[cshellenberger]

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

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

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

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

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

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

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

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

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

[ChRotties]

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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

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

[Quincy]

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

.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

[tirluc]

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

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

[Laurelin]

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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

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

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

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

[ChRotties]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cshellenberger]

I would love that info! Thank you.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

A new PAC has been formed to fight for dog owners rights, and propose better legislation that what has been presented thus far. This has happened within the last week or so I believe.

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

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

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

[ChRotties]

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

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


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

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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

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


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

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

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

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