[Captbob]

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

[Curbside Prophet]

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

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

[iwantmypup]

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

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by tirluc

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

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

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

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

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

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

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

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

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

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

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

[xoxluvablexox]

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Captbob

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

LOL. Very good.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

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

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

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

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

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

And maybe you should stop jumping to assumptions about people.

[Laurelin]

Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:

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

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Someone on another forum worded it better than I can:

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

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

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

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