# Stop this Bill



## dolly329 (May 5, 2007)

I got this news from my dog trainers today. Please stop this bill if you love your furry friends . Just go to the link below, and send them the emails

http://www.dpca.lobbynow.com/issues?AB1634


California AB 1634 has passed out of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. The bill is now before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the same committee before which we successfully defeated SB 1548, which would have criminalized ear cropping, in 2004.

*AB1634 would mandate that all California cities and counties force castration and hysterectomies of dogs and cats at four months of age, whether those cities and counties wanted to do so or not. The legislation would create a new form of license - a breeder's license - that must be obtained by any person in California who wishes to own a dog or cat with reproductive organs intact. The purpose of the license is to be able to take it away - if it were readily available at all.*

This draconian bill is the work product of radical animal extremists, who count among their members the prime sponsor of the bill. AB 1634 is entitled "The Healthy Pets Act," although it makes no effort to address the health of pets at all.

Make no mistake about it. The passage of AB 1634 sounds the death knell for dog and cat breeders in the state of California, and is the beginning of the end of pet ownership in the United States.

This bill must be stopped. Now.

The DPCA Legislative Committee has activated the DPCA LobbyNow Tool.

If you do not live in California, do not use the Tool yet!

Please forward this link to all California dog and cat clubs and all AKC parent clubs.

Please remind them to ask that only California residents use the LobbyNow Tool at this time. We want the Assembly Appropriations Committee members to see that the first batch of e-mails come from California residents. At an appropriate time, very shortly, we will notify you as to when non-California residents should use the LobbyNow Tool to demonstrate the scope of the opposition on a national level.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

It's a great Bill and will stop thosuands and thousands of dogs being killed in shelters due to overpopulation.


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


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> It's a great Bill and will stop thosuands and thousands of dogs being killed in shelters due to overpopulation.
> 
> 
> http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx



Please precede your posts by in my opinion, 

In my opinion, this is a poorly worded bill which is not necessary, and will only increase shelter populations as people abandon thier pets due to not wanting to spend the money on altering their dog. It will also not stop people from abandoning thier pets. It will only increase the illegal smuggling of poor quality, sick puppies from Mexican puppy mills that are sold on the side of the street. That already occurs. They only will increase as the good breeders stop breeding and the demand is still there.


----------



## iwantmypup (Jan 6, 2007)

I do see it from both ways.....but if they lower the cost (even if its pretty darn low) maybe people will take em to be fixeda.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Please precede your posts by in my opinion,
> 
> In my opinion, this is a poorly worded bill which is not necessary, and will only increase shelter populations as people abandon thier pets due to not wanting to spend the money on altering their dog. It will also not stop people from abandoning thier pets. It will only increase the illegal smuggling of poor quality, sick puppies from Mexican puppy mills that are sold on the side of the street. That already occurs. They only will increase as the good breeders stop breeding and the demand is still there.


I thought you said on another thread that there was no shelter overpopulation problem. You think people should get a pet, if they can't afford to have it S/N? Is that what the breeders sell the dogs to, people that can't afford S/N and vet care. That is pretty irresponsible.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> I thought you said on another thread that there was no shelter overpopulation problem. You think people should get a pet, if they can't afford to have it S/N? Is that what the breeders sell the dogs to, people that can't afford S/N and vet care. That is pretty irresponsible.



The words 'increase shelter population' does not equal 'overpopulation'. I said if this law is passed more will be abandonded and/or turned into shelters. That is future tense. Yes there are dogs in shelters. I never said otherwise. Do I think the sky is falling and there is an epidemic? No. You obviously do. 
Yes we should do things so that more dogs are adopted and more dogs do not get to the shelter. But I just do not agree that this is the way to do it. To punish the responsible breeders, the only ones who do screen buyers and take back puppies. This does nothing to the pet stores, nothing to the people selling puppies out of the back of their truck from Mexican puppymills in the So Cal area. 

Yes there are irresponsible owners. would I sell a dog to them, certainly not. I don't sell one of my puppies to just anyone. But pet stores will, commercial breeders will, puppy smugglers will. This is a much larger percentage of those that sell puppies than the responsible breeder. 

Why does it make sense to punish 10% of the population that sells dogs? And that percentage contributes even less to the perceived problem?


----------



## RonE (Feb 3, 2007)

In my opinion 'in my opinion' is assumed. When someone posts on a forum like this one, it's an opinion (or sometimes an urban legend.)

If anyone starts saying, "Your opinion sucks and you obviously don't know nothin'" then we'll just merge this thread with the other overblown epic and save a line on the menu.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Here we go again with yet another thread on AB1634, maybe we can copy and paste some previous things we already wrote.
.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

dolly329 said:


> the same committee before which we successfully defeated SB 1548, which would have criminalized ear cropping, in 2004.


Interestingly, several countries years ago banned ear cropping, and also recently several countries have banned tail docking but exemptions might apply for medical and actual working reasons. Here is one example of what's happening around the world:-

The long awaited Animal Welfare Act has been passed through Parliment here in the UK. It came into force on Friday, April 6th in England and March 28th in Wales. The Act calls for a ban on docking dog's tails amongst other issues. Disappointingly working dogs are exempt from the ban but at least restrictions are in place. The owner has to conform to strict guidelines and must prove to a veterinary surgeon that the dog is truly working. Scotland accepted the Act with no EXEMPTIONS, just as many other countries have done.

The pro docking lobby had little on which to base an arguement seeing as many scientific studies have proved that puppies DO feel pain through and after the procedure. There is no scientific evidence that shows that working dogs injure their tails anymore than undocked working dogs.

The two main working breeds, the Border Collie and the Foxhound both have undocked tails yet can work through dense undergrowth, rough terrain and woodland and do not suffer major injuries to their tails. In general, tail injuries need only basic first aid and no one seems to be interested in working dogs that injure their ears, (far more common) or any other parts of their bodies such as the feet. Cut pads are more frequent than damaged tails!!!

The majority of organisations and the public are disappointed that working dogs are exempt, but most of the veterinary organisations say that their members will not be docking even working breeds tails for ethical reasons and for fear of reprisals due to the complicated rules that need to be adhered to.

The Council for Docked Breeds, (CDB) fought against the Act from 2002 together with the UK Kennel Club. The CDB lost its valuable ally when by 2004 the Kennel Club shifted its stance away from docking to a ban on electric shock collars. David McDowell, RSPCA Acting Chief Veterinary Advisor said:

"However docking is dressed up, it remains a painful and cosmetic amputation, which is all about tradition rather than the dog's welfare. In Scotland there will be a complete ban from 30th April on the unacceptable practise of docking a dog's tail, except when medically required after suffering injury or disease. Why England was unable to emulate this sound and scientifically-led stance is deeply disappointing."

The Dog's Trust also supported the ban and called the new legislation:

"The most significant animal welfare legislation for nearly a Century."

The Animal Welfare Veterinary Team of the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA) review of tail docking in 2002.

"The arguements put forward by those who wish docking to be continued are unsound from a scientific viewpoint, are contary to accepted standards for the welfare of the dogs and serve only to contribute to artifical physical breed standards."

The Animal Welfare Act means that any owner or keeper of animals now has a legal, "Duty of care" for their animals and must provide.

1. A suitable environment in which to live.
2. To exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
3. A suitable diet including fresh water.
4. To be housed with or apart from other animals.
5. To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease and to recieve veterinary treatment when necessary.
6. The minimum age which a person can buy an animal is now raised from 12 to 16 years.

Offenders can now be prosecuted and recieve up to 51 weeks in prison and/or a fine of up to £20,000. In Scotland, the Animal Health and Welfare Minister, Ross Finnie said:

"Tail docking of dogs involves the removal of most or part of the tail, serving muscles, tendons, nerves and sometimes bone or cartilage. That cannot be justified because of a possibility that the dog may injure its tail in later life."

The Animal Welfare Act is currently in primary legislation. Secondary legislation, which will detail specifics regarding this law, and Codes of Practise will follow. It is to be hoped that Parliment will refine the exemption for working dogs and make it very difficult for any dog owner to continue with this barbaric tradition of amputating a dog's tail purely for cosmetic reasons.

Anyone that tries to claim that it is in the dog's best interest should refer to the wily old fox that can lead a pack of hounds a merry dance through the most dense undergrowth yet sports a BUSHY TAIL......
Dog Lover.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

*..........The legislation would create a new form of license - a breeder's license ......... The purpose of the license is to be able to take it away - if it were readily available at all.* 

It sure would be nice if the opponents of the bill would play fair and tell the truth. Breeder licensing isn't new. Los Angeles licenses breeders and has for some time. When the law was being considered that would require s/n in Los Angeles, breeders showed up in droves to protest that they would be unfairly persecuted by having to pay higher dog license fees for intact dogs, and not only were most of them seen getting into out-of-state vehicles afterwards, but it was pointed out that at that time, there were only 3 breeders licensed in the city of L.A., and those three weren't in attendance. So all those breeders attending, that claimed to be so responsible, were breaking the law because they weren't licensed already, not to mention giving the impression that they were constituents of the city counsel when they really came from other states.



> This draconian bill...... is the work product of radical animal extremists, who count among their members the prime sponsor of the bill. AB 1634 is entitled "The Healthy Pets Act," although it makes no effort to address the health of pets at all.


Any time a law is proposed that would regulate breeders, they claim it's an AR plot. To the contrary, it's an animal welfare issue, and a public benefit issue. Why is it that breeders think they are the only industry that shouldn't be regulated? They are either running a business, or they are non-profit. If the former, then they need to be licensed and regulated like any other business. If the latter, then they should be applying for their non-profit status. Either way, they shouldn't be the only ones who have no rules to follow. 

I've snipped the rest of the instructions, but wouldn't it be nice if those fighting this bill would put that much effort into developing a bill acceptable to them that would solve the problems? How can they justify fighting for the right to breed irresponsibly? It hurts dogs, and it hurts people. It just doesn't make sense except pure selfisness.


----------



## Chloef_2799 (Feb 1, 2007)

The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age. I think all breeders should have to be licenced and they should all face regular inspections and have to under-go through questioning and interview processes to make sure that they are breeding for the right reasons and I think any dog that they sell that will not be used for breeding by someone who is a licensed breeder should be altered. And I also think that the amount of dogs and cats in shelters is pathetic and absolutly un-acceptable. But I am also of the opinion that my current government could care less about anything that may benefit animals or the environment.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

Chloef_2799 said:


> The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age.


If your not a breeder and have not intention of breeding or even to show or to "work", then there maybe no need to have entire cats or dogs, and they could even be spay neuter at ages younger than 4 months quite safely. I know some breeders who for many years and before handing over pets to go to their new home, have spay neutered at 8 to 10 weeks of age and who had no problems.

Also think about pounds/shelters where at times they certainly do have very young kittens and pups, and for years many have been spay neutered at ages less than 4 months of age before going to their new homes.

Keep in mind that in this Bill there is provision where a veterinarian can write a letter that on medical grounds a dog or cat could be exempt from this Bill, so if there was any medical reason why a cat or dog could not be spay neutered at 4 months of age then a veterinarian could easily write a letter for an exemption.
.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Thank you for the great information on docking, Quincy. 

That's another thing I think needs to be changed here. Most of the reasons it's done is purely cosmetic and in each case there are comparable breeds that are not cropped/docked, proving that it's not necessary. Add to that the fact that most dogs are not used for the jobs they were originally bred for. Why should a puppymill miniature or toy poodle have to have their tail docked? The percentage of them who are used for the task that originally required tail docking has to be exceedingly small. 

There are cases where tails are repeatedly injured because the dogs just wag too hard and don't seem to note that they are beating their tails against a solid surface, BUT there are other breeds that have the exact same problem, and are not traditionally docked. It makes no sense except to meet a ridiculous standard of what breeders think their dogs should look like - totally cosmetic.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Chloef_2799 said:


> The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age. I think all breeders should have to be licenced and they should all face regular inspections and have to under-go through questioning and interview processes to make sure that they are breeding for the right reasons and I think any dog that they sell that will not be used for breeding by someone who is a licensed breeder should be altered. And I also think that the amount of dogs and cats in shelters is pathetic and absolutly un-acceptable. But I am also of the opinion that my current government could care less about anything that may benefit animals or the environment.


Are you actively campaigning against pounds that alter dogs and cats at 8 weeks? If not, then why is it okay for the pound animals, but not okay for animals coming directly from breeders?


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

I agree nice post on docking Quincy. The law went into effect with little hoopla. Every dog owner I know thought it was about time and didn't feel like their rights had been stripped away.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Tamara said:


> I agree nice post on docking Quincy. The law went into effect with little hoopla. Every dog owner I know thought it was about time and didn't feel like their rights had been stripped away.


Actually that is totally not true. Those that have docked breeds in England that are serious breeders are FURIOUS that AR wack jobs are telling them what to do. They have rallied and rallied against docking bans for years. Just lost the fight this time. It's a big shame. Means that those that have no knowledge what so ever of the procedure are telling others how to run thier lives/breeding programs. Very sad state of affairs indeed. There are NO studies whatsoever that show that the baby/neonate 2 day old pup has any nerves/feeling in his tail at that age. None whatsoever. More lies and distortions by the AR fanatics.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

There are many scientific studies that show that early altering has bad effects on the dog. yes they go through the surgery OK, but the long term effects are not good. They lose the hormones for proper development. This is bad especially in the larger breeds. Again, a law that has been developed by someone who has no knowledge whatsoever (a legislator that has no animal knowledge whatsoever) telling others and knowledgeable vets how to practice veterinary medicine. I have a big problem with that.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Quincy said:


> If your not a breeder and have not intention of breeding or even to show or to "work", then there maybe no need to have entire cats or dogs, and they could even be spay neuter at ages younger than 4 months quite safely. I know some breeders who for many years and before handing over pets to go to their new home, have spay neutered at 8 to 10 weeks of age and who had no problems.
> 
> Also think about pounds/shelters where at times they certainly do have very young kittens and pups, and for years many have been spay neutered at ages less than 4 months of age before going to their new homes.
> 
> ...


Simply because the owner wants to wait because it is better for the dog's development is not a good enough reason. So that argument is false.


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Actually that is totally not true. Those that have docked breeds in England that are serious breeders are FURIOUS that AR wack jobs are telling them what to do. They have rallied and rallied against docking bans for years. Just lost the fight this time. It's a big shame. Means that those that have no knowledge what so ever of the procedure are telling others how to run thier lives/breeding programs. Very sad state of affairs indeed. There are NO studies whatsoever that show that the baby/neonate 2 day old pup has any nerves/feeling in his tail at that age. None whatsoever. More lies and distortions by the AR fanatics.


It had little to do with what you call AR fanatics

www.bva.co.uk/policy/issues/pol_brief_docking.pdf

It actually was a decision from vets, the KC and breeders. But I suppose they are all AR wack jobs too.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Tamara said:


> It had little to do with what you call AR fanatics
> 
> www.bva.co.uk/policy/issues/pol_brief_docking.pdf
> 
> It actually was a decision from vets, the KC and breeders. But I suppose they are all AR wack jobs too.



Sorry, you are incorrect. It had EVERYTHING To do with AR wackjobs in Europe. They are everywhere there, running amok. They are terrorizing people who work at medical facilities that do testing among other things. 

Some vets where for it, doesn't mean they are not AR wacksjobs. Plenty of vets are AR wackjobs. 
And no the Kennel Club was DEAD set against it and so where all the breeders. 
Not sure where you got your information, but it is incorrect.


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

You are right that the KC was against it in the beginning but gave in. And a lot of good breeders are for banning docking.
It's not worth commenting on AR vet wack jobs. LOL


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

AR wack job definition - anyone that disagrees with NAIA-phytes. Veterinarians who want what's best for the animals even if it restricts breeders from cruelty to animals merit the label AR. Basically anyone concerned with cruelty to animals is an AR wack job. Gandhi, who said that a nation could be judged by the way it treats it's animals (paraphrased), was obviously an AR wack job.

The opposite of AR wack jobs, also known as NAIA-phytes, are those that put the almighty dollar and the all important "hobby" first, even if it means suffering for the dogs. It's really about people's rights to do anything they see fit, no matter how cruel and inhumane. Obviously, the founder of the SPCA, long long ago, was an AR wack job because he fought to stop people from beating horses in the streets.

(all sarcasm above is strongly intended). Bobby used to claim they ran across his roof at night in cat-burglar type dark clothing. Apparently his obsession is contagious.


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Captbob said:


> It's a great Bill and will stop thosuands and thousands of dogs being killed in shelters due to overpopulation.
> 
> 
> http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx


It's a terribly written bill that doesn't address the core puppy miller issue. In fact, it gives the millers more legitimacy then other responsible breeders and showers out there. This bill may make a difference, but it will be in an extremely negative manner.

I am not against S/N proposals, but this bill would do far more than require S/Ning of pets. That is the problem with the bill.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> The words 'increase shelter population' does not equal 'overpopulation'. I said if this law is passed more will be abandonded and/or turned into shelters. That is future tense. Yes there are dogs in shelters. I never said otherwise. Do I think the sky is falling and there is an epidemic? No. You obviously do.
> Yes we should do things so that more dogs are adopted and more dogs do not get to the shelter. But I just do not agree that this is the way to do it. To punish the responsible breeders, the only ones who do screen buyers and take back puppies. This does nothing to the pet stores, nothing to the people selling puppies out of the back of their truck from Mexican puppymills in the So Cal area.
> 
> Yes there are irresponsible owners. would I sell a dog to them, certainly not. I don't sell one of my puppies to just anyone. But pet stores will, commercial breeders will, puppy smugglers will. This is a much larger percentage of those that sell puppies than the responsible breeder.
> ...


Judging by some of the things you say on this forum, you must be quite the judge of who would make a good pet owner......


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

SFury said:


> It's a terribly written bill that doesn't address the core puppy miller issue. In fact, it gives the millers more legitimacy then other responsible breeders and showers out there. This bill may make a difference, but it will be in an extremely negative manner.
> 
> I am not against S/N proposals, but this bill would do far more than require S/Ning of pets. That is the problem with the bill.


Tell you what, why don't you write a new law, and then post it here , so we can see what you consider "good"........


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Actually that is totally not true. Those that have docked breeds in England that are serious breeders are FURIOUS that AR wack jobs are telling them what to do. They have rallied and rallied against docking bans for years. Just lost the fight this time. It's a big shame. Means that those that have no knowledge what so ever of the procedure are telling others how to run thier lives/breeding programs. Very sad state of affairs indeed. There are NO studies whatsoever that show that the baby/neonate 2 day old pup has any nerves/feeling in his tail at that age. None whatsoever. More lies and distortions by the AR fanatics.


Breeders need to get a life, and stop thinking that the world is coming to an end, everytime some law is passed to protect the pets from being harmed or abused for profit. They have plenty of studies that show babies feel pain in the womb, and a dog would not be any different. That is why docking is outlawed in many places in the world. But, if there is money to be made by the breeders, I guess a dog's pain is not worth considering.


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Tell you what, why don't you write a new law, and then post it here , so we can see what you consider "good"........


I start to really not like some stuff you add and how you sound mean to me but then you say just the right thing at the right time!


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

SFury said:


> It's a terribly written bill that doesn't address the core puppy miller issue. In fact, it gives the millers more legitimacy then other responsible breeders and showers out there. This bill may make a difference, but it will be in an extremely negative manner.


Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy? 

Are you aware that responsible breeding also increases puppymill sales?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?
> 
> Because they will be the only ones that can get unaltered permits easily. no one else will be able to qualify. The hoops are just way too much. That was intentional. The person who wrote this knows exactly what he is doing. You all think he is so wonderful, nope the only way to get puppies if this passes is though illegitimate means (ie smuggled mexican puppymill dogs who are sick, which is happening already in SOcal.) or from pet stores.
> 
> ...


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Jen D said:


> I start to really not like some stuff you add and how you sound mean to me but then you say just the right thing at the right time!


Why is a new law needed?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Breeders need to get a life, and stop thinking that the world is coming to an end, everytime some law is passed to protect the pets from being harmed or abused for profit. They have plenty of studies that show babies feel pain in the womb, and a dog would not be any different. That is why docking is outlawed in many places in the world. But, if there is money to be made by the breeders, I guess a dog's pain is not worth considering.


Many scientific studies have shown your statement to be incorrect. Neonate puppies are quite different than human babies, quite different. They dont have thier eyes or ears open for the first 2 weeks, they can't regulate thier own temperature for the first 2 weeks either. These are among many things. A puppy is born much much less developed than a human baby. This includes the nerves not being generated in the tail yet. I've witnessed tail docking, obviously you have not. if you had you would know that they don't cry. They only cry when they are held still. As soon as they are put down, not a peep.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> AR wack job definition - anyone that disagrees with NAIA-phytes. Veterinarians who want what's best for the animals even if it restricts breeders from cruelty to animals merit the label AR. Basically anyone concerned with cruelty to animals is an AR wack job. Gandhi, who said that a nation could be judged by the way it treats it's animals (paraphrased), was obviously an AR wack job.
> 
> The opposite of AR wack jobs, also known as NAIA-phytes, are those that put the almighty dollar and the all important "hobby" first, even if it means suffering for the dogs. It's really about people's rights to do anything they see fit, no matter how cruel and inhumane. Obviously, the founder of the SPCA, long long ago, was an AR wack job because he fought to stop people from beating horses in the streets.
> 
> (all sarcasm above is strongly intended). Bobby used to claim they ran across his roof at night in cat-burglar type dark clothing. Apparently his obsession is contagious.


I guess you don't care about a little thing called the constitution? 

Because someone is against the AR wackjobs or those that agree with thier philosophy, is not in it 'for the almight dollar'. Making statements like that simply are not true nor does it make logical sense, nor is there anything to substantiate it.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Judging by some of the things you say on this forum, you must be quite the judge of who would make a good pet owner......


So now it is wrong to screen buyers? Huh? You make no sense. I thought you where all about screening buyers severly? That the evil breeders don't screen buyers hard enough? Why are you backtracking?


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> DogAdvocat said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?
> ...


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> So now it is wrong to screen buyers? Huh? You make no sense. I thought you where all about screening buyers severly? That the evil breeders don't screen buyers hard enough? Why are you backtracking?


You are getting mixed up as far as who said what, aren't you? Must be the lack of sleep from sitting up all night trying to think up more pro-breeder mantra.... 

What I mean't was, you would hope that the person doing the screening would be good at judging people, and situations, and have the dog they are selling as the main focus of their concern. Somehow, you don't strike me as that type person, by what you have posted on this forum in the last couple of days.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Sorry, you are incorrect. It had EVERYTHING To do with AR wackjobs in Europe. They are everywhere there, running amok. They are terrorizing people who work at medical facilities that do testing among other things.
> 
> Some vets where for it, doesn't mean they are not AR wacksjobs. Plenty of vets are AR wackjobs.
> And no the Kennel Club was DEAD set against it and so where all the breeders.
> Not sure where you got your information, but it is incorrect.


Maybe it's not worth commenting on saveourdogs "AR wackjobs in Europe".

By the way, on the other side of the world from Europe" there are 2 countries called Australia and New Zealand, and both countries banned tail docking a few years ago, and in both countries their veterinary associations fully supported the ban, also today in both countries there are now many doggies wagging their tails in the show rings. Also ear cropping was also banned years ago.

On reading some of the UK Parliament transcripts I noticed the following which is rather interesting, and I feel that Parliament might have access to old documents, now a copy and paste from UK Parliament:-
Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate. I will focus on the reasons why I believe that the only workable and practical way forward is to have a complete prohibition on tail docking with no exemptions for so-called working dogs. 
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said earlier, it is important to understand the history of tail docking and the reason why it became a common practice for certain breeds in this country. He rightly said that a tax was levied on the owners of working dogs. Farmers, drovers and other owners of working dogs began to dock, or shorten, their dogs' tails so that they could avoid the tax. The tax was repealed in 1796, but people who were worried that it might be reintroduced continued the practice of tail docking. Prior to the tax, working dogs were not docked. The practice dated only from when the tax was brought in.
.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> I guess you don't care about a little thing called the constitution?
> 
> Because someone is against the AR wackjobs or those that agree with thier philosophy, is not in it 'for the almight dollar'. Making statements like that simply are not true nor does it make logical sense, nor is there anything to substantiate it.


The people that bash shelters, groups like the Humane Society, and ASPCA to name a few. remind me of the big businesses that defend buying their products from child labor sweatshops in China and Mexico , and tell us that the conditions at those shops are fine. All these business people are really worried about is their bottom line, and they will do almost anything to insure that they make more and more money. I think many breeders *that share your views,* feel exactly the same way. You don't give a hoot about the welfare of animals in this country, just as long as you can sell your dogs and rake in the money. I sure am glad that I never had to do anything like that, in order to make money. If I had, I would have problems sleeping at night.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> You are getting mixed up as far as who said what, aren't you? Must be the lack of sleep from sitting up all night trying to think up more pro-breeder mantra....
> 
> What I mean't was, you would hope that the person doing the screening would be good at judging people, and situations, and have the dog they are selling as the main focus of their concern. Somehow, you don't strike me as that type person, by what you have posted on this forum in the last couple of days.



Well, then consider yourself a bad judge of people. 
And it must be nice to be so judgemental. Not very nice.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Quincy said:


> Maybe it's not worth commenting on saveourdogs "AR wackjobs in Europe".
> 
> By the way, on the other side of the world from Europe" there are 2 countries called Australia and New Zealand, and both countries banned tail docking a few years ago, and in both countries their veterinary associations fully supported the ban, also today in both countries there are now many doggies wagging their tails in the show rings. Also ear cropping was also banned years ago.
> 
> ...


You are again incorrect. There is no ban in either country on tail docking. only 1 state in Australia does so. And yes it was because of AR wackjobs and AR wackjob vets. A great number of vets are AR wackjobs.


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

When I looked into getting a French Mastiff I had to fill out an application which included my experience with large breeds and permission to contact my vet. The breeder did and after a month of talking to her on the phone, calling my references, and checking with the vet she was going to let me purchase a pup. After lots of thinking and all the rescue work I have done I had to back out seeing all the dogs that need homes. I will say that I thought she was great and I had a great feeling towards some breeders after that experience. Their are some that care deeply about their dogs and do want them in a good home. This one breeder would not fly the dog either which I thought was great. I feel if I can't see where the pups are kept and meet the mother I wouldn't want to pay the price for a purebred dog. So as much as I love the French Mastiff I won't have one unless one ends up in rescue.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> The people that bash shelters, groups like the Humane Society, and ASPCA to name a few. remind me of the big businesses that defend buying their products from child labor sweatshops in China and Mexico , and tell us that the conditions at those shops are fine. All these business people are really worried about is their bottom line, and they will do almost anything to insure that they make more and more money. I think many breeders *that share your views,* feel exactly the same way. You don't give a hoot about the welfare of animals in this country, just as long as you can sell your dogs and rake in the money. I sure am glad that I never had to do anything like that, in order to make money. If I had, I would have problems sleeping at night.



Hum, nice and judgemental. I DO care about animals, I also have the intelligence to see that this legislation will not work nor is it constitutional. 
If you choose to close your mind and paint everyone that can see that as money hungry and uncaring, well then it's a sad thing to be so unhappy as you are. You might want to open up your mind. There are lots of wonderful things in this world. You only see the bad and want to see everyone but yourself punished. 

Everyone but yourself is evil. Breeders are evil. People who buy from breeders are evil. Anyone who doesn't want to adopt a dog from a shelter is evil. 

all you can do is make up generalizations that are incorrect and insult people.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Jen D said:


> When I looked into getting a French Mastiff I had to fill out an application which included my experience with large breeds and permission to contact my vet. The breeder did and after a month of talking to her on the phone, calling my references, and checking with the vet she was going to let me purchase a pup. After lots of thinking and all the rescue work I have done I had to back out seeing all the dogs that need homes. I will say that I thought she was great and I had a great feeling towards some breeders after that experience. Their are some that care deeply about their dogs and do want them in a good home. This one breeder would not fly the dog either which I thought was great. I feel if I can't see where the pups are kept and meet the mother I wouldn't want to pay the price for a purebred dog. So as much as I love the French Mastiff I won't have one unless one ends up in rescue.


I am glad at least one person on this forum has an open mind. That is your CHOICE on what dog or where to purchase from. And yes it is a purchase even from a shetler, money changes hands. But you don't think someone is evil that they don't want a dog from rescue. Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Many scientific studies have shown your statement to be incorrect. Neonate puppies are quite different than human babies, quite different. They dont have thier eyes or ears open for the first 2 weeks, they can't regulate thier own temperature for the first 2 weeks either. These are among many things. A puppy is born much much less developed than a human baby. This includes the nerves not being generated in the tail yet. I've witnessed tail docking, obviously you have not. if you had you would know that they don't cry. They only cry when they are held still. As soon as they are put down, not a peep.


I've witnessed it too, and you're wrong. When they are put down, they are put back with their mother to nurse, and their cries fade off into whimpers as they start the suckling process. Also, instinctively dogs tend to minimize any sounds that would make them prey to other animals, and the mama dog will often start licking/grooming them which conveys a sense of comfort and helps to stop them from crying. Lack of screams doesn't mean lack of pain.

Besides, even if you were right - what possible sense does it make to take the chance and risk causing pain for a puppy for purely cosmetic reasons? This isn't something where there lives are at risk if they don't have it done. And making it part of the standard just encourages amateurs to perform home docking on the puppies they've bred. Puppymillers are a prime example of this. I've even seen pups that had their tails sutured with dental floss. Tails are often cut too short. And none of that would happen if breed clubs didn't endorse it. Here again is an example of breeders not having the dogs' best interests in mind. It's all about their own selfish interests.


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> I am glad at least one person on this forum has an open mind. That is your CHOICE on what dog or where to purchase from. And yes it is a purchase even from a shetler, money changes hands. But you don't think someone is evil that they don't want a dog from rescue. Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.


You do have to admit it is less at the shelter! I also have to say that I have not met to many people that were nasty/mean who owned a dog.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> I guess you don't care about a little thing called the constitution?


What part of the constitution are you speaking of?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> What part of the constitution are you speaking of?


The Bill of Rights.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> I've witnessed it too, and you're wrong. When they are put down, they are put back with their mother to nurse, and their cries fade off into whimpers as they start the suckling process. Also, instinctively dogs tend to minimize any sounds that would make them prey to other animals, and the mama dog will often start licking/grooming them which conveys a sense of comfort and helps to stop them from crying. Lack of screams doesn't mean lack of pain.
> 
> Besides, even if you were right - what possible sense does it make to take the chance and risk causing pain for a puppy for purely cosmetic reasons? This isn't something where there lives are at risk if they don't have it done. And making it part of the standard just encourages amateurs to perform home docking on the puppies they've bred. Puppymillers are a prime example of this. I've even seen pups that had their tails sutured with dental floss. Tails are often cut too short. And none of that would happen if breed clubs didn't endorse it. Here again is an example of breeders not having the dogs' best interests in mind. It's all about their own selfish interests.


well then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Purebred dog breeding is about preserving the breed as it was developed. it has nothing to do with 'selfish interests'. You are allowed to think that. But doesn't make it true. just because you don't care about purebreds doesn't make those that do evil. 

You have just insulted all people that are serious breeders of purebred dogs that are docked.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> DogAdvocat said:
> 
> 
> > Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?
> ...


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Why is a new law needed?


To solve existing problems and to let the public know that dog breeding is a privilege and not a right. Where have you been?


----------



## SFury (Apr 12, 2007)

Captbob said:


> Tell you what, why don't you write a new law, and then post it here , so we can see what you consider "good"........


That isn't my job. Any legal language I have helped get written was done so in the presence of legal counsel, and done with a group.

If I were to sponsor a law, it would require some type of funding, and a specified way to enforce any said legislation. Two things that are lacking. Unfunded mandates are never good to deal with.

Look at the horrible mess that NCLB, No Child Left Behind, has created. It also has terrible wording, and no set way to guage success. Different states have different standards for NCLB certification, and the pass/fail system only punishes the schools that have been doing a good job by saying that they aren't making the needed "progress" to improve each year. Schools are losing faith from the public at large who don't understand the complexity of NCLB, and good schools are losing funding and starting to slide backwards because of it.



Jen D said:


> I start to really not like some stuff you add and how you sound mean to me but then you say just the right thing at the right time!


I'm not certain that Bob understands the ambiguity with the "exceptions" portion allowing people to obtain S/N exemptions. That ambiguity allows for a wide range of responses, and an inabilty for uniformity with dealing with good owners. That means that language will be changed, and who knows what the changes will be? Not us at any rate.



DogAdvocat said:


> Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?
> 
> Are you aware that responsible breeding also increases puppymill sales?


Reading the bill it is very apparent that large scale owners will have a much easier time to meet the requirements set forth to obtain a breeding permit.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Jen D said:


> When I looked into getting a French Mastiff I had to fill out an application which included my experience with large breeds and permission to contact my vet. The breeder did and after a month of talking to her on the phone, calling my references, and checking with the vet she was going to let me purchase a pup. After lots of thinking and all the rescue work I have done I had to back out seeing all the dogs that need homes. I will say that I thought she was great and I had a great feeling towards some breeders after that experience. Their are some that care deeply about their dogs and do want them in a good home. This one breeder would not fly the dog either which I thought was great. I feel if I can't see where the pups are kept and meet the mother I wouldn't want to pay the price for a purebred dog. So as much as I love the French Mastiff I won't have one unless one ends up in rescue.


I'm glad you made the decision you did. But I also agree that there are some responsible breeders, like the one you talked to, that really are ethical - and those are the ones that usually take part in rescue too. Often because they do see the rescue world, they end up ending their breeding career because they see how many dogs there are in need. But even if they continue, they are doing so as ethically as possible with the dog's welfare in mind. Wouldn't it be nice if that could be said of all breeders? The dog world would be a different place if all breeders were responsible. And that's why I don't understand why responsible breeders aren't doing everything possible, including supporting laws, that would make their fellow breeders just as responsible as they are.

I guess one thing to be considered is that according to the AKC, only an approximate 10% of breeders can be considered responsible. The AKC came up with that number by only including those AKC breeders who are involved in competing with their dogs, and those that had produced more than one litter. Producing more than one litter would show some proof that the breeder was dedicated to improving the breed. The AKC's criteria on this is probably debatable, but when you consider all the other things that go into responsible breeding, I question that the number is even as much as 10%.

So given that the number of responsible breeders out there are so few, maybe the problem with getting legislation passed is that the opposition consists of mostly irresponsible breeders that are more concerned with themselves than with the dogs. Maybe responsible breeders are just overwhelmed by the majority of their inferiors who don't aspire to be responsible at all.

Sad.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Hum, nice and judgemental. I DO care about animals, I also have the intelligence to see that this legislation will not work nor is it constitutional.
> If you choose to close your mind and paint everyone that can see that as money hungry and uncaring, well then it's a sad thing to be so unhappy as you are. You might want to open up your mind. There are lots of wonderful things in this world. You only see the bad and want to see everyone but yourself punished.
> 
> Everyone but yourself is evil. Breeders are evil. People who buy from breeders are evil. Anyone who doesn't want to adopt a dog from a shelter is evil.
> ...


Wow, do you ever look in the mirror? You dare to call others judgemental when you keep spewing your "AR whakjob" rhetoric? You even assume that vets that are against tail docking are AR whakjobs. How judgemental and generalizing is that???? Not to mention insulting.

By the way, did you notice that the "AR whakjobs" as you described the HSUS were instrumental in getting the law just signed by the President, putting a stop to fighting animals, like dog fighting, cock fighting, etc? My question to you is do you congratulate them for that, or do you feel that the rights of the people involved with these blood sports have wrongly taken from them? 

This should be good - It should be interesting to see if you are a supporter of dogfighting, or will put credit where credit is due. LOL


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.


ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!! Pot...kettle....black.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> The Bill of Rights.


No, what part of it are you speaking of? Please cite what is unconstitutional about this law. Unless of course, you're just spouting the NAIA line and have no idea how it is unconstitutional.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> well then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Purebred dog breeding is about preserving the breed as it was developed. it has nothing to do with 'selfish interests'. You are allowed to think that. But doesn't make it true. just because you don't care about purebreds doesn't make those that do evil.


Preserving the breed as it was developed, even though most of the dogs of that breed won't be used for what the breed was developed for, makes no sense when balanced against suffering of the dog, even momentary suffering. It's also messing with the natural dog and it's need to use it's tail as a means of communication - and why? It serves no purpose now.



saveourdogs said:


> You have just insulted all people that are serious breeders of purebred dogs that are docked.


Well drat. I insulted people that are hurting dogs? Shame on me. Is this anywhere near as bad as you redundantly insulting those that are trying to help dogs?

How's the weather under that bridge?


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

As far as tail docking. I do know breeders/showers that are against it. Hound breeders - the oldest breed have always had (and do correct me if I am wrong - I can't be bothered to look it up) ears and tails intact. It is important to have the ears for a scent hound to fan the smell and it is important for them to express with their tails to tell if they are on a scent. Greyhounds and all the sight hounds thave their tails to navigate the speed. 
I know a cocker breeder/shower who was pleased with the ban -quite pragmatically said it cuts down on vet bills.
To me Save Our Dogs you want to tar everyone that believes in protecting our dogs as that dirty word AR. Is he ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society, WSPCA etc... all AR? Well I think it's important that we look after our dogs or is that unconstitutional?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Preserving the breed as it was developed, even though most of the dogs of that breed won't be used for what the breed was developed for, makes no sense when balanced against suffering of the dog, even momentary suffering. It's also messing with the natural dog and it's need to use it's tail as a means of communication - and why? It serves no purpose now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Simply because YOU can't see why someone would want to preserve a purebreed does NOT make it cruelty. 

And no tail docking does NOT curtail a dog's communication. That is just spouting more AR gibberish. 

And yes HSUS IS AR!! They HSUS and PETA are synonymous and want to end all animal ownership. do the research. There are plenty of quotes by the heads of HSUS and PETA stating that exact thing. 

You simply amaze me. You just keep on insulting people. You don't care who you offend do you? Than you wonder why the GOOD breeders won't work with you. Why would they when you think they are evil and you simply keep insulting them.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Tamara said:


> As far as tail docking. I do know breeders/showers that are against it. Hound breeders - the oldest breed have always had (and do correct me if I am wrong - I can't be bothered to look it up) ears and tails intact. It is important to have the ears for a scent hound to fan the smell and it is important for them to express with their tails to tell if they are on a scent. Greyhounds and all the sight hounds thave their tails to navigate the speed.
> I know a cocker breeder/shower who was pleased with the ban -quite pragmatically said it cuts down on vet bills.
> To me Save Our Dogs you want to tar everyone that believes in protecting our dogs as that dirty word AR. Is he ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society, WSPCA etc... all AR? Well I think it's important that we look after our dogs or is that unconstitutional?


yes anyone that wants to take away someone's rights and to tell them and their vet how to practice veterinary medice is AR doublespeak. You have bought into the AR agenda. Congrats. You are contributing to the end of animal ownership by helping them by spouting thier buzzwords. Congratulations and thanks a lot from the rest of us who love our dogs and don't want the end of purebred dog breeding.


----------



## Tamara (Dec 6, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> yes anyone that wants to take away someone's rights and to tell them and their vet how to practice veterinary medice is AR doublespeak. You have bought into the AR agenda. Congrats. You are contributing to the end of animal ownership by helping them by spouting thier buzzwords. Congratulations and thanks a lot from the rest of us who love our dogs and don't want the end of purebred dog breeding.


Some rights or the dog's rights? We made dogs in all their breeds- surely they should have some rights as far as being treated properly - oh sh*t am I being AR?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Tamara said:


> Some rights or the dog's rights? We made dogs in all their breeds- surely they should have some rights as far as being treated properly - oh sh*t am I being AR?



No they should not, they are NOT humans. They are property in the eyes of the law. That is how it is. Sorry. Do I love my dogs. Yes, do I love my breed, of course. I work very very hard for it. I study pedigrees very carefully in reference to conformation, and health issues. I do the requisite health testing. But that doesn't mean they are being abused if they are in their crate or in a kennel. Some good breeders have kennels and the dogs live in kennels. That is not abuse. Many think it is and they should be a law against it. 

There are laws against animal cruelty. Commercial breeding is not animal cruelty in itself. Keeping dogs in bad conditions, in filth, no health care, no grooming, etc is abuse. But keeping dogs in a kennel situation is not abuse. 

just because the dog isn't sleeping in your bed is not abuse. 

Who's standards do we go by? Everyone has a different opinion on what is abuse and what is acceptable ways to keep the dogs.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Simply because YOU can't see why someone would want to preserve a purebreed does NOT make it cruelty.


Preserving the breed does not require cosmetic surgery. A cocker born of purebred parents is still a cocker whether it's tail has been docked or not. You did know that, didn't you? 



saveourdogs said:


> And no tail docking does NOT curtail a dog's communication. That is just spouting more AR gibberish.


It has nothing to do with AR. But you just keep spouting that nonsense because you're burying your credibility everytime you do. Tail docking certainly does curtail canine communication. Dog's are excellent readers of body language, and their positioning can be subtle. There was just a study that came out a few days ago that reported that dogs tend to wag predominantly to one side or the other depending on what they are communicating. Tails are also used for balance. When my paralyzed dachshund regained his ability to walk, he circled his tail almost like some sort of a rudder. He couldn't have done that if he was of a breed that was routinely docked.



saveourdogs said:


> And yes HSUS IS AR!! They HSUS and PETA are synonymous and want to end all animal ownership. do the research. There are plenty of quotes by the heads of HSUS and PETA stating that exact thing.


That wasn't my question, was it? I asked you whether you supported the HSUS campaign against blood sports in regards to dogfighting and cockfighting that the President Bush just signed, or do you support the right of people to continue to engage in such activity? Is this uncomfortable for you? Do you need time to decide whether you support an AR campaign or cruelty to animals? I'll wait.



saveourdogs said:


> You simply amaze me. You just keep on insulting people. You don't care who you offend do you? Than you wonder why the GOOD breeders won't work with you. Why would they when you think they are evil and you simply keep insulting them.


It's not the good breeders I'm insulting. It's the irresponsible ones. It's the ones that put hobby and $$$ ahead of their dog's welfare. The fact that you can't tell the difference speaks volumes.

So, do you find it hard to get vets to work with you when you call the ethical ones AR whakjobs?



saveourdogs said:


> No they should not, they are NOT humans. They are property in the eyes of the law. That is how it is. Sorry. Do I love my dogs. Yes, do I love my breed, of course. I work very very hard for it. I study pedigrees very carefully in reference to conformation, and health issues. I do the requisite health testing. But that doesn't mean they are being abused if they are in their crate or in a kennel. Some good breeders have kennels and the dogs live in kennels. That is not abuse. Many think it is and they should be a law against it.
> 
> There are laws against animal cruelty. Commercial breeding is not animal cruelty in itself. Keeping dogs in bad conditions, in filth, no health care, no grooming, etc is abuse. But keeping dogs in a kennel situation is not abuse.
> 
> ...


The picture becomes clearer and clearer.

I have something to add to the qoute from saveourdogs. Since you obviously consider humans above other animals, what makes you think that way? The fact that we kill out of anger and rage and insanity rather then necesity? The fact that we hate with the only reason being jelousy or some other stupid excuse. Dogs are obviously a lot better of in those areas then we are just as we are better of in the inteligence area. I would rather be a compasionate and loving dog then a hatefull and spitefull human being. Sadly I'm stuck being a part of one of the most heartless and cruil animal species out there. Just because the law considers the animal property doesn't mean it should be that way. I get angry about animals being considered different then humans because that is what we are, we are animals. Just as people began to realize women and blacks are egual to the white male, they are starting to realize the same of animals. You can say it's AR garbage all you want, people like to label things. I'll could label myself as a feminist animal rights activist that is pro-choice but since I hate labels that's hardly what I think of myslef as, but ofcourse some people on here would be happy to call me an AR and dicredit all my beliefs just because they don't agree with them.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> No they should not, they are NOT humans. They are property in the eyes of the law. That is how it is. Sorry. Do I love my dogs. Yes, do I love my breed, of course. I work very very hard for it. I study pedigrees very carefully in reference to conformation, and health issues. I do the requisite health testing. But that doesn't mean they are being abused if they are in their crate or in a kennel. Some good breeders have kennels and the dogs live in kennels. That is not abuse. Many think it is and they should be a law against it.


How do you socialize a kennel dog to prepare them to live in someone's home as part of their family? I've lived with fear driven ex-kennel dogs that were afraid of practically everything in their new home, and even afraid of grass. Is this a problem with your dogs, and if not, now do you avoid it?

Also, what do you do with your dogs when they are no longer breedable?


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> You are again incorrect. There is no ban in either country on tail docking. only 1 state in Australia does so. And yes it was because of AR wackjobs and AR wackjob vets. A great number of vets are AR wackjobs.


Here we go yet again where you tend to think others are incorrect but have you considered that you maybe incorrect, and yet again here we go again with your favourite name calling of "AR wackjobs and AR wackjob vets" which you seem to love to do.

Now listen carefully, in Australia the tail docking law did not just apply to just 1 state in Australia it became NATIONAL when ALL states implimented the same law. The first state to do so was the Australian Capitol Territory, then later others followed.

The ban came into force nationally on 1 April 2004. Since that date it is illegal to dock dogs’ tails anywhere in Australia unless there is a medical reason behind the operation. Only a qualified veterinarian is permitted to carry out the surgery, in accordance with state and territory legislation.
See this written on the Australian National RSPCA website (this organisation similar as National SPCA organisation) and at this link:- 
http://www.rspca.org.au/campaign/tail.asp

Now I certainly could provide more information, but I feel that you have listening difficulties where I might be just wasting my time.
.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> No they should not, they are NOT humans. They are property in the eyes of the law. That is how it is. Sorry. Do I love my dogs. Yes, do I love my breed, of course. I work very very hard for it. I study pedigrees very carefully in reference to conformation, and health issues. I do the requisite health testing. But that doesn't mean they are being abused if they are in their crate or in a kennel. Some good breeders have kennels and the dogs live in kennels. That is not abuse. Many think it is and they should be a law against it.
> 
> There are laws against animal cruelty. Commercial breeding is not animal cruelty in itself. Keeping dogs in bad conditions, in filth, no health care, no grooming, etc is abuse. But keeping dogs in a kennel situation is not abuse.
> 
> ...


I find it really hard to believe that you can love any dog. I think what you think is love, is the kind of love someone has for a new car, or a fishing rod, or a boat. You being able to really love a dog, after reading your posts, doesn't seem to be possible.


----------



## Cheetah (May 25, 2006)

I believe this is warning #1 for this thread. Get back on topic and quit killing each other. 

>-\/-<


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

OH! I just caught onto something else. 
The , "just because the dog isn't sleeping in your bed is not abuse." thing just made me think of something. I'm not saying it's abuse but if you think about it. Dogs stay in packs and keeping the dog away from it's pack, being you, is kind of cruil. So in a way it's abuse towards the dog because your forcing it away from the pack wich is against it's natural instinct. Just a little FYI. Ofcourse if it's sleeping with another dog then that's not so bad because your giving it a sense of confort that it would have been lacking if it had ben sent of to a room all alone with no one in it's pack to sleep near and make it feel safe. 

As for ear cropping and tail docking... what is the purpose of it? If you don't have a show dog and a working dog it isn't needed and should not be done. Breeders of those kind of dogs shouldn't do that to the dogs they plan on selling as pets unless the buying specifically says something about wanting it done. It shouldn't be needed for a show dog because if I ever got a dog that was show caulity but needed it's tail docked I would rather keep it from being shown then doing something like that to it. I think they should change the rules of showing those specific dog breeds so it's a choice of the owner and the the AKC and such peoples decision.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

And I typed all that before I read your post Cheetah. Sorry bout that!


----------



## KingCharlesSpaniel.us (May 6, 2007)

Interesting thread!


----------



## bluesbarby (Apr 10, 2007)

I just had my dog Riley (small mixed breed) neutered last Tuesday. He was exactly 6 months old. My vet wouldn't do it until then. But this bill says 4months for all animals. Why would my vet not do it until he was 6 months? My cats came from a breeder who had them fixed before I got them at 4 months however.
I asked my DH (who is a health professional). He said it's probably easier to do when they are a bit bigger. Less chance of messing up. If they have to do it earlier chances are costs will be pushed up because of liability insurance issues. In California, in my area it costs on average $300 to have a dog neutered. Believe me, I shopped around. That's now. Will only the rich be able to afford a dog in the future?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Possibly. I don't think they really thought this bill out that well, it was probbaly just something they wanted to get done an over with because of how bad the dog overpopullation is getting. They need to get more educated about the different dog breeds and what a healthy age to get fixed would be and then come up with a average age for the different sizes and use that. Like toy dogs must get fixed at 6 months of age and not later them 1 year. Or something like that. If have a dog that isn't fixed in your home you need to go out and get a breeding license that is like 100 a year and 50 plus for every 2 dogs you have. The extra cost can be added to the dogs selling price. Plus since less money will be spend on dog food and care at shelters then that money could possibly go into a fund for starting out breeders or something like that. AKC should stop adding dog breeds to there list and start focusing on the breeds that are already able to be registered with AKC. They should make it harder for breeders to register with them. Also, for the sake of the dogs they should really rethink their standards for showing a dog because some of them are really just over the top and out of style since farming and hunting have become less of a necesity.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

AKC won't do any of that, they don't feel it's their responsibilty to regulate the industry. They barely enforce their rules as it is now. They also only want the $$$$$ from registering breeds. I have no problem with the breeds they recognize or the fact they are adding to them. Many of the breeds they are working on recognizing have been recognized in other countries for decades. The few "American" breeds they are bringing into the fold have been around for between 75-100 years, in the case of the "American Bulldog" they have been around as a breed in the US for 150 years at least.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

True. I guess it's just the fact that there are so many breeds of dogs out there already that's it's kind of like why do we need more. Don't we have enough, what's the reason for adding another breed. It's just a different look, there's no reason for it. I do like some of the breeds that AKC hasn't recognized yet and there is even one that I would love to own but I probably won't because there are already enough dogs out there. It's just an extreme over population of the dog species. Some species are dieing out and the dog just seems to be branching out into 100s of different kinds all over the place. 
I just think it would be a good idea to get rid of some of the diffent breeds out there. I mean do we really need a an English and French bulldog? Isn't one kind enough. Do we really need 20 different kinds of hounds. Can't we just have a couple. How many herding dogs do we need, it's not like there are that many farms anymore since America has become so industrialized. Are we breeding all these kinds of dogs for a important reason or just for the selfishness of are love and need for dogs. I would never give up the dog as a species, that not what I want, but how many different ways can you make a dog look before it just becomes too much.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

> I mean do we really need a an English and French bulldog? Isn't one kind enough. Do we really need 20 different kinds of hounds. Can't we just have a couple. How many herding dogs do we need, it's not like there are that many farms anymore since America has become so industrialized.


It's not about America, it's about what was needed in the terrain at he time as far as hunting and herding. Yes, these dogs have DISTINCT jobs and often several breeeds would work together to hunt game or keep sheep safe and going where the shepherd wanted. Learn the REASON for these breeds before you judge whether or not they are 'needed'. American farmers and ranchers STILL use many of the herding breeds. American hunters STILL use the hounds for their original purpose. The breeds are developed to be suited to different terrains and climates so yes, they are still needed. 

As far as "Needing" different types of bulldogs, or Mastiffs or anything else, well, that was decided hundreds of years ago by the people who developed them. They had their reasons then just as we have now. While I despise the current 'designer dog' trend as it's just breeding willy nilly to see what every possible combo looks like. I have no problem with developing a breed with a purpose in mind. I know there are purposeful crossings taking place to fulfill a possible need. The emerging hound breeds come to mind. There are also many breeds that are being redeveloped, one is a Shepard breed that was near extinction in it's own country. Last there are MANY that are rare breeds from other countries. I have no problem with those being propagated here, the US has made a differance in the survival of MANY breeds including the German Shepard and Mastiff, which was nearly extinct in England 50 years ago. 

Most breeds were created to meet a need, be it to protect, alert, hunt, herd or just look pretty. Each has it's own distinction and a right to be here.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I understand the need for certain breeds that are still used for a purpose today. I don't understand the need for a dog that isn't used for anything but as a pet. There is no need to own a dog except for the fact that we are too attached to them to let go. I don't see a need for a lot of the toy dogs out there, if there is one then please let me know, but I really don't think people should be breeding them anymore. The money they spend on breeding a dog that isn't used for a purpose could go to breeding search and rescue dogs or could be used to open a shelter and save homeless dogs or could go to something that has a purpose other then being cute and able to dress up by Paris Hilton or something. 
Am I making sense? I don't know how to explain it other then to say that breeding dogs that have no use seems like a waste of a money and time that culd be spent for a better purpose in helping other dog breeds that have a need of being.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I understand the need for certain breeds that are still used for a purpose today. I don't understand the need for a dog that isn't used for anything but as a pet. There is no need to own a dog except for the fact that we are too attached to them to let go. I don't see a need for a lot of the toy dogs out there, if there is one then please let me know, but I really don't think people should be breeding them anymore. The money they spend on breeding a dog that isn't used for a purpose could go to breeding search and rescue dogs or could be used to open a shelter and save homeless dogs or could go to something that has a purpose other then being cute and able to dress up by Paris Hilton or something.
> Am I making sense? I don't know how to explain it other then to say that breeding dogs that have no use seems like a waste of a money and time that culd be spent for a better purpose in helping other dog breeds that have a need of being.


LOL, companionship is not a purpose then? Dogs are and have always been companions before any other 'job'. What makes the idea of a well bred companion any less valid than a well bred dog that will retrieve birds you've shot? Most dogs are kept either for hobbies and sports, very few still work as in they are absolutely needed to keep their owner's livlihood going or their lifestyle intact. Nothing wrong with hobbies or sports like herding trials, weight pulling, sled racing, etc. They're all fun and should be encouraged. But dogs are companions. That's why most people have them.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I know, and I'ed probably be more then a little sad if they stopped breeding toy poodles because I absolutely love them, but its even worse seeing all those dogs suffering in shelters. I don't think there's a need to keep continually breeding more and more different kinds of dogs. Can't we just be happy with what we have and just stick with the normal dog breeds and get rid of the less used and popular dogs. It would help put a dent in the dog overpopulation problems we have. 
I think once we get rid of the petstores, BYB, puppymills and the ability to be able to breed without paying a price then that will help a lot but there would still be a ton of different breeds out there. Just getting rid of a few of the less popular and less liked breeds would help the dogs that wouldn't normally get a home. Not that I have anything against the less liked dog breeds of the world but I'ed rather see a homeless dog with a home then a toy hairless dog getting walked by it's owner in the park.


----------



## DogueEdaddy (Mar 24, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I know, and I'ed probably be more then a little sad if they stopped breeding toy poodles because I absolutely love them, but its even worse seeing all those dogs suffering in shelters. I don't think there's a need to keep continually breeding more and more different kinds of dogs. Can't we just be happy with what we have and just stick with the normal dog breeds and get rid of the less used and popular dogs. It would help put a dent in the dog overpopulation problems we have.
> I think once we get rid of the petstores, BYB, puppymills and the ability to be able to breed without paying a price then that will help a lot but there would still be a ton of different breeds out there. Just getting rid of a few of the less popular and less liked breeds would help the dogs that wouldn't normally get a home. Not that I have anything against the less liked dog breeds of the world but I'ed rather see a homeless dog with a home then a toy hairless dog getting walked by it's owner in the park.


I for one hope they keep breeding the less "popular" breeds; in fact; breed more of them. I remember when the German Shepard was xtremely popular, and the Doberman, Rottweiler, Great Dane, etc, etc. Popularity nearly ruined all those and more! My chosen breed is the Dogue De Bordeaux. It is still rare here and I hope it stays that way. There are many breeds (as Carla stated) that are rare but well established in other parts of the world. Go to most any other country and tell those people that their dogs are of no use. For any of us to tell anyone; no matter where they live; that their dog is less important than ours, is very arrogant. Mainly, the AKC isn't recognizing a lot of NEW breeds, but ones that have been established since before this was even a country. The Dogue De Bordeaux was nearly destroyed during the French Revolution while protecting their masters and again in WW2 by protecting the French from the Nazis. What a shame it would be to let such a noble amimal die out now due to some perceived lack of use or popularity.

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Did I say that they should go out to other countries and have them stop breeding those dogs there? NO. I said they shouldn't breed them here and my reasons for thinking that is because responsability is lacking and there are way too many breeds of dogs in this country. Why do we need them all? I don't think you understand the concept of it all. Your adding more dogs to the world just because they look a little different and have a slitely different temperment then any other dog out there. You need to go out and make a another gaurd dog but this time it has to way a little bit more then a pitbull and come in a different color because I want a different look. It doesn't really matter that there are already more then a few breeds out there for guarding and that more then a few of the dogs from all of those breeds are suffering in shelters right at this moment. Who cares I just want another breed because it looks nice and has a better temperment. When did we become so selfish?! When was it up to us to control the life of another animal but are own? Aren't you satisfied with the harm we've cause all the other breeds out there, ofcourse not, you just have to keep adding to the list of breeds. Sooner or later AKC is going to be adding Cockadoodles to the list of regerstable breeds. It's a mix or a cockapoo and a labradoodle but who cares, it's good for going out and chasing geese of the lawns of golf courses so ofcourse we absolutly NEED them.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Did I say that they should go out to other countries and have them stop breeding those dogs there? NO. I said they shouldn't breed them here and my reasons for thinking that is because responsability is lacking and there are way too many breeds of dogs in this country. Why do we need them all? I don't think you understand the concept of it all. Your adding more dogs to the world just because they look a little different and have a slitely different temperment then any other dog out there. You need to go out and make a another gaurd dog but this time it has to way a little bit more then a pitbull and come in a different color because I want a different look. It doesn't really matter that there are already more then a few breeds out there for guarding and that more then a few of the dogs from all of those breeds are suffering in shelters right at this moment. Who cares I just want another breed because it looks nice and has a better temperment. When did we become so selfish?! When was it up to us to control the life of another animal but are own? Aren't you satisfied with the harm we've cause all the other breeds out there, ofcourse not, you just have to keep adding to the list of breeds. Sooner or later AKC is going to be adding Cockadoodles to the list of regerstable breeds. It's a mix or a cockapoo and a labradoodle but who cares, it's good for going out and chasing geese of the lawns of golf courses so ofcourse we absolutly NEED them.


Dont' worry, t he AKC will NEVER recognize poo crosses. They are just that, crosses. They are not being developed as a breed. They are F1 crosses, not generation after generation to set a breed type. They are just making mutts for bucks. The AKC specifically says they will not register a new breed that is simply the cross of 2 existing breeds. 

Why should breeds be outlawed simply because some think that all people should adopt a dog from a shelter? That doesn;t make any sense to me. Rare breeds are rare in rescue also. Someone buying a purebred Dogue De Bordeaux from a serious hobby breeder is not going to be adopting a mix breed pit bull from the pound. They are 2 different markets. Some people want to buy from shelters or rescues. Some want to buy a specific breed from a breeder. Neither the twain shall mix. You can't force someone to get a dog from a shelter. You dont know thier history, many have baggage such as temperament issues. Someone that wants my breed will not be going to the pound to adopt a lab mix or a pit bull mix. That is the majority of dogs in most pounds in this country.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

The AKC really doesn't care about dogs so it wouldn't suprise me. They don't care about the breeders they register and they don't are about the differnt dog breeds registered under them. They could probably care less about overpopulation and only support fixing dogs because it makes them seem great in the eyes of the dog owners that really do care about dogs. 
I don't think all dogs should be adopted from a shelter. I just don't think we need all the dog breeds that we have. We don't need to have 20 different kinds of guard dogs when just a couple would be perfectly fine. Pitbulls aren't even purebred dogs but people breed and sell them like they are and no one even thinks twice about paying for a "purebreed" pitbull. Now we have wolf and dog crosses that are the popular thing along with designer dogs and the 20 something other breeds that are working there way into being recognixed by AKC. It's digusting how people just keep breeding and breeding new kinds of dogs and then saying, "well it's a hunting dog so it has a purpose." Well what about the 20 other hunting dogs out there? Are they not good enough for you that you have to go out and make a new hunting breed? Please, none of these breeds are as needed as you all make it out to seem. America does not need 20 something different kinds of hunting dogs. I'm sure 10 would be fine enough.

If you go on the FSS breed site on AKC.org there are FOUR different kinds of coohounds. What the hell is wrong with just having ONE kind with different coloring instead of FOUR kinds that look the same but have different coloring. UGH!

EDIT-
Oh and look, I just found the fifth coohound. I always thought 3 was a lucky number but I guess you can never get enough dog breeds. There are like 4 bully type looking dogs, one of them being the Argentine Dogo. There's the spanish water dog that looks like it's head is too big for it's body and that it belongs in a Muppets movie. As I said before... we really don't need all these dog breeds.


----------



## DogueEdaddy (Mar 24, 2007)

The real problem here is that some refuse to understand that MOST of the dogs in the AKC FSS are NOT new breeds. They were around for a very long time. As far as 4 different colors of Coonhound, the people who run them will argue forever with anyone that the difference isn't only the color. I have a very dear friend who hunts **** and he has several breeds of hound. He will tell you that he uses them for a different purpose. 

As far as why I may need a Bordeaux rather than a Doberman, it is MY decision and I have decided that the Bordeaux fits best for me. I am not keeping any dog in a shelter as I wouldn't be getting one from a shelter. I did check Bordeaux Rescue first and nothing fit for me. Remember, the dog I choose isn't my opinion, It Is My Choice.

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well said, Stan.

The AKC is one of the smaller registries as far as numbers of breeds. You want to see a lot of breeds- look at the FCI. There's tons of breeds that have been around for ages that aren't AKC recognized. The AKC is not the end all be all of what breeds are or are not in the US.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I know they aren't knew breeds. I've read the history on more then a few of them but just because they were around for a long time and were once used doesn't make them a neccesity anymore. 
Your dog is adorable, but to me it looks like a bulldog and reading it's history it says that it could possibly predate the bulldog or the bulldog could have been the building block for the Borideaux. It's a bait dog for bulls and other things and to be the protecter of the home and be very loyal to it's owner. 
Lets see, bulldogs were bait dogs for bulls as well. It was used for dog fighting and since that was outlawed in England it then had no use. Ofcourse people couldn't give up on the breed so they bred the aggresivness out of it and now it's a nice family dog. I don't why they felt the need to preserve a breed that was being preserved under a different name with a slightly different look, temperment, and job. In my opinion bulldogs and the borideaux are one in the same and probably share similar blood lines. What is the need for both when we can just have one?


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

bluesbarby said:


> I just had my dog Riley (small mixed breed) neutered last Tuesday. He was exactly 6 months old. My vet wouldn't do it until then. But this bill says 4months for all animals. Why would my vet not do it until he was 6 months? My cats came from a breeder who had them fixed before I got them at 4 months however.
> I asked my DH (who is a health professional). He said it's probably easier to do when they are a bit bigger. Less chance of messing up. If they have to do it earlier chances are costs will be pushed up because of liability insurance issues. In California, in my area it costs on average $300 to have a dog neutered. Believe me, I shopped around. That's now. Will only the rich be able to afford a dog in the future?


There are some vets that aren't up-to-date with newer procedures. This is the fault of the vet, not the procedure. Though your vet should be commended on refusing to do a procedure that he isn't proficient in, that doesn't mean that there aren't many other vets that do have such proficiency. Remember, the AVMA endorses early spay/neuter. Why would your vet go against what the association he is a member of, unless it's that he just isn't keeping up with advancements in veterinary medicine.

As for costs, there are vets that charge as much as $300 in Calfornia, but there are also quality vets that charge far less. There are also a number of programs designed to reduce those costs by vouchers and assistance from rescue and humane organizations. Some of those make the spaying/neutering free to the public. There's no reason to believe that these won't be available if this law is passed, and it's likely there will be even more assistance available.


----------



## DogueEdaddy (Mar 24, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I know they aren't knew breeds. I've read the history on more then a few of them but just because they were around for a long time and were once used doesn't make them a neccesity anymore.
> Your dog is adorable, but to me it looks like a bulldog and reading it's history it says that it could possibly predate the bulldog or the bulldog could have been the building block for the Borideaux. It's a bait dog for bulls and other things and to be the protecter of the home and be very loyal to it's owner.
> Lets see, bulldogs were bait dogs for bulls as well. It was used for dog fighting and since that was outlawed in England it then had no use. Ofcourse people couldn't give up on the breed so they bred the aggresivness out of it and now it's a nice family dog. I don't why they felt the need to preserve a breed that was being preserved under a different name with a slightly different look, temperment, and job. In my opinion bulldogs and the borideaux are one in the same and probably share similar blood lines. What is the need for both when we can just have one?


My friend, as I said, it is my choice. I had an English Bulldog. We loved her, but unfortunately, she passed @ 6yrs+/- of cancer. Part of my choice process is NEVER to try to directly replace any pet with a like kind. Too many comparisons, it doesn't work. Also, you need to read a little more. The Bordeaux and the bulldog are as different as nite/day.
Bulldog...50#+/-
Bordeaux...150#+/-
Bulldog...tiny screw tail
Bordeaux...Big full tail
Bulldog...less than knee high
Bordeaux...26"+

And last but not least...Bordeaux...THE BREED I have researched since 1989 and THE ONE I WANT; Thank You

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> The AKC really doesn't care about dogs so it wouldn't suprise me. They don't care about the breeders they register and they don't are about the differnt dog breeds registered under them. They could probably care less about overpopulation and only support fixing dogs because it makes them seem great in the eyes of the dog owners that really do care about dogs.
> I don't think all dogs should be adopted from a shelter. I just don't think we need all the dog breeds that we have. We don't need to have 20 different kinds of guard dogs when just a couple would be perfectly fine. Pitbulls aren't even purebred dogs but people breed and sell them like they are and no one even thinks twice about paying for a "purebreed" pitbull. Now we have wolf and dog crosses that are the popular thing along with designer dogs and the 20 something other breeds that are working there way into being recognixed by AKC. It's digusting how people just keep breeding and breeding new kinds of dogs and then saying, "well it's a hunting dog so it has a purpose." Well what about the 20 other hunting dogs out there? Are they not good enough for you that you have to go out and make a new hunting breed? Please, none of these breeds are as needed as you all make it out to seem. America does not need 20 something different kinds of hunting dogs. I'm sure 10 would be fine enough.
> 
> If you go on the FSS breed site on AKC.org there are FOUR different kinds of coohounds. What the hell is wrong with just having ONE kind with different coloring instead of FOUR kinds that look the same but have different coloring. UGH!
> ...



You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Most do not agree with your opinion which is also fine. But why is it fair for you to impose your viewpoint on the entire population? Ie outlawing breeding so that the only place to get dogs is from shelters? That is the jist I am getting from your posts. 
There are many different breeds for many different purposes. Some want a specific size, temperament, color, body style, coat type, coat length. Some dont' care. There are lots of people in the world. There is enough to go around for everyone. Some want to adopt from shelters, some do not.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogueEdaddy said:


> My friend, as I said, it is my *choice*.
> 
> And last but not least...Bordeaux...THE BREED I have researched since 1989 and THE ONE I WANT; Thank You


Some people just don't understand this.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> There are some vets that aren't up-to-date with newer procedures. This is the fault of the vet, not the procedure. Though your vet should be commended on refusing to do a procedure that he isn't proficient in, that doesn't mean that there aren't many other vets that do have such proficiency. Remember, the AVMA endorses early spay/neuter. Why would your vet go against what the association he is a member of, unless it's that he just isn't keeping up with advancements in veterinary medicine.
> 
> As for costs, there are vets that charge as much as $300 in Calfornia, but there are also quality vets that charge far less. There are also a number of programs designed to reduce those costs by vouchers and assistance from rescue and humane organizations. Some of those make the spaying/neutering free to the public. There's no reason to believe that these won't be available if this law is passed, and it's likely there will be even more assistance available.



vets in CA that charge less than $300 for a spay? I doubt it. CA is the most expensive state in the country, outside of NY city and Hawaii. Vet bills are outrageous in the state of CA. My friend just spent $4000 repairing her dog's broken leg. That was in So cal. I think in Riverside county, but maybe not. 

There is the surgical aspect of early altering, there also is the aspect of the lack of hormones and what it does to the growth and development of the dog, especially large breeds. My vet who has much experience in large breeds (she has bred Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds in the past) refuses to do it. She thinks it alters their growth. She will do smaller breeds a 6 months and larger breeds older. 

We are all welcome to our opinion, but mine is that early altering is not healthy for the dog. I do not recommend it to my puppy buyers. I recommend 6 or 7 months old.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Possibly. I don't think they really thought this bill out that well, it was probbaly just something they wanted to get done an over with because of how bad the dog overpopullation is getting.


I think it's also possible that they did think this bill out well, but they had to forego a lot of things that might seem reasonable to some of us, but would not be accepted by breeders who have banned together to fight such proposals in the past. Trying to come up with a law that will satisfy everyone, especially when breeders fight any laws because they are afraid of the slippery slope that might end up affecting their own breeding practices, has to be exceedingly difficult.



xoxluvablexox said:


> They need to get more educated about the different dog breeds and what a healthy age to get fixed would be and then come up with a average age for the different sizes and use that. Like toy dogs must get fixed at 6 months of age and not later them 1 year. Or something like that.


Fixing a toy dog between the ages of 6 months and a year is a good way to end up with a pregnant dog before the year is up. I've seen small dogs go into heat at 5 months. Any negative information about health in regards to early s/n are theories. Contradictory theories can also be found. Humane organizations and municipal shelters have been doing early s/n for years, with no apparent objection by breeders, but any suggestion that breeder's pet quality dogs be done that early and they trot out these debatable theories. Why are they fighting for the health of shelter dogs if they think it's so dangerous? 



xoxluvablexox said:


> If have a dog that isn't fixed in your home you need to go out and get a breeding license that is like 100 a year and 50 plus for every 2 dogs you have.


How does that substantially differ from the law being proposed? 



xoxluvablexox said:


> The extra cost can be added to the dogs selling price. Plus since less money will be spend on dog food and care at shelters then that money could possibly go into a fund for starting out breeders or something like that.


I'm not sure I understand. You think excess shelter funds should be used to encourage new breeders to start breeding? Since any increased costs for breeder licensing can be passed on to the puppy buyers, wouldn't it be better if excess shelter funds were put into spay/neuter funding or education on pet care and/or training?



xoxluvablexox said:


> AKC should stop adding dog breeds to there list and start focusing on the breeds that are already able to be registered with AKC. They should make it harder for breeders to register with them. Also, for the sake of the dogs they should really rethink their standards for showing a dog because some of them are really just over the top and out of style since farming and hunting have become less of a necesity.


I understand the concept of making it harder to register with the AKC by forcing breeders to prove, through DNA, that their dogs really are who they say they are, but even that has caused a flood of breeders to abandon the AKC and go to other registries that are even less demanding than the AKC. Some of these registries will even register mixed breeds. But other than that, I'm not sure how you think they should be harder for breeders. As it is the AKC makes it quite clear that their registry has nothing to do with the quality of any dog or any breeder. It's not about quality, it's about purity. Even puppymillers register with the AKC.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Some people just don't understand this.


Some don't care about the different breeds. Some do. those that don't care about the different breeds, those that don't just don't get why some people do love certain breeds and want to preserve them. 

To each his own. But it just gets my goat when people say they shouldn't exist. But that's my opinion.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> It's not about America, it's about what was needed in the terrain at he time as far as hunting and herding. Yes, these dogs have DISTINCT jobs and often several breeeds would work together to hunt game or keep sheep safe and going where the shepherd wanted. Learn the REASON for these breeds before you judge whether or not they are 'needed'. American farmers and ranchers STILL use many of the herding breeds. American hunters STILL use the hounds for their original purpose. The breeds are developed to be suited to different terrains and climates so yes, they are still needed.
> 
> As far as "Needing" different types of bulldogs, or Mastiffs or anything else, well, that was decided hundreds of years ago by the people who developed them. They had their reasons then just as we have now. While I despise the current 'designer dog' trend as it's just breeding willy nilly to see what every possible combo looks like. I have no problem with developing a breed with a purpose in mind. I know there are purposeful crossings taking place to fulfill a possible need. The emerging hound breeds come to mind. There are also many breeds that are being redeveloped, one is a Shepard breed that was near extinction in it's own country. Last there are MANY that are rare breeds from other countries. I have no problem with those being propagated here, the US has made a differance in the survival of MANY breeds including the German Shepard and Mastiff, which was nearly extinct in England 50 years ago.
> 
> Most breeds were created to meet a need, be it to protect, alert, hunt, herd or just look pretty. Each has it's own distinction and a right to be here.


I agree with you on most of this, especially the historical points, but one thought comes to mind - what ethical reason is there for preserving a breed that is no longer used for it's original purpose, especially when that breed has inherent health problems that make for a miserable life? Though I wouldn't support it, I suppose it's understandable that some people would want to preserve an ancient breed just like they'd want to preserve a classic car. But some of the bracycephalic breeds prompt me to thinking that they would be better off if they weren't preserved at all. Does someone's love of the breed justify the dog suffering to breathe and constantly risking eye injuries or dislocation? 

And then there's the breeds that were originally bred for something that we no longer feel is humane, like bull baiting. If the job is gone, then how do we justify preserving a breed that can do the job it was originally developed to do?

Sorry this is straying off topic, but your response to the prior poster made me think of this.


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I know they aren't knew breeds. I've read the history on more then a few of them but just because they were around for a long time and were once used doesn't make them a neccesity anymore.
> Your dog is adorable, but to me it looks like a bulldog and reading it's history it says that it could possibly predate the bulldog or the bulldog could have been the building block for the Borideaux. It's a bait dog for bulls and other things and to be the protecter of the home and be very loyal to it's owner.
> Lets see, bulldogs were bait dogs for bulls as well. It was used for dog fighting and since that was outlawed in England it then had no use. Ofcourse people couldn't give up on the breed so they bred the aggresivness out of it and now it's a nice family dog. I don't why they felt the need to preserve a breed that was being preserved under a different name with a slightly different look, temperment, and job. In my opinion bulldogs and the borideaux are one in the same and probably share similar blood lines. What is the need for both when we can just have one?


American bulldogs and the Bordeaux are simular but I think look different. What about terriers their are numerous terrier breeds in the AKC should they just keep one breed of them?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Some people just don't understand this.


It's not a lack of understand that someone has a choice to get whatever breed they want. I just don't think it's right that there are SO many breeds out there. There too many dogs and we need to downsize on this. As I said, how many breeds do you need before your happy? Before you know it your going to have over 300 different AKC recognized breeds and half of them will look similar and act similar and do similar things but there will be that one difference that makes it all "okay". There will be dogs that look exactly the same but people will say, "well this dog has a curly tail and this one doesn't." Who cares, it looks the same and acts the same. Is the difference in tail worth the space, money, and time it takes up as being a seperate breed. 
I like having my choice in diffent dogs but I mean really. I don't need to have an option of 40 different kinds of hunting dogs to chose from. If I was a hunter I'm sure 10 different kinds of hunting dog breeds would be a large enough assortment of hunting dogs to pick the right one for me. Instead there are people out there breeding 5 different kind of coonhounds. There's people out there breeding dogs that look just like a pitbull. I noticed there are like 3 different kind of mountain dogs. It's just not necasary to keep adding to the list of dog breeds when we obviously have more then enough to handle already. We obviously don't have any knowledge as to how to deel with the dog overpopulation so how is adding more and more dog breeds to the list going to help with that?
I doubt the shelter problem is going to get any better. In my opinion it just seems to be getting worse. People want the perfect dog for them and will do anything to get to it even if it cost the life of other dogs. 


Some of you seem to think I want everyone to buy from a shelter but I never once said that in a post on this thread. I never once said ALL breeds should stop being bred for are use nor did I say everyone should go out and get a dog from a shelter. I'ed rather there be no shelters at all, but the only way that would happen is if everyone decided to be responsable for their dogs and stop breeding dogs that aren't AKC recognized. If your dog is recognized over in Germany or something that's great, get your dogs from there then. Amerca has enough dog over population at the moment.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Dont' worry, t he AKC will NEVER recognize poo crosses. They are just that, crosses. They are not being developed as a breed. They are F1 crosses, not generation after generation to set a breed type. They are just making mutts for bucks. The AKC specifically says they will not register a new breed that is simply the cross of 2 existing breeds.
> 
> Why should breeds be outlawed simply because some think that all people should adopt a dog from a shelter? That doesn;t make any sense to me. Rare breeds are rare in rescue also. Someone buying a purebred Dogue De Bordeaux from a serious hobby breeder is not going to be adopting a mix breed pit bull from the pound. They are 2 different markets. Some people want to buy from shelters or rescues. Some want to buy a specific breed from a breeder. Neither the twain shall mix. You can't force someone to get a dog from a shelter. You dont know thier history, many have baggage such as temperament issues. Someone that wants my breed will not be going to the pound to adopt a lab mix or a pit bull mix. That is the majority of dogs in most pounds in this country.


Someone that wants your breed may not go to the pound for a lab mix or a pit mix, but I'll bet they will find your breed in the pound or in rescue. Is it rare? There's likely a rescue for that too. Anatolian Shepherd - got a rescue. Dogue de Bordeaux - got a rescue. Leonberger - got a rescue. Etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I guess what I'm failing to understand is the idea that if a dog breed isn't AKC recognized that it won't be bred over here. There's also the UKC which is another reputable registry that has many other breeds. The AKC is a club. It is not in charge of all dogs; it is not the end all be all of what dogs are allowed in the US. It's a registry. It adding a dog breed does not make the dog breed any more 'real' than it already was. It just makes it registerable with the AKC. It was more than likely already registered somewhere else. There are more than simply the 150 or so AKC registered breeds out there. The breeders of these breeds would not be happy if they were told they could not breed their dogs simply because they weren't AKC recognized. 

Just makes no sense to me...


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

I volunteer at two different shelters and most of the dogs there are not purebreeds and my dogs are not AKC they are UKC and have been around for years. Also both rescues.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> It's not a lack of understand that someone has a choice to get whatever breed they want. I just don't think it's right that there are SO many breeds out there. There too many dogs and we need to downsize on this. As I said, how many breeds do you need before your happy? Before you know it your going to have over 300 different AKC recognized breeds and half of them will look similar and act similar and do similar things but there will be that one difference that makes it all "okay". There will be dogs that look exactly the same but people will say, "well this dog has a curly tail and this one doesn't." Who cares, it looks the same and acts the same. Is the difference in tail worth the space, money, and time it takes up as being a seperate breed.
> I like having my choice in diffent dogs but I mean really. I don't need to have an option of 40 different kinds of hunting dogs to chose from. If I was a hunter I'm sure 10 different kinds of hunting dog breeds would be a large enough assortment of hunting dogs to pick the right one for me. Instead there are people out there breeding 5 different kind of coonhounds. There's people out there breeding dogs that look just like a pitbull. I noticed there are like 3 different kind of mountain dogs. It's just not necasary to keep adding to the list of dog breeds when we obviously have more then enough to handle already. We obviously don't have any knowledge as to how to deel with the dog overpopulation so how is adding more and more dog breeds to the list going to help with that?
> I doubt the shelter problem is going to get any better. In my opinion it just seems to be getting worse. People want the perfect dog for them and will do anything to get to it even if it cost the life of other dogs.
> 
> ...


Again, you are welcome to your opinion. There are reasons for all the different breeds. Whether you believe that it still should be so is also your opinion and not the opinion of serious breed fanciers.



DogAdvocat said:


> Someone that wants your breed may not go to the pound for a lab mix or a pit mix, but I'll bet they will find your breed in the pound or in rescue. Is it rare? There's likely a rescue for that too. Anatolian Shepherd - got a rescue. Dogue de Bordeaux - got a rescue. Leonberger - got a rescue. Etc. etc. etc.


Yes there are plenty of rescues for my breed. Doesn't mean everyone wants a rescue either. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Someone that wants your breed may not go to the pound for a lab mix or a pit mix, but I'll bet they will find your breed in the pound or in rescue. Is it rare? There's likely a rescue for that too. Anatolian Shepherd - got a rescue. Dogue de Bordeaux - got a rescue. Leonberger - got a rescue. Etc. etc. etc.


There ARE rescues for every breed. But what if the person wants to be sure that the dog is well bred and a good representative of the breed? Most dogs in rescues are not from good breeders. Most are from mills or some other horrendous situation. They may not look much like the breed or act like the breed. If a person's drawn to a certain breed then sometimes they want to be as sure as they can that their dog will have the same traits that they were first drawn to. A rescue doesn't work for all situations. When it suits the need, it's great but sometimes it just isn't what a person wants or needs.

Then also adopting a rescue from my breed is extremely difficult most times. Breed specific rescues are few and have long long waiting lists. More people want to rescue than there are dogs. The dogs are also up to $600 to adopt. 

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to rescue more in the future, but I'd also like to purchase well bred dogs. It's a choice that I feel free to make.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

When people are looking into buying from a breeder they usually look for a dog that is registered with the AKC. It's not complete proof that the dog is of good health and a good rep for the breed but it's a start. So if the AKC doesn't add the other breeds to the list then people would be less likely to buy them. They probably would still do it, but more people would want to focus on the dogs that are AKC registered and able to be shown in AKC events. 
Outside of that theres really no way to affect the breeding of these dogs. It could possibly make people think twice about buying one but there's still a chance that the people that don't care about showing or AKC registry would go out and buy them. Just the fact that there is a chance it could help would be worth it though. AKC should just keep the dogs they have on the list and stop adding. It might make people stop trying to breed those dogs, it might not. Anything at this point would make a difference in the way dog overpopullation has become.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

DogueEdaddy said:


> The real problem here is that some refuse to understand that MOST of the dogs in the AKC FSS are NOT new breeds. They were around for a very long time. As far as 4 different colors of Coonhound, the people who run them will argue forever with anyone that the difference isn't only the color. I have a very dear friend who hunts **** and he has several breeds of hound. He will tell you that he uses them for a different purpose.
> 
> As far as why I may need a Bordeaux rather than a Doberman, it is MY decision and I have decided that the Bordeaux fits best for me. I am not keeping any dog in a shelter as I wouldn't be getting one from a shelter. I did check Bordeaux Rescue first and nothing fit for me. Remember, the dog I choose isn't my opinion, It Is My Choice.
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


Yes, it is your choice, but ethically, should choice be more important than life? I understand having a breed favorite - I really do. It's like having a favorite color in that there can be no rhyme nor reason for it, it just is, and it's neither right or wrong. But I just can't get past the ethics of holding out for a chartreuse dog when a mauve dog is dying for lack of home. If it comes down to the ability to handle a dog, or care for it, I can understand someone needing a toy breed vs. a power breed - but when it comes to some of the more selfish reasons, like ability to entertain - I don't get it.



saveourdogs said:


> You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Most do not agree with your opinion which is also fine. But why is it fair for you to impose your viewpoint on the entire population? Ie outlawing breeding so that the only place to get dogs is from shelters? That is the jist I am getting from your posts.
> There are many different breeds for many different purposes. Some want a specific size, temperament, color, body style, coat type, coat length. Some dont' care. There are lots of people in the world. There is enough to go around for everyone. Some want to adopt from shelters, some do not.


Can you please show the statistical data that proves that most people do not agree with her opinion?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> Yes, it is your choice, but ethically, should choice be more important than life? I understand having a breed favorite - I really do. It's like having a favorite color in that there can be no rhyme nor reason for it, it just is, and it's neither right or wrong. But I just can't get past the ethics of holding out for a chartreuse dog when a mauve dog is dying for lack of home. If it comes down to the ability to handle a dog, or care for it, I can understand someone needing a toy breed vs. a power breed - but when it comes to some of the more selfish reasons, like ability to entertain - I don't get it.


Ethically, I want people to have a dog that fits their needs as closely as can be. People are more likely to keep a dog that fits their needs. If they want a dog with a known good background that's already started training and that comes with a mentor for it's life, then so be it. If the dog they need comes from a breeder, it comes from a breeder. If the dog they need is a rescue, then they get a rescue. It is no less ethical to get a dog from a good breeder than it is to get a dog from a rescue. It is a difference in what will fit with a person and people should not be looked down upon for that choice. It is a choice that they make based on their own situation.

Just my 2 cents again.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Ugh I'm tramitized. Some boy had two spiders in his ear that caused him to have an earache...
Sorry to get of toppic but I really couldn't get over that. It was on CNN.com. UGH... 
OKay back to the topic. 
As I said before... there are more then enough breeds to fit about every person on the earth so I don't think we need any more. We have dogs with every different kind of personality out there. We don't need them with different colors and tail formation. As long as they are big enough or small enough and act the way that would best fit your home then it should be okay. So keeping a breed around that is similar to another breed in temperment and size just because it was used years ago but obviously has no use now is just harming the breed and other dogs in the end.


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

Maybe they should D/C History classes in high schools to because it is old stuff.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> vets in CA that charge less than $300 for a spay? I doubt it. CA is the most expensive state in the country, outside of NY city and Hawaii. Vet bills are outrageous in the state of CA. My friend just spent $4000 repairing her dog's broken leg. That was in So cal. I think in Riverside county, but maybe not.


What does a broken leg have to do with spay/neuter surgery? Why do you think you know more than I do about s/n costs in California when you don't live in CA and I do? In my rescue work, I'm constantly advising people where to find quality low-cost spay/neuter clinics, but YOU know better? 

http://www.lovethatcat.com/stca.html

http://www.neuterspay.org/cgi-bin/webdata_pro.pl

http://www.rescueguide.com/lavets.html

For dogs only:
Holiday Humane Society charges:
Females dogs - under 20# is $35, 20-39# is $45, 40-59# is $50, over 60# is $65. Male dogs are $5 less.

And those are just a few resources, and assistance is also available from varioius organizations.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

That would have been nice but is there a point to that. History lessons are taught to keep us from making the same mistakes. The reason they teach you about the really bad presidents is so you don't vote for the same kind of person. 
So if we are going to compare dogs to history classes lets see. You start off with one dog breed and then breed that dog into another and better breed. Now what would be logical is to let go of that old breed and focus on the new breed but NO. People can't let go of the old breed. So know we have the old breed and the new bread and sooner of later we have tons and tons of old and new breeds but we can't get rid of the old breeds because they had a purpose hundreds of years ago, not like it matters that we don't use them anymore.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> That would have been nice but is there a point to that. History lessons are taught to keep us from making the same mistakes. The reason they teach you about the really bad presidents is so you don't vote for the same kind of person.
> So if we are going to compare dogs to history classes lets see. You start off with one dog breed and then breed that dog into another and better breed. Now what would be logical is to let go of that old breed and focus on the new breed but NO. People can't let go of the old breed. So know we have the old breed and the new bread and sooner of later we have tons and tons of old and new breeds but we can't get rid of the old breeds because they had a purpose hundreds of years ago, not like it matters that we don't use them anymore.


Actually, a lot of the original breeds are extinct.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Laurelin said:


> There ARE rescues for every breed. But what if the person wants to be sure that the dog is well bred and a good representative of the breed? Most dogs in rescues are not from good breeders. Most are from mills or some other horrendous situation. They may not look much like the breed or act like the breed. If a person's drawn to a certain breed then sometimes they want to be as sure as they can that their dog will have the same traits that they were first drawn to. A rescue doesn't work for all situations. When it suits the need, it's great but sometimes it just isn't what a person wants or needs.
> 
> Then also adopting a rescue from my breed is extremely difficult most times. Breed specific rescues are few and have long long waiting lists. More people want to rescue than there are dogs. The dogs are also up to $600 to adopt.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd like to rescue more in the future, but I'd also like to purchase well bred dogs. It's a choice that I feel free to make.


That all sounds great, but it presupposes that one can find a truly responsible breeder. Also, in my area, I know of 7 different rescues that handle Papillons. I don't keep up on their fees, but that seems awfully high. Normally they charge less than half of what you're suggesting.


----------



## DogueEdaddy (Mar 24, 2007)

As I feel I can no longer answer passively when IMO my ethics, etc are being questioned, this will likely be my last post on this thread.

IT IS MY CHOICE to get a Bordeaux. If some were reading objectively, instead of subjectively, they would have read that my FIRST queries were to Bordeaux Rescue. This wasn't sucessful due to various reasons, not the least of which was that nearly all of the rescues specified only to home with no dogs or submissive dogs. My wife has a small Chihuahua mix which is anything but submissive. Since I want a Bordeaux for a FOREVER friend, I would not make a self defeating choice. If I get a puppy, I know I can socialize it properly to existing pet. I have researched this breed for 18yrs. I am just now (since retired) in a position to give a Dogue my full attention and love. I am just now able to devote the proper time to extensive training and care that it would need and deserve. I have had many large breeds in my 61yrs of life, so I have the experience to accomplish this job. I made this choice to assure that BOTH dogs would be in my home till they pass, or I do. I have made an ethical and correct choice for my unique situation. I will not have my ethics questioned by people who are so wrapped up in their own self that they cease to understand the real world choices that others face and accept as proper for themselves. Remember, choices are like shoes; One Size Doesn't Fit All.

God Bless All......Stan


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

That's for a more popular dog though. The rare ones probably are hard to get from a shelter since not many people over here breed them. Wich I don't think is a bad thing at all. Atleast they aren't suffering like some of the more popular breeds in this country.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Well, I think if you search hard enough then you can find reputable breeders. It just takes effort.

Most pap rescues are $400 or so. (I was looking around at breed specific rescues when I was looking for my fourth). They base it on age primarily, but one rescue was $600 for a 2 year and under dog! 

The PCA rescue is a bit better:



> For healthy dogs up to two years of age: $350-$450
> For healthy dogs between the ages of two and six:$ 250-$350
> For healthy dogs between the ages of six and nine: $150-$250





DogueEdaddy said:


> As I feel I can no longer answer passively when IMO my ethics, etc are being questioned, this will likely be my last post on this thread.
> 
> I have made an ethical and correct choice for my unique situation. I will not have my ethics questioned by people who are so wrapped up in their own self that they cease to understand the real world choices that others face and accept as proper for themselves. Remember, choices are like shoes; One Size Doesn't Fit All.
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


Thank you for posting that. And that is why I started avoiding these threads.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Ugh I'm tramitized. Some boy had two spiders in his ear that caused him to have an earache...
> Sorry to get of toppic but I really couldn't get over that. It was on CNN.com. UGH...
> OKay back to the topic.
> As I said before... there are more then enough breeds to fit about every person on the earth so I don't think we need any more. We have dogs with every different kind of personality out there. We don't need them with different colors and tail formation. As long as they are big enough or small enough and act the way that would best fit your home then it should be okay. So keeping a breed around that is similar to another breed in temperment and size just because it was used years ago but obviously has no use now is just harming the breed and other dogs in the end.


Yea, I heard the spider thing too - pretty gross.

I really think that instead of being concerned about how many breeds there are, we should concentrate on how many dogs there are. When a breed is so popular that rescue can't handle all the dogs of that breed that are in need, something is wrong. And though most of the dogs in the shelters are mixed breeds, the purebred rescues are simply overwhelmed. Rescues pray that their breed won't be the star of the next Disney movie. They love their breed, and their heads are likely to spin around when their breed appears on Westminster, but they pray that their dog won't win and become more popular. Anything that will increase the demand, thereby enabling breeders to increase production, is a cause of rescue burn out. 

So I'd rather see a limitation on the numbers in each breed than the number of breeds. Eliminating a rare breed isn't going to have much of an effect at the shelter level when it's full of cockers and goldens.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

DogueEdaddy said:


> As I feel I can no longer answer passively when IMO my ethics, etc are being questioned, this will likely be my last post on this thread.
> 
> IT IS MY CHOICE to get a Bordeaux. If some were reading objectively, instead of subjectively, they would have read that my FIRST queries were to Bordeaux Rescue. This wasn't sucessful due to various reasons, not the least of which was that nearly all of the rescues specified only to home with no dogs or submissive dogs. My wife has a small Chihuahua mix which is anything but submissive. Since I want a Bordeaux for a FOREVER friend, I would not make a self defeating choice. If I get a puppy, I know I can socialize it properly to existing pet. I have researched this breed for 18yrs. I am just now (since retired) in a position to give a Dogue my full attention and love. I am just now able to devote the proper time to extensive training and care that it would need and deserve. I have had many large breeds in my 61yrs of life, so I have the experience to accomplish this job. I made this choice to assure that BOTH dogs would be in my home till they pass, or I do. I have made an ethical and correct choice for my unique situation. I will not have my ethics questioned by people who are so wrapped up in their own self that they cease to understand the real world choices that others face and accept as proper for themselves. Remember, choices are like shoes; One Size Doesn't Fit All.
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


I understand what your saying. I'm glad you showed responsability in chosing the right dog for you. I think there are more popular dogs out there that are in more need of a home but sometimes animals just chose us and obviously this dog breed stood out to you and was something you felt would fit you family and you very well. I'm sorry if I made you think I was looking down on you for that choice because I never intented to come of that way. Your dog is gorgeous and I would love to get one myself but I promised myself I would only get dogs from a shelter from now on. That's my own choice and in no way am I forcing it onto anyone else. Chihuahuas are never very submissive, they think they're bigger then they are. My friend's goes chasing after big trucks when it somehow manages to get out. There really cute dogs but anything but easy to handle. 
Blessed be


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

DogueEdaddy said:


> As I feel I can no longer answer passively when IMO my ethics, etc are being questioned, this will likely be my last post on this thread.
> 
> IT IS MY CHOICE to get a Bordeaux. If some were reading objectively, instead of subjectively, they would have read that my FIRST queries were to Bordeaux Rescue. This wasn't sucessful due to various reasons, not the least of which was that nearly all of the rescues specified only to home with no dogs or submissive dogs. My wife has a small Chihuahua mix which is anything but submissive. Since I want a Bordeaux for a FOREVER friend, I would not make a self defeating choice. If I get a puppy, I know I can socialize it properly to existing pet. I have researched this breed for 18yrs. I am just now (since retired) in a position to give a Dogue my full attention and love. I am just now able to devote the proper time to extensive training and care that it would need and deserve. I have had many large breeds in my 61yrs of life, so I have the experience to accomplish this job. I made this choice to assure that BOTH dogs would be in my home till they pass, or I do. I have made an ethical and correct choice for my unique situation. I will not have my ethics questioned by people who are so wrapped up in their own self that they cease to understand the real world choices that others face and accept as proper for themselves. Remember, choices are like shoes; One Size Doesn't Fit All.
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


I'm not questioning YOUR ethics. I'm questioning the ethics of a philosophy that would put personal desires over the life of a dog. Some of those desires are pretty frivolous, again compared with the loss of a life. I personally will never buy a dog from a breeder as long as there is a homeless dog that I can give a home to. And yes, that's a choice. But IMO, there seems to be a million reasons, each one used by someone that thinks their reason is more important than a dog's life. Millions of reasons, millions of homeless dogs that don't care about the reason, they just want a home. As long as we have a choice of whether to bring a dependent animal into the world, I think we have an obligation to care for it before we even consider bringing another one into the world.



xoxluvablexox said:


> That's for a more popular dog though. The rare ones probably are hard to get from a shelter since not many people over here breed them. Wich I don't think is a bad thing at all. Atleast they aren't suffering like some of the more popular breeds in this country.


Again, rare dogs are ending up in rescue, many of which come from shelters. The rarity of a breed doesn't appear to mean anything to intolerant people that would rather dump their problem than to fix it. It's the same thing with expensive dogs. One would think that if someone pays $1000+ for a dog, versus getting one from a free ad, that they would be unlikely to dump it, but I've gotten $1000 dogs, one as little as 3 days after they bought it. They realized they weren't suited for puppy nonsense, and the dog was out on it's ear. I wish I had that kind of money to throw around.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> I'm not questioning YOUR ethics. I'm questioning the ethics of a philosophy that would put personal desires over the life of a dog. Some of those desires are pretty frivolous, again compared with the loss of a life. I personally will never buy a dog from a breeder as long as there is a homeless dog that I can give a home to. And yes, that's a choice. But IMO, there seems to be a million reasons, each one used by someone that thinks their reason is more important than a dog's life. Millions of reasons, millions of homeless dogs that don't care about the reason, they just want a home. As long as we have a choice of whether to bring a dependent animal into the world, I think we have an obligation to care for it before we even consider bringing another one into the world.


Well, you choose to do what YOU think is the best for YOUR situation and let others choose to do what is best for theirs. I will choose to adopt or buy a dog that I feel will be what I need/want at the time being. It is a careful decision here not taken lightly. Dogs are for life, so I want a good match.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Yes, it is your choice, but ethically, should choice be more important than life? I understand having a breed favorite - I really do. It's like having a favorite color in that there can be no rhyme nor reason for it, it just is, and it's neither right or wrong. But I just can't get past the ethics of holding out for a chartreuse dog when a mauve dog is dying for lack of home. If it comes down to the ability to handle a dog, or care for it, I can understand someone needing a toy breed vs. a power breed - but when it comes to some of the more selfish reasons, like ability to entertain - I don't get it.


I totally aggree with you. I spent a couple of hours today at the shelter where I volunteer, and walked around to the different areas and handed the dogs treats, and took some of them for walks. Puppies, grown dogs, of every breed along with the mixed breeds. They are all so happy when someone comes in just to pay attention to them for a minute or two. Their tails are wagging, and they get all excited when you pet them, and then of course there quickly comes the time when you have to walk away and see the next dog. You can feel their eyes following you as you walk away from their kennel area . To me that is as sad as it gets, and I wish I could see every dog be adopted. For this reason, I would never, ever. consider buying a dog from a breeder, cause I have to have the "perfect dog". The day that the shelters are empty, then maybe, but until then, no way. 

My adopted dog, that I took home a year ago, is far from perfect. Her legs are short, cause she is part Corgi, she has a scar just behind her nose where she either was cut by a cage door, or bitten by a dog, and probably would never win in any dog show. But to me, she is the most beautiful dog in the world, and has a heart of gold, and with any luck, will be a certified therapy dog after this weekend when she gets tested. I wouldn't trade her for 10 AKC champions...


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Captbob said:


> I totally aggree with you. I spent a couple of hours today at the shelter where I volunteer, and walked around to the different areas and handed the dogs treats, and took some of them for walks. Puppies, grown dogs, of every breed along with the mixed breeds. They are all so happy when someone comes in just to pay attention to them for a minute or two. Their tails are wagging, and they get all excited when you pet them, and then of course there quickly comes the time when you have to walk away and see the next dog. You can feel their eyes following you as you walk away from their kennel area . To me that is as sad as it gets, and I wish I could see every dog be adopted. For this reason, I would never, ever. consider buying a dog from a breeder, cause I have to have the "perfect dog". The day that the shelters are empty, then maybe, but until then, no way.
> 
> My adopted dog, that I took home a year ago, is far from perfect. Her legs are short, cause she is part Corgi, she has a scar just behind her nose where she either was cut by a cage door, or bitten by a dog, and probably would never win in any dog show. But to me, she is the most beautiful dog in the world, and has a heart of gold, and with any luck, will be a certified therapy dog after this weekend when she gets tested. I wouldn't trade her for 10 AKC champions...


I know that feeling of leaving one dog to go onto the next. You can almost physically feel them trying to hang on to your attention, and I feel like such a traitor for moving on. There are some where the pull is so strong, that you can feel it from clear down the row. I remember one little girl that was like that. She locked onto me the minute I came near her cage. She wasn't barking, or acting particularly excited, but her presence was so strong, it's just hard to describe. As I moved on, I could feel her eyes, and everytime I looked back, she was still standing with her eyes locked on mine. I didn't even know what she was. She was filthy, and matted, and about the most miserable specimen of a dog you'd ever hope not to see. I walked beyond her view, but a few minutes later, I peeked around the corner, and there were those eyes locked on mine. I knew that if I didn't take her, her eyes would stay with me forever, hauntingly. She turned out to be the most beautiful apricot poodle/dachshund mix, or maybe just an extremely badly bred poodle, but she was gorgeous in her own right, and her personality was everything one could ask for. She was a little clingy at first, likely from her fear of being abandoned again, but after I placed her with a woman who had recently lost her husband and needed the dog as much as the dog needed her, she became the princess that she should have been all along.

What mystifies me, not only with that dog, but my own, and the others I've rescued, is what was wrong with their original people that they couldn't see what a treasure they really had? My boy makes me laugh so much, and I can't help thinking how much laughter his prior person is missing. And also, how much all the pound dogs could give, how much happier they could make people, but will never get the chance.


----------



## ritabooker (Aug 16, 2006)

Just to say "Good on ya" to CaptBob (and anyone else involved) for the therapy dog work, spreading the healing and love in a bigger circle.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Can you please show the statistical data that proves that most people do not agree with her opinion?


There probably isn't any...


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

I am still not getting why people think it is a good idea to intrude on someone's freedoms (the dog breeders) because of a perception of there being an overpopulation. The OWNER is turning the dog in, NOT the breeder. Why blame the breeder? The owner is legally responsible for the animal once they buy it. It makes no logical sense, or legal sense, to blame 100% the breeder. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. It is an owner relinquishment issue, not too many dogs being bred. You need to figure out what to do to keep those dogs that are bred in thier homes. I do my part by being always available to my puppy buyers and recommending training books and training classes. i give them all kinds of literature on training. 

There are some that want to buy from breeders, and some that want to buy from shelters. Don't knock those that want to buy from breeders. 

Simply because you don't like breeders or see the need for purebreds is not a reason to intrude on thier rights and freedoms. 

There is no compromise as there is nothing to compromise on. The ARs want to end breeding. Whether it is because they think there are too many dogs in the pounds or they want to end animal ownership. Once you start adding provisions for some, they will just be taken away later. That is how law making works. No, it simply needs to be stopped, period from ever passing.

Why don't you come up with some constructive suggestions on how to adopt dogs out, on how to prevent dogs from being turned in. Those are things that will actually make a difference. You can't legislate morality. It won't stop the bybs or the pet owner who lets their dog wander. Those are the ones who'se puppies will end up in shelters. This legislation will not stop that. 

Besides, the number of dogs in shelters has done down dramatically in the past 10 year. 75% in some areas. Some areas have to import from other areas as they dont have enough to sell. That to me is not an indication of a problem. Education is the answer, helping the owner train the dog is the answer.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

True. I think it should be harder for people to own dogs. I need to go out and get a permit to own a chinchilla. I should have to do the same to own a dog, wich has a longer life span and is in need of more care. If that was the case less people would be likely to go out and by a dog as a spur of the moment thing and would hopefully spend more time becomming educated about how to care for and own a dog. How could we go about making dog ownership harder though? How do we back up making A permit necasary for the ownership of a dog?

As for dog breeders. There seems to be far more bad breeders out there then not but I have nothing against a good breeder. They're the ones out there trying to make the dog breeds better and trying to find a way to make the breed they love have a better chance at a long and happy life. What I don't find resonable is the fact that there are people out there comming up with new breeds or trying to bring back old breeds. I think there are already enough breeds out there that we honestly don't need any more. As I said before, how many different kinds of dogs does a person need to chose from. I think there are enough breeds out there and breeders should focus on making those breeds better then trying to come up with different new breeds or trying to recreate an old breed that there is no need for anymore.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> True. I think it should be harder for people to own dogs. I need to go out and get a permit to own a chinchilla. I should have to do the same to own a dog, wich has a longer life span and is in need of more care.


Actually, you don't need a permit to own a chinchilla in most places. I have one, no permit. And chinchillas quite frequently have just as long or longer a lifespan than a dog does. They require a lot of care and can live to be in their 20s rather frequently. I know someone with a 23 year old chinchilla as well as a 10 year old one and mine is nearing 4. Just clarifying things here..

Any reason you'd need a permit is because of 'exotics' laws. Those vary a lot from state to state as well. Some common animals like chinchillas and ferrets are considered exotics and illegal in some states. Others hardly regulate animals like wolves, wolf-dogs, and wild cats. And you still see animals such as these- even chinchillas- rather frequently in rescues.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> I am still not getting why people think it is a good idea to intrude on someone's freedoms (the dog breeders) because of a perception of there being an overpopulation. The OWNER is turning the dog in, NOT the breeder. Why blame the breeder? The owner is legally responsible for the animal once they buy it. It makes no logical sense, or legal sense, to blame 100% the breeder. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. It is an owner relinquishment issue, not too many dogs being bred. You need to figure out what to do to keep those dogs that are bred in thier homes. I do my part by being always available to my puppy buyers and recommending training books and training classes. i give them all kinds of literature on training.
> 
> There are some that want to buy from breeders, and some that want to buy from shelters. Don't knock those that want to buy from breeders.
> 
> ...


We took in three purebreads yesterday, at the shelter. How do you explain that? Whose fault is that?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Captbob said:


> We took in three purebreads yesterday, at the shelter. How do you explain that? Whose fault is that?


The owner's and the breeders. Chances are they weren't bred by the most responsible person and they probably weren't owned by the most responsible person either.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> Actually, you don't need a permit to own a chinchilla in most places. I have one, no permit. And chinchillas quite frequently have just as long or longer a lifespan than a dog does. They require a lot of care and can live to be in their 20s rather frequently. I know someone with a 23 year old chinchilla as well as a 10 year old one and mine is nearing 4. Just clarifying things here..
> 
> Any reason you'd need a permit is because of 'exotics' laws. Those vary a lot from state to state as well. Some common animals like chinchillas and ferrets are considered exotics and illegal in some states. Others hardly regulate animals like wolves, wolf-dogs, and wild cats. And you still see animals such as these- even chinchillas- rather frequently in rescues.



In Jersey we need a permit for basically everything considered exotic, including ferrets. Wild cats,hybrids and wolf-dogs are considered dangerous.
I've read all about chinchillas, they can live to be up to 15 usually and they need a temp that's no higher then 75 degrees I think? 

Anyways, I still think they should make it harder for owning a dog. Then again some places make it easy to own a tiger so that's probably asking for to much.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Captbob said:


> We took in three purebreads yesterday, at the shelter. How do you explain that? Whose fault is that?



Why would it need to be explained? Why would you need to ask whose fault it is. The person who turned it in, the owner. Unless the owner also bred it. 
The breeder is certainly not responsible for the irresponsible owner. 

If someone's son commits murder, do the parents go to jail? Are they responsible? No, you can't be responsible for the behaviour of another.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

The breeders should have told those owners to return the dogs to them if anything happened and they couldn't care for the dogs anymore. It's the breeders and owners fault.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> In Jersey we need a permit for basically everything considered exotic, including ferrets. Wild cats,hybrids and wolf-dogs are considered dangerous.
> I've read all about chinchillas, they can live to be up to 15 usually and they need a temp that's no higher then 75 degrees I think?


12-16 years is usual, about the same for dogs. It's not uncommon for them to live much longer- 19, 20 years. 23 years is a very old chinchilla. Yes, they do not do well in hot environments. Our chin room is kept colder than the other parts of the house.

Anyways, back to the purebreds at the shelter. I agree it's primarily the owner's fault, HOWEVER, if the breeder screened well, this should not happen. The breeder needs contracts mandating the dog is sent back to them if the owners do not want it. If any dog from any of the breeders I know ended up in a shelter for whatever reason, they'd go and get it back. They see their dogs as their responsibility forever. Beau is even referred to by his breeder as 'one of her dogs'. Also, many breeders I know also rescue any dog of their breed from local shelters and use their time/money to find them good homes.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> The breeders should have told those owners to return the dogs to them if anything happened and they couldn't care for the dogs anymore. It's the breeders and owners fault.


The breeder did NOT turn the dog in, the owner did. you can't be responsible for the behavior of someone else.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

There really should be more breeders like that out in the world.
I don't think many people understand the consept of breeding, what is invovled, and what the main reason for breeding should be. Most people just get two dogs in a room and let them go at it. There has to be a way to get the facts about breeding out there so that everyone understands the responsability that comes with it. Maybe books can be printed out and kept in vet offices and given out to dog owners or atleast be there for a dog owner to take one if they feel the need to. 
There has to be a way to make it harder for people to breed but yet not impossable to good breeders to continue breeding for the better of the breed and there has to be a way to stop puppymills and get rid of the petstores ability to sell dogs. These things can't be impossable we just have to come up with better ideas as to how we can make these things happen.



saveourdogs said:


> The breeder did NOT turn the dog in, the owner did. you can't be responsible for the behavior of someone else.


No but that breeder could have done what was right and made sure they had that person sign a contract saying that if anything was to happen and the dog was no longer able to be cared for by that said owner that the dog MUST be returned to the breeder or legal action would take place. Thus making it a legal contract and taking responsability like they should for the life that they had brought into this world.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> The breeders should have told those owners to return the dogs to them if anything happened and they couldn't care for the dogs anymore. It's the breeders and owners fault.


You're right there. ANY responsible breeder would have it in the contract the if the dogs has to be relinquished, it comes BACK to them. IF the owners take the dog to the pound in that case, the breeder can then take them to court for breach of contract. Then again, most RESPNSIBLE breeders I know microchip their pups with THEIR name onthe registry so if it winds up inthe pound they get called, of course if the dog is relinquished by the owner, they usually don't check for a microchip. That is the only way I wouldn't hold the breeder responsible. Bob, if they are pure bred, check to see if there are microchips with a different name than the relinquishing owner. It may be there is a responsible breeder that will come get the dogs, I've seen it happen with dogs that come into our rescue and are relinquished.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> The owner's and the breeders. Chances are they weren't bred by the most responsible person and they probably weren't owned by the most responsible person either.


So what is the litmus test to determine who is a responsible breeder?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Gods know. It be great to get AKC involved in making sure they only register responsable breeders but they would need a way of knowing the difference between a BYB/puppymill and someone that is actually responsably breading.
It be a good idea if everyone stopped going to there shows untill they became more responsable and actually started to care about the people they register with but that's something I doubt would happen.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I could ask you how do you determine a responsible owner.

I've already outlined what a responsible breeder would do in this situation as have others.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Why would it need to be explained? Why would you need to ask whose fault it is. The person who turned it in, the owner. Unless the owner also bred it.
> The breeder is certainly not responsible for the irresponsible owner.
> 
> If someone's son commits murder, do the parents go to jail? Are they responsible? No, you can't be responsible for the behaviour of another.


If the breeder sells the dog to a jerk, just to make some money and or move his or her inventory, which seems to happen quite often, I think the breeder is definetly responsible. Breeders selling Pit Bulls in the city where I live for instance, for a couple of hundred dollars, and a couple of weeks later, they wind up in a shelter because they poop and pee in the house and the morons that bought them didn't realize that this was what part of raising a dog. The breeder became a breeder, because they didn't have the animal S/N out of laziness, or indifference, , and guess what,...... a litter was produced..... Well, Duh!!! , who would have thought..... Now it becomes the shelters problem, and the shelter didn't get dime one from the transaction. *Just in the condo complex where I live, I have seen 3 Pit Bull pups come and go in the last six months. *They were all Pedigree, amd shortly after they were bought from the respective breeders, the new owners became disinterested with their new toys. " Hey, I have to train this thing, and walk it, and feed it , and take it to the vet, and spend time with it. That's a pain.. Maybe I will just tie it to a tree"....

Maybe every dog that is sold or dumped on the market to the highest bidder, should be registered like a car, and when they see the same "breeder" ( and I use that term loosely) having their dogs brought to pounds a month or two after they are purchased from someone that doesn't give 2 hoots about the dog's future, , they should start fining those sellers with a hefty fine. I bet that would get their attention .


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Gods know. It be great to get AKC involved in making sure they only register responsable breeders but they would need a way of knowing the difference between a BYB/puppymill and someone that is actually responsably breading.
> It be a good idea if everyone stopped going to there shows untill they became more responsable and actually started to care about the people they register with but that's something I doubt would happen.


The AKC is NOT the problem. They are not the 'dog police' or in charge of everyone's dogs. They are a club and a registry. Yes, I would like to see them stop registering with puppymills as would a lot of people. But let's face it, they like everyone else do think of money. People should be in charge of what they do and what dogs they get and what dogs they breed. The AKC cannot force people to be ethical- it's not their job. Besides even if you can't breed AKC there's a thousand other registries out there. APRI, CKC etc. Those are the easiest ways to sell dogs with 'papers' and most buyers don't know the difference.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Just because AKC doesn't seem to want to care about the breeders they register doesn't make that okay and something that should just be considered fine. AKC should become more concerned with the breeders they have registered and shouldn't allow puppymills and BYB to register with them at all cost. More people should be out there trying to educate people about what a good dog breeder is and what isn't. No one said AKC was the problem. It's just a part of it.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Just because AKC doesn't seem to want to care about the breeders they register doesn't make that okay and something that should just be considered fine. AKC should become more concerned with the breeders they have registered and shouldn't allow puppymills and BYB to register with them at all cost. More people should be out there trying to educate people about what a good dog breeder is and what isn't. No one said AKC was the problem. It's just a part of it.


So now, not only is the breeders who are turning the dogs into the shelter and acting irresponsibly, the AKC is doing it to? 
How can the AKC be r esponsible for the actions of an individual? Of course it can't. And the AKC does inspections and takes away priveleges if they see substandard conditions. 

And who is to determine what is a 'puppymill' or a much better term, substandard breeder. Well there are animal cruelty laws that are on the books that already cover that. They just need to be enforced.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

A puppymill in my opinion isn't even a breeder. It's more like a company mass producing different breeds of dogs for the money. Yet somehow the AKC doesn't seem to care or think it's necassary to check and make sure the breeder registered with them isn't doing something as inhumane as that. A backyard breeder in my opinion is a "breeder" that knows little to nothing about the breed they are breeding. They get money out of it even though most reputable breeders could care less about the money. They don't know nearly enough about how to properly breed a dog and they end up with unhealthy puppies because of it. They manage to get the dogs registered with AKC and *Poof* the puppies are all extremely healthy and worth every dime. What BS.... honestly. It's not just AKC and the breeders fault. AKC could do a better job at screaning the breeders registered with them, breeders should take more responsability in the dogs they bring into this world, and owners should learn as much as they can about the breed they plan on getting and shouldn't get a dog unless they have the time, money, and understanding of the breed to the point were it will be more the likely that the dog will have a forever home.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> So now, not only is the breeders who are turning the dogs into the shelter and acting irresponsibly, the AKC is doing it to?
> How can the AKC be r esponsible for the actions of an individual? Of course it can't. And the AKC does inspections and takes away priveleges if they see substandard conditions.
> 
> And who is to determine what is a 'puppymill' or a much better term, substandard breeder. Well there are animal cruelty laws that are on the books that already cover that. They just need to be enforced.


The AKC was actively soliciting puppy mills about 5 months ago to register their dogs, so that the money would flow into the AKC coffers. Pretty disingenuous, but it is all about the almighty dollar , isn't it?



xoxluvablexox said:


> A puppymill in my opinion isn't even a breeder. It's more like a company mass producing different breeds of dogs for the money. Yet somehow the AKC doesn't seem to care or think it's necassary to check and make sure the breeder registered with them isn't doing something as inhumane as that. A backyard breeder in my opinion is a "breeder" that knows little to nothing about the breed they are breeding. They get money out of it even though most reputable breeders could care less about the money. They don't know nearly enough about how to properly breed a dog and they end up with unhealthy puppies because of it. They manage to get the dogs registered with AKC and *Poof* the puppies are all extremely healthy and worth every dime. What BS.... honestly. It's not just AKC and the breeders fault. AKC could do a better job at screaning the breeders registered with them, breeders should take more responsability in the dogs they bring into this world, and owners should learn as much as they can about the breed they plan on getting and shouldn't get a dog unless they have the time, money, and understanding of the breed to the point were it will be more the likely that the dog will have a forever home.



Problem is that the AKC is set up like a business, and any business, is worried about their P and L statement at the end of the month. That is the Holy Grail of big business, and if they have to register dogs from puppy mills to make their numbers, you can bet your bippy that they are going to do it.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

"The AKC was actively soliciting puppy mills about 5 months ago to register their dogs,"

So all commercial breeders are puppymills? just because someone breeds commercially does not equal puppymill. There are plenty of breeders who have kennels that are immaculate and the dogs are well taken care of.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

If it comes to the point were you have more then 10 different breeds I don't care how well taken care of they are. Dogs need human companionship and just sitting a dog in a nice big cage with food and water doesn't amount to that.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> "The AKC was actively soliciting puppy mills about 5 months ago to register their dogs,"
> 
> So all commercial breeders are puppymills? just because someone breeds commercially does not equal puppymill. There are plenty of breeders who have kennels that are immaculate and the dogs are well taken care of.


They are still puppy mills and should be shut down. That simple.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> So now, not only is the breeders who are turning the dogs into the shelter and acting irresponsibly, the AKC is doing it to?
> How can the AKC be r esponsible for the actions of an individual? Of course it can't. And the AKC does inspections and takes away priveleges if they see substandard conditions.
> 
> And who is to determine what is a 'puppymill' or a much better term, substandard breeder. Well there are animal cruelty laws that are on the books that already cover that. They just need to be enforced.


The AKC register dogs that are sold in Pet Stores that were products of puppy mills. They advertised that they would do this.



saveourdogs said:


> "The AKC was actively soliciting puppy mills about 5 months ago to register their dogs,"
> 
> So all commercial breeders are puppymills? just because someone breeds commercially does not equal puppymill. There are plenty of breeders who have kennels that are immaculate and the dogs are well taken care of.


Where did someone say that " *All commercial breeders are Puppy Mills"*  Must be another forum


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Captbob said:


> The AKC register dogs that are sold in Pet Stores that were products of puppy mills. They advertised that they would do this.
> 
> Where did someone say that " *All commercial breeders are Puppy Mills"*  Must be another forum


Actually, that might have been me. Several years back I was involved in the closing of a puppymill. The breeder's wife had died and he didn't want to do it anymore, and so he called rescue and said "get the dogs out of here, or I'm going to kill them all." His plan was to take them all to the pound to be killed. 

There were 300 dogs, comprised mostly of OES, Poodles (mini/toy), Yorkies, and a few shihtzu's they were just starting to breed. This "commercial kennel" had repeatedly passed their scheduled inspections, and was basically clean in that there was no build up of urine or feces, or anything like that. 

The first thing that struck me was how the breeder treated the dogs as inanimate objects. It's not unusual to see someone reach into a toy store bin of stuffed animals, and pick one up by whatever section of the toy came in contact first -- whether it was an ear, a tail, the hair on the stomach, a back leg - doesn't matter, because it is only a stuffed toy and it has no feelings. But this breeder was doing the same thing to his dogs. He had prepared a box where he was holding the first small dogs to go, and he'd reach in and pull them out by whatever he first came into contact, and then hand them to us with no regard how we took them from him. This callous attitude was something I'd never experienced before.

The next thing I noticed was the massive flea infestation. Fleas were even running in and out of the puppies eyes, even though they weren't open yet. And then I realized that most of the dogs had massive skin problems. The OES had big patches where no hair grew, and it looked like raw hamburger.

The rescue community managed to take all 300 dogs. Most of the yorkies had to be euthanized, but it was done at area vets, while rescue workers gave them the only love they probably ever knew. Most of the yorkies had huge tumors, and of course the normal horrible teeth that you see in commercial breeding situations.

I personally fostered two litters with their mamas, both poodle. One litter was brand new - maybe only a day or two old, but that poor Mama (Angel) had pyometra, horrible teeth, extreme ear mite infestation, severe luxating patella, and our vet felt that she had both front feet broken at some time in her life, and not cared for, and so she walked on her hocks (ankles?) and her feet splayed to the side. She basically hobbled. One of her puppies died the first day. One took all we had to keep going, but she did survive, and the final one was the one that probably would have ended up in a pet shop. He would have been the last surviving puppy of a mama that had been bred to death, because I have no doubt that she wouldn't have survived much longer in the kennel. She really had nothing to give him. She was totally debilitated, and it was a struggle to save her. But he would have ended up in a pet shop, sold to someone that might have been convinced to breed him to make back the money they spent on him, and because he was AKC. 

Angel spent the rest of her years with me, while she hobbled out to collect dog toys and take them to her fluffy bed to nurse. She eventually overcame her fear of grass. She never did overcome her fear of people. When touched, she held her breath - which made it exceedingly hard for the vet to listen to her lungs. She eventually died from an inoperable throat tumor. I always think of her when I see pet shop puppies, or when I hear that someone has bought a pet shop puppy. There are far too many Angel's out there that are suffering so that someone can profit from them.

So do I think that puppymills and commercial breeders are synonymous? Yes. As long as a breeder is breeding for profit, he's going to cut corners that make it harder on the dog. Are there worse puppymills than others? Absolutely. I've seen reports on one's worse than Angel's. At least with Angel's, there was no dead dogs lying around. The dogs weren't eating each other. They weren't stacked in cages, eliminating on each other. But should what Angel suffered be allowed? Was it fair that she lived on cement with broken feet that had to heal by themselves, and the pain from luxating patella? Day after day after day, and night after night after night, with never anything soft to lay on? It breaks my heart. And for what? Profit? That kind of profit, in my opinion, is pure evil.

But you know what? It's legal. So it must be okay.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> So do I think that puppymills and commercial breeders are synonymous? Yes. As long as a breeder is breeding for profit, he's going to cut corners that make it harder on the dog. Are there worse puppymills than others? Absolutely. I've seen reports on one's worse than Angel's. At least with Angel's, there was no dead dogs lying around. The dogs weren't eating each other. They weren't stacked in cages, eliminating on each other. But should what Angel suffered be allowed? Was it fair that she lived on cement with broken feet that had to heal by themselves, and the pain from luxating patella? Day after day after day, and night after night after night, with never anything soft to lay on? It breaks my heart. And for what? Profit? That kind of profit, in my opinion, is pure evil.
> 
> But you know what? It's legal. So it must be okay.


People like that are disgusting. You know where they are going to wind up when they die, and hopefully they will be treated the same way as they treated the animals when they were on this earth.....


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Captbob said:


> People like that are disgusting. You know where they are going to wind up when they die, and hopefully they will be treated the same way as they treated the animals when they were on this earth.....


People are the way they are because they were never taught different or proved wrong. Wanting them to suffer as much as they made their dogs suffer would only be continueing a bad cycle. They'll feel the pain those dogs felt and they'll have to live with that for eternity so their not only hurting the dogs but themselves in the end. Wishing that on them though is just as bad as what they did. Things will change over time. It did for the people that were looked down at and enslaved in the past and it will be the same for dogs and other animals. Untill then, hate only breeds more hate.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> People are the way they are because they were never taught different or proved wrong. Wanting them to suffer as much as they made their dogs suffer would only be continueing a bad cycle. They'll feel the pain those dogs felt and they'll have to live with that for eternity so their not only hurting the dogs but themselves in the end. Wishing that on them though is just as bad as what they did. Things will change over time. It did for the people that were looked down at and enslaved in the past and it will be the same for dogs and other animals. Untill then, hate only breeds more hate.


Not hate, total disgust is more like it. We had two teenagers in Atlanta a few months ago that put a puppy in an oven, after they duct taped it so it couldn't move and turned the oven on. The jury basically gave them a zero sentence, because they were already sentenced to 10 years for the robbery they commited when they tortured this dog to death, and the sentence for torturing the dog was concurrent, which mean't all they would have to serve was 10 years, rather than 20. 

The dog left scratch marks on the walls of the oven, which the jury was shown, as it tried to escape the 400 degrees that killed it, which took about 20 minutes. Sorry, but I can't excuse behavior like that from anyone, and I don't care what they were or were not taught. Lots of people have poor childhoods, are taught very little if anything by their parents, and still manage to grow up to be decent human beings, not horrible creeps like these two. It is very common for people that commit crimes like this to go and become rapists, child abusers, and serial killers, by the way, in fact one of these two was also convicted of child abuse. 

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/564805100?ltl=1178815507


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I feel sorry for people like that. Before you start calling me crazy let me explain. 
They'll never know what love and compasion is and they'll never see the good in life. They'll go through life suffering in their own self pitty and hate for the world and everything in it. They'll never understand what life it truly about and in the end their life will be meaninless. They're not alive IMO. Just "zombies" living out life without really feeling or caring and never understanding. It's sad and pathetic and every pain they caused of a another living thing will only come back to them in the end. I'm a full believer in karma. It's not my job to judge and hate. Everything will take care of itself.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

As CaptBob said, it's not about hate. But it's also not about blithely saying that they'll get theirs in the end, or they must be suffering because they don't get the benefits of caring. It's about the passion that it sparks in us to turn such tragedies into action to protect animals in the future. Do you think I'd be as passionate today about puppymills if it hadn't been for Angel? When I was at that puppymill, my mentor in rescue told me before we went in, that no matter what I saw, and what I felt, I had to keep smiling, and in no way be adversarial to the puppymiller because it could mean the loss of the dogs. Instead, we had to focus on how beautiful these incredibly neglected dogs were. I fought tears the whole time. And when I left, and got into the car, I was pure rage. Everytime I had to deal with anything that caused pain to these dogs in order to heal them, I felt rage towards the puppymiller, and his wife, who I hoped was hearing me wherever she had gone when she died.

But rage, and hate, have a way of harming the one feeling it more than the one it is aimed at, even in just thoughts, and it's also counter-productive. So in order to become productive, I decided to focus on Angel instead of her abusers, and use her story to try to effect change in the world. I still cry whenever I think of her. These two posts are being sent with tears. And I still have a problem with the frustration caused by people that won't take her story to heart, but instead prefer to focus on some the constitutional rights of the puppymillers rather than the victims of the puppymillers. For those people, I have no hate either, but I can't help thinking that deep down inside them, there is a spot of compassion that just hasn't been reached yet. I focus on that spot.

As for CaptBob's story, I hope his sense of outrage causes a ripple effect that brings about change in the world. Even the idea that a burglary carries more weight in a court of law than the torture and killing of a living being capable of pain and fear, should trigger outrage and hopefully change in such policies. I've seen outrage voiced in some of your posts, xoxluvablexox. I think it's that outrage that prompts you to post your feelings. I don't agree with all you say, just as I'm sure you don't agree with everything I say, but I think the fact that you care enough to say it, speaks volumes. Hopefully you're planting a seed, and though you'll never know who it will effect, even rage can create beauty if it triggers compassion in someone.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I understand what your saying completely. I look at it more as my rage is focused on the crime not the one commiting it. I have a love for nature and everything that exsist in it and the fact that some people can go around killing and hating everything in anything is unbelieveable to me. I feel bad for killing a spider much less a dog so honestly I can't even imagine what half of these people are thinking when they commit such horrible crimes. It's just strange to me that in only a few years humans have become so coldhearted and careless to the pain they cause others. It soemtimes makes me wonder how we can consider ourselfs above other creatures when we are the ones that don't know how to love and be compasionite. Dogs are one of the most loving animals and the fact that we use that as a way to get close to them and then hurt them for the sake of money and insanity is something that I probably will never beable to understand.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I understand what your saying completely. I look at it more as my rage is focused on the crime not the one commiting it. I have a love for nature and everything that exsist in it and the fact that some people can go around killing and hating everything in anything is unbelieveable to me. I feel bad for killing a spider much less a dog so honestly I can't even imagine what half of these people are thinking when they commit such horrible crimes. It's just strange to me that in only a few years humans have become so coldhearted and careless to the pain they cause others. It soemtimes makes me wonder how we can consider ourselfs above other creatures when we are the ones that don't know how to love and be compasionite. Dogs are one of the most loving animals and the fact that we use that as a way to get close to them and then hurt them for the sake of money and insanity is something that I probably will never beable to understand.


You have to keep in mind that this is a choice those people make, to do harm and cause others pain and suffering. Many of them get joy out of making that choice. They think it is fun to hurt others.....


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogAdvocate, 
Your story gets repeated so often in this country. I also stated that all commercial breeders are puppymills. I don't care if they have 30 dogs or 300. I do know a couple GOOD breeders that have 10-15 dogs, BUT most are retirees that are sterilized and all are in the house and part of the family. They only have one or two producing bitches and adhere to strict health testing and only breed a bitch once a year IF THAT. They have more dogs because they don't rehome when the dog is no longer able to produce, even though they could. The dogs they keep are there for a lifetime.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Actually, that might have been me. Several years back I was involved in the closing of a puppymill. The breeder's wife had died and he didn't want to do it anymore, and so he called rescue and said "get the dogs out of here, or I'm going to kill them all." His plan was to take them all to the pound to be killed.
> 
> There were 300 dogs, comprised mostly of OES, Poodles (mini/toy), Yorkies, and a few shihtzu's they were just starting to breed. This "commercial kennel" had repeatedly passed their scheduled inspections, and was basically clean in that there was no build up of urine or feces, or anything like that.
> 
> ...



I would concur that this particular situation is a puppymill and should be shut down on general animal cruelty charges. A flea infestation like that is not keeping the dog in good conditions. Simply clean cages is not the only sign of good conditions. 

Not all commercial establishments are like this. Some are and they should be closed down using laws already on the books. 

To make a law to make a legal activity now illegal makes no sense to me. Those that are keeping thier dogs clean, well fed, well kept, groomed, no fleas, no worms, etc are doing nothing illegal, just against your personal ethics. You are welcome to that opinion. But to make a law to outlaw them is not up to you to make that determination imo. It is just one large step towards outlawing all breeders. You have an opinion that you dont' like cbs so you want a law outlawing them. Wayne Pacelle thinks anyone who breeds a litter or even owns a dog is practicing animal cruelty. Where does it stop? It stops with dog owning being illegal.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Making a law against something that is already legal makes no sense to you??
What's the difference between now and a few years ago when laws were being made against herrasment of people for their race and beliefs. Should those laws never have been made because people thought it was okay and obviously if it's legal then why make it illegal. Where is the sense in that. People think things are okay when they aren't right in any way. The only way to make them see the light is laws. It gives people barriers that they shouldn't cross. Some people chose to cross them but most are smart enough to realize that those things were wrong all along and the laws are for the better of the nation.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> Making a law against something that is already legal makes no sense to you??
> What's the difference between now and a few years ago when laws were being made against herrasment of people for their race and beliefs. Should those laws never have been made because people thought it was okay and obviously if it's legal then why make it illegal. Where is the sense in that. People think things are okay when they aren't right in any way. The only way to make them see the light is laws. It gives people barriers that they shouldn't cross. Some people chose to cross them but most are smart enough to realize that those things were wrong all along and the laws are for the better of the nation.


Making it illegal or extremely expensive and adding all kinds of hoops so I can breed my dog does nothing for the public safety. There is nothing illegal. YOU just think it is wrong. You are welcome to your opinion. That does not mean you should restrict something just because it is against your sensibilities. I am doing nothing wrong by breeding. I dont affect your life in one bit. just because you either dont understand breeders, breeding or simply hate breeders is not reason enough to outlaw it. 

and no one has told me how the unfair exhorbitant taxation on good breeders will reduce shelter populations. It will only increase it as people abandon thier dogs because they dont want to pay to spay it.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I'm not even talking about the bill anymore. I'm talking about other laws... ways to make people understand what is good breeding and what is bad. I have nothing against breeders just BYB/puppymills that think it's okay to use a living thing as a money maker for themselves. I don't understand why you continue to think that's what anyone is trying to say. I love the fact there are good breeders that are out there trying to make breeds better. I hate the fact that there are some people out there that are using all kinds of diffent dogs to make them some cash. 
Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? Is this honestly not making any sense to you or do you just like disagreeing with everything I have to say?

I'm not the only one with the opinion that BYB/puppymills are bad and shouldn't be alowed to continue. If not with laws then with what do you think would be a good way to end such cruility. Or do you not believe that getting a bitch pregnant 3 times in one year for 8 years of her life is cruility towards that animal?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I'm not even talking about the bill anymore. I'm talking about other laws... ways to make people understand what is good breeding and what is bad. I have nothing against breeders just BYB/puppymills that think it's okay to use a living thing as a money maker for themselves. I don't understand why you continue to think that's what anyone is trying to say. I love the fact there are good breeders that are out there trying to make breeds better. I hate the fact that there are some people out there that are using all kinds of diffent dogs to make them some cash.
> Do you understand what I'm trying to say here? Is this honestly not making any sense to you or do you just like disagreeing with everything I have to say?
> 
> I'm not the only one with the opinion that BYB/puppymills are bad and shouldn't be alowed to continue. If not with laws then with what do you think would be a good way to end such cruility. Or do you not believe that getting a bitch pregnant 3 times in one year for 8 years of her life is cruility towards that animal?



Just because you don't agree with bybs does not mean they should be outlawed or regulated. 

Simply because you do not like it does not mean it is wrong, bad, should be illegal. is it unethical. Some think so. Does not mean that makes it illegal. Remember prohibition? How'd that go? . Some religious fanatics decided to impose thier morals on others. This is the same thing. Simply because you are not a farmer does not make it wrong to earn money off of animals. 

I try to educate people not to buy from pet stores, cbs, bybs, newspaper ads, etc etc all day long. Simply because I disagree with thier ethics and ways of breeding and placing pups does not mean I think it should be illegal. You can't legislate morality and ethics. Doesn't work, never had, never will. 

Simply because someone breeds in a certain way is not cruelty. Just a differing way of doing things. if they dogs are not in good conditions is the only way, I believe, they are doing something that should be made illegal. And it already is. 

And it is not physically possible to breed a dog 3 times in one year. They dont come into season that often. And yes I would not breed a female 8 times in her life. That doesn't mean I have the right to tell you you can't if you and your veterinarian think she is healthy enough. It's a judgement call. 
Each case is individual. Not up to legislators or yourself who has no knowledge of a subject to make up laws about it.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

No one agrees with BYBs unless they are one. So the only people fighting for it would be the people that actually do make a profit from selling dogs and don't want to go out and get a real job. 

No your right you can't legislate morality and ethics. That's why it's legal to kill someone that makes you mad and you can get away with it. It's okay to take a slave and beat him with a wip and it's okay to force children to work with no pay for as many hours as you want.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Making it illegal or extremely expensive and adding all kinds of hoops so I can breed my dog does nothing for the public safety. There is nothing illegal. YOU just think it is wrong. You are welcome to your opinion. That does not mean you should restrict something just because it is against your sensibilities. I am doing nothing wrong by breeding. I dont affect your life in one bit. just because you either dont understand breeders, breeding or simply hate breeders is not reason enough to outlaw it.
> 
> and no one has told me how the unfair exhorbitant taxation on good breeders will reduce shelter populations. It will only increase it as people abandon thier dogs because they dont want to pay to spay it.


Those who abandon their dogs should not have them in the first place. 

I do understand RESPONSIBLE breeding, those who MASS PRODUCE puppies, no matter the 'conditions' of the kennels should be stopped, PERIOD. It is harmful to the dogs who live in cages instead of homes where they are loved, whose pups end up with uneducated owners, to the people the dogs are sold to as they pay for the genetic and temperment problems the that are the result of mass breeding and lack of health testing and the shelters and rescues that have to make life or death decisions when these dogs are dumped on them or on some back road to fend for themselves.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I understand what your saying completely. I look at it more as my rage is focused on the crime not the one commiting it. I have a love for nature and everything that exsist in it and the fact that some people can go around killing and hating everything in anything is unbelieveable to me. I feel bad for killing a spider much less a dog so honestly I can't even imagine what half of these people are thinking when they commit such horrible crimes. It's just strange to me that in only a few years humans have become so coldhearted and careless to the pain they cause others. It soemtimes makes me wonder how we can consider ourselfs above other creatures when we are the ones that don't know how to love and be compasionite. Dogs are one of the most loving animals and the fact that we use that as a way to get close to them and then hurt them for the sake of money and insanity is something that I probably will never beable to understand.


I hear you, but I just wanted to remind, that when you say we don't knowh how to love and be compassionate as a species, you have to remember that you have that capacity and are part of the species. I'd like to think I have that capacity. I see the other rescuers around me that I know are driven by empathy and compassion - so it's not all humans. I think it's kind of like a pendulum. On one side we have those who are compassionate and ache for any living being that is victimized, and spend their time trying to alleviate suffering. On the other side we have people that sadistically try to hurt sentient beings, or do so for profit, and treat their victims as if they are inanimate objects. But in between, which is probably the largest number, I think we have apathy, ignorance, and selfishness. I think there is hope for those in the middle, and I think they have the capacity for compassion, if it is just triggered. 

So, maybe I'm just an optimist, but I have hope for us humans, even though there are some that seem hopeless. What jars me sometimes is just when I think I've heard the worst of what humans can do, I'm shocked by an even more blatant cruelty than I've ever heard of, which makes me wonder about the depths we can sink to.

Anyway, now getting down off the soap box. I think I should probably type in the word DOG just in case the moderators are watching. 



cshellenberger said:


> DogAdvocate,
> Your story gets repeated so often in this country. I also stated that all commercial breeders are puppymills. I don't care if they have 30 dogs or 300. I do know a couple GOOD breeders that have 10-15 dogs, BUT most are retirees that are sterilized and all are in the house and part of the family. They only have one or two producing bitches and adhere to strict health testing and only breed a bitch once a year IF THAT. They have more dogs because they don't rehome when the dog is no longer able to produce, even though they could. The dogs they keep are there for a lifetime.


That's something else I'd like to see added to the qualifications of being a responsible breeder. How can a breeder be considered responsible if they dump their own dogs when no longer breedable? What kind of message is that to send to the public? And what about the feelings of the dog that is loyal to its family only to lose it's home because it can no longer do a job?



saveourdogs said:


> I would concur that this particular situation is a puppymill and should be shut down on general animal cruelty charges. A flea infestation like that is not keeping the dog in good conditions. Simply clean cages is not the only sign of good conditions.
> 
> Not all commercial establishments are like this. Some are and they should be closed down using laws already on the books.


Did you understand that this breeder was doing nothing illegal? You keep saying bad treatment should be prosecuted under existing laws, but there are no existing laws to cover this situation. This breeder was inspected at least yearly and wasn't guilty of having broken any laws. It's not just a matter of enforcement, because there is far too much that is missing in the current anti-cruelty laws, including flea infestations, and including keeping arthritic dogs on cold cement.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

Did you understand that this breeder was doing nothing illegal? You keep saying bad treatment should be prosecuted under existing laws, but there are no existing laws to cover this situation. This breeder was inspected at least yearly and wasn't guilty of having broken any laws. It's not just a matter of enforcement, because there is far too much that is missing in the current anti-cruelty laws, including flea infestations, and including keeping arthritic dogs on cold cement.[/QUOTE]


Then it is your anticruelty laws that need to be changed if that is in fact true. The ones in my county sure would cover this situation.



xoxluvablexox said:


> No one agrees with BYBs unless they are one. So the only people fighting for it would be the people that actually do make a profit from selling dogs and don't want to go out and get a real job.
> 
> No your right you can't legislate morality and ethics. That's why it's legal to kill someone that makes you mad and you can get away with it. It's okay to take a slave and beat him with a wip and it's okay to force children to work with no pay for as many hours as you want.



just because I dont believe Bybs are doing it the best ways does not mean that is a reason to pass a law about it. 

And the analogies you used are not relevant. These are examples of cruelty. Simply breeding dogs is not cruelty. Just because you dont agree with it does not make it cruel or immoral.



cshellenberger said:


> Those who abandon their dogs should not have them in the first place.
> 
> I do understand RESPONSIBLE breeding, those who MASS PRODUCE puppies, no matter the 'conditions' of the kennels should be stopped, PERIOD. It is harmful to the dogs who live in cages instead of homes where they are loved, whose pups end up with uneducated owners, to the people the dogs are sold to as they pay for the genetic and temperment problems the that are the result of mass breeding and lack of health testing and the shelters and rescues that have to make life or death decisions when these dogs are dumped on them or on some back road to fend for themselves.



Why is it up to you to make those judgement calls? Why should it be a law that all dogs live in homes simply because YOU think it is the best way? You are allowed to have an opinion, but you can't impose your morals on others. It is certainly not harmful by living in a kennel unless the conditions where not ideal as far as cleanliness, no pests, proper food, proper vet care, proper grooming. Simply living in a kennel situation is in no way cruelty. Do my dogs live in a kennel? No, they live in my house. Would I sell to someone that would keep my pup in a kennel? No. But that is MY CHOICE. It is not up to me to tell that person that they can't. 

Only a small percentage of dogs that are bred in the country end up in shelters.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

> That's something else I'd like to see added to the qualifications of being a responsible breeder. How can a breeder be considered responsible if they dump their own dogs when no longer breedable? What kind of message is that to send to the public? And what about the feelings of the dog that is loyal to its family only to lose it's home because it can no longer do a job?


Responsible breeders don't dump their dogs, they try to find homes and require the same things they would from a pet home contract. Not all are able to keep alot of dogs so they find loving homes for them. Some can't bear to part with dogs so they keep them and just reduce the # of breedings. Either way, the dogs are loved and given the attention they need.

That said, I do know some BYB dump dogs when they aren't able to produce, usually on shelters or backraods.



saveourdogs said:


> Why is it up to you to make those judgement calls? Why should it be a law that all dogs live in homes simply because YOU think it is the best way? You are allowed to have an opinion, but you can't impose your morals on others. It is certainly not harmful by living in a kennel unless the conditions where not ideal as far as cleanliness, no pests, proper food, proper vet care, proper grooming. Simply living in a kennel situation is in no way cruelty. Do my dogs live in a kennel? No, they live in my house. Would I sell to someone that would keep my pup in a kennel? No. But that is MY CHOICE. It is not up to me to tell that person that they can't.
> 
> Only a small percentage of dogs that are bred in the country end up in shelters.


It is up to all responsible breeders and pet owners to change the law. It's not about what I think, it's about what I see everyday. I have to wonder where you're getting your information from. I see how man ydogs end up inthe shelter every time I go pull for rescue. I also don't understand how you can think that living in a cage, not having human interaction and having pups every six months isn't cruel. Yes, we can change things if we care enough to, just as we are doing to stop dogs from being chained outside 24/7 and stopping dog fighting. Mass Production of dogs is in the same category. That is from a person that has had her feet in BOTH worlds, breeding AND rescue. How can YOU have the opinion that it's OK for dogs to pent up like livestock?


----------



## sweetardnas1885 (May 10, 2007)

Please don't hurt me if this has already been stated, or if you don't agree. But from what I understand of this bill, it would also hurt those that compete in conformation trials, as these dogs are required to remain intact. Supposedly it doesn't take into account these, often responsible, pet owners. Why would we want to punish the good along with the bad or those that are simply trying to help out their breed? However, I do understand that this would cut down on the pet overpopulation issue and have absolutely no arguement with that. I think breeders should be licensed. I think someone should put some regulations on breeders. This would mostly hinder the bad breeders and millers as the good breeders would have been doing nothing unethical (in theory). I think there should be some type of committee of respnsible breeders and owners to create and enforce such regulations. Heck, I'd be first to line up!


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

That's why so many here oppose it. It's very badly written legislation.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Saveourdogs, 
Your right no one has the right to say the overbreeding unhealthy dogs and even mutts is not okay. No one has the right to say that adding more dogs to be killed in shelters is not okay. 
Just like no one has the right to say that second hand smoke kills people and no one should smoke at bars anymore.
Or that drunk driving is dangerous just because some people don't know how to drive in when they're drunk. 
Or that you have to be atleast 18 to drive in the state of new jersey. Who has the right to say these things. 
I drove a car when I was 15 and never got caught and never killed anyone so why should I lose my right to drive at that age because of some other people. 
There are laws out there that take away are rights and not everyone agrees with them and has the right to think they know better and should force those laws on the rest of us. Yet those laws are set in place and because of them lifes are saved. A dog is a living thing not a piece of property and no one has the right to treat a dog like it doesn't matter and only use it as a way to get puppies. They don't see life they see money and they don't deserve those rights to do whatever they want to when it comes to breeding their dogs.


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

"It is up to all responsible breeders and pet owners to change the law. It's not about what I think, it's about what I see everyday. I have to wonder where you're getting your information from. I see how man ydogs end up inthe shelter every time I go pull for rescue. I also don't understand how you can think that living in a cage, not having human interaction and having pups every six months isn't cruel. Yes, we can change things if we care enough to, just as we are doing to stop dogs from being chained outside 24/7 and stopping dog fighting. Mass Production of dogs is in the same category. That is from a person that has had her feet in BOTH worlds, breeding AND rescue. How can YOU have the opinion that it's OK for dogs to pent up like livestock"

Did I say it is OK? No, but it is not up to me to judge those that do. That is how I feel. Those that do it do not have the same thought processes as you or I do. They only know about supply and demand. Educate consumers to not buy from them. They won't do it if they can't sell them. It works and is working.



xoxluvablexox said:


> Saveourdogs,
> Your right no one has the right to say the overbreeding unhealthy dogs and even mutts is not okay. No one has the right to say that adding more dogs to be killed in shelters is not okay.
> Just like no one has the right to say that second hand smoke kills people and no one should smoke at bars anymore.
> Or that drunk driving is dangerous just because some people don't know how to drive in when they're drunk.
> ...



Your analogies are not relevant. You are showing cases of physical harm to humans. Because joe blow breeds a litter of mixed breeds does no harm. It is a judgement call that you think it is wrong. 

Because you broke a law, means that you think it is ok to say I can't breed or I need to be heavily regulated and taxed"?

I guess your thought processes are not the same as mine. I don't understand how you can impose your morals on others. Just how I see it.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Did I say it is OK? No, but it is not up to me to judge those that do. That is how I feel. Those that do it do not have the same thought processes as you or I do. They only know about supply and demand. Educate consumers to not buy from them. They won't do it if they can't sell them. It works and is working.


If you don't think it's OK, then WHY are you defending it? Why not work with other concerned people to stop it with laws that protect the rights of responsible breeders while helping to stop BYB and mass production breeders. Will it work 100%? No, but it will help.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> Your analogies are not relevant. You are showing cases of physical harm to humans. Because joe blow breeds a litter of mixed breeds does no harm. It is a judgement call that you think it is wrong.
> 
> Because you broke a law, means that you think it is ok to say I can't breed or I need to be heavily regulated and taxed"?
> 
> I guess your thought processes are not the same as mine. I don't understand how you can impose your morals on others. Just how I see it.


The reasons I used the analogies I did was because I don't think more of humans then dogs. If I hurt a human it's the same to me as if I hurt a dog and the other way around. Breeding mutts only adds to the dogs that will be put into shelters only to die. It's the same to me as the holicust. Stuck in a small space waiting to be gassed. Just because they look different doesn't make them any different. I fight for their rights like they were my own species and I always will. If smoking in a bar is illegal because it causes harm to humans then breeding mutts so that they can only end up getting stuck with a needle and put to their death should be just as illigal.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> Making it illegal or extremely expensive and adding all kinds of hoops so I can breed my dog does nothing for the public safety. There is nothing illegal. YOU just think it is wrong. You are welcome to your opinion. That does not mean you should restrict something just because it is against your sensibilities. I am doing nothing wrong by breeding. I dont affect your life in one bit. just because you either dont understand breeders, breeding or simply hate breeders is not reason enough to outlaw it.
> 
> and no one has told me how the unfair exhorbitant taxation on good breeders will reduce shelter populations. It will only increase it as people abandon thier dogs because they dont want to pay to spay it.


Actually, adding hoops for breeders to jump through might indeed affect public safety if you consider that some breeders do not properly socialize their dogs, nor do they know how to breed for temperament. Commercial breeders aren't going to care if they are breeding a dog that passes on her own fear biting issues to her puppies, who are then unsocialized and sold at pet shops to unsuspecting families. For some breeds this could mean major damage to the public. IMO, that's one of the issues that drives BSLs. If pit bulls were only being bred by responsible breeders who knew how to breed for a good temperament and how to properly socialize, the breed wouldn't be in jeopardy driven by the public fears.



saveourdogs said:


> You can't legislate morality and ethics. Doesn't work, never had, never will.


No matter how many times you say this, it's simply not true. Consider the fact that it's illegal to sell pornography to children. It's also illegal to traffic in and even own child pornography. And please don't fall into the trap of saying that such legislation has not stopped such pornography, because then I'd have to counter that laws against murder and violent acts against others haven't stopped murder and violence. And no one in their right mind would say you can't legislate murder and violence.

DogA : Did you understand that this breeder was doing nothing illegal? You keep saying bad treatment should be prosecuted under existing laws, but there are no existing laws to cover this situation. This breeder was inspected at least yearly and wasn't guilty of having broken any laws. It's not just a matter of enforcement, because there is far too much that is missing in the current anti-cruelty laws, including flea infestations, and including keeping arthritic dogs on cold cement.



saveourdogs said:


> Then it is your anticruelty laws that need to be changed if that is in fact true. The ones in my county sure would cover this situation..


You mean we need to pass new laws?????




saveourdogs said:


> Why is it up to you to make those judgement calls? Why should it be a law that all dogs live in homes simply because YOU think it is the best way? You are allowed to have an opinion, but you can't impose your morals on others. It is certainly not harmful by living in a kennel unless the conditions where not ideal as far as cleanliness, no pests, proper food, proper vet care, proper grooming. Simply living in a kennel situation is in no way cruelty. Do my dogs live in a kennel? No, they live in my house. Would I sell to someone that would keep my pup in a kennel? No. But that is MY CHOICE. It is not up to me to tell that person that they can't.


Didn't you just say a day or so ago, that your dogs are kenneled?


----------



## saveourdogs (May 4, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Actually, adding hoops for breeders to jump through might indeed affect public safety if you consider that some breeders do not properly socialize their dogs, nor do they know how to breed for temperament. Commercial breeders aren't going to care if they are breeding a dog that passes on her own fear biting issues to her puppies, who are then unsocialized and sold at pet shops to unsuspecting families. For some breeds this could mean major damage to the public. IMO, that's one of the issues that drives BSLs. If pit bulls were only being bred by responsible breeders who knew how to breed for a good temperament and how to properly socialize, the breed wouldn't be in jeopardy driven by the public fears.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And if my dogs where kenneled, it is not up to you to judge how I keep my dogs. Not your place AT ALL, And no they are not. You obviously think all evil breeders keep thier dogs in awful conditions (kennels). No it is not up to you to decide that keeping them in kennels is cruelty. it is not and it is not up to you to arbitrarily tell someone else that it is not the right thing to do. 

If your area does not have proper general animal cruelty laws, yes that needs to be changed. Where did you get that there should be no laws? There should be smart, thought through laws that actually address a problem, not just something arbitrary made up by someone who has never even owned a dog probably, let alone bred a litter. He wants to outlaw lightbulbs. yah that is someone I want writing my laws. 

As far as poor quality dogs from pet shops, educate people not to buy from pet shops. Simple. I do it all day long. It works. and is working. Shelter populations are going down year by year and the number of dogs bought in pet stores is going down. Pet stores are going out of business left and right. In my town, one opens and it doesn't stay in business very often. There are 2 big chains that are being sued and investigated by the authorities for selling sick dogs. That is the correct process imho. Not to arbitrarily attack all breeders because there are a few bad apples.


----------



## Captbob (Feb 2, 2007)

saveourdogs said:


> And if my dogs where kenneled, it is not up to you to judge how I keep my dogs. Not your place AT ALL, And no they are not. You obviously think all evil breeders keep thier dogs in awful conditions (kennels). No it is not up to you to decide that keeping them in kennels is cruelty. it is not and it is not up to you to arbitrarily tell someone else that it is not the right thing to do.


By "up to you", do you mean, society in general? If I see someone that is keeping dogs in kennels that are subjecting the dogs to an inhumane environment, you bet I will contacty however I have to , to have the proper authorities investigate, and possibly remove the dogs from that breeder. Happens all the time.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

saveourdogs said:


> And if my dogs where kenneled, it is not up to you to judge how I keep my dogs. Not your place AT ALL, And no they are not. You obviously think all evil breeders keep thier dogs in awful conditions (kennels). No it is not up to you to decide that keeping them in kennels is cruelty. it is not and it is not up to you to arbitrarily tell someone else that it is not the right thing to do.


Why isn't it up to me to decide that keeping dogs in kennels is cruelty? You apparently think it's up to you to decide that AR activists are wackos. Why is it okay for you to judge people but not for me to do so? I've seen nothing but judgements of other people's actions coming from you, and yet you seem to abhor anyone else making a judgement. Is it not my legal right to do so, just like it is yours? And when it comes to legislation, how soon would you be on the bandwagon to enact laws against AR activity if you had the chance? 



saveourdogs said:


> If your area does not have proper general animal cruelty laws, yes that needs to be changed. Where did you get that there should be no laws? There should be smart, thought through laws that actually address a problem, not just something arbitrary made up by someone who has never even owned a dog probably, let alone bred a litter. He wants to outlaw lightbulbs. yah that is someone I want writing my laws.


What's this issue you seem to have with lighbulbs? I ignored it the first time you made the claim that somehow lightbulbs were an AR issue, because it seemed so ludicrous, but would you care to explain? Are you suggesting that those who are trying to stop global warming by switching from the old style light bulbs are AR? Al Gore is AR???? Please explain.



saveourdogs said:


> As far as poor quality dogs from pet shops, educate people not to buy from pet shops. Simple. I do it all day long. It works. and is working. Shelter populations are going down year by year and the number of dogs bought in pet stores is going down. Pet stores are going out of business left and right. In my town, one opens and it doesn't stay in business very often. There are 2 big chains that are being sued and investigated by the authorities for selling sick dogs. That is the correct process imho. Not to arbitrarily attack all breeders because there are a few bad apples.


I am not attacking all breeders. I have repeatedly said that all breeders should emulate responsible breeders. It's the irresponsible breeders that need to be stopped not the responsible ones. If that means that the responsible breeders also have to be licensed, then it seems to me that's a small price to pay, and they should want to do so willingly, to put a stop to irresponsibility in breeding.

I'm wondering though. You say that education is working because shelter numbers are going down. How do you justify that when you've said that shelter statistics are inaccurate, and refuse to consider the numbers to be valid that are quoted by those in the humane community? You really can't ethically accept just the numbers that would seem to prove your case, can you?


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I've noticed that light bulb thing too. It's as if you believe anything that an AR group says is automatically wrong because it's an AR belief and if anyone agrees with it then their views are wrong as well. The old style light bulb use up more energy then the newer energy saving light bulbs out there. It's not only about global warming but they save you money too. I don't find anything wrong with trying to save energy and money.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

xoxluvablexox said:


> I've noticed that light bulb thing too. It's as if you believe anything that an AR group says is automatically wrong because it's an AR belief and if anyone agrees with it then their views are wrong as well. The old style light bulb use up more energy then the newer energy saving light bulbs out there. It's not only about global warming but they save you money too. I don't find anything wrong with trying to save energy and money.


But the thing here is that he's labeling the lightbulb issue as being generated by AR, and I don't think that's probable. Since prior to this he labeled vets who disproved of cropping/docking to be "AR wackos", it seems to me that his definition of AR is anyone that he disagrees with. But again, I remember when people were so paranoid about communism that they thought communists were under every bed. Makes me wonder if he would support a "McCarthy hearing" in regards to AR. I don't know how anyone who is so supportive of people's freedoms, and so against those that would judge breeders, can be so judgemental when it comes to AR activists. But then that's a NAIA-phyte for you.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

No one has a problem with shelters..not many like AR groups. 
Honestly I don't like the big AR groups that steel everyones money and don't help a thing but there are other's out there that help animals and that's something I agree with. 
So don't worry. If anyone starts bashing you for sounding like an AR I'll be there to back you up  lol


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Rescueman said:


> New member, and this is only my second post, but this forum seems to have quite a bit of harsh attitude towards animal rights groups and shelters from reading some of the posts. Since I have worked in this field for over 10 years, I guess I am disappointed that I find this feeling by people on a dog forum. Guess I stumbled on the wrong forum.


Welcome !! I hope you'll decide to stay. I'd like to know if you find this unusual from your experience. I think some take this rancor towards shelters and AR activists to the extreme, but from what I've seen, the prevailing mood is against AR by the animal welfare folks. You've seen something different?



xoxluvablexox said:


> No one has a problem with shelters..not many like AR groups.
> Honestly I don't like the big AR groups that steel everyones money and don't help a thing but there are other's out there that help animals and that's something I agree with.
> So don't worry. If anyone starts bashing you for sounding like an AR I'll be there to back you up  lol


This whole subject might be more suited to it's own thread, but I'm curious about where your information comes from as to the big AR groups stealing everyone's money and that they aren't helping. Is this just a general observation? And are you aware of the things they have accomplished? I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, but can't that be said about pretty much anyone? The problem as I see it is that those that care about the animals, and not just what they can earn off the animals, are in the minority, and that leaves the majority, who either apathetically don't care, or are trying to preserve their own way of life which means using the animals to human benefit. Those trying to preserve that way of life use any tool they can to discredit AR, including taking an out-of-context quote, and blowing it all out of proportion to try to prove that the whole AR movement believes and supports that quote. They also capitalize on using the most radical activists as an example of what all activists are like. That would be like saying that Al Gore is an eco-terrorist because he believes in working to save the earth like the most radical "tree-huggers" are. And negative press always gets more attention than positive. You're more likely to hear about a pie throwing incident than you will hear about a campaign to build free dog houses for people who insist on keeping their dogs outside. And if anyone points this out, they're likely to be ridiculed and have the dog house campaign minimized by asking if that's all the group is doing with all their money. Citing more incidents doesn't seem to help either. 

So I wouldn't be quite so quick to buy into the anti-AR rhetoric, even if you aren't AR. Look at motives. If one side exists to help animals, and the other side is to make money on the animal's suffering - which side are you going to favor? I personally think that society is more conscious of animal suffering now than they would have been without those groups. And I do see changes. Even the idea that people are getting multi-year prison sentences now for killing a dog, shows a big change.

Maybe because I know what it takes to run a small rescue group, I have a lot more tolerance and respect for those that can run national animal groups that have far more effect than I will ever have. It's like the difference between running a lemonade stand on the corner, and running a multi-national corporation. Which one is going to make the biggest effect, which one is going to make the most visual mistakes, which one is going to be misunderstood most regarding their finances, and which one will be feared most by their enemies?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

Rescueman said:


> New member, and this is only my second post, but this forum seems to have quite a bit of harsh attitude towards animal rights groups and shelters from reading some of the posts. Since I have worked in this field for over 10 years, I guess I am disappointed that I find this feeling by people on a dog forum. Guess I stumbled on the wrong forum.


Many here work in rescue in one capacity or another. We have nothing against shelters. 

As far as AR groups, many have allowed themselves to be overun with extreamists and most rescues I know try not to have anything to do with them because of that. 

PETA, when it was founded did a lot of good work, then allowed it's repetation to be ruined by extreamists who threw paint on people, exposed themselves in public, broke into research facilities and stole dogs from shows. THAT'S why the general public can't stand them.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> Many here work in rescue in one capacity or another. We have nothing against shelters.
> 
> As far as AR groups, many have allowed themselves to be overun with extreamists and most rescues I know try not to have anything to do with them because of that.
> 
> PETA, when it was founded did a lot of good work, then allowed it's repetation to be ruined by extreamists who threw paint on people, exposed themselves in public, broke into research facilities and stole dogs from shows. THAT'S why the general public can't stand them.


Of course much of that can have been blown out of proportion, or been fabricated by those with an agenda, and unsubstantiated inflammatory rumors always get more press than the truth. There is rarely any prosecution of these cases, proving that there was no proof to lay it at the feet of one individual, and I really don't think blame can be placed on an organization for having fans do something outrageous without the organizations approval. I, for instance, could have a "Dog Forums" t-shirt made and wear it to a dog show where I squirted blue dye on the dogs - does that mean that "Dog Forums" should be blamed? Does it mean that if "Dog Forum's" disclaimers weren't as loud as the media attention, "Dog Forums" should be deemed guilty without a trial? And if someone else does something equally as stupid, but doesn't wear the t-shirt, is it right to assume that person is just one of those fanatic "Dog Forums" people?

One of the things that I just don't think makes sense is the claim that a Peta person is causing havoc at dog shows. It's unlikely they would wear a Peta t-shirt to identify themselves, even though anyone can buy one - even anti-Peta fanatics aimed at discrediting Peta - and if they aren't wearing a t-shirt, then how is their connection with Peta known unless they were prosecuted - and if that happened, why don't we know the names? If they are so recognizable as Peta people, then why are dog shows letting them in at all? When I've gone to dog shows, I had to pass through a monitored gate, sometimes to pay admission. Even if they couldn't be legally restricted, I find it hard to believe that the dog show organizers wouldn't continually monitor them. 

The claims just don't add up. Are they outrageous? Absolutely. But if a Lettuce Lady, or a tastefully photographed nude starlet get's someone to think about their message regarding the animals - good for them. I'm not a member or even a supporter, but I also don't feel that they deserve the hatred they receive, anymore than I think a truly responsible breeder should receive the blame for the condition of the dog world -- unless of course they are fighting legislation, thereby enabling irresponsible breeding to continue.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> Welcome !! I hope you'll decide to stay. I'd like to know if you find this unusual from your experience. I think some take this rancor towards shelters and AR activists to the extreme, but from what I've seen, the prevailing mood is against AR by the animal welfare folks. You've seen something different?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I have respect for some AR groups, the ones that are really out there to help animals. I don't like PETA because I think they're more about money then the animals and they kill more animals then they help. They think by killing them they are "saving" them. I think they are wrong and need to stop those things from continueing. I like certain AR groups and I don't like others. Mostly the ones I don't like I believe to be more about money and even possibly trying to discredit people working towards animal rights by acting out and giving a bad name to all involved. 
I'm not an AR but my beliefs are all about nature and that all living things are equil. There's a name for it but I'm not going to go into a religious speel about my beliefs lol. 
I wouldn't judge an AR group based on hate for ARs but rather for what they do and the way they act. If I think it's out of line and not right then I most likely won't like them. Possibly PETA was a good group years ago but things have changed and I honestly don't like them at all. I think they bring people into understanding the need for animal rights but I also think they are way out of line by the way they do things like throwing paint on people and calling out different celebs and trying to scare them into not wearing fur. That's just the begining of the list of reasons I don't like them. 
Honestly I could go on about AR groups forever...they're a huge subject and a lot of pros and cons to certain ones. I just don't want you to think I'm anti AR and that's the reason for my dislike of certain groups.


----------



## CHOTCHgoldens (Apr 28, 2007)

I run a 501(c)3 working dog rescue and I strongly support this bill. It is NOT about taking away the "right" to breed your dog. It is not about eliminating the entire dog population. It IS about stopping the wreckless backyard breedings of thousands of puppies a day, and about curbing the number of thousands of dogs and cats which have to be euthanized each and every day!

You might think I would be against this bill, being an active participant in AKC events with my dogs. But I am a fierce supporter of this bill. I am terribly disappointed in the AKC's un-questionably odd stance on this bill. They are so proud of the fact that they defend the American people's "right" to breed their dog, and decide whether or not one should alter their dog.
Breeding your dog is not a right. So far from it. It is an act only to be done by responsible, knowledgable folks.
Therefore, all other dogs which are not proven to be worthy of breeding-quality ought to be altered. No buts about it.
Altering is PROVEN to be the best choice in the long run.

While I do not always agree with everything Lloyd Levine has come up with, nor the idea of governmenting laws, this one is not only a GREAT idea, but a totally necessary one.

This bill is about stopping wreckless breeders from producing more and more puppies for which there are not enough homes for.
That is all.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

CHOTCHgoldens said:


> I run a 501(c)3 working dog rescue and I strongly support this bill. It is NOT about taking away the "right" to breed your dog. It is not about eliminating the entire dog population. It IS about stopping the wreckless backyard breedings of thousands of puppies a day, and about curbing the number of thousands of dogs and cats which have to be euthanized each and every day!
> 
> You might think I would be against this bill, being an active participant in AKC events with my dogs. But I am a fierce supporter of this bill. I am terribly disappointed in the AKC's un-questionably odd stance on this bill. They are so proud of the fact that they defend the American people's "right" to breed their dog, and decide whether or not one should alter their dog.
> Breeding your dog is not a right. So far from it. It is an act only to be done by responsible, knowledgable folks.
> ...


Excellent post, thank you !!! I figure the AKC's stance on this is because of the paranoia about slippery slopes, but that only leads to never approving any legislation even remotely affecting breeders.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Therefore, all other dogs which are not proven to be worthy of breeding-quality ought to be altered. No buts about it.


And I wholeheartedly disagree. My own dogs are intact, and I am a responsible owner. I show them and educate people on my breed.

It is MY choice whether or not my dog should be altered!

Heck, maybe we need to start legislating what people are allowed to breed...be a lot less idiots in the world I think. But then again, idiocy is in the eye of the beholder.

ETA:

Please, explain to me how this bill HELPS the *responsible* breeders.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Quote:
Therefore, all other dogs which are not proven to be worthy of breeding-quality ought to be altered. No buts about it. 




Xeph said:


> And I wholeheartedly disagree. My own dogs are intact, and I am a responsible owner. I show them and educate people on my breed.
> 
> It is MY choice whether or not my dog should be altered!
> 
> ...


First, if you're showing your dogs, then assumably they are of breeding quality, whether or not you breed them or not. So my original statement would excuse your dogs, however IMO anyone that would risk their dogs health, risk them contracting reproductive cancers just so they could enjoy the hobby of showing their dogs with no intention of breeding, makes no sense to me. I can't even imagine unnecessarily risking my dog's life. So yes, idiocy is in the eye of the beholder.

I guess the best way I can put it is that this bill helps responsible breeders who have a social conscience and care about dogs in general. There are breeders out there, for instance, that don't care about anything but their own dogs and their own hobby, and are not even involved with rescue because they didn't breed those rescue dogs so it isn't their problem. But for those who do care, it seems to me that they would want all breeders to be as responsible as they are, and they would want to curtail irresponsible breeding. That's what the law would do. The breeders that are left, as opposed to the general public that let their dogs randomly breed, would be RBs - or at least a lot further on the road to being RBs. Also, as a member of society and a taxpayer, an RB should be objecting to having to pay for other people's negligence that is filling the shelters.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

What you haveto understand is that the dog may WELL champion, and NOT be breed worthy. As has been discussed, not all show dogs have the best temperments, or pass the OFA certifications. That doesn't preclude them from showing. So no, not every dog that is shown is breed wothy, and alot that aren't shown are breed worthy. Conformation is not hte be all or end all, it's one part of the puzzle. Ultimatly, it's the breeder who decides if the dog is worth breeding, a responsible breeders will make good, wise choices.


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

I feel that some here might be interested in reading the Bill which includes several ammendments since it was originally introduced, and the latest version as of 04/30/2007 is via these links:-

HTML version via this link:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.html

PDF version via this link:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.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
.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

Actually, the bill was amended again as of May 9.....several changes were made to the section pertaining to show dogs....but it still leaves WAY too much discretion to each individual jurisdiction ....individuals which have no clue as to showing much less responsible breeding.
This is the link to the NEWEST REVISIONS AS OF MAY 9.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email


----------



## Quincy (Feb 25, 2007)

ChRotties said:


> Actually, the bill was amended again as of May 9.....several changes were made to the section pertaining to show dogs....but it still leaves WAY too much discretion to each individual jurisdiction ....individuals which have no clue as to showing much less responsible breeding.
> This is the link to the NEWEST REVISIONS AS OF MAY 9.
> 
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email


Many thanks for that, and it goes to show that one has to keep up with the very latest and that ammendments can be made to the Bill.

If there seems to be problems with the Bill pertaining to show dogs and responsible breeding, then maybe it's best that those involved suggest some ammendments to the Bill, and this via the link I provided which welcomes inputs to Bills.
.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

cshellenberger said:


> What you haveto understand is that the dog may WELL champion, and NOT be breed worthy. As has been discussed, not all show dogs have the best temperments, or pass the OFA certifications. That doesn't preclude them from showing. So no, not every dog that is shown is breed wothy, and alot that aren't shown are breed worthy. Conformation is not hte be all or end all, it's one part of the puzzle. Ultimatly, it's the breeder who decides if the dog is worth breeding, a responsible breeders will make good, wise choices.


Don't the judges also look at temperment? If the dog trys to bite them they would most likely throw them out of the ring and if the dog doesn't show that it has the same temperment that the breed standard says the breed should have then it probably wouldn't get very far with showing. Right?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Wrong.

GSDs have their own temperament test that is done *in the ring*, and there are shy dogs that still make it through.

Very few judges are as harsh on temperament as they should be. The general rule seems to be "If it doesn't bite me, nothing is wrong with it."

If a dog is bitten, the judge *must* excuse the dog from the ring, but beyond that, it is the judges choice.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

That's right, and many dogs that act out don't do it in the ring. They will raise cane in the backstage area, then when they get to the ring they 'turn it on' to put on a show. 

That's why,when looking for a pup, I look for parents that have titles such as CGC and TDI as well as working titles (including obedience), health testing, AND conformation. it HAS to be a total package, any piece missing can be bad. Trust me, I've seen puppy mill owners that have show dogs, they use them to lure customers to the door.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Then that's something they need to make the judges become more strict with. 
Temperment is a part of the breed standard. Every breed has it's own unique temperment and since it's listed as a part of the standard they should make sure the standard is followed completely.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

You're right. Unfortunaly it isn't high on the list.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> What you haveto understand is that the dog may WELL champion, and NOT be breed worthy. As has been discussed, not all show dogs have the best temperments, or pass the OFA certifications. That doesn't preclude them from showing. So no, not every dog that is shown is breed wothy, and alot that aren't shown are breed worthy. Conformation is not hte be all or end all, it's one part of the puzzle. Ultimatly, it's the breeder who decides if the dog is worth breeding, a responsible breeders will make good, wise choices.


It doesn't bother you that a champion is not breed worthy? It's hard enough to convince the public that a dog registered with the AKC isn't a sign of quality. It's going to be even harder to convince them that a championship doesn't mean quality. I think you need a new system.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> One person's trash is another person's treasure


Championships are subjective. Something I find gorgeous in a GSD another may detest. A temperament I find correct another may find too sharp.

Championships, like ALL stock evaluations, are completely subjective. There is no perfect system.

Championships don't always = quality. Just improves the chances of getting a quality animal

A SchH III doesn't always = quality. Just improves the chances of getting a quality animal

Lack of a championship doesn't = crap...just lessens the chances of getting a quality animal.

You should see how many ROM GSD bitches there are that are ugly as sin but produced things that were spectacular. Same for dogs.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

This is just another reason why it's so hard to decide who is a responsible breeder, and who isn't. Some who claim to be responsible will tell you that responsible breeders will show their dogs in the conformation ring, and even the AKC uses that as a sign that a breeder is responsible, and now we're told that lack of a championship doesn't equal crap? This shows once again that there needs to be a "seal of approval" process.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

And just who would be qualified to make such a judgement?


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> This is just another reason why it's so hard to decide who is a responsible breeder, and who isn't. Some who claim to be responsible will tell you that responsible breeders will show their dogs in the conformation ring, and even the AKC uses that as a sign that a breeder is responsible, and now we're told that lack of a championship doesn't equal crap? This shows once again that there needs to be a "seal of approval" process.


You find a breeder that strives for all pieces, Conformation + Temperment + Health + Work ability. Personally, for what I want, I would put conformation on the bottom of the list with temperment and health on the top. YOU have to know what you want, then find a breeder who looks for the same thing. THAT'S where education on the breed and on breeding ethics comes into play. 

The most important thing for a breeder to do IMO is to STAND BEHIND THIER DOGS no matter what. If a breeder accepts dogs back for any reason and is there for the puppy's families THAT is the most responsible breeder, THAT is a breeder that isn't adding to the overpopulation.



ChRotties said:


> And just who would be qualified to make such a judgement?


 
An EDUCATED buyer/adopter


----------



## Jen D (Apr 23, 2007)

DogAdvocat said:


> I'm glad you made the decision you did. But I also agree that there are some responsible breeders, like the one you talked to, that really are ethical - and those are the ones that usually take part in rescue too. Often because they do see the rescue world, they end up ending their breeding career because they see how many dogs there are in need. But even if they continue, they are doing so as ethically as possible with the dog's welfare in mind. Wouldn't it be nice if that could be said of all breeders? The dog world would be a different place if all breeders were responsible. And that's why I don't understand why responsible breeders aren't doing everything possible, including supporting laws, that would make their fellow breeders just as responsible as they are.
> 
> I guess one thing to be considered is that according to the AKC, only an approximate 10% of breeders can be considered responsible. The AKC came up with that number by only including those AKC breeders who are involved in competing with their dogs, and those that had produced more than one litter. Producing more than one litter would show some proof that the breeder was dedicated to improving the breed. The AKC's criteria on this is probably debatable, but when you consider all the other things that go into responsible breeding, I question that the number is even as much as 10%.
> 
> ...


I know that their are great breders and if you have read some of my post you would see that I like alot of breeders! I just chose to rescue not knock good breeders!



DogueEdaddy said:


> As I feel I can no longer answer passively when IMO my ethics, etc are being questioned, this will likely be my last post on this thread.
> 
> IT IS MY CHOICE to get a Bordeaux. If some were reading objectively, instead of subjectively, they would have read that my FIRST queries were to Bordeaux Rescue. This wasn't sucessful due to various reasons, not the least of which was that nearly all of the rescues specified only to home with no dogs or submissive dogs. My wife has a small Chihuahua mix which is anything but submissive. Since I want a Bordeaux for a FOREVER friend, I would not make a self defeating choice. If I get a puppy, I know I can socialize it properly to existing pet. I have researched this breed for 18yrs. I am just now (since retired) in a position to give a Dogue my full attention and love. I am just now able to devote the proper time to extensive training and care that it would need and deserve. I have had many large breeds in my 61yrs of life, so I have the experience to accomplish this job. I made this choice to assure that BOTH dogs would be in my home till they pass, or I do. I have made an ethical and correct choice for my unique situation. I will not have my ethics questioned by people who are so wrapped up in their own self that they cease to understand the real world choices that others face and accept as proper for themselves. Remember, choices are like shoes; One Size Doesn't Fit All.
> 
> God Bless All......Stan


I love your dog I hope you don't leave! I almost got one one thoes breeds and just love them and there are alot of people that sound like great breeders on this site! If there wasn't breders there would be any dogs, right?


----------



## CHOTCHgoldens (Apr 28, 2007)

A great article from our OC Register today:

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/pets/newsfeatures/article_1694464.php

And another from FoxNews...a national story now:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272095,00.html



How about we STOP seeing this bill as taking away another "right" (as if breeding is a right!!), and START seeing it as a solution to the crises of pet overpopulation??
Oh, and if those who claim they don't have to alter their dogs because they are "responsible" really don't want to spay/neuter, they can just get an exemption on go on their merry way. 
This is to cover the IRRESPONSIBLE who care not to alter their dogs, who want to breed to earn a little dough, and so on.
You'd be hard pressed to argue that a non-breeding worthy/show dog is better off remaining intact, albeit a few exceptions.

For every puppy born, another eleven have to put down in California shelters. The solution rests on EVERY dog owners' shoulders.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

It's not just about breeding. It's about being told you can't make a MEDICAL decision about your dog. Just as for me having my RIGHT to make a medical decision for my daughter taken away by the government ruling my daughter can have an abortion without notifying me. It's MY dog, My child and MY family, MY choice, I should be allowed to make the RIGHT decision, NOT the Government!!!!


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

Just wanted to add that it's your daughters life and she has HER right to not have a child just as much as a dog should have the right to not be condemed to death because of some idiot that doesn't know how to breed but thought it would be something nice to try out.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

I have to sign for her to get a HPV shot or birth control, I should have a say about her pregnancy too. Abortion is a dangerous procedure, if done incorrectly or an incomplete medical history it's not just the fetus that won't be around anymore. Abortion can also be mentally devistating NO woman should have to go through it alone. She is MY child, I gave birth to her and I should have a say too. I'm actually Prochoice, but I don't think teenaged girls realize what they are going to go through with this procedure and the choice should be made as a family.


----------



## xoxluvablexox (Apr 10, 2007)

I agree but in some cases people are so against it that they would rather force the girl to go through having the child and then taking care of it. I don't think that's right. Even if she is their child they shouldn't be the final say in what she does with her body. 
Just as I don't think people should have complete control over breeding dogs. Their needs to be a way to weed out the people that aren't responsible enough for breeding dogs and there needs a way to prevent them from breeding. A law is the only thing that comes to my mind that would be able to have some control over the breeding of dogs.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

ChRotties said:


> And just who would be qualified to make such a judgement?


Assuming this is about the "breeder seal of approval", who is qualified to write the various club's COE's? In my opinion, breeders who are truly responsible should be doing more to educate the public about what it means to be a responsible breeder. Doesn't it seem odd that breeders can ban together to fight laws, but they apparently aren't banning together to promote responsible breeding, and educate the public? I've been "educated" by a lot of supposedly responsible breeders, and yet I keep finding others who also claim to be responsible, who contradict each other. If breeders can't figure it out, and come up with a consensus, how do they ever expect the public to figure it out?


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

Just like on this thread, between breeders their standards are going to vary.

My trainer won't sell a puppy to someone who takes their dogs to dog parks, while another thinks it's ok.

I think the law is absolutely ridiculous. Having the pitbull ban here, I know it won't work. People will still keep intact animals, most likely the ones that the law is designed for. While the responsible dog owners suffer.

I know, I'm going through it now with my dog. I abide by the rules, and the ones with Pitbulls doing illegal dog fighting do not.

It's sloppy, goes completely against what new studies are showing with animals altered before 14 months and according to science is NOT good for dogs.

If this is all about what's best for our dogs, why does the law include altering them before they are fully matured? What's best for dogs is having responsible owners. Instead of dealing with upfront problem, overpopulation, why don't they deal with the core problem, people.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

Well, here's an FYI for ya'.....yes, we responsible ppl do TRY to educate the puppy/dog buying public....I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and while the folks may HEAR the words, not all of them actually LISTEN!

Showing and breeding is subjective...what I consider correct temperament, may not be to another, in other breeds...our health concerns are not prevalent in other breeds....while on the outside, a dog/bitch may seem mediocre to me, that doesn't mean that brood animal can't produce better than what they are.....one of the true marks of a responsible breeder is taking responsibility for what they have produced for the ENTIRE life of that dog....and I don't care how much showing, research, testing, blah, blah, they have done....if they bred it, they are responsible for that puppy for it's entire life should something happen to it's owner and have to take it back...

Breeders and breed clubs try to educate....but you can't force people to do the right thing and heed your words....


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

cshellenberger said:


> You find a breeder that strives for all pieces, Conformation + Temperment + Health + Work ability. Personally, for what I want, I would put conformation on the bottom of the list with temperment and health on the top. YOU have to know what you want, then find a breeder who looks for the same thing. THAT'S where education on the breed and on breeding ethics comes into play.
> 
> The most important thing for a breeder to do IMO is to STAND BEHIND THIER DOGS no matter what. If a breeder accepts dogs back for any reason and is there for the puppy's families THAT is the most responsible breeder, THAT is a breeder that isn't adding to the overpopulation.
> 
> An EDUCATED buyer/adopter


The problem with deciding if a breeder is responsible based on whether they will take their dogs back is that one would have to buy a dog from then in order to find out. A breeder saying they will take the dog back is no guarantee that they really will if the time came. And unfortunately, this isn't something that can be learned from other breeders or other buyers because it's unlikely that they would know if a breeder who claimed she took all her dogs back, truly turned one, some, or all - away. The decision that a breeder is not responsible comes AFTER they have done something irresponsible - not before.

So again, how does someone know whether the breeder they are buying from is responsible or not? If there were a "seal of approval" process, at least breeders that hadn't lived up to their promises could lose their "seal." Buyers could be advised who the responsible ones were, as well as be educated on the process, if there was a "seal."


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

Owning a dog to me, is a priviledge. 

When I go to the television store and buy a tv, I do my research, I find a brand that I know from other hearing from other people is a good one. Sure Sony's sale service wants me to buy theirs, and tell me this and tell me that, and promise me this and that, but seeing as I've done MY RESEARCH (just making this up I have no idea if it's true) I know that Sony's are known to break down within two years.

I don't bug the government to make up a law that states anyone that sells tv's HAS to make them this way. 

It's my money, it's going to be MY property, I do my research.

Part of the problem is people going out, buying a dog from God knows who, without doing ANY research on the breed to find out health problems, what the temperment SHOULD be, or asking the breeder any questions.

Stop blaming responsible breeders.

Potential buyers need to do their *OWN RESEARCH* and stop relying on everyone else to make an informed decision for them.

ETA- Responsible breeders will have contracts that not only bind the potential buyer but themselves. Just as buying a Hyundai (I believe) which has the longest warranty of any vehicle. It's a big hit, because the company puts their reputation and livlihood on the line, behind their product. Like I believe Carla was saying.

When you buy a dog from the petstore, there's no contract. If you didn't do your research than your not going to know that a responsible breeder, will have a contract, with all sorts of information. Including what happens if you surrender the dog, or can't keep it anymore.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Alpha said:


> Just like on this thread, between breeders their standards are going to vary.
> 
> My trainer won't sell a puppy to someone who takes their dogs to dog parks, while another thinks it's ok.
> 
> ...


If early altering is so bad for the dogs, why is the California Veterinary Medical Association backing this law? Why do shelters regularly do early spay/neuter and why aren't the same breeders who are fighting this law, also fighting the early spay/neuter policy in shelters? Though anecdotal, I've had my dogs early spay/neutered for years, with no problems. And it makes no sense to me that those against this law keep trotting out their fears about medical problems when good vets are doing it and shelters are doing it. If they cared about dogs, why haven't we heard them speaking out about it before this?

I'd love to hear your ideas on how to deal with "the core problem, people" though. I hope your ideas include something besides just education.



ChRotties said:


> Well, here's an FYI for ya'.....yes, we responsible ppl do TRY to educate the puppy/dog buying public....I can talk til I'm blue in the face, and while the folks may HEAR the words, not all of them actually LISTEN!
> 
> Showing and breeding is subjective...what I consider correct temperament, may not be to another, in other breeds...our health concerns are not prevalent in other breeds....while on the outside, a dog/bitch may seem mediocre to me, that doesn't mean that brood animal can't produce better than what they are.....one of the true marks of a responsible breeder is taking responsibility for what they have produced for the ENTIRE life of that dog....and I don't care how much showing, research, testing, blah, blah, they have done....if they bred it, they are responsible for that puppy for it's entire life should something happen to it's owner and have to take it back...
> 
> Breeders and breed clubs try to educate....but you can't force people to do the right thing and heed your words....


No you can't, but as I see it, there ARE people who want to listen, but they are hearing too many different stories, and frankly, I've been listening to the education for years, and I would be just as lost as the rest of the public if I wanted to find a responsible breeder. I know the things that I think they should be doing, but then not only are there some things that can't be ascertained until AFTER I buy the dog, but also breeders can't seem to agree with each other about what is responsible, so how is a layman to know?

Do understand that I have no interest nor intent to buy from a breeder, but as rescue I am asked to recommend responsible breeders. In all good conscience, I can't do that. I can't put a seal of approval on someone who has no penalties in place if they decide not to be responsible. I can tell people what I think they should look for in a breeder, but even then it's a crap shoot. What amazes me is that breeders don't aspire to a better system.


----------



## Alpha (Aug 24, 2006)

Actually no, it has nothing to do with education.

The only way I see the core problem being fixed, is taking away the RIGHT to own a dog, and making it a priviledge.

If people were forced to take tests, much like driving, paying a fee to be licenced I can bet a large number of irresponsible owners would not take that test. Large fines for those who are not licenced, but have a dog.

Having specific licences for breeds like APBTs, Amstaffs of EST would also help with much of what's going on with these breeds nowadays. Most of the riff raff owning these breeds in dire need of a responsible owner who understands their heritage, have no idea how to care for them, or simply don't want to. They also don't want to be registered with the government, or have to pay money for the right to own this dog.

I couldn't tell you why the California Veterinary Medical Association is backing this law.

*It IS PROVEN, NOT DEBATABLE, the NEGATIVE effects of early neutering.*

Do you understand? Scientifically proven, that there are a number of NEGATIVE effects? Get it yet?

Most decent vets won't perform those surgeries until a dog is 6 months old, and even then they reccomend to wait until the dog is over a year around 14 months old.

Most females hit their first heat cycle around 6 months so this is why so many people, (including vets who do these surgeries at this age) want the spay done so soon, so they don't have to deal with any heat cycles.

Not to say that there are not proven benefits to neutering, but you still get those benefits when you neuter at 14 months old, and I'm sure a very small number of dogs suffer from mammory cancer at 14 months old.

I won't post links to those studies, if your so dam*ed interested in the topic you would've researched it by now and read those studies.

ETA- Thanks for posting the link to that website CaptBob. There were a lot of points I'd never thought of, including how this bill will affect working dogs.

There's nothing irresponsible about waiting to assess a dog's working ability before breeding.


----------



## ChRotties (Mar 8, 2007)

I so agree with you, Alpha, the buyer must RESEARCH ......responsible education will only get them so far...they have to do their homework.

I always tell ppl when they ask where to get a good quality "flukehound" (or whatever breed, trying to be generic here), to attend a dog show, talk to ppl, visit the breed club's website (as almost all have one nowadays)...and most importantly...above all else...NEVER, EVER, buy from an internet or newpaper ad...and certainly NEVER from a petshop or the walmart parking lot.

A responsible breeder's reputation is their stock in trade....a responsible breeder will have a binding contract stating the health guarantee, the buyback options, etc.....spay neuter...etc....however, a lot of the pet buying public don't want a contract, don't want to be "tied down" , so, guess where they go anyways? The byb or petshop down the street where they can buy a dog with no strings attached....so, it's a double-edged sword sometimes, responsible breeders try to do the right thing, try to educate, try to get across that this isn't just a dog , it's a very precious member of their family that they are selling that has often times been years in the making and planning ....all we can do is continue to educate...and it is working...around here anyways, in my neck of the woods...

All I'm saying is that all ANY of us can do is the very best we can....but we cannot guarantee that people will always make the right choices.....soo, I will keep on educating and trying to help people make the right decisions...I give them the tools to the best of my ability, but again, it's up to that individual on how to use them.


----------



## cshellenberger (Dec 2, 2006)

DogAdvocat said:


> The problem with deciding if a breeder is responsible based on whether they will take their dogs back is that one would have to buy a dog from then in order to find out. A breeder saying they will take the dog back is no guarantee that they really will if the time came. And unfortunately, this isn't something that can be learned from other breeders or other buyers because it's unlikely that they would know if a breeder who claimed she took all her dogs back, truly turned one, some, or all - away. The decision that a breeder is not responsible comes AFTER they have done something irresponsible - not before.
> 
> So again, how does someone know whether the breeder they are buying from is responsible or not? If there were a "seal of approval" process, at least breeders that hadn't lived up to their promises could lose their "seal." Buyers could be advised who the responsible ones were, as well as be educated on the process, if there was a "seal."


You check referances. TALK to other buyers. That's how I found the breeder I'll get my next puppy from. I've talked to nearly 30 people who have her dogs (she's been in the breed for nearly 20 years) they all say thesame thing, if something happens T is there! Of course, I'm heavily involved in a mastiff board that is VERY owner oriented. There are breeders on there, but it is MOSTLY Mastiff families and a few show people and breeders. The board has nearly 4000 members, with nearly 500 active and we talk about what is important to us. We don;t allow breeder bashing, but if a breeder is mentioned that is a problem breeder, you WILL get PM's telling you the person isn't what they seem. 

I guess what I'm saying is you have to get involved in the breed. A smart person will do that well in advance so they can sort the grain from the chaff.


----------



## DogAdvocat (Nov 30, 2006)

Alpha said:


> *It IS PROVEN, NOT DEBATABLE, the NEGATIVE effects of early neutering.*
> 
> Do you understand? Scientifically proven, that there are a number of NEGATIVE effects? Get it yet?


Yea, and do you get it yet that I disagree with you? There are studies that say that coffee is bad for you, and there are studies that say it's good for you. You can't turn around anymore without bumping into a study, and it's counterpart saying just the opposite. I again ask if early s/n is so bad, why is it being done so successfully on shelter animals with no apparent opposition? 



Alpha said:


> Most decent vets won't perform those surgeries until a dog is 6 months old, and even then they reccomend to wait until the dog is over a year around 14 months old.


Whether they are decent or not is nothing more than your opinion. Since female dogs increase their chances of mammary cancer with each heat, waiting til the dog is 14 months is risky and any vet that would recommend that would be one that would never touch my dog again. There are vets that think that dogs should have one litter too, but they are just as bad as the ones you think are so decent.



Alpha said:


> Most females hit their first heat cycle around 6 months so this is why so many people, (including vets who do these surgeries at this age) want the spay done so soon, so they don't have to deal with any heat cycles.


Sorry, this makes no sense. Are you saying they do it earlier or later to avoid heat cycles? You do realize that a dog can be spayed while in heat? And you do realize that if the vet chooses to do it when the dog is not in heat, s/he won't have to wait long?



Alpha said:


> Not to say that there are not proven benefits to neutering, but you still get those benefits when you neuter at 14 months old, and I'm sure a very small number of dogs suffer from mammory cancer at 14 months old.


The risk of mammary cancer is not at the 14 month mark, it's later in life but that risk increases with each heat cycle the dog goes through. A dog that is spayed before her first heat has minimal risk for mammary cancer, or no risk at all.



Alpha said:


> I won't post links to those studies, if your so dam*ed interested in the topic you would've researched it by now and read those studies.


I'm not sure why you feel the need to swear, but I've researched it, and I've talked to vets that highly endorse early s/n and have been doing it for years, with no ill-effects.



cshellenberger said:


> You check referances. TALK to other buyers. That's how I found the breeder I'll get my next puppy from. I've talked to nearly 30 people who have her dogs (she's been in the breed for nearly 20 years) they all say thesame thing, if something happens T is there! Of course, I'm heavily involved in a mastiff board that is VERY owner oriented. There are breeders on there, but it is MOSTLY Mastiff families and a few show people and breeders. The board has nearly 4000 members, with nearly 500 active and we talk about what is important to us. We don;t allow breeder bashing, but if a breeder is mentioned that is a problem breeder, you WILL get PM's telling you the person isn't what they seem.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is you have to get involved in the breed. A smart person will do that well in advance so they can sort the grain from the chaff.


How does one find other owners that have bought from a specific breeder if they don't have access to a message board where mostly anonymous posters hang out and sing the praises of that breeder? The references that you suggest checking - where do they come from? If they come from the breeder, is s/he going to give you contact info for her dissatisfied customers? 

I realize that the more the buyer does, the better chance they have of finding a truly responsible breeder, but it still seems like a crap shoot.

One of my rescues came from someone that did all their homework, researched and followed all the advise they had gotten, and finally chose a breeder who they thought was responsible. They bought a puppy, but when the pup was 4 months old an extreme family health problem arose that caused them to have to give the pup up. They contacted the breeder, who had a return policy in her contract, and the breeder told them that her husband wouldn't let her take the dog back. So they had to turn to rescue. From everything they told me, I couldn't find anything that I thought they did wrong.


----------

