[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

[Orange County Ca]

[quote=Curbside Prophet;65050]It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear./quote]

Right, prohibition of liquor didn't work. The "drug war" is a farce. Cigarette running to Canada works.

But this law will make a statement "We want this to end".

All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.*

*Paraphrasing Edmund Burke of the 1800's. Interestingly no one can be found who actually said that so I didn't put it in quotes.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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

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

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

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

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by lurcherloopy

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

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

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

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

That's very well said.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by lurcherloopy

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

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

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

[iwantmypup]

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

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

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

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

[Tamara]

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

[ChRotties]

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

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

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

[iwantmypup]

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


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

[DINGODOG]

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

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


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

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

[xoxluvablexox]

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

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

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

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

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

[tirluc]

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

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

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

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