of them.
> 
> Puppy millers pretend to be breeders and give real responsible breeders a bad name. Responsible breeders are not puppy mills and puppy mills are not breeders.


The reality is that some responsible breeders do cull their pups. Culling because of color isn't as revalent as it once was, but breeders who have litters of pups with major health problems such as hip dysplasia still do cull their pups. Are they doing the right thing? I think that they are acting in the best way they know how for their pups. They are trying to better the breed after all, and pups with major health problems don't follow into that path unfortunately.

Reality can't always be pleasant. We do euthanise a lot of animals each year after all.



Captbob said:


> If I am not mistaken, the *entire point of this proposed law* is to save dogs from going to shelters and being euthanized. That is what this law is about, besides saving the government enormous amounts of money that is now being spent on housing the dog overpopulation and euthanizing them ( I actually prefer to use killing them, because that is what we really are doing) . Who is complaining and trying to stop this law from being enacted, people that breed dogs for money. That is it, no matter which way people try to twist it to fit their agenda, it boils down to many breeders feeling inconvienced as a consequence of a law that will save countless dogs from being destroyed in shelters. Do I feel sorry for these breeders, not really. They will add the money that this is costing them to the price of the dogs that they sell. People that would rather buy a dog from a breeder. than adopting a dog, will pay it and life will go on. What will not go on is the slaughter that happens everyday, of Pets that can't find homes.


This law does nothing to stop the source of the problem. The commercial breeders, and the puppy mill breeders are the biggest problem. This proposed law clearly gives them no limitations or restrictions at all. I don't like seeing dogs put down at all. There are so many animals in need of good homes, and the issue does need addressing.



Captbob said:


> I am sure that once the law is enacted, that it will be modified as time goes on, just as many laws in this country are.


The proposed law doesn't need tweaking, it needs a massive overhaul.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Huh? We are culling dogs in shelter euthanasia rooms across the country. Culling dogs is a commonly performed act by breeders. Where did you get the idea that culling is not allowed?


What breeders are you around that cull? Reputable breeders don't cull- the non show dogs are sent to pet homes.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> What breeders are you around that cull? Reputable breeders don't cull- the non show dogs are sent to pet homes.


I've already mentioned 4 breeds or breed types where breeders cull as a part of their responsible breeding program. They feel it's responsible, you don't. Who gets to say? 

Here's a descriptive website from rhodesian ridgeback breeders who advocate culling ridgeless ridgeback puppies:

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...der+culling&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

Here's a website from boxer breeders, who are discussing the culling of white boxer puppies:

http://www.boxerunderground.com/feb_bu_99/knevius.htm

Wikipedia talks about the benefits of careful inbreeding to set traits, but adds that culling may be necessary to avoid a surplus of unfit animals.

Logic should tell you that a hobby breeder must make some difficult decisions because if s/he doesn't, s/he can easily become overcrowded with dogs that aren't sellable, aren't breedable, and are causing him/her to become illegal because s/he is over the legal limit with dogs. Keeping the dogs may not be an option, and puts such a breeder in the "hoarding" category. This is one of the secret parts of breeding that most people don't want to think about. But if you think it's irresponsible to cull, then what is the responsible thing to do with puppies that are not wanted by anyone? And if it happens enough, which the boxer site quoted that as much of 50% of boxers are born white which is undesirable, how do you keep from getting a reputation of producing inferior dogs unless you just make those dogs disappear?

So yes, culling is an accepted, though controversial, method that "responsible" breeders use. 

Now, do you want to consider something even more disturbing? Think about how it's done.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> I've already mentioned 4 breeds or breed types where breeders cull as a part of their responsible breeding program. They feel it's responsible, you don't. Who gets to say?
> 
> Here's a descriptive website from rhodesian ridgeback breeders who advocate culling ridgeless ridgeback puppies:
> 
> ...


And this is why I'm very careful about who I associate with. Those people are not responsible in my opinion. I know of a Koolie breeder that culls out all double merles and says he doesn't ever produce them. That's hardly responsible. Those pups are 100% avoidable as far as breeding goes.

But we get litters of 2 most often, so there's not much problem placing dogs in homes. There's always more prospective owners than there are dogs. It's even hard (And expensive!) to adopt paps from breed rescues because there are more people than dogs. No breeder I know culls at all. I think it's fewer people than you'd think advocating this, and I'm sure they'd be looked down upon by the other show folk. And no, I don't think euthanizing a pup with a fatal defect is culling. To me it sounds like more scare tactics against reputable breeders by generalizing things and pointing out what some irreputable people do.

Let's hope it stays that way, though with this toy dog fad, I'd doubt it. I'm seeing more papillons nad papillon crosses in shelters.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Are you suggesting we approach this from a non-accusatory way?


I read a quote today in I think Time Magazine, and I think it illustrates exactly how I feel...



> When outrage takes over, there is no emotion more powerful than the urge to place blame. --Eric Dezenhall, Crisis Expert


The anwser to your question is yes! Because within all the blaming, ideas, whether you agree with them or not, are diminished, including for those who are the most passionate. It's sad, and if this issue is being contested outside this forum in the same way, there will never be a "success" with or without this bill.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I read a quote today in I think Time Magazine, and I think it illustrates exactly how I feel...
> 
> 
> 
> The anwser to your question is yes! Because within all the blaming, ideas, whether you agree with them or not, are diminished, including for those who are the most passionate. It's sad, and if this issue is being contested outside this forum in the same way, there will never be a "success" with or without this bill.


The success with this bill will be measured, not in a total elimination of the problem, but in a large reduction of dogs that are euthanized in the shelters in the affected areas. You have to start someplace, and right now , nobody is doing anything to change what is presently happening.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> And this is why I'm very careful about who I associate with. Those people are not responsible in my opinion. I know of a Koolie breeder that culls out all double merles and says he doesn't ever produce them. That's hardly responsible. Those pups are 100% avoidable as far as breeding goes.
> 
> But we get litters of 2 most often, so there's not much problem placing dogs in homes. There's always more prospective owners than there are dogs. It's even hard (And expensive!) to adopt paps from breed rescues because there are more people than dogs. No breeder I know culls at all. I think it's fewer people than you'd think advocating this, and I'm sure they'd be looked down upon by the other show folk. And no, I don't think euthanizing a pup with a fatal defect is culling. To me it sounds like more scare tactics against reputable breeders by generalizing things and pointing out what some irreputable people do.
> 
> Let's hope it stays that way, though with this toy dog fad, I'd doubt it. I'm seeing more papillons nad papillon crosses in shelters.


And that is exactly why reputable breeders DONT CULL their dogs! Because it is not a responsible way of dealing with the situation. Responsible reputable breeders dont cull. Other "breeders" maybe but NOT responsible breeders. If they cull their dogs, they arent responsible.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> The success with this bill will be measured, not in a total elimination of the problem, but in a large reduction of dogs that are euthanized in the shelters in the affected areas. You have to start someplace, and right now , nobody is doing anything to change what is presently happening.


I couldn't agree more, and so I'm prompted to ask the question "are we placing the cart before the horse?" We can see the damage that's being done, we really don't need data to prove animals die in shelters at quantities that are not acceptable. But for Joe Blo who only reads the title of this bill before he votes, could he be voting for ideas the act against what the title depicts? I think he can. And in this sense I think we do need to yell a bit louder, to spark the interest of a voter who hasn't taken the time to study this bill or the problem. What I don't want is someone browsing through a thread like this and deciding that dog people are nothing more than opinionated, emotional, or crazy, and ignoring the issue all together.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> If they cull their dogs, they arent responsible.


The act of culling dogs has been a large part of the history between man and dog...we wouldn't have all the breeds we have if man didn't cull. So by your statement the only way to keep man responsible would be to keep dogs in the wild. Artificial selection is the art that is culling.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> And that is exactly why reputable breeders DONT CULL their dogs! Because it is not a responsible way of dealing with the situation. Responsible reputable breeders dont cull. Other "breeders" maybe but NOT responsible breeders. If they cull their dogs, they arent responsible.


Reputable breeders don't cull because of color, or because of minor issues with the way a dog looks.

Some reputable breeders do cull those that have major genetic defects. HD can be dealt with, but what about severe cases of HD? I know that HD is a genetically passed along trait that the parents can carry, but not actually have HD. I'm not advocating that an animal who is deaf, or blind be put down because they can lead pain free healthy lives. HD can be corrected through surgery in many cases, but not always. When dealing with certain defects we all have to choose how we deal with any pups who do have health issues.

Genetics is a messy beast, and even with healthy parent dogs issues can arise. Reality can be very ugly at times.

I also agree that the one breeder Laurelin mentioned who does breed dogs that have the double merle trait and then culls them is unethical. Breeding two merles together can easily produce a double merle pup that would be prone to serious health issues.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> The act of culling dogs has been a large part of the history between man and dog...we wouldn't have all the breeds we have if man didn't cull. So by your statement the only way to keep man responsible would be to keep dogs in the wild. Artificial selection is the art that is culling.


Just because culling was done to create breeds back when breeds were being developed doesn't mean that it is still widely done nowadays or supported by the majority of breeders. Ethics have changed with caring for dogs, and yes culling is what gives usthe dog breeds we have today, there is no need to cull in established breeds. Unless you call euthanizing pups with severe defects culling.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Captbob said:


> The success with this bill will be measured, not in a total elimination of the problem, but in a large reduction of dogs that are euthanized in the shelters in the affected areas. You have to start someplace, and right now , nobody is doing anything to change what is presently happening.


I think everyone would agree that this Bill will NOT total eliminate the problem. Yes I feel one has to start someplace particularly where problems just go on for years and nobody seems to be doing anything to address the problems. I see the Bill as just one means that can be of help, other means would include things like adequate enforcement of laws and this even in regards to Dog Licenses, then there is also Education plus other things that can help.

I've looked around the world to see what is happening elsewhere where this maybe used to help address problems, and talking of Education here is something interesting - "State Government Responsible Pet Ownership Program for Schools" and this funded through $1 from every dog and cat registration (dog and cat licenses), have a read of this page and even the entire website:-
http://www.pets.info.vic.gov.au/01/tres.htm

In that state this particular county has this, Responsible Dog Ownership Program and where that county mentions "the course is free (and includes rebates on dog registration)", see at this address:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=160&h=0

Also here is another thing in the above state that also helps in addressing problems as seen in this old news article:-

Herald Sun
9 Sep 2005
ID chips for pets
By Tanya Giles

MICROCHIPPING will be compulsory for Victoria's 840,000 pet dogs and cats under a government crackdown.

Owners will have to microchip their dogs and cats from 2007, or face fines of up to $500.

Pet shops, breeders, pounds and animal shelters will have to microchip dogs and cats before selling them or be slugged with $1000 fines.

The crackdown was hailed as the biggest change to animal welfare laws in 25 years.

All cats and dogs being registered for the first time from May 2007 will have to be microchipped, under laws introduced in Parliament yesterday.

If not, local councils will bar them from being registered. Owners of unregistered pets can be hit with fines of up to $500.

The legislation also enables councils to apply the new rules retrospectively to the 600,000 dogs and 240,000 cats registered in Victoria.

Exemptions for microchipping can be granted on the advice of a vet.

It costs up to $50 to microchip a cat or dog at a veterinary clinic, but most councils have "microchipping days" where it costs about $20.

Councils will also be given the power to require the compulsory desexing of all dogs and cats.

Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron said microchipping was a permanent identification that helped councils track down owners if a pet was lost or impounded.

About 40 per cent of Victorian households have a dog and 26 per cent have a cat.

Mr Cameron said stray cats were a problem, with only half the cats in the state registered.

RSPCA chief executive officer Maria Mercurio said compulsory microchipping would save many lost pets.

Ms Mercurio said it was a requirement under law for animals to be destroyed if they are not claimed after 28 days.

Lost Dogs' Home managing director Graeme Smith backed the changes. "This is the best piece of legislation I have seen in 25 years by any government," he said.

Dr Smith said only one in five dogs and one in 100 cats were returned to their owners from the shelter because of problems with identification.

He said compulsory microchipping would also deter owners from dumping their pets.

"We will be able to track them down and they will have some explaining to do," he said.

Under the Primary Industries Acts (Further Amendment) Bill, councils will also be able to require the compulsory desexing of all dogs and cats in their jurisdictions.

There are three providers of microchips for dogs and cats in Victoria, all using different identification systems.

From December 1, their databases will be linked.

Councils offer cheaper registration fees for cats and dogs that have been microchipped or desexed.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

sillylilykitty said:


> And that is exactly why reputable breeders DONT CULL their dogs! Because it is not a responsible way of dealing with the situation. Responsible reputable breeders dont cull. Other "breeders" maybe but NOT responsible breeders. If they cull their dogs, they arent responsible.


Again, that's your opinion. It's the opinion of others that it is irresponsible not to cull. Who decides who is right? How many people are waiting to adopt deaf bull terriers and deaf dalmatians? Remember, there are healthy dogs of this breed in shelters that need homes. How many people want to take on blind collie puppies? I don't think you're really considering the logistics of it all. Understand that I don't like this happening either, but it happens, and it's one of the many reasons that I don't aspire to be a breeder. It's not all fun and puppy kisses. Breeders need to make some hard decisions if they are truly responsible, including giving up breeding stock that has become part of the family when they are no longer breedable - simply because they don't want to break the zoning laws.

The worst part is that people don't think of these things before they get into breeding, especially those that want to see what will happen when they breed their Muffy to Tuffy down the street.


----------



## Snowshoe (Nov 17, 2006)

Nice post, Quincy. 

I agree that education and cracking down on irresponsible pet stores are a GREAT way to nip the over population in the bud. 

I think that making spay and neutering pets less expensive will really help. Making the low cost spay/neuter mobiles course their appointed rounds more often would help. 

Making every petstore spay or neuter their pets before they were sold to the public would help, because as everyone agrees, nothing quality will come from a petstore. 

Shelters do it, and adopting a dog costs less *most* of the time then buying from a petstore, anyway. 

I bet most pet stores wouldn't buy as many puppies to sell that way if it cost them money to spay every one before they sold it. 

The big problem, as I see it, is getting to the source of the problem. That's because no one agrees on what the source actually is. 

I know that good breeders aren't the source, and I know that educated puppy buyers aren't the source. 

That leaves puppy mills, brokers, pet stores, and poor consumers.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Quincy, you have no understanding of the complexity of the issue actually being raised by the proposed law. The law does not do anything to actually eliminate the major source of the animal overpopulation crisis we have in the US.

The proposed bill only targets law-abiding citizens, and fails to even go after the puppy mills. With punishing the many reputable show breeders and dog handlers while giving exemptions to the core group of people who are making the problem worse I could not even consider supporting it.

Yes there are many irresponsible people who are contributing to the problem outside of the puppy millers, but we need to focus on the larger part of the problem first.


----------



## Snowshoe (Nov 17, 2006)

Well, let me be quick to say that while I do agree with Quincy on his ALTERNATE ideas, this bill sucks.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

SFury said:


> Quincy, you have no understanding of the complexity of the issue actually being raised by the proposed law. The law does not do anything to actually eliminate the major source of the animal overpopulation crisis we have in the US.
> 
> The proposed bill only targets law-abiding citizens, and fails to even go after the puppy mills. With punishing the many reputable show breeders and dog handlers while giving exemptions to the core group of people who are making the problem worse I could not even consider supporting it.
> 
> Yes there are many irresponsible people who are contributing to the problem outside of the puppy millers, but we need to focus on the larger part of the problem first.


I am not clear on the part about exemptions for puppy-millers. I have missed that part in the text of the bill. Can you elaborate for me?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

SFury said:


> Quincy, you have no understanding of the complexity of the issue actually being raised by the proposed law. The law does not do anything to actually eliminate the major source of the animal overpopulation crisis we have in the US.
> 
> The proposed bill only targets law-abiding citizens, and fails to even go after the puppy mills. With punishing the many reputable show breeders and dog handlers while giving exemptions to the core group of people who are making the problem worse I could not even consider supporting it.
> 
> Yes there are many irresponsible people who are contributing to the problem outside of the puppy millers, but we need to focus on the larger part of the problem first.


If you are saying that the largest part of the problem is puppymillers, then how do you explain that the largest number of dogs in shelters are mixed breed?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Snowshoe said:


> I know that good breeders aren't the source, and I know that educated puppy buyers aren't the source.
> 
> That leaves puppy mills, brokers, pet stores, and poor consumers.


What about the majority of breeders that aren't good breeders, and aren't puppymills? Most of the breeders out there are unknowledgeable BYBs. According to the AKC, the majority of breeders are one-time breeders only. And since responsible breeders don't breed to meet a demand, that leaves only BYBs to supply purebred dogs if people are getting the message that pet shops aren't the place to get a healthy puppy. Ever check the urban newspapers classifieds under pets? It's full of puppies for sale from BYBs.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> I am not clear on the part about exemptions for puppy-millers. I have missed that part in the text of the bill. Can you elaborate for me?



The only easy way to get an altered permit is to be a commercial breeder. You might want to read the law.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

The true definition of cull does not mean kill, simply to take the dog out of a breeding program. It can be sold as a nice pet, just not bred.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The only easy way to get an altered permit is to be a commercial breeder. You might want to read the law.


Mine was a sincere question, not meant to be sarcastic. I was looking to have an exchange of information and perspective with SFury, but nevermind.

I have read the law and by my count there are 5 ways to get a permit.
1. licensed breeder or
2. the dog is a show dog or competition dog or
3. the dog is a guide dog, service dog or signal dog or
4. the dog is a rescue dog or
5. the dog has a vet's excuse


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> Mine was a sincere question, not meant to be sarcastic. I was looking to have an exchange of information and perspective with SFury.
> 
> I have read the law and by my count there are 5 ways to get a permit.
> 1. licensed breeder or
> ...



No you haven't read it carefully enough or maybe you just dont realize as you dont show. 
It says you have to have the dog fixed by 4 months unless the dog is being shown. AKC does'nt let dogs compete until they are 6 mnths old. 

Its says the dog has to get a title by 2 years of age. Some don't even start showing their dogs until older than that. They are not mature enough. So they are out in the cold. 

And what about when your dog is retired? It has to be altered if it is not being shown. then they can't be bred.

The way the law is written, it is impossible to show and impossibe to have legitimate breeding program. 

Actually the police dog agency is against this law also. It doesn't allow them to breed their own dogs. 

And the vet's excuse has to be resubmitted often. It is not a one time thing.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

Saveourdogs: You win. I abbreviated the 5 categories, knowing that everyone could go to the bill and read the details for themselves.


I have read the bill. This bill has been amended several times already. If you believe it is too restrictive, they are taking input from citizens who want to suggest changes. One of the other posters has already posted the link. If the AKC thinks it is impossible to live with, they probably have been making an effort to have those restrictions ammended, already.

If amending that point makes it possible for the bill to work, then maybe that would be a good change to make. Because I am looking for clarification and an exchange of perspectives does not mean that I am stupid, or unable to read.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

ritabooker said:


> Saveourdogs: You win. I abbreviated the 5 categories, knowing that everyone could go to the bill and read the details for themselves.
> 
> 
> I have read the bill. This bill has been amended several times already. If you believe it is too restrictive, they are taking input from citizens who want to suggest changes. One of the other posters has already posted the link. If the AKC thinks it is impossible to live with, they probably have been making an effort to have those restrictions ammended, already.
> ...


ritabooker, that's great that you have read the Bill and I wish some others would also have a read. Yes they are taking input from citizens who want to suggest changes and this even from breeders who show, and where ammendments maybe done to the Bill.

For anyone who is interested here is the very latest ammendments to the Bill via this link, and yes you will see the ammendments:-
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/AB%201634%20_as%20amended%204-30-07_%20redlined%20May%202%202007%20version%20B%20_2_.pdf

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
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> Just because culling was done to create breeds back when breeds were being developed doesn't mean that it is still widely done nowadays or supported by the majority of breeders. Ethics have changed with caring for dogs, and yes culling is what gives usthe dog breeds we have today, there is no need to cull in established breeds. Unless you call euthanizing pups with severe defects culling.


What do you think genetic and health testing is for? This is to understand if a dog should be culled or not. It is necessary to preserve breeds to a standard, as it is to preserve their health. It's necessary in some breeds, and it's also very dangerous in others. Responsible breeders cull, irresponsible breeders don't have a clue, and other don't cull to preserve the diversity of genetics. There are reasons to cull and not to cull, but like anything else about dog, there are culling methods that are better than others.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

Thanks, Quincy, for the update. This part highlighted in orange text looks like a big improvement to the bill:

(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates that his or her cat or dog is a valid breed
that is recognized by
an approved registry or association, as determined in the
discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control
agency, and complies with at least one 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 registry
or association, 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.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The true definition of cull does not mean kill, simply to take the dog out of a breeding program. It can be sold as a nice pet, just not bred.


And if it's not sellable? How many people line up at a breeders door for blind or deaf puppies? Of course the breeder could lie, but then with all of the puppy lemon laws, that would be a risky thing to do. How many people line up for dogs with cleft palates? I guess with your state of denial about overpopulation, you think people are clamoring to buy anything on four legs, but that's really unrealistic, and it takes the pride factor out of the equation in which breeders don't want to be known by the fancy to be producing substandard puppies.

Did you even look at the websites I provided? I found those with a simple google search by entering breeder and cull. Maybe you should search for other variations of that to see what other breeders have to say about it. My first information that this was happening was from a breeder discussion on the best way to do it. These were show breeders, one of which thought the most humane way was to put the puppy in the freezer, alive.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> What do you think genetic and health testing is for? This is to understand if a dog should be culled or not. It is necessary to preserve breeds to a standard, as it is to preserve their health. It's necessary in some breeds, and it's also very dangerous in others. Responsible breeders cull, irresponsible breeders don't have a clue, and other don't cull to preserve the diversity of genetics. There are reasons to cull and not to cull, but like anything else about dog, there are culling methods that are better than others.


Dogs are removed from breeding programs and sold on spay/neuter contracts. Reputable breeders do not cull by killing pups with these problems, imo. The only pups that are euthanized have severe conditions.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> Dogs are removed from breeding programs and sold on spay/neuter contracts. Reputable breeders do not cull by killing pups with these problems, imo. The only pups that are euthanized have severe conditions.


I'm looking at this in biological terms. What determines a dog's success within a population is if its genes are allowed to continue. S/N in biological terms is the act of culling. To cull does not necessarilly mean a complete elimination of the animal, like killing them on the spot. Culling means removing their genes from the population. Both reputable breeders call, and shelters cull, but for different reasons.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I'm looking at this in biological terms. What determines a dog's success within a population is if its genes are allowed to continue. S/N in biological terms is the act of culling. To cull does not necessarilly mean a complete elimination of the animal, like killing them on the spot. Culling means removing their genes from the population. Both reputable breeders call, and shelters cull, but for different reasons.


You're right, culling doesn't "necessarily" mean a complete elimination of the animals, but some breeders do exactly that, and these are show breeders who are considered reputable/responsible. Some may feel they don't deserve that rating since they are culling, but the question remains - what is a breeder supposed to do with a dog that is unwanted? What to do with a whole litter that's unwanted? Keeping them is not always legally possible, and selling them isn't feasible. So to say that it's not done begs the question - what is the alternative?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> Dogs are removed from breeding programs and sold on spay/neuter contracts. Reputable breeders do not cull by killing pups with these problems, imo. The only pups that are euthanized have severe conditions.


Just so I have this clear - are you saying that reputable/responsible breeders don't kill (cull) pups they don't want, or are you saying that when they do, they lose the title "responsible/reputable"?

It's been awhile since I've read or heard about this, but relying on memory, in order to know if a dog is a carrier of PRA (or maybe it was CEA), it has to be mated with a known carrier to see if the resultant puppies will be born blind. It takes both both parents to be carriers in order for the pups to be blind. So, collie breeders have to decide whether they should just breed as normal and take a chance that they are passing on this disease and creating more carriers, or should they do a test breeding with a known carrier to find out if their champion dog is free of the disease. If the puppies are born blind, what is the breeder to do with them? Commonly such breeders cull (kill) those puppies as both a humane issue, and as a convenience issue because people don't want to buy blind puppies when there are enough sighted puppies available, and keeping the litter is not an option due to zoning issues, available funds, etc. Collie litters can be quite large. 

Now this is just one breed. Other breeds have other issues, as I've noted before. Instead of telling us that a good breeder wouldn't do that - please, tell us what they WOULD do. What do you do with 8-12 blind puppies? What do you do with a litter of deaf puppies? Both are harder to socialize, harder to train, and more likely to fear bite if not handled properly. It could easily be argued that the breeder who culls (kills) is more responsible than the breeder that does not cull because the culling breeder is thinking about what the dog's life is going to be like, and wants to save it from suffering.

This is just one of the many examples of varying degrees of ethics, and varying beliefs in what is ethical. It makes it very difficult to decide who gets that "responsible/reputable" label, and it makes it even harder for the public when they don't even have a clue about these kinds of issues.

I once heard a breeder say that breeding isn't for the faint hearted. Culling is one of the many reasons why.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> And if it's not sellable? How many people line up at a breeders door for blind or deaf puppies? Of course the breeder could lie, but then with all of the puppy lemon laws, that would be a risky thing to do. How many people line up for dogs with cleft palates? I guess with your state of denial about overpopulation, you think people are clamoring to buy anything on four legs, but that's really unrealistic, and it takes the pride factor out of the equation in which breeders don't want to be known by the fancy to be producing substandard puppies.
> 
> Did you even look at the websites I provided? I found those with a simple google search by entering breeder and cull. Maybe you should search for other variations of that to see what other breeders have to say about it. My first information that this was happening was from a breeder discussion on the best way to do it. These were show breeders, one of which thought the most humane way was to put the puppy in the freezer, alive.


Do you think I'm stupid? GEEZ.
OF COURSE cleft palates need to be put down humanely. But then that is not part of the discussion because that is a birth defect, not genetic. 

And I guess you don't read because I said Cull doesn't equal Kill. Some CAN be sold to pet homes. In my breed we have one disease called Congentical Cataracts. Some breeders do test breeding for it and breed to affecteds to see if thier dog is a carrier. So many clear puppies statistically clears the dog since it is a simple recessive gene. Those puppies are sold to nice pet homes. They are not killed. They carry the gene but are not affected. Why would you kill those puppies? They are perfectly healthy.

And simply because I think that the words 'pet overpopulation' is AR doublespeak and you buy into that does not mean I am stupid. I resent your tone. Try talking to me like a real human being. I am an extremely intelligent person. I have intelligently and realistically looked into breeding decisions, genetic testing, what to do with those puppies,etc. I am a serious breeder, on the board of my national breed club. I am quite well aware of the realities of what serious breeders do. So dont talk to me like I'm stupid. you are just repeating unsubstantiated rumors. I know reality. NO ONE kills puppies in my breed , that is serious breeders, unless they have birth defects. yes in some breeds they have some hard decisions to make such as the collie example but even then they might be able to find a home. I have a blind dog at home. She is fine. Blind yes, lives a fine life. Is she in my breeding program, of course not.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> If you are saying that the largest part of the problem is puppymillers, then how do you explain that the largest number of dogs in shelters are mixed breed?


Millers breed purebreed dogs as well as mutts. That fact cannot be denied.



ritabooker said:


> Mine was a sincere question, not meant to be sarcastic. I was looking to have an exchange of information and perspective with SFury, but nevermind.
> 
> I have read the law and by my count there are 5 ways to get a permit.
> 1. licensed breeder or
> ...


The issue was not that a sarcastic provision that has difficult hoops to jump through for legitimate breeders and showers. The only easy way to obtain an exemption is to be a corporate breeder.



ritabooker said:


> Thanks, Quincy, for the update. This part highlighted in orange text looks like a big improvement to the bill:
> 
> (2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates that his or her cat or dog is a valid breed
> that is recognized by
> ...


Subjectivity in a law yields only bad things. The road to Hell has been paved with good intentions many times over. That clause is a garbage clause with the contract language being used.

Clearly defined contract language leaves out subjectivity, and the propensity for gross abuse by the administrative side.

I am a union leader where I work and have to become familiar with contract language in order to best represent those I work with. Am I an expert, no. But I am also not the vast majority of Americans either. Contract language is an ugly animal with a lot of nuances and those that write it are always biased to one side or another. Clearly the subjective qualification being used would be like having the word "may" in a contract item instead of a word like "shall". May gives the controlling side an abusive amount of control more often than not.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

SFury said:


> I am a union leader where I work and have to become familiar with contract language in order to best represent those I work with. Am I an expert, no. But I am also not the vast majority of Americans either. Contract language is an ugly animal with a lot of nuances and those that write it are always biased to one side or another. Clearly the subjective qualification being used would be like having the word "may" in a contract item instead of a word like "shall". May gives the controlling side an abusive amount of control more often than not.


That is why it takes a lawyer to look over something and decide if their are problems with it or not. I am sure that the people that put this law together have thought of that.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Do you think I'm stupid? GEEZ.
> OF COURSE cleft palates need to be put down humanely. But then that is not part of the discussion because that is a birth defect, not genetic.
> 
> And I guess you don't read because I said Cull doesn't equal Kill. Some CAN be sold to pet homes. In my breed we have one disease called Congentical Cataracts. Some breeders do test breeding for it and breed to affecteds to see if thier dog is a carrier. So many clear puppies statistically clears the dog since it is a simple recessive gene. Those puppies are sold to nice pet homes. They are not killed. They carry the gene but are not affected. Why would you kill those puppies? They are perfectly healthy.
> ...


If you want to talk attitude, then look to yourself. You've been sitting on a burr ever since you started responding to me, and it's not just me, you've been rude to others as well. So stop sounding like you're being victimized. Do I think you're stupid? No, but I do think that you are so rigid that you won't even consider any information that would interfere with your preconceived ideas, most of which seem to be the same paranoid garbage that's spouted by the NAIA-phytes. When you ignore information from people in the animal welfare world, and label anyone AR who wants to improve things for the animals, then it's obvious that your mind is closed. Funny thing is, I've agreed with you on certain things, but I doubt you've even noticed. Your agenda is obvious - protect breeders at all costs, even if it means throwing logic and truth out the window. Where we differ most, I think, is that you seem to think breeders are suffering more than the animals - and that's just a really warped way of looking at the whole issue, IMO.

Now I'm not sure where you think I've indicated any stupidity on your part, but I find it hard to understand how you can keep saying that breeders aren't culling by killing when I've shown websites that talk about doing that exact thing. When show breeders sit in discussion about the best way to kill puppies, do you really think I should ignore that in lieu of denials of some guy on the internet that refuses to consider anything that might put breeders in a bad light? Common sense disproves your denials. You say you sell/place affected puppies. If it's just a matter of a recessive gene that's not affecting the life of the dog, and the dog is altered, that's not a problem - chances are no one will know, but when it comes to something like blind puppies, who could live a good life if anyone wanted to give them a home, then you have another problem. I too have had blind dogs - blind rescue dogs. One of my blind dogs developed luxated lens at the age of 8, and she was rescued directly from a breeder when she was a puppy. Others were shelter dogs. Coping with a dog's blindness takes work and patience, but to me the dogs are worth it. But how many people are going to go to a "responsible breeder" looking to rescue a blind puppy? How many want to buy a deaf puppy when there are lots of hearing puppies available? And from the breeders end of it, considering responsible breeders want to keep their reputation as responsible, how many of them are going to want people showing the world their blind/deaf puppies and saying they came from that breeder? Do you think that's a selling feature? "Oh gee, I want to get a puppy from HER, she produces handicapped dogs." They'll be lining up at her door. LOL

So you tell me, under what circumstances is it okay for a responsible breeder to cull, meaning kill, his/her puppies. And please don't post another line like you did above --- "And I guess you don't read because I said Cull doesn't equal Kill." --- and then blame me for rudeness and tone and thinking of you as stupid. I did read, and I did see you say that, and I know for a fact that it's not true. Cull does equal kill, among several other ways of removing a dog from the gene pool.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat 
If you are saying that the largest part of the problem is puppymillers, then how do you explain that the largest number of dogs in shelters are mixed breed? 

From SFury: Millers breed purebreed dogs as well as mutts. That fact cannot be denied.

You're right, but in this case, I'm not talking about designer breeds that are really just mixes, and I haven't heard of any puppymills producing shepherd/lab mixes or pit mixes. Nothing would surprise me though.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> You're right, culling doesn't "necessarily" mean a complete elimination of the animals, but some breeders do exactly that, and these are show breeders who are considered reputable/responsible. Some may feel they don't deserve that rating since they are culling, but the question remains - what is a breeder supposed to do with a dog that is unwanted? What to do with a whole litter that's unwanted? Keeping them is not always legally possible, and selling them isn't feasible. So to say that it's not done begs the question - what is the alternative?


I have a solution, but I doubt breeders would want to hear it. Who is most responsible for the quantity of puppies? Not a female dog, but a male dog. Female dogs can only have so many litters, but a male dog can produce thousands of puppies. So, IMO if you want to reduce the number of animals culled, you better be damn certain that male dog is a fine specimen, and that would mean not breeding that dog until he's well into adulthood, possibly waiting until he's 10 or 12 years old. That's how certain I think a breeder needs to be when producing animals. If they can't be certain, they can't be responsible.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I have a solution, but I doubt breeders would want to hear it. Who is most responsible for the quantity of puppies? Not a female dog, but a male dog. Female dogs can only have so many litters, but a male dog can produce thousands of puppies. So, IMO if you want to reduce the number of animals culled, you better be damn certain that male dog is a fine specimen, and that would mean not breeding that dog until he's well into adulthood, possibly waiting until he's 10 or 12 years old. That's how certain I think a breeder needs to be when producing animals. If they can't be certain, they can't be responsible.


Ok, but how does his age bring certainty? If you're saying that he can be watched and examined for 10 to 12 years to see if he'll show up with any health problems, that would be good, BUT it takes two. What if the female is the one who has the bad gene? I'll freely admit that I haven't even attempted to understand genetics. I only know results. I do think it's sad that young dogs are used to breed dogs before the breeding dogs are old enough to show the problems they are passing on. For instance, I mentioned in another post that one of my dogs went blind from luxated lens at the age of 8. We had no clue before that age that she would have a problem. It's hereditary. So if I had bred her, I would have passed it on to future generations. As it was, I'd had her and her brother altered at 5 months. And once we knew that she had this problem, we did yearly exams on him but he never developed it. Again, not knowing genetics, I wonder if he was carrying that gene, and if he would have passed it on to his offspring if I'd bred him, and of course we would have never known because he never showed any signs of it.

Of the many reasons why I will never be a breeder, that has to be one of the top ones - I couldn't stand the idea of producing dogs that would suffer because of my choices in breeding. My blind girl went through hell when it happened. She was screaming, and the ride to the vets was 1000 times longer than it had ever been before. I'll refrain from telling you what I was thinking about her breeder that night, for fear of getting tossed out of this forum.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Do you think I'm stupid? GEEZ.
> OF COURSE cleft palates need to be put down humanely. But then that is not part of the discussion because that is a birth defect, not genetic.
> 
> And I guess you don't read because I said Cull doesn't equal Kill. Some CAN be sold to pet homes. In my breed we have one disease called Congentical Cataracts. Some breeders do test breeding for it and breed to affecteds to see if thier dog is a carrier. So many clear puppies statistically clears the dog since it is a simple recessive gene. Those puppies are sold to nice pet homes. They are not killed. They carry the gene but are not affected. Why would you kill those puppies? They are perfectly healthy.
> ...


You are giving people lectures on how to relate to people, and how intelligent you are ( Gee, I am a legend in my own mind in case you didn't know  ) Give me a break. To say that there is no pet overpopulation problem , despite the thousands of dogs that are killed everyday in shelters, makes me think that you have some real problems with understanding pretty simple concepts. I am afraid many people reading your posts, have already figured out how " intelligent " you are. 

I have a question for you, since I am talking to such a self proclaimed "extremely intelligent" person. Why do people breed dogs and sell them to the public, where 6 out of 10 of these dogs will experience cancer during their lifetime? Mixed breeds don't have that problem. Of course there is no money to be made selling mixes, unless you give it a fancy name like "Blood Spaniel" or something.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> You are giving people lectures on how to relate to people, and how intelligent you are ( Gee, I am a legend in my own mind in case you didn't know  ) Give me a break. To say that there is no pet overpopulation problem , despite the thousands of dogs that are killed everyday in shelters, makes me think that you have some real problems with understanding pretty simple concepts. I am afraid many people reading your posts, have already figured out how " intelligent " you are.
> 
> I have a question for you, since I am talking to such a self proclaimed "extremely intelligent" person. Why do people breed dogs and sell them to the public, where 6 out of 10 of these dogs will experience cancer during their lifetime? Mixed breeds don't have that problem. Of course there is no money to be made selling mixes, unless you give it a fancy name like "Blood Spaniel" or something.


So you, the self proclaimed oh so intelligent person is saying that mutts don't get sick? Mixed breeds get all kinds of health problems including all kinds of cancers.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

So now the NAIA is evil and wrong? Sorry. They are intelligent, experienced and extremely knowledgeable in dog legislation. Patty Strand is the world expert on AR issues. Read her book. It's VERY eye opening.

Because you happen to buy the AR line does not mean that others are wrong. 

The ARs have a very well planned campaign to end all animal ownership. Where are you going to buy your dog from when there are no more dogs? No more breeders? you will say, oh the shelter. Well what if that person doesn't want a shelter dog? Too bad? That's pretty rigid. And what about when all those dogs are adopted? no one will be breeding dogs. 

This law is extremely badly written, vague and actually unconstitutional. 

The AR line is that ALL breeders are puppymills. Anytime anyone uses that term they kill one more dog actually imho. That is what the AR fanatics want, the end of dog breeding and the end of dog ownership. 

To the ARs ALL breeders are bad. ALL breeders are evil. anyone who thinks that because I breed my well bred litter and sell them responsibly will cause a shelter dog to die because it won't be adopted needs to think harder and see the faultiness in that logic. 

Anyone who uses the term 'overpopulation' also buys into the AR end of dog ownership and breeding. There is NO overpopulation. Shelters are big business. They import dogs because they dont have enough to sell. Many shelters import dogs from overseas that bring in diseases because they dont have enough in thier shelters. how is that overpopulation?

Those that blame the breeders for the owners actions do not see the true realistic picture. That simply is wrong.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Captbob said:


> You are giving people lectures on how to relate to people, and how intelligent you are ( Gee, I am a legend in my own mind in case you didn't know  ) Give me a break. To say that there is no pet overpopulation problem , despite the thousands of dogs that are killed everyday in shelters, makes me think that you have some real problems with understanding pretty simple concepts. I am afraid many people reading your posts, have already figured out how " intelligent " you are.
> 
> I have a question for you, since I am talking to such a self proclaimed "extremely intelligent" person. Why do people breed dogs and sell them to the public, where 6 out of 10 of these dogs will experience cancer during their lifetime? Mixed breeds don't have that problem. Of course there is no money to be made selling mixes, unless you give it a fancy name like "Blood Spaniel" or something.


IMO, and it's opinion only, it's extremely inaccurate to even attempt to come up with statistical information on health in dogs. For instance, if you contend that purebreds are less healthy than mixes, which purebreds are you talking about? The responsibly bred ones, or the puppymill variety? And of course we'd have to define responsibly bred - but dogs bred by people that are trying to eliminate health problems are likely to be healthier than dogs bred by people that are totally clueless about such things, or don't even care. On the other hand, mixed breeds, obviously bred by those that don't care because they're usually random bred (and I'm not talking designer breeds), are thought to be healthier because of supposed hybrid vigor (which some think is a myth) but who is it that's keeping those statistics? It's fairly easy to make generalizations about a single breed, but not so much when talking about all mixes. There's also the question of whether mixed breed owners are as likely to get health care for their dogs. Think of all those strays out there that latch onto someone's house and live under the porch and are tossed scraps, but never even see a vet. How likely is that to happen with purebreds? What are the statistics in regards to people's propensity to see a vet for a dog they've paid for (purebred) vs. one that was handed to them outside a supermarket (mixed)? And yes, I know that some of us would move heaven and earth to get good health care for our mixed breeds too. But exactly how many? Might it not be like pocket pets who rarely have owners that will pay hundreds of dollars to heal their $3 hamster? So how do you factor in the mixes that never even see a vet, but die unnoticed?

My oldest mixed breed was a labrador mix that lived to 17.5 when we had to have him euthanized. My oldest purebred died recently at the age of 20. If you really want to confuse the issue, that 20 year old was a former pet shop puppy. I absolutely unconditionally abhor puppy mills and pet shops that sell puppies, but how do I refrain from asking responsible breeders if they can guarantee that if I buy one of their dogs bred for health, it will last longer than my puppymill dog? It's all a crap shoot, IMO. And I even hate saying that. But that's why my philosophy is that it's more important to save lives and prevent suffering than it is to worry about who can best manipulate dog genes to come up with the healthiest specimens. Yes, if you're going to breed you must test. If my blind girl's parents had been tested, they would have hopefully not been bred.

Confusing, isn't it? Or is it just me that doesn't think it's as easy as people try to tell you it is?


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Captbob said:


> That is why it takes a lawyer to look over something and decide if their are problems with it or not. I am sure that the people that put this law together have thought of that.


The exact wording was written well. It appeases some people without changing the intent of anything. Cunning and well done IMHO. A lawyer was smiling when he wrote that piece of language up.

I wouldn't even have to consult my Union's legal rep to know that language was written as a smoke and mirrors appeasement to fool myself and the members I represent.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> IMO, and it's opinion only, it's extremely inaccurate to even attempt to come up with statistical information on health in dogs.  For instance, if you contend that purebreds are less healthy than mixes, which purebreds are you talking about? The responsibly bred ones, or the puppymill variety? And of course we'd have to define responsibly bred - but dogs bred by people that are trying to eliminate health problems are likely to be healthier than dogs bred by people that are totally clueless about such things, or don't even care. On the other hand, mixed breeds, obviously bred by those that don't care because they're usually random bred (and I'm not talking designer breeds), are thought to be healthier because of supposed hybrid vigor (which some think is a myth) but who is it that's keeping those statistics? It's fairly easy to make generalizations about a single breed, but not so much when talking about all mixes. There's also the question of whether mixed breed owners are as likely to get health care for their dogs. Think of all those strays out there that latch onto someone's house and live under the porch and are tossed scraps, but never even see a vet. How likely is that to happen with purebreds? What are the statistics in regards to people's propensity to see a vet for a dog they've paid for (purebred) vs. one that was handed to them outside a supermarket (mixed)? And yes, I know that some of us would move heaven and earth to get good health care for our mixed breeds too. But exactly how many? Might it not be like pocket pets who rarely have owners that will pay hundreds of dollars to heal their $3 hamster? So how do you factor in the mixes that never even see a vet, but die unnoticed?
> 
> My oldest mixed breed was a labrador mix that lived to 17.5 when we had to have him euthanized. My oldest purebred died recently at the age of 20. If you really want to confuse the issue, that 20 year old was a former pet shop puppy. I absolutely unconditionally abhor puppy mills and pet shops that sell puppies, but how do I refrain from asking responsible breeders if they can guarantee that if I buy one of their dogs bred for health, it will last longer than my puppymill dog? It's all a crap shoot, IMO. And I even hate saying that. But that's why my philosophy is that it's more important to save lives and prevent suffering than it is to worry about who can best manipulate dog genes to come up with the healthiest specimens. Yes, if you're going to breed you must test. If my blind girl's parents had been tested, they would have hopefully not been bred.
> 
> Confusing, isn't it? Or is it just me that doesn't think it's as easy as people try to tell you it is?


I have a book called the Original Dog Bible. I also get a monthly magazine "Dog Fancy". When either one talks about Pedigree dogs, they always have a list of common diseases that that particular breed is prone to. They evrn recommend that the prospective buyer of a purbred, inquire about the health of the parents and ask of the parents have they been screened for those common breed problems and to show documentation that this has been done. If in breeding wasn't a problem, in any species including man, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. *The Breed with the 60% Cancer rate is the Golden Retriever* and this is well documented from data collected from Vets, Vet clinics, and Vet Schools.

Listing a couple of examples of what your personal experience was with a couple of dogs, has nothing at all to do with research on hereditary health issues. They are nice anecdotal stories but are not usefull at all for predicting health problems in certain breeds.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> I have intelligently and realistically looked into breeding decisions, genetic testing, what to do with those puppies,etc. I am a serious breeder, on the board of my national breed club. I am quite well aware of the realities of what serious breeders do. So dont talk to me like I'm stupid. you are just repeating unsubstantiated rumors. I know reality. *NO ONE kills puppies in my breed , that is serious breeders, unless they have birth defects. * yes in some breeds they have some hard decisions to make such as the collie example but even then they might be able to find a home. I have a blind dog at home. She is fine. Blind yes, lives a fine life. Is she in my breeding program, of course not.


Exactly, and don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I know breeders I agree with and breeders I don't. I've been active around the show scene and dealing with breeders for years. NONE of them cull like you keep alluding to. Even the people I disagree with and I don't agree with their breeding practises, adopt out pups to homes that do not make the cut. I know who has produced dogs with patellar problems. The second my Harry passed all the people with lines even remotely near his new about his condition, which probably wasn't even genetic. We'll never know. Our main conditions in our breed are PRA and patellar luxation- both of which usually show later in life. 

No, breeding is not easy. I know of many people who lose entire litters and a few lost dams. I can tell you all about those, but I can't tell you about culling pups. It doesn't happen in the breed by anyone I call responsible, or even anyone I know of that I don't. The only other breed I have experience with is shelties, so I can't tell you about others. 

How many show breeders have you been around/worked with? There are a lot of lies about the show people, especially by PETA and the other AR groups. I've debated on this forum many times about the 'cruelties' involved in showing. Most people discussing showing like this and show breeders have no idea what goes on.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

SFury said:


> The exact wording was written well. It appeases some people without changing the intent of anything. Cunning and well done IMHO. A lawyer was smiling when he wrote that piece of language up.
> 
> I wouldn't even have to consult my Union's legal rep to know that language was written as a smoke and mirrors appeasement to fool myself and the members I represent.



I was a Union Official at one time, in Miami for almost 8 years. I think that qualifies me to pass judegement on a proposed law as much as it would to fly the Space Shuttle to a landing in a Thunder Storm. ( I am also a Private Pilot) I did stay at a Holiday Inn, however.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Anyone who uses the term 'overpopulation' also buys into the AR end of dog ownership and breeding. There is NO overpopulation. Shelters are big business. They import dogs because they dont have enough to sell. Many shelters import dogs from overseas that bring in diseases because they dont have enough in thier shelters. how is that overpopulation?
> 
> .


You, Sir, have some really serious issues that you must be dealing with.  I have read some whacky stuff on the Internet, but some of your statements really take the Grand Prize......


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> I have a book called the Original Dog Bible. I also get a monthly magazine "Dog Fancy". When either one talks about Pedigree dogs, they always have a list of common diseases that that particular breed is prone to. They evrn recommend that the prospective buyer of a purbred, inquire about the health of the parents and ask of the parents have they been screened for those common breed problems and to show documentation that this has been done. If in breeding wasn't a problem, in any species including man, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. *The Breed with the 60% Cancer rate is the Golden Retriever* and this is well documented from data collected from Vets, Vet clinics, and Vet Schools.
> 
> Listing a couple of examples of what your personal experience was with a couple of dogs, has nothing at all to do with research on hereditary health issues. They are nice anecdotal stories but are not usefull at all for predicting health problems in certain breeds.


So if it's the Bible, it must be right? Sorry, I couldn't resist.

The truth of the matter is, with any dog- mixed or pure, you can get genetic issues. Mixies are not magically genetically perfect. They happen to both. The reason purebred breeders health screen is to take all precautions possible to ensure that the pups are healthy. Mixie breeders rarely ever do that. The purebred dogs are also usually a lot more documented. 

Maybe if you had a bunch dogs living in the wild on an island, the etremely mixed gene pool would be more healthy, but dogs are manipulated by man so much that a cross here and there doesn't matter unless it's well planned out. I could go through hybrid vigor and the way the term is misused when dealing with domestic animals again, but no one seems to listen. Hybrid vigor exists, yes. Hybrid vigor when dealing with domestic animals does not. The term refers to usually ONE gene where the hybrid (heterozyogous) individual has the advantage. If a person carries sickle cell, but does not have it, then they cannot get malaria, for example. The homozygous individuals are at a disadvantage because they either have sickle cell or can get malaria. There is also a term called hybrid depression, which you rarely hear about when discussing mixed dogs. Hybrid vigor applies when the hybrid is MORE successful. Depression applies when the cross is not more successful than the homozygous individual. So there you have it in a nutshell.

Here's another anecdote, that doesn't prove anything according to you. My first dog was from an oops litter- GSD x golden. He had some of the worst HD. He had two hip surgeries and had to be put down at 12 because he just couldn't walk anymore. Genetic issues are present in mutts as well as purebreds. 

Also, purebreds have lists of diseases they are prone to because they are prone to them. Mutts don't have a list because they can be mixed with anything and therefore prone or not prone to any of them. The lists are there not to say that a dog of this breed WILL have problems, but that those are the problems most likely to be found within a breed. Out of all the papillons I know which is hundreds, I only know one with a genetic issue- luxating patellas. I don't know any with PRA, though that's one of the issues found in the breed.

EDIT: Inbreeding and linebreeding is only as bad as who is breeding the dogs. You can't make a trait appear magically by inbreeding. All inbreeding does is focuses tighter on what you have in your lines. It also keeps defects you DON'T have in your line out for sure. IF there is something wrong and you linebreed, you can cause that to be more common in your line. If there is NOTHING wrong, then you will keep that out of your line.

Would it be a good time to mention the fact I'm a genetics major?

EDIT 2: Wow, I somehow screwed up my first paragraph, I think I fixed it.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> So now the NAIA is evil and wrong? Sorry. They are intelligent, experienced and extremely knowledgeable in dog legislation. Patty Strand is the world expert on AR issues. Read her book. It's VERY eye opening.


LOL, you took the bait. I thought your posts had the ring of NAIA rhetoric. The only thing about dog legislation that they are knowledgeable about is how to lie to the public in order to squash potential laws. NAIA was founded by Bobby Berosini (the famous orangutan beater) and his wife for the sole purpose of preventing any legislation that would prevent people from using animals any way they saw fit, even to the point of fighting legislation to prevent every John Q Public from having pet exotics like lions and tigers in their homes. And apparently you've bought into their paranoia about AR, which reminds me a lot of the 50s when so many people were afraid that there was a communist hiding under every bed, ready to take over the world. Sure, it's eye opening, and very easy to see through. 



saveourdogs said:


> Because you happen to buy the AR line does not mean that others are wrong.


And because you buy the anti-AR line doesn't mean that everyone that disagrees with you is AR. Most of the people working on getting AB1634 passed are AW - animal welfare activists. They're not talking about rights, they're talking about the end of suffering. But because you fear that you will lose some right you think you have, you assume that it must be AR motivated. There's that ugly paranoia again.



saveourdogs said:


> The ARs have a very well planned campaign to end all animal ownership. Where are you going to buy your dog from when there are no more dogs? No more breeders? you will say, oh the shelter. Well what if that person doesn't want a shelter dog? Too bad? That's pretty rigid. And what about when all those dogs are adopted? no one will be breeding dogs.


Utter nonsense. The modern AR movement has been in existence since the early 80s. Is this "well planned campaign" making it difficult for you to get a dog? I can go out and be back here with a new dog in about 20 minutes. That "campaign" isn't very effective, is it? The funny thing is that you (and others) talk out of two sides of your mouth - one side says there will be no more dogs, and the other side says that the law won't work because it's not enforceable. You really can't have it both ways, you know. It makes your argument laughable.



saveourdogs said:


> This law is extremely badly written, vague and actually unconstitutional.


Then come up with a better one. Why don't you, your fellow breeders, and your good pals at NAIA come up with a law that will promote responsible breeding and stop irresponsible people from making puppies and kittens so prevalent that the excess have to be killed? And the term responsible breeding should include placing puppies in homes that will be responsible for them for a lifetime, because no matter how much you want to pass the buck and blame it all on the irresponsible owners, it was breeders that chose those irresponsible owners for their dogs. It's breeders that have the control of what will happen to their dogs, but too few breeders give a darn because the dollar signs cloud their eyes.



saveourdogs said:


> The AR line is that ALL breeders are puppymills. Anytime anyone uses that term they kill one more dog actually imho. That is what the AR fanatics want, the end of dog breeding and the end of dog ownership.


Do you even have a clue that your own label or description "responsible breeder" is damaged when you spout this rhetoric? What kind of a responsible breeder supports commercial kennels? I will grant you that some people consider all commercial kennels to be puppymills. There's good reason for that - commercial kennels MILL puppies. A mill is a business that grinds out a product, trying to produce as much of it as possible. The common labels for breeders are "responsible breeder, backyard breeder (BYB), commercial kennels, and puppymills" if you believe a puppymill to be the worst of the commercial kennels. But anyway you look at it, a commercial kennel can't possibly provide what a responsible breeder does. Their purpose is to make money, not preserve and improve the breed(s). They cut corners wherever they can in order to increase profit, and the dogs suffer for it, and so do their potential owners. It's not possible to properly socialize puppies in a commercial kennel so they are as prepared to live with a family like a responsibly bred dog would. And the fact that you are trying to improve their image is unbelievably irresponsible. What does that say about your own program? If you think they're okay, what are you doing?



saveourdogs said:


> To the ARs ALL breeders are bad. ALL breeders are evil. anyone who thinks that because I breed my well bred litter and sell them responsibly will cause a shelter dog to die because it won't be adopted needs to think harder and see the faultiness in that logic.


No, the logic is that when I run out today and get that dog in 20 minutes, I can turn right or left. If I turn right, I go to the pound and save a dog from dying. If I turn left, I go to a responsible breeder and buy a dog. If I go for the pound dog, the responsibly bred dog will still be safe, and maybe will convince the breeder that there isn't much demand for his breed, and therefore make him think twice before breeding the next time. If I go for the responsibly bred dog, the pound dog will die. Simple as that. I'll turn right every time.



saveourdogs said:


> Anyone who uses the term 'overpopulation' also buys into the AR end of dog ownership and breeding. There is NO overpopulation. Shelters are big business. They import dogs because they dont have enough to sell. Many shelters import dogs from overseas that bring in diseases because they dont have enough in thier shelters. how is that overpopulation?


You are so pathetically misinformed. Maybe if you spent time with rescue or in a shelter instead of reading Patty's book, you could see more clearly. Shelters are NOT big business. Municipal shelters exist on tax dollars and they barely scrape by, and suffer when there are government cutbacks. Last summer the call went out to rescue that the fan system in one of the Los Angeles shelters had gone out, and the temperature was well over 100 degrees. There was no dipping into fat bank accounts for this - rescue scrambled and brought in fans to keep the dogs and cats from dying in the heat. 

As for importing, I have a problem with this too, albeit for a different reason. The shelters that import, IMO, are no different than the breeders who take homes away from shelter dogs. Most of the shelters that import are bringing in puppies or highly adoptable animals (small fluffs) while their BBDs go homeless. I would rather see more energy put into convincing the public that those BBDs (for example) are more in need of homes than the incoming pups. I'd rather see some kind of education that could convince people that society owes those dogs a home, instead of promoting the selfishness of only buying/adopting the most desirable. 

As for dogs coming from other country's, which I'm assuming you're talking about the SATO dogs, this is different. I fully understand the philosophy of rescuing/adopting the dogs that are most in need. That is an unselfish act, IMO. And though there are dogs dying by lethal injection in this country for lack of homes, there are dogs being beaten to death or starved, or worse, in other countries for lack of homes. In order to prevent the most suffering, some people prefer to save the animals that suffer the most. Whether someone saves those kinds of dogs, or the BBDs here, I think either deserves our thanks and encouragement.



saveourdogs said:


> Those that blame the breeders for the owners actions do not see the true realistic picture. That simply is wrong.


This just boggles my mind that you are still not getting it. Let me try another way. If a breeder knowingly places a dog with a person that is incapable of taking care of the dog, are you really going to say the breeder can't be blamed if the dog suffers because of it? Do you really care that little about what you breed that you separate yourself from that puppy when it leaves your hands? That's not responsible breeding, you know. But it is quite common. Don't you realize that you're judged by your pups? Whether it be health issues or the type of care a dog gets in it's home, what kind of promotion for responsible breeding is it if people can point at an unhealthy or neglected dog and say "that dog comes from a responsible breeder." That's just not going to happen. Instead, they will assume that the breeder is not responsible. It's the same way with rescue. If a rescue dog is being neglected, the rescue community automatically looks to the rescue group/volunteer that placed him and questions their methods, and what could have possibly caused them to put the dog into such a substandard home. Yes, obviously the owner deserves part of the blame, but it was the rescue (or breeder) that chose that home. If you choose badly, the dog will suffer. And though mistakes can happen, and people can be misjudged, IMO it's an excellent lesson that should lead to being more careful the next time. But, if the breeder or rescue puts all the blame on the owner, then nothing is learned and the breeder/rescue will do the same thing again and again. I ask no more from breeders than I ask of myself. Be responsible for what you breed (or rescue).


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Captbob said:


> I have a book called the Original Dog Bible. I also get a monthly magazine "Dog Fancy". When either one talks about Pedigree dogs, they always have a list of common diseases that that particular breed is prone to. They evrn recommend that the prospective buyer of a purbred, inquire about the health of the parents and ask of the parents have they been screened for those common breed problems and to show documentation that this has been done. If in breeding wasn't a problem, in any species including man, we wouldn't be talking about this issue. *The Breed with the 60% Cancer rate is the Golden Retriever* and this is well documented from data collected from Vets, Vet clinics, and Vet Schools.
> 
> Listing a couple of examples of what your personal experience was with a couple of dogs, has nothing at all to do with research on hereditary health issues. They are nice anecdotal stories but are not usefull at all for predicting health problems in certain breeds.


You're absolutely right CaptBob, but my point was that those kinds of documented statistical data isn't gathered on mixed breeds, mainly because it just covers too many dogs and types of dogs. But it also still begs the question as to whether those Golden Retrievers came from responsible breeders trying to breed the healthiest dogs, or puppymills that don't care. Since only an estimated 10% (AKC statistics) of breeders are responsible, that means 90% of the breeders out there are not breeding for improvement of health. But then odds are that no-one is breeding mixed breeds with a goal of improving their health.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> How many show breeders have you been around/worked with? There are a lot of lies about the show people, especially by PETA and the other AR groups. I've debated on this forum many times about the 'cruelties' involved in showing. Most people discussing showing like this and show breeders have no idea what goes on.


Because of the content of the rest of the post, I'm going to assume this was addressed to me. My information comes directly from show breeders who were taking part in an OFA event at my vets. The clinic was shut down so that breeders could have all the appointments and get their dogs x-rays. This was a discussion they were having. I was unfamiliar with the concept of culling, and so the discussion prompted me to look into it a little further. That's when I found that it is more prevalent in some breeds - like the ones whose websites I posted, and though controversial, it is accepted by breeders that are adamantly trying to protect their breed.

This has nothing to do with AR, and frankly I get a little tired of that accusation. I'm sorry if you can't accept what goes on in the breeding world. Your inability to accept it doesn't mean that it should be ignored.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Because of the content of the rest of the post, I'm going to assume this was addressed to me. My information comes directly from show breeders who were taking part in an OFA event at my vets. The clinic was shut down so that breeders could have all the appointments and get their dogs x-rays. This was a discussion they were having. I was unfamiliar with the concept of culling, and so the discussion prompted me to look into it a little further. That's when I found that it is more prevalent in some breeds - like the ones whose websites I posted, and though controversial, it is accepted by breeders that are adamantly trying to protect their breed.
> 
> This has nothing to do with AR, and frankly I get a little tired of that accusation. I'm sorry if you can't accept what goes on in the breeding world. Your inability to accept it doesn't mean that it should be ignored.


Well, I can assure you in the breed that I deal with it does not happen and would not be deemed acceptable by anyone remotely considered reputable. I cannot speak for other breeds or condone what they do. You unfortunately missed out on one very ridiculous anti-show argument here. Ther are many lies that DO circulate around about show owners and show breeders that ARE started by AR activists. I've been around enough breeders, exhibitors and handlers to sort out what the majority of people are like based on my own experience.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

For those who think that breeder should be held responsible for the actions of the dog owner, would you hold liable the gun seller or manufacturer when the gun is used in a crime or murder? Same thing. There is a very high profile local case in my area, where a high powered attorney sued the gun manufacturer for negligence when a gun they manufactured was used in a murder. The case failed. The manufacturer was not held liable. Why should breeders be different? They shouldn't be.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Well, I can assure you in the breed that I deal with it does not happen and would not be deemed acceptable by anyone remotely considered reputable. I cannot speak for other breeds or condone what they do. You unfortunately missed out on one very ridiculous anti-show argument here. Ther are many lies that DO circulate around about show owners and show breeders that ARE started by AR activists. I've been around enough breeders, exhibitors and handlers to sort out what the majority of people are like based on my own experience.


What I am starting to see very clearly in this thread is that breeders will say almost anything in order to stop any legislation that they perceive will hurt their business or their pocket book. It took me awhile for this to sink in, but I see the same mantra over and over again from all the breeder folks, slamming animal rights groups, shelters, Humane Societies, anyone that takes an interest in stopping the suffering that pet overpopulation causes, accusing them of almost anything short of child molesting and they probably would do that too if they thought they could get away with it. Why do they do this, so their bottom line won't be affected. I always thought it was great when people adopted dogs, but now I am really convinced that buying a dog from a breeder just contributes to the problem we already have , and the breeders don't seem to give a hoot about that. Just my opinion......


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> What I am starting to see very clearly in this thread is that breeders will say almost anything in order to stop any legislation that they perceive will hurt their business or their pocket book. It took me awhile, but I see the same mantra over and over again from the breeder folks, slamming animal rights groups, shelters, Humane Societies, anyone that takes an interest in stopping the suffering that pet overpopulation causes> Why, so their bottom line won't be affected. I always thought it was great when people adopted dogs, but now I am really convinced that buying a dog from a breeder just contributes to the problem, and the breeders don't seem to give a hoot about that. Just my opinion......


Perhaps you should meet some of these people so YOU could form opinions based on real life and not forum banter. I'm not a breeder anyways. All I can say is what I know from the people I know and my own experiences.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Ok, but how does his age bring certainty? If you're saying that he can be watched and examined for 10 to 12 years to see if he'll show up with any health problems, that would be good, BUT it takes two. What if the female is the one who has the bad gene?


With age, yes, you are making certain the male dog is the absolute best dog possible. And yes, it does take two, however, ovaries are not as damaging to a gene pool as testicles. A Westminster champion can produce more puppies in an afternoon than any female dog could in their life time.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> Well, I can assure you in the breed that I deal with it does not happen and would not be deemed acceptable by anyone remotely considered reputable. I cannot speak for other breeds or condone what they do. You unfortunately missed out on one very ridiculous anti-show argument here. Ther are many lies that DO circulate around about show owners and show breeders that ARE started by AR activists. I've been around enough breeders, exhibitors and handlers to sort out what the majority of people are like based on my own experience.


And yet you base your opinion on your own breed, but claim that my information is wrong???? As for lies, from what I've seen it comes from both sides. There are just as many lies about AR activists, including labeling rescuers as activists just because they don't buy into the breeder rhetoric that attempts to make everyone think breeders should be untouchable and shouldn't be required to meet any kind of breeding standard. It's a mystery to me why responsible breeders continue to support irresponsible breeders by fighting laws to make them more responsible. It's ruining the breeds, the dogs they profess to care about.

Do you realize that if all breeders were responsible, there would be far less dogs than this kind of bill will ever cause? Since responsible breeders breed to preserve and improve the breed, and not to meet a demand, then they are self-limiting. I personally think that's a good thing, but by limiting what you breed, and by carefully screening potential buyers, the result is that those you turn away will go to pet shops/puppymills and BYBs focused on $$$$. Wouldn't it make more sense to require those disreputable breeders to be more like you than to enable them to fill unqualified homes with as many dogs as they can possibly breed and sell?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> For those who think that breeder should be held responsible for the actions of the dog owner, would you hold liable the gun seller or manufacturer when the gun is used in a crime or murder? Same thing. There is a very high profile local case in my area, where a high powered attorney sued the gun manufacturer for negligence when a gun they manufactured was used in a murder. The case failed. The manufacturer was not held liable. Why should breeders be different? They shouldn't be.


Had you noticed that dogs are not inanimate objects? Do you think the gun cares if it's mistreated? Do you think the gun can produce more guns? Are the guns being killed by the thousands in California? Do the guns bleed? Do the guns cry? Do the guns suffer from hereditary health problems? 

It's disturbing that you apparently feel you are producing an "object" that you have no responsibility for once it leaves your hands. Sounds like the ethic of a puppymiller. They don't even care enough to screen. But then what the heck, why should they care what happens to the dog after it's sold. It's easier to pass the buck, like you support doing.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> This law is extremely badly written, vague and actually unconstitutional.


If you feel that is so then may I suggest rather than complain it maybe better that you actually do something about it such as offer ideas for ammendments to the 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

Also I can just imagine seeing news headlines mentioning *"saveourdogs says AB1634 is unconstitutional"*. so saveourdogs consider going to the media and I feel that the California Assembly would be very interested in what you have to say.
.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Quincy said:


> If you feel that is so then may I suggest rather than complain it maybe better that you actually do something about it such as offer ideas for ammendments to the 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
> ...


The bill does not needed to be amended or tweaked. it needs to be stopped in it's tracks full force. NO COMPROMISE. Next step is outlawing breeding all together. Sorry you can't see that. In the eyes of the law, dogs ARE property/inanimate objects. Sorry if your sensibilities can't handle that. But that is the way it is. The law can't discriminate. Allowing some breeding licenses and not others is restraint of trait and against more than one of the Bill of Rights. 

It is all or nothing. All breeders or no breeders. 

There are enough laws on the books already to stop people that are keeping thier dogs in bad conditions. Try actually enforcing them. There are leash laws. Try enforcing them. That will stop idiots from letting their intact bitches from getting pregnant. 

But no, all breeders are automatically bad and should be regulated because of someone else's responsibility. once that money exchanges hands, it is the OWNER'S responsibility. The breeder has NO control after the money exchanges hands. Am I careful when I interview a prospective buyer? yes, does that guarantee anything? No. Am I legally responsible? No. Just like the courts determined that the gun manufacturers are not responsible, neither are breeders. 

This law is not necessary, makes no sense, is unconstitutional, and will increase dogs in shelters, not decrease them.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Captbob said:


> I was a Union Official at one time, in Miami for almost 8 years. I think that qualifies me to pass judegement on a proposed law as much as it would to fly the Space Shuttle to a landing in a Thunder Storm. ( I am also a Private Pilot) I did stay at a Holiday Inn, however.


I am active with the Allied Federation of Teachers that represents many different labor groups. I am part of the political organization within AFT and have dealt with a fair amount of proposed legislation on labor related issues, as well as contract negotiations.

If you did similar work then you should know that subjective language as proposed only benefits the side that proposed it. Laws should not have such subjectivity built into them. That either leads to a strict interpretation, or an abused interpration that will be inconsistent, and then will get removed, or redefined in a more strict manner, because of the inconsistency.

I am not an expert in writing good language, but I have learned the hard way about bad language. We have a legal represantives to write either contract language, or to help write up proposed laws in a manner that has no loopholes, and will benefit our side of the issue.

Edit: Grabbed the wrong quote. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

SFury said:


> I am active with the Allied Federation of Teachers that represents many different labor groups. I am part of the political organization within AFT and have dealt with a fair amount of proposed legislation on labor related issues, as well as contract negotiations.
> 
> If you did similar work then you should know that subjective language as proposed only benefits the side that proposed it. Laws should not have such subjectivity built into them. That either leads to a strict interpretation, or an abused interpration that will be inconsistent, and then will get removed, or redefined in a more strict manner, because of the inconsistency.
> 
> I am not an expert in writing good language, but I have learned the hard way about bad language. We have a legal represantives to write either contract language, or to help write up proposed laws in a manner that has no loopholes, and will benefit our side of the issue.


Why are you quoting something I said to someone else and responding to it as if I said it to you.....?


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The bill does not needed to be amended or tweaked. it needs to be stopped in it's tracks full force. NO COMPROMISE. Next step is outlawing breeding all together. Sorry you can't see that. In the eyes of the law, dogs ARE property/inanimate objects. Sorry if your sensibilities can't handle that. But that is the way it is. The law can't discriminate. Allowing some breeding licenses and not others is restraint of trait and against more than one of the Bill of Rights.
> 
> It is all or nothing. All breeders or no breeders.
> 
> ...


Despite all the writhing, and complaining and hyperventilating by some of the breeders worried about their bottom line, the law will pass with no problem...


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The bill does not needed to be amended or tweaked. it needs to be stopped in it's tracks full force. NO COMPROMISE. Next step is outlawing breeding all together. Sorry you can't see that. In the eyes of the law, dogs ARE property/inanimate objects. Sorry if your sensibilities can't handle that. But that is the way it is. The law can't discriminate. Allowing some breeding licenses and not others is restraint of trait and against more than one of the Bill of Rights.


I just have to ask - do you cry when one of your own dogs die? Do you cry when inanimate objects break? It's true that the law sees dogs as personal property that is owned, but how many other inanimate objects legally owned by people have laws protecting them against cruelty? Is your car required to have shelter? There are laws in most jurisdictions that a dog must have adequate shelter, food, and water. That is for the dog's health and comfort. Are there any such laws for cars? Can you have your car taken away, or can you be arrested for not providing adequate oil for your car's engine? 

And even more than that, can you be arrested for beating your car, and charged with cruelty? Have you noted how many people are receiving extended jail terms, even years, for cruelty to animals? How many laws do you know of that have cruelty provisions for inanimate objects? 



saveourdogs said:


> It is all or nothing. All breeders or no breeders.
> 
> There are enough laws on the books already to stop people that are keeping thier dogs in bad conditions. Try actually enforcing them. There are leash laws. Try enforcing them. That will stop idiots from letting their intact bitches from getting pregnant.


By what right do you call someone an idiot for letting their "intact bitch" get pregnant? It's okay for you, but not for them? What gives? You're not suggesting they are doing something wrong, are you?



saveourdogs said:


> But no, all breeders are automatically bad and should be regulated because of someone else's responsibility. once that money exchanges hands, it is the OWNER'S responsibility. The breeder has NO control after the money exchanges hands. Am I careful when I interview a prospective buyer? yes, does that guarantee anything? No. Am I legally responsible? No. Just like the courts determined that the gun manufacturers are not responsible, neither are breeders.


Ahhh, one of the true hallmarks of an irresponsible breeder - one that only cares about getting the money, and closing the door. To hell with the puppy. Not your problem. EVERY rescue I know shows more responsibility than you do with the dogs they place, and they weren't even the ones that produced the dogs. If a rescue finds that their policies are causing animals to lose their homes, they adjust their policies - they don't just pass the buck and blame it on those they placed with. We take responsibility for a lifetime, and act as the dog's safety net for a lifetime. Some rescues even have co-ownership contracts or consider the adoptive home to be a lifetime foster home, thereby insuring there is no question that the dog will always be protected by the rescue. Shouldn't breeders, who are the cause of the dog being here in the first place, be at least willing to be as responsible as rescue?

By the way, in thinking about your gun analogy, had you taken note how many jurisdictions require background checks? And if a gun shop doesn't follow those procedures and puts a gun in the hand of a person who has proven to be a risk, you're darn right the gun shop is at fault if the gun is used to kill and they will probably be prosecuted.



saveourdogs said:


> This law is not necessary, makes no sense, is unconstitutional, and will increase dogs in shelters, not decrease them.


Denying legal protection for dogs/cats in order to stop indiscriminate and irresponsible breeding accomplishes turning dogs into inanimate objects in euthanasia rooms all over the state. Spay/neuter stops the killing, and people need a law to let them know it's the right thing to do, and to discourage irresponsible breeding. There is no way to know what the final effect will be until we try it. If it increases puppymilling, then the puppymillers need to have further restrictions. IMO, responsible breeding also increases puppymilling because of all the people who want dogs and aren't qualified to get one from a responsible breeder. So either way, there may need to be some adjustments made to insure that the demand doesn't drive up the death rates. But what we have right now is unacceptable. If you don't like this law, then come up with a better one, but do it NOW. Waiting is not acceptable. Waiting just causes more death. Just think how many unnecessary deaths there have been while past proposed laws have been fought and killed. And for what? A hobby? For the love of dogs????? Unfreakingbelievable.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> Despite all the writhing, and complaining and hyperventilating by some of the breeders worried about their bottom line, the law will pass with no problem...


It will pass by its title alone, but not with much merit.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> It will pass by its title alone, but not with much merit.


It's a positive move towards solving a gigantic problem. As more and more communities see that it actually reduces the pet overpopulation problem, they will introduce their own laws and hone and refine their proposed laws. This is something should have been done years ago, and it's about time.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Captbob said:


> It's a positive move towards solving a gigantic problem.


This law is nothing more than an attempt to define breeding. It does nothing to help the gigantic problem you say it will. Yes, jurisdictions will be able to do their own, but this has been the current state, and we've seen how much success they've had, what makes you think this law will make them more successful? You say it's a positive move, but I don't think you could ever be critical of it for the benefit of dogs. It's hard for me to overlook the fact that there is no oversight and no regulatory agency that can or will enforce the laws or clarify the wording. 

Public policy should be made on complete and accurate data, not on emotion and misleading information. This thread is a perfect example of how misinformed both sides can be. 

California is a large and very diverse state. The resources of the larger, highly urban areas are not necessarily available to the more rural counties. It would be better to look closer at a particular county/city situations that may yield a better picture on what may be going on over time. We need to factor in local resources, animal control/shelter policies and changes, and the local demographics. Basically, if humane organizations want to help improve the conditions for dogs and cats over the long haul, work with the individual counties. 

With over 20% of the dogs being owner surrendered to the shelters, efforts should be made to address ways of increasing commitments to the animals for the life time. Many of the rural counties do not have the finances, personnel, or resources to implement programs. Making available grants for improving the shelters, many of which are old, help develop programs that are directed towards the counties demographics would be a much more effective use of time and money than this bill.

There is motive and there is intent. It's not clear to me what the motive is of this bill, but I do appreciate the intent. However, it doesn't earn my support because as a somewhat intelligent person, I need both motive and intent to be clearly defined. Excuse me if I don't take exception. Exceptions fail more times then not...at least in my experience.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Why are you quoting something I said to someone else and responding to it as if I said it to you.....?


Because I grabbed the wrong quote last night. Sorry for my mistake. I am only human after all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> California is a large and very diverse state. The resources of the larger, highly urban areas are not necessarily available to the more rural counties. It would be better to look closer at a particular county/city situations that may yield a better picture on what may be going on over time. We need to factor in local resources, animal control/shelter policies and changes, and the local demographics. Basically, if humane organizations want to help improve the conditions for dogs and cats over the long haul, work with the individual counties.


That's already being done, CP. Are you familiar with the plethora of humane organizations working with the various jurisdictions/counties? I really am interested in the logistics of how you think this would work. When you say "county" are you talking about she county shelter, or the county government? From what I've seen, county governments have so many plates they have to keep spinning, that their interest in animals is pretty well limited to control and prevention of public disturbance. Public education, spay/neuter campaigns, and adoption improvements at the shelter level are pretty much left up to animal group, both rescue and humane groups. That will never lead to stopping indiscriminate breeding by those who think they have a right to irresponsibly breed, and as long as they do so, humane efforts are going to get bogged down in just trying to prevent shelter deaths. It's all really a bandaid effect. The splinter is still there, but we continually try to keep fresh bandaids on it, and it will never heal this way.

So could you explain how this can be changed with out legislation?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> That's already being done, CP. Are you familiar with the plethora of humane organizations working with the various jurisdictions/counties? I really am interested in the logistics of how you think this would work. When you say "county" are you talking about she county shelter, or the county government? From what I've seen, county governments have so many plates they have to keep spinning, that their interest in animals is pretty well limited to control and prevention of public disturbance. Public education, spay/neuter campaigns, and adoption improvements at the shelter level are pretty much left up to animal group, both rescue and humane groups.


I believe I've mentioned the SFSPCA a few times, so yes I'm familiar with a humane organization working in conjunction with the city, and it being successful. Though I'm sure even their success can be twisted into something less than ideal. But my point was there's no regulatory agency overseeing animal shelters. Laws like this fail because there's no rule-making process in place to define the terminology.



> That will never lead to stopping indiscriminate breeding by those who think they have a right to irresponsibly breed, and as long as they do so, humane efforts are going to get bogged down in just trying to prevent shelter deaths. It's all really a bandaid effect. The splinter is still there, but we continually try to keep fresh bandaids on it, and it will never heal this way.
> 
> So could you explain how this can be changed with out legislation?


I don't know how it can't be changed without legislation, but that's not my point. We need to understand how this law will be implemented. Vague language as I've seen it has always been the most problematic issue when determining the success of a law. The state can madate a level of animal care but without defining it only leaves us a legal liability without an adequate standard.

I'd rather see a different approach, one that doesn't mandate individuals, but rather communities. I truly believe each community has a vast many reasons for their problems and I think each city needs to be mandated to define them and come up with a plan. A plan that each city can devise to specifically address its problems and focuses on its particular community dynamics. Give the cites a goal, say to reduce the number of adoptable animals euthanized in shelters each year, and each city would then be responsible for developing a plan that included not only the shelters, but the public, breeders, and the rest of the community. Projects based on community centered models have been very successful IMO, and with community collaboration and a united effort, so could be the pet overpopulation effort. This statewide approach just seems silly and futile to me. I seriously doubt the state can micro-manage this problem as well as each community can. Yes this lawa leaves it up to each jursidiction to follow it, yet there's no mandate to define the problems. Not good enough for me, and not good enough for the dogs that need a home in my community.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

After being down south for a couple days I can honestly say I'm more worried about the dogs with owners then the ones without. It seemed like everyone just let there dogs run where ever down there. I was driving around a corner and this dog was on the side of the road just hanging out and the owners on the other side of the road cleaning there yard didn't even blink an eye when I almost ran over their poor puppy who they carelessly left running around freely. On my way back the dog was chasing another puppy around practically in the middle of the road and still the owners didn't care. The nieghborhood I stayed in had dogs running around everywhere freely, unfixed, and getting stolen without a second thought. My friends next door neighbor raises heckled back pitpulls or something like that for fighting and went right out and told her so. Then her pitbull puppy misteriously went missing along with a few other dogs around the area. It was sickening. I've never seen anything like that in the area where I live in Jersey and honestly don't ever planning on moving to a place like that ever in this life time. UGH... it was just so heartless and sickening I an't even stand it. This makes me understand why I sometimes prefer animals over people.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> I believe I've mentioned the SFSPCA a few times, so yes I'm familiar with a humane organization working in conjunction with the city, and it being successful. Though I'm sure even their success can be twisted into something less than ideal. But my point was there's no regulatory agency overseeing animal shelters. Laws like this fail because there's no rule-making process in place to define the terminology. I don't know how it can't be changed without legislation, but that's not my point. We need to understand how this law will be implemented. Vague language as I've seen it has always been the most problematic issue when determining the success of a law. The state can madate a level of animal care but without defining it only leaves us a legal liability without an adequate standard.


I'm not sure I understand what terminology needs to be defined. It's basically "get a breeding license or alter your pet", is it not? If you are saying that it's too simplistic and needs to be spelled out more, isn't that just supplying ammunition to those who want no laws, by giving them more things to object to? One of the problems I've seen come up in breeder discussions about potential legislation is that they each want terminology to address their specific breeds. Even if each of the 150 (or so) AKC breeds, not to mention the approx. 500 total breeds, and the designer breeds, and the mixed breeds, specific issues were addressed, wouldn't that make the law so unwieldy that it would be practically indecipherable? And then what of the controversies inherent in breeding, where even two opposing responsible breeders can't agree on an issue? It seems like such a daunting task, and I just hate to see another bill rejected, which basically has the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.



saveourdogs said:


> I'd rather see a different approach, one that doesn't mandate individuals, but rather communities. I truly believe each community has a vast many reasons for their problems and I think each city needs to be mandated to define them and come up with a plan. A plan that each city can devise to specifically address its problems and focuses on its particular community dynamics. Give the cites a goal, say to reduce the number of adoptable animals euthanized in shelters each year, and each city would then be responsible for developing a plan that included not only the shelters, but the public, breeders, and the rest of the community. Projects based on community centered models have been very successful IMO, and with community collaboration and a united effort, so could be the pet overpopulation effort. This statewide approach just seems silly and futile to me. I seriously doubt the state can micro-manage this problem as well as each community can. Yes this lawa leaves it up to each jursidiction to follow it, yet there's no mandate to define the problems. Not good enough for me, and not good enough for the dogs that need a home in my community.


This is the type of discussion I was hoping could be had on that thread I started about meeting of the minds. I think you've got some good ideas here, but I also can see where it could be picked apart and condemned. For instance, the term "adoptable" has really caused some problems when dogs can easily be labeled unadoptable by raising the bar on what's considered adoptable. For instance, my dog play growls when I slowly reach for his toy. If a Sternberg method of evaluation was used on him, he'd probably be considered unadoptable, but he's the sweetest dog on earth. That's just one example and I could give many. Are you absolutely sure your own dog could pass stringent tests that are basically designed to eliminate the killing of adoptable dogs so that shelters can claim they are only killing unadoptable ones?

Also, where I am, cities and counties are not separated by uninhabitable space. That means that neighboring cities would develop divergent plans that could contradict each other. If City A decided to license and limit breeders, but City B felt that wasn't acceptable, what keeps breeders from setting up their breeding operations in City B and selling their dogs to people living in City A? There would be just as many dogs as before in City A to potentially end up in shelters. Which is why I think it's important to make this a statewide mandate - whatever the law would read. Also, even now there are counties that get dispensations on s/n of shelter animals before adoption if the county can prove it would be a hardship because it has a depressed economy. Wouldn't it be better if all counties had to follow the same rules, and were appropriately funded by user fees? Some counties rely heavily on volunteers, whether in the shelters, or as independent rescues. Some counties prefer not to deal with volunteers at all because it puts their policies and actions under scrutiny they would prefer not to have. This might be a situation that would fit better in your "separate counties" scenario, but I think that opens the door to the county without volunteers to come up with more creative "Sternberg" type ways of hiding what's really happening.

Please understand I'm not negating your ideas. I think they are worthy of discussion. But they need to be developed to work around these problems that already exist in many areas.

Also, isn't it reasonable to think that a state-wide mandate would be more likely to be more fair to the wide variety of it's constituents than county measures would be? A comparison might be crimes that get a slap on the wrist in one state, vs. multi-year sentences in other states. Or am I looking at that wrong?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> After being down south for a couple days I can honestly say I'm more worried about the dogs with owners then the ones without. It seemed like everyone just let there dogs run where ever down there. I was driving around a corner and this dog was on the side of the road just hanging out and the owners on the other side of the road cleaning there yard didn't even blink an eye when I almost ran over their poor puppy who they carelessly left running around freely. On my way back the dog was chasing another puppy around practically in the middle of the road and still the owners didn't care. The nieghborhood I stayed in had dogs running around everywhere freely, unfixed, and getting stolen without a second thought. My friends next door neighbor raises heckled back pitpulls or something like that for fighting and went right out and told her so. Then her pitbull puppy misteriously went missing along with a few other dogs around the area. It was sickening. I've never seen anything like that in the area where I live in Jersey and honestly don't ever planning on moving to a place like that ever in this life time. UGH... it was just so heartless and sickening I an't even stand it. This makes me understand why I sometimes prefer animals over people.


I think that's pretty common in some of the rural communities. That's one of the reasons I cringe when people say they just want to give up their dog to a farm someplace. Of course some rurals are just as careful about their pets as anyone, but there is a high number that see nothing wrong with giving their pets complete freedom, even if it means that it severely shortens their lifespan. Unfortunately, these also seem to be the types of areas where the shelters are most in need of reform. Some of them are nothing but drop boxes where the owners can drop the pets in like loads of trash. These shelters often do not allow adoptions at all. Many of them use gas chambers instead of lethal injection, which is a lot more cruel to the animals. Some of these gas chambers are so crude they are hooked up to the exhaust pipe of a car outside the shelter wall.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> It seems like such a daunting task, and I just hate to see another bill rejected, which basically has the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


And there is the difference...I wouldn't build my home out of a deck of cards. My city mandates that I follow the building code, and I pay for permits. Certainly there are people who can find loop holes or avoid the process, but if they are caught, they are severly fined. Why? The codes are defined. There are inspectors (city or hired) to oversee the construction of my home. Home building is a daunting task too, but it's well defined, unlike breeding, unlike provisions shelters are to follow, unlike what leads dogs to euthanasia. I'm looking for a bill with more front end work...it's not this bill.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> And there is the difference...I wouldn't build my home out of a deck of cards. My city mandates that I follow the building code, and I pay for permits. Certainly there are people who can find loop holes or avoid the process, but if they are caught, they are severly fined. Why? The codes are defined. There are inspectors (city or hired) to oversee the construction of my home. Home building is a daunting task too, but it's well defined, unlike breeding, unlike provisions shelters are to follow, unlike what leads dogs to euthanasia. I'm looking for a bill with more front end work...it's not this bill.


I can't help thinking that if the freeze was on, and the only way you could stay alive was to hole up in that house of cards, I think you'd be thankful for it. You might want to patch the cracks, maybe start building a brick fireplace within, but at least you'd be alive.

After 20+ years of metaphorically watching dogs die for lack of homes, and dealing with people every day that have dog problems that could have been prevented by responsible breeding, I'm losing hope. My patience is waning. My frustration level is nearly at it's peak. And watching people haggle over what seems like trivia while dogs continue to die, is almost more than I can bear.

Right now, I'd take the house of cards.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Home building is a daunting task too, but it's well defined, unlike breeding, unlike provisions shelters are to follow, unlike what leads dogs to euthanasia. I'm looking for a bill with more front end work...it's not this bill.


I've noticed in other countries where a few laws seemed to not address the problems quite as expected, over time this was noticed by many and where this later forced Cities and Counties to provide adequate law enforcement. I mentioned before about door knocking by Animal Management, in time I feel that Cities and Counties in America may have to employ more Animal Control Officers and start house to house door knock checks. Try knocking on some dog owners doors and I feel that soon you will see or hear most of the dogs that live there. There are so many people out there that do NOT comply to laws, and it's just a matter of time till when something is done about it, and such as what started happening in other countries and is gradually spreading.
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> I can't help thinking that if the freeze was on, and the only way you could stay alive was to hole up in that house of cards, I think you'd be thankful for it. You might want to patch the cracks, maybe start building a brick fireplace within, but at least you'd be alive.


Yes, but if I built my home out of cards and my family froze to death, I can be held liable for my decision. If there are no defined codes, I can only be held liable for being stupid. And that's purely a judgement call, and largely unenforceable.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

It's obvious that many, if not everyone, think that there should be no breeding of dogs unless it is done a responsable breeder. What everyone fails to agree on is the way it should be done. Rather then fighting about this bill and anything else you could all possibly work together to find the faults of the bill and then do your best to fix them. For those that are apposed to any laws being set about F/N because it takes away your right I really have nothing to say to you. Your obviously stuck in your ways and though I think there are better things to fight against to keep your rights I won't argue about it with you because it's a waist of time. I'ed really like to see a list of the good and bad about AB 1634. It be nice to see a chart with the pros and cons listed so everyone has the facts and just not opinions but everything on this thread is just mixed with arguments and insults and I really don't have time to go searching through it all to find what I need to actually make a valid opinion on the matter.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Quincy said:


> There are so many people out there that do NOT comply to laws, and it's just a matter of time till when something is done about it, and such as what started happening in other countries and is gradually spreading.


What is time? Time is money and resources. Is it really that strange of an idea to want the money and resources defined before applying a law? I see this as an aid in mandates, not as a deterent. Imagine if we found out something else would work better because we had certain problems ironed out before implementing a plan. I guess the theory really is, just give up, try something else, and hope for the best. That all sounds nice until it fails. And then we're back to square one, maybe looking for someone else to blame. Seems like backwards thinking to me...thinking that maybe I'm just not wired to do. There are reasons why people reinvent the wheel, and it's not to keep us from going to the moon.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

Quincy said:


> I've noticed in other countries where a few laws seemed to not address the problems quite as expected, over time this was noticed by many and where this later forced Cities and Counties to provide adequate law enforcement. I mentioned before about door knocking by Animal Management, in time I feel that Cities and Counties in America may have to employ more Animal Control Officers and start house to house door knock checks. Try knocking on some dog owners doors and I feel that soon you will see or hear most of the dogs that live there. There are so many people out there that do NOT comply to laws, and it's just a matter of time till when something is done about it, and such as what started happening in other countries and is gradually spreading.
> .


Have you ever heard of illegal search and seizure? If Animal control officers come knocking on my door they better have probable cause or a warrant or they won't get very far. A law like that in America would be opposed by more than just dog owners, first they can knock door to door to check your dogs and next they come door to door to take your guns. This idea is so unconstitutional I don't think a single lawmaker in America would be crazy enough to suggest it, not to mention if it ever did pass it wouldn't hold up in the courts at all.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> Yes, but if I built my home out of cards and my family froze to death, I can be held liable for my decision. If there are no defined codes, I can only be held liable for being stupid. And that's purely a judgement call, and largely unenforceable.


There are codes or laws such as pertaining to dog licenses, and which is well know by many, but most tend to ignore these codes or laws. Maybe sooner or later there might be knocks or doors by Animal Control Officers to remind most people about dog laws. On seeing so many who do NOT license their dogs, this appears to me that most dog owners in Americans do NOT like following laws.
.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> For those that are apposed to any laws being set about F/N because it takes away your right I really have nothing to say to you. Your obviously stuck in your ways and though I think there are better things to fight against to keep your rights I won't argue about it with you because it's a waist of time.


Read my signature sometime, it's the American way and I don't intend to give up my rights  Do I think this bill takes away my rights, I'm not sure yet. Do I think this bill will help to stop pet overpopulation, I think it might help some but I don't think it will come close to solving the problem unless other more serious issues are addressed. If this bill were to want my support here are a list of changes that I think might help,

1.) Ban the selling of dogs and cats in pet stores. If the government really cares about the welfare of these animals then they would not want the pet business "industrialized" like the animals which we eat often are. If pet stores want to offer cats and dogs then they can offer adoptable animals from the local shelters and then it kills two birds with one stone.

2.) If someone really wants to keep their pet unaltered for whatever reason the government really shouldn't have the right to tell them otherwise in my humble opinion. The government does however have the right to tax the hell out of something and having an unaltered pet could be a really good thing to tax.

3.) Require micro chipping as part of the shots. If the vets were required to micro chip every dog and cat when they got their shots then people would be far less likely to just abandon their pet because it could be tracked back to them.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

Quincy, that makes perfect sense, if Animal Control could knock on every door they could potentially collect some data that's useable, and pretend to be a front for education. Sounds great in theory, but it would never work in practice. Why? Because some towns would rather have pot holes filled so they can drive to work and preserve the life of their vehicle. Some towns just want a reliable and efficient bus service. And I'm sure there are some towns that want their shelters empty. But do we need the state to dictate what we should do when our communities are tending to other wants and desires? I say it's not the state's place to define this for every community, but I do think it's their place to ask communities to do more, but to let the community figure that out on their own. Maybe this does mean mandatory s/n in your community, but we don't know, we just don't know.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

ScareCrow said:


> Have you ever heard of illegal search and seizure? If Animal control officers come knocking on my door they better have probable cause or a warrant or they won't get very far. A law like that in America would be opposed by more than just dog owners, first they can knock door to door to check your dogs and next they come door to door to take your guns. This idea is so unconstitutional I don't think a single lawmaker in America would be crazy enough to suggest it, not to mention if it ever did pass it wouldn't hold up in the courts at all.


Now who mentioned anything about illegal search and seizure.

Animal Control Officers could conduct "house to house door knocks" in regards to mandatory dog licenses, this in a soft approach with a smile and pleasant nature, this has been proven to be quite effective in a number of places around the world.

Animal Control Officers could "door knock" 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.

Now have you ever knocked on several dog owners doors, it's rather interesting to see or hear how many dogs may live there just after you have knocked.
.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

ScareCrow said:


> 3.) Require micro chipping as part of the shots. If the vets were required to micro chip every dog and cat when they got their shots then people would be far less likely to just abandon their pet because it could be tracked back to them.


And now with the emergence of GPS microchipping what could be done to track surrendered dogs even if they were left as a stray. And imagine if you could contractually oblige pet owners for the life of a dog. You pay to own a dog, why not pay to give up the dog. I'm liking this idea more and more.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Scarecrow I agree with all those things. They should be out there doing more about petstores then anything else because that's were these backyard breeders are making there money. If there weren't pet stores they would be less likely to get their dogs sold to anyone. I think the bill needs a lot of work too. 
I would never give up my rights, but I'm not just going to fight for my rights but also others that don't have a the ability to fight for their rights like we do. Breeding a dog till it's death day to make some cash is taking away that dogs right to be a free, happy, and healthy animal and that's sad. That's what needs to be fought against not the right to do whatever you want with an animal just because you payed for it. I don't think it would be right for someone to be forced into jail or something like that for not getting a dog fixed but it would be great if they had to pay a pretty good fine for keeping that animal like that.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

ScareCrow said:


> 3.) Require micro chipping as part of the shots. If the vets were required to micro chip every dog and cat when they got their shots then people would be far less likely to just abandon their pet because it could be tracked back to them.


Some places elswhere have already made it law to microchip, such as seen in this old news article, and Animal Control Officers have been known to carry scanners when knocking on people's doors.

Herald Sun
9 Sep 2005
ID chips for pets
By Tanya Giles

MICROCHIPPING will be compulsory for Victoria's 840,000 pet dogs and cats under a government crackdown

Owners will have to microchip their dogs and cats from 2007, or face fines of up to $500.

Pet shops, breeders, pounds and animal shelters will have to microchip dogs and cats before selling them or be slugged with $1000 fines. 

The crackdown was hailed as the biggest change to animal welfare laws in 25 years. 

All cats and dogs being registered for the first time from May 2007 will have to be microchipped, under laws introduced in Parliament yesterday.

If not, local councils will bar them from being registered. Owners of unregistered pets can be hit with fines of up to $500. 

The legislation also enables councils to apply the new rules retrospectively to the 600,000 dogs and 240,000 cats registered in Victoria.

Exemptions for microchipping can be granted on the advice of a vet. 

It costs up to $50 to microchip a cat or dog at a veterinary clinic, but most councils have "microchipping days" where it costs about $20. 

Councils will also be given the power to require the compulsory desexing of all dogs and cats. 

Agriculture Minister Bob Cameron said microchipping was a permanent identification that helped councils track down owners if a pet was lost or impounded. 

About 40 per cent of Victorian households have a dog and 26 per cent have a cat. 

Mr Cameron said stray cats were a problem, with only half the cats in the state registered. 

RSPCA chief executive officer Maria Mercurio said compulsory microchipping would save many lost pets. 

Ms Mercurio said it was a requirement under law for animals to be destroyed if they are not claimed after 28 days. 

Lost Dogs' Home managing director Graeme Smith backed the changes. "This is the best piece of legislation I have seen in 25 years by any government," he said. 

Dr Smith said only one in five dogs and one in 100 cats were returned to their owners from the shelter because of problems with identification. 

He said compulsory microchipping would also deter owners from dumping their pets. 

"We will be able to track them down and they will have some explaining to do," he said. 

Under the Primary Industries Acts (Further Amendment) Bill, councils will also be able to require the compulsory desexing of all dogs and cats in their jurisdictions. 

There are three providers of microchips for dogs and cats in Victoria, all using different identification systems. 

From December 1, their databases will be linked. 

Councils offer cheaper registration fees for cats and dogs that have been microchipped or desexed
.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

ScareCrow said:


> Have you ever heard of illegal search and seizure? If Animal control officers come knocking on my door they better have probable cause or a warrant or they won't get very far. A law like that in America would be opposed by more than just dog owners, first they can knock door to door to check your dogs and next they come door to door to take your guns. This idea is so unconstitutional I don't think a single lawmaker in America would be crazy enough to suggest it, not to mention if it ever did pass it wouldn't hold up in the courts at all.


Oh, heaven forbid, they are after my AK47.......... Oh the pain, the pain.....


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

ScareCrow said:


> Read my signature sometime, it's the American way and I don't intend to give up my rights  Do I think this bill takes away my rights, I'm not sure yet. Do I think this bill will help to stop pet overpopulation, I think it might help some but I don't think it will come close to solving the problem unless other more serious issues are addressed. If this bill were to want my support here are a list of changes that I think might help,
> 
> 1.) Ban the selling of dogs and cats in pet stores. If the government really cares about the welfare of these animals then they would not want the pet business "industrialized" like the animals which we eat often are. If pet stores want to offer cats and dogs then they can offer adoptable animals from the local shelters and then it kills two birds with one stone.
> 
> ...


You made some really good points! I love number three and I also think vets should be required to check all the animals that come through if they have not seen them yet.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Scarecrow I agree with all those things. They should be out there doing more about petstores then anything else because that's were these backyard breeders are making there money. If there weren't pet stores they would be less likely to get their dogs sold to anyone. I think the bill needs a lot of work too.
> I would never give up my rights, but I'm not just going to fight for my rights but also others that don't have a the ability to fight for their rights like we do. Breeding a dog till it's death day to make some cash is taking away that dogs right to be a free, happy, and healthy animal and that's sad. That's what needs to be fought against not the right to do whatever you want with an animal just because you payed for it. I don't think it would be right for someone to be forced into jail or something like that for not getting a dog fixed but it would be great if they had to pay a pretty good fine for keeping that animal like that.


There are already animal cruelty laws on the books to cover that. a new law that will be ignored like the licensing laws is not necessary or needed and infringes on my rights.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> And now with the emergence of GPS microchipping what could be done to track surrendered dogs even if they were left as a stray. And imagine if you could contractually oblige pet owners for the life of a dog. You pay to own a dog, why not pay to give up the dog. I'm liking this idea more and more.


Sorry, GPS microchipping does not exist and will probably never exist. I can't explain it in laymans terms but it was explained to me. Basically, the laws of physics don't allow for it.



Quincy said:


> There are codes or laws such as pertaining to dog licenses, and which is well know by many, but most tend to ignore these codes or laws. Maybe sooner or later there might be knocks or doors by Animal Control Officers to remind most people about dog laws. On seeing so many who do NOT license their dogs, this appears to me that most dog owners in Americans do NOT like following laws.
> .


and that is illegal search and seizure protected by the Bill of Rights. I do not have to answer the door, let you in, nor answer any of your questions without a warrant and my lawyer present. That's according to the US Constitution.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> There are already animal cruelty laws on the books to cover that. a new law that will be ignored like the licensing laws is not necessary or needed and infringes on my rights.


I thought you didn't live in California.....


----------



## iwantmypup (Jan 6, 2007)

ScareCrow said:


> 3.) Require micro chipping as part of the shots. If the vets were required to micro chip every dog and cat when they got their shots then people would be far less likely to just abandon their pet because it could be tracked back to them.


I agree..but if these people are really mean...won't they just kill the dog?

-Alisza


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Quincy said:


> Now who mentioned anything about illegal search and seizure.
> 
> Animal Control Officers could conduct "house to house door knocks" in regards to mandatory dog licenses, this in a soft approach with a smile and pleasant nature, this has been proven to be quite effective in a number of places around the world.
> 
> ...


 
I certainly do not have to answer any of those questions unless there was a warrant.



iwantmypup said:


> I agree..but if these people are really mean...won't they just kill the dog?
> 
> -Alisza


or remove the microchip


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Curbside Prophet said:


> What is time? Time is money and resources. Is it really that strange of an idea to want the money and resources defined before applying a law? I see this as an aid in mandates, not as a deterent. Imagine if we found out something else would work better because we had certain problems ironed out before implementing a plan. I guess the theory really is, just give up, try something else, and hope for the best. That all sounds nice until it fails. And then we're back to square one, maybe looking for someone else to blame. Seems like backwards thinking to me...thinking that maybe I'm just not wired to do. There are reasons why people reinvent the wheel, and it's not to keep us from going to the moon.


Time is more than money and resources. Time is life and death as well when you consider that every 9 seconds an animal dies in this nations shelters. I sense that you don't feel the urgency that I feel. I understand that you want it to be done right the first time around but I just can't imagine not having to make adjustments along the way, which are apparently already being done as this bill is being fought over. In the meantime, the clock is ticking.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Originally Posted by Quincy 
I've noticed in other countries where a few laws seemed to not address the problems quite as expected, over time this was noticed by many and where this later forced Cities and Counties to provide adequate law enforcement. I mentioned before about door knocking by Animal Management, in time I feel that Cities and Counties in America may have to employ more Animal Control Officers and start house to house door knock checks. Try knocking on some dog owners doors and I feel that soon you will see or hear most of the dogs that live there. There are so many people out there that do NOT comply to laws, and it's just a matter of time till when something is done about it, and such as what started happening in other countries and is gradually spreading.




ScareCrow said:


> Have you ever heard of illegal search and seizure? If Animal control officers come knocking on my door they better have probable cause or a warrant or they won't get very far. A law like that in America would be opposed by more than just dog owners, first they can knock door to door to check your dogs and next they come door to door to take your guns. This idea is so unconstitutional I don't think a single lawmaker in America would be crazy enough to suggest it, not to mention if it ever did pass it wouldn't hold up in the courts at all.


Ummm, this is already being done here without a problem. Ventura County, for instance, periodically have campaigns where the animal control officers go door to door, knocking on doors, listening to dogs bark, and advising people that they need to license their dogs. If they don't comply, I believe they can be fined. I think what you are talking about in regards to illegal search and seizure is them actually coming into the home without permission. That's not what Quincy said, as you can see above. However, it's certainly not unheard of that law enforcement officials will come to the door and find probable cause ("Do you hear that baby crying and the dog growling? Do you hear screams?"), whether it exists or not. They don't have to prove probable cause actually existed, they only have to show that they thought it existed, and that's not easy to disprove.

Door-to-door canvassing has been done in So. California, in one area or another, for since at least the 1950's, but whether it's not cost effective (the cost of manpower vs. the revenue generated by licenses), or whether it becomes too difficult to find anyone home because they're all at work, I don't know. It seems to be a periodic drive, and then all is quiet for awhile. Los Angeles used to use the aid of gas and electric meter readers to inform the city of homes with dogs, and they'd cross reference to see if those addresses had licenses issued. Vets in Los Angeles turned information over to animal control when they gave dogs their rabies shots, which would generate a follow-up notice that the dog had to be licensed, in the mail. If that was ignored, the officer would come to the house.

Nationwide I've heard that compliance to licensing is 30%. I don't know whether that's true, and I don't know what California's compliance rate is. Maybe someone else knows?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs and CaptBob,

I am tired of having to clean up your name calling posts, one more time and you WILL be banned.


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Time is more than money and resources. Time is life and death as well when you consider that every 9 seconds an animal dies in this nations shelters. I sense that you don't feel the urgency that I feel. I understand that you want it to be done right the first time around but I just can't imagine not having to make adjustments along the way, which are apparently already being done as this bill is being fought over. In the meantime, the clock is ticking.


What you sense is that I have a different opinion than yours, nothing more. The clock ticks for both of us.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

ScareCrow said:


> Read my signature sometime, it's the American way and I don't intend to give up my rights  Do I think this bill takes away my rights, I'm not sure yet. Do I think this bill will help to stop pet overpopulation, I think it might help some but I don't think it will come close to solving the problem unless other more serious issues are addressed. If this bill were to want my support here are a list of changes that I think might help,
> 
> 1.) Ban the selling of dogs and cats in pet stores. If the government really cares about the welfare of these animals then they would not want the pet business "industrialized" like the animals which we eat often are. If pet stores want to offer cats and dogs then they can offer adoptable animals from the local shelters and then it kills two birds with one stone.
> 
> ...


Though I don't personally disagree with your ideas, I do think they would be easily fought, which means proposing them wouldn't get us very far. How can you mandate what a store can sell, especially considering your view on freedoms? As long as dogs/cats are considered property, and they aren't harmful to the public, what legal theory would prevent their sale? PIJAC, NAIA, and breeders everywhere would have a field day with this one.

We already have differential licensing in some parts of California, where people have to pay higher license fees for unaltered animals than for altered ones. In some places it's as much as $100 difference. How does that differ from saying that you have to buy $100 license if you want to breed? Breeder licensing is also already done here - at least in Los Angeles. We require people to get rabies shots, and we have leash laws. Isn't that tramping on their freedoms? One may be because of public health, but certainly confining/leashing should be freedom of choice like you think altering should be, right?

And lastly, why is it okay to require microchipping and not altering? Some people feel there is evidence that microchips can cause medical problems if they wander. What about the people that don't take their dogs in for shots at all? Animal shelters routinely vaccinate impounded animals because the odds are the prior owner never did it. I personally am a proponent of any form of identification, not only for the safe return of a beloved pet, but also I'd like to see breeders be required to microchip their puppies so that if the dog ever ends up in a shelter, the breeder would be contacted to come get it, and if they refused, they should be charged for the upkeep of that animal. If the breeder then wanted to turn around and get the person they sold the dog to, to help with those costs, that's entirely up to them. As rescue, this would be something that I would certainly be willing to do for any of my rescue dogs.

But what I don't understand is that it seems like you are standing up for freedom to do what one wants with their personal property on one hand, and then suggesting laws that would take that freedom away on the other. Could you explain further?


----------



## Curbside Prophet (Apr 28, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Sorry, GPS microchipping does not exist and will probably never exist. I can't explain it in laymans terms but it was explained to me. Basically, the laws of physics don't allow for it.


You don't need to explain it to me in laymans terms. All you need to know is when U.S. companies swith over to the international system, the U.S. will be primed for a global database. It's not a question if it can be done, it's a question of when it will be done.


----------



## ScareCrow (Mar 9, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Though I don't personally disagree with your ideas, I do think they would be easily fought, which means proposing them wouldn't get us very far. How can you mandate what a store can sell, especially considering your view on freedoms? As long as dogs/cats are considered property, and they aren't harmful to the public, what legal theory would prevent their sale? PIJAC, NAIA, and breeders everywhere would have a field day with this one.


You have to have a permit to sell alcohol. I don't know about other states but where I live, if you sell more than 5 vehicles in a year you have to have a dealers license, and I'm pretty sure they require permits to sell guns. That is just a few examples of the government saying what can and can't be sold, right off the top of my head. I think this could actually be done without too much of a fight from the pet stores if they paid part of the adoption fees to the pet stores. Yes the irresponsible breeders that sell to the pet stores would try to fight this sort of bill but technically it wouldn't be trampling on their rights as they could still sell their dogs, just the pet stores couldn't.



DogAdvocat said:


> We already have differential licensing in some parts of California, where people have to pay higher license fees for unaltered animals than for altered ones. In some places it's as much as $100 difference. How does that differ from saying that you have to buy $100 license if you want to breed? Breeder licensing is also already done here - at least in Los Angeles. We require people to get rabies shots, and we have leash laws. Isn't that tramping on their freedoms? One may be because of public health, but certainly confining/leashing should be freedom of choice like you think altering should be, right?


I find confining/leashing to be more of a public safety issue. If I were to condemn confining/leashing as tramping on my freedom I might as well condemn laws against drunk driving for the same reason. They could pass prohibition again and people would still drink and drive drunk too, just the same they can pass this bill and people will still have unaltered pets and breed them just the same as they have always done. Do you really think that most of these people who have unaltered pets will take their dog/cat to the vet to be treated, no they are in it to make money off the animal not spend money on it. Lastly, I'm an adult and am capable of making decisions for myself without the government telling me what to do. I drink occasionally but I don't drive, not because it's illegal but because I feel it's wrong. I have a dog who is altered because I don't want little puppies running around. If I decided to have an unaltered dog or to breed a dog then I would be responsible enough to take the consequences of my actions and I would pay the taxes for doing so but I don't need the government telling me I can't or that I have to go through a bunch of red tape to do so. I don't mind a breeding permit that is available to anyone willing to pay, I don't mind a tax that is so high most people won't be able to afford to breed, what I do mind is the government telling me I can't period. Aren't there breeds out there that are not recognized by the AKC and such which can't be shown even though they are legitimate breeds? 



DogAdvocat said:


> And lastly, why is it okay to require microchipping and not altering? Some people feel there is evidence that microchips can cause medical problems if they wander. What about the people that don't take their dogs in for shots at all? Animal shelters routinely vaccinate impounded animals because the odds are the prior owner never did it. I personally am a proponent of any form of identification, not only for the safe return of a beloved pet, but also I'd like to see breeders be required to microchip their puppies so that if the dog ever ends up in a shelter, the breeder would be contacted to come get it, and if they refused, they should be charged for the upkeep of that animal. If the breeder then wanted to turn around and get the person they sold the dog to, to help with those costs, that's entirely up to them. As rescue, this would be something that I would certainly be willing to do for any of my rescue dogs.


Micro chipping is less invasive than altering for one. As far as medical problems from micro chipping, well I'm not aware of any and I searched Google and was unable to find any so any argument of health problems would probably be weak at best. I understand that many people don't vaccinate their pets and these are the same people that won't get their pets altered even under the law that is proposed, they are breaking the law. That is one of the biggest problems with all these laws, they can't be effectively enforced. The reason I mentioned getting it done during shots though is because most owners will get the shots done, probably more than the number willing to have their pets altered and most puppys have at least their first set of shots before they are sent to the bad homes anyhow. Really the biggest issue I would see coming of this would be some religions saying that it was the sign of the Antichrist coming and fighting it  (BTW it's a joke please nobody take offense, anyway if you knew some of the people I know you would know that there are some people who would say that)



DogAdvocat said:


> But what I don't understand is that it seems like you are standing up for freedom to do what one wants with their personal property on one hand, and then suggesting laws that would take that freedom away on the other. Could you explain further?


Gladly, my problem is that this bill seems too intrusive to me. I don't feel the government should have the right to say I absolutely can't breed my dog just because it doesn't fit their standards, it seems too close to Eugenics to me and who knows that might be the next step. Like I already said, tax the hell out of the breeders and I won't gripe.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

I've stayed away from this thread, but a point that I've seen brought up a few times, is that breeder's will fight this law, because it'll put a dent in their pockets.

I just wanted to say that all of the responsible breeders, IMO, than I know and speak with on a regular basis do not MAKE A DIME off breedings.

Costs:
-stud fee
-vet fees
-food
-time spent in training

Extra expenses:
Bitches health tests
Money spent on show (the breeders I know won't breed a dog until it has their Ch as well as at LEAST their CD title, and they don't stop there...)

They also microchip, with THEIR info, so if the dog ever ends up in a shelter their phone rings first. On top of it all, they all have puppy contracts that are s/n if the dog is not being shown in confirmation as well, they're required to sign a saying that if the dog ever ends up in a shelter, they're liable to be sued.

One of the ladies that breeds field dogs also gives "rebates" for every title that one of her pups gets. I've never asked the amount, but that's just more money out of her pocket for what? To ensure that her dogs lines get at least the chance to do well in competitive dog sports.

I think something more logical, would be to licence breeders. Even here in Canada, a few members of the CKC were found to be "puppy milling", so obviously the CKC isn't too interested in high standards for breeders. Perhaps if the government got involved and made it harder for people to breed, higher standards, more health requirements etc. would be a better choice.

I hate this "general laws", like BSL, that effect EVERYONE. The responsible pet owners and occasionally the bad. Most of the time the irresponsible owners just find a way around it anyways...


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Alpha said:


> I've stayed away from this thread, but a point that I've seen brought up a few times, is that breeder's will fight this law, because it'll put a dent in their pockets.
> 
> One of the ladies that breeds field dogs also gives "rebates" for every title that one of her pups gets. I've never asked the amount, but that's just more money out of her pocket for what? To ensure that her dogs lines get at least the chance to do well in competitive dog sports.
> 
> I think something more logical, would be to licence breeders. Even here in Canada, a few members of the CKC were found to be "puppy milling".


As to putting a dent in their pockets of breeders. Well breeders will do what breeders have always done, pass the costs on to puppy buyers. From what I see the intact permit might cost about $100, and when a breeder sells 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 Bill costs dog breeders nothing $0.

I like the idea of "rebates" on various things and I also like things "free". Here is something I like in this County where a dog training course is provided FREE to everyone plus with this everyone could obtain "rebates" on their dog licenses, see via this link:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=160&h=0

I heard that this Bill might give Animal Control Officers "more teeth", and imagine if Animal Control Officers started house to house door knocks, well I think they might find some puppy millers. Regarding Puppy Mills well they are a dog breeding buisness, and it appears with this Bill that if they want "intact permits" then they may have to do the following, copy from the Bill in quotes:-
"(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof, as required 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 license."
.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> and that is illegal search and seizure protected by the Bill of Rights. I do not have to answer the door, let you in, nor answer any of your questions without a warrant and my lawyer present. That's according to the US Constitution.


Here we go again with illegal search and seizure. I've heard that many people are quite pleasant and just show the Animal Control Officers at the door their dog licenses, and if they didn't have licenses then they were advised to have them for the next time they may receive a fine, and before leaving a pamphlet was handed over listing the reasons why dog licenses were needed. Meanwhile at the door, the dogs that were sniffing at the Animal Control Officers were told what good doggies they were.
.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Ummm, this is already being done here without a problem. Ventura County, for instance, periodically have campaigns where the animal control officers go door to door, knocking on doors, listening to dogs bark, and advising people that they need to license their dogs. If they don't comply, I believe they can be fined. I think what you are talking about in regards to illegal search and seizure is them actually coming into the home without permission. That's not what Quincy said, as you can see above.


Yes it certainly has been done in Ventura County, and the door knockers had county uniforms with the County Animal Regulation logo and carried official Ventura County photo identification, see a Press Release via this link:-
http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=1220&z=9
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quincy said:


> Yes it certainly has been done in Ventura County, and the door knockers had county uniforms with the County Animal Regulation logo and carried official Ventura County photo identification, see a Press Release via this link:-
> http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=1220&z=9
> .


Thanks Quincy. Another possibility was used in one So. California area when rescue groups were commissioned to do the door-to-door licensing and they were given a share of the licensing fees. This money went into their non-profit funds for use in rescuing animals. I don't really have any other information about it, including whether it was successful or not. I remember thinking at the time that there might have been liability issues if any of the volunteers were hurt. But then volunteers go door-to-door to get out the vote at election time, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I know most rescue groups are always happy to find another way to fund their rescue activities.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Curbside Prophet said:


> You don't need to explain it to me in laymans terms. All you need to know is when U.S. companies swith over to the international system, the U.S. will be primed for a global database. It's not a question if it can be done, it's a question of when it will be done.


The technology for a GPS device that does not require some type of constant power source, or a replaceable battery, just doesn't exist. It won't be around for at least five years as well. That would be assuming that the technology already exists in testing now.

If we had some type of way to generate an endless power supply we wouldn't be in the middle of an energy crisis like we are in many parts of the US. We have regions that have more demand than supply, so areas like LA tend to have rolling blackouts as a side effect of the problem.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Thanks Quincy. Another possibility was used in one So. California area when rescue groups were commissioned to do the door-to-door licensing and they were given a share of the licensing fees. This money went into their non-profit funds for use in rescuing animals. I don't really have any other information about it, including whether it was successful or not. I remember thinking at the time that there might have been liability issues if any of the volunteers were hurt. But then volunteers go door-to-door to get out the vote at election time, and it doesn't seem to be a problem. I know most rescue groups are always happy to find another way to fund their rescue activities.


A while back I think I saw something about what you mentioned in So Cal, but at the time I was surfing around looking for other information.

By the way, whilst getting the address for the Ventura County door knock, I surfed into some other places in the US that have done "license canvases", here was one of them and I feel they would have warned that they were comming:-

Pennsylvanians who have failed to purchase yearly licenses with the application above for dogs 3 months of age or older are violating state law and could be fined up to $300.00 for each un-licensed dog.

Mr. Parrish and his colleagues in other counties will canvas Washington County municipalities during certain months each year. Wardens will prosecute the owners of dogs who have not been licensed.

While conducting their license canvases, State wardens also will check to see that all dogs and house cats 3 months of age or older have been vaccinated against rabies. Violations of the state’s rabies law can bring a fine of up to $300.00 a day.
.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Quincy said:


> While conducting their license canvases, State wardens also will check to see that all dogs and house cats 3 months of age or older have been vaccinated against rabies. Violations of the state’s rabies law can bring a fine of up to $300.00 a day.
> .


I think that is a good idea. We have a large immigrant population in some sections of Atlanta, and coming from south of the border, they are not used to licenses and rabies shots, so they just don't get them. What makes it worse, is they bring their dogs to the dog parks and when confronted with the fact that their dogs don't have a rabies tag, which is required in the dog park, they get pretty annoyed.. Not a good situation for the other dogs in the park or the people for that matter.


----------

