[RonE]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

If your worried about your rights . . .

I read your whole post and I'll be damned if I can figure out if you like the mandatory s/n law or not.

Maybe I was distracted by all the PETA talk.

[DogueEdaddy]

Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me.

What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.

Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............

God Bless All......Stan

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

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.
.

According to the way the law is written, a breed predispostion to anesthesia reactions would NOT be a legitimate reason. And a letter from a vet is only good for a certain time period. The letter has to state when the dog can have an ovario hysterectomy.
This is serious surgery, not to be taken lightly.
According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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.

This is YOUR opinion, NOT FACT. Actually, sterilizing your dog, ie giving it an ovario hysterctomy is very very serious surgery. It is not to be taken lightly.
It is not physical abuse to not give your dog an ovariohysterectomy.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

According to the way the law is written, a breed predispostion to anesthesia reactions would NOT be a legitimate reason. And a letter from a vet is only good for a certain time period. The letter has to state when the dog can have an ovario hysterectomy.
This is serious surgery, not to be taken lightly.
According to the law you have to keep getting letters from your vet and it is up to the jurisdiction on whether they will accept them.

Can I hug you?

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

How can it not be about emotions?

When it affects your (someone's, not necessarily you) ability to reason, and communicate ideas to help the betterment of everyone. I know dogs die in shelters, it's sad, and I proceed in my life wanting to prevent it from happening. But I'm only one person, and if I seek to divide opinions by using emotion, I'm going to single out people who I know can help too. I'm of the ilk that level heads find better solutions, but this doesn't impair my ability to feel, thank you.

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?

This is the day and age when everyone is a victim. In this case the breeders are victims, or the dogs are victims, someone or something always is victimized. SO if I feel sorry for all these victims are my emotions out of place? Who's to say, and what makes them right to judge how I feel? All I hear in this debate is how stupid owners are. And to this comment I agree. But what in this law will make stupid people better owners? Unenforced madates? Stupid is as stupid does, and these madates can be a huge waste of taxpayers time and money. I guess like speeding you're only breaking the law until you get caught. Fine, let's not collect all ideas to form a better understanding of a realistic solution and instead dictate what breeders are suppose to do...but in the back of our minds we know owners are still the bigger problem and can't or won't follow. Crutches are helpful until you need to go up a flight of stairs, and we've got a long way to go up.

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?

It seems only when the dollars make sense. I don't know that this bill will make any cents. If you think this bill is about anything other than cents, you'll prove my point on the need to be level headed. Because the last time I used emotion to make sense of the dollars, I had 16 and hit of an 8. My gamble with emotion lost me dollars. And if this bill loses dollars that will mean lives. The same live you and I both want to save.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Can I hug you?

They obviously have not read the bill and seen what really is contained in it. It is pretty scary. And pretty pretty harsh.

You have to have your dog given an ovario hysterectomy by 4 months of age unless it is competing in shows. That is impossible. Dogs can't compete in shows until they are 6 months old.
And they have to be spayed as soon as thier career is over. That is when their breeding career starts. But the law says no, they now need an ovariohysterectomy.

[saveourdogs]

Hi, I’d like to introduce myself, this is my first post. I show and breed purebred dogs. I have been lurking on this list and have been reading the debate on the ‘healthy pets act' A misnomer. This is pure AR legislation. This should be called the ‘pet extinction act’. It will end breeding by serious, hobby breeders. Breeders who know their pedigrees, know genetics, do health testing, sell responsibly (i.e. take the dog back, sell on non-breeding contracts).
One thing I’ve come to realize is that those on this list that are for this legislation are not realistic at all. It is one thing to have a law. It is quite another to see how it actually works.
I invite you all to join the pet-law yahoo email list. It has taught me a lot about animal legislation and how it really works.

To refute a few points:
1) There is NO pet overpopulation crisis. This is propagated by AR fanatics with distorted facts and other outright lies. The figures quoted about the number of animals that are euthanized is exaggerated, i.e. a big fat lie. There are not millions of animals killed in shelters each year.

2) The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. Each and every year. Some shelters import dogs from other states and foreign countries

3) Not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some have temperament problems. I will NEVER EVER adopt a dog at a shelter. There was an incidence in my town where someone adopted a dog and it ripped her face off a few days later. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. Not all dogs have good temperaments. Many are turned in because the owners would not responsibly bring them to their own vet to euthanize them when they are sick and/or old.

4) The majority of dogs in shelters are pit bull crosses and lab crosses. Bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament. A shelter dog is not the right fit for every household.

5) The actual numbers of dogs in shelters that are actually adoptable are a small percentage of those that actually is turned in.

6) The dogs in shelters are not due to breeders but owner irresponsibility. The breeder did not drop them off, the owner did. How is the breeder responsible for that?

7) I am NOT a nasty, rotten person like some of you would like you to believe since I don’t feel a shelter dog is the right fit in my household. It is rude and crude of you to judge people like that.

8) Just because a dog is not spayed does not mean it will have puppies. It takes owner responsibility. I have in season bitches all the time. They have puppies when I decide.

9) It is NOT cruel to not alter your pet. That is rude and crude to think that or say that.

10) There are many studies that show that early altering is harmful to the dog. It stunts growth. The dogs are healthier actually not altered. That is what recent studies have shown. A dog will NOT automatically get cancer if not spayed.

11) This law is not necessary and will NOT end the problem of the number of dogs in shelters.

12) It will decrease the number of well bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public.

13) There is only a 10% rate of licensing. Why would you think that these people will automatically obey this law?

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by DogueEdaddy

Now I'm getting thoroughly confused about all these health risks when not S/N. I don't deny that there may be some risks with some breeds, and I'm surely not Vet trained, but will someone answer a simple question for me.

What about all those AT RISK Wolves, Coyotes, Dingos, etc. Some keep insisting that we make sure their numbers are increased and no one ever seems to worry about the risk to their health of being INTACT. As a matter of fact, they have been breeding and staying intact for a veeeeery long time and if man hadn't directly affected their numbers, they might still be OK. Of course, I know, they don't have to be euthanized at a cost to the gov (taxpayer); so maybe it's more money than dog concern.

Of course y'all are going to say I'm comparing apples to oranges or some such snappy one liner, but IMO it's as valid as equating dog fighting with non S/N. It still sounds more and more like some are advocating NO BREEDING, responsible or otherwise. Now I won't disrespect anyone by equating that as a PETA goal, but; If the shoe fits.............

God Bless All......Stan

I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

It's a proposed new law going through various processes, so currently nobody would be fined for having a sexually entire dog over 4 months old.

If later it was to become law and if then you did want a sexually entire dog then simply apply for a permit to be exempt from the mandatory spay neuter law.
.

Not so simple. The ONLY way that it is actually realistic is to be a commercial breeder, with a business license, on commercially zoned property.

The way the law is worded it is actually impossible to get an intact permit. The dog has to be purebred, win at shows, be AKC registered, and be shown at 4 months of age. which is not possible. no shows at 4 months.
AKC rules you have to be at least 6 months.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Hi, I’d like to introduce myself, this is my first post. I show and breed purebred dogs. I have been lurking on this list and have been reading the debate on the ‘healthy pets act' A misnomer. This is pure AR legislation. This should be called the ‘pet extinction act’. It will end breeding by serious, hobby breeders. Breeders who know their pedigrees, know genetics, do health testing, sell responsibly (i.e. take the dog back, sell on non-breeding contracts).
One thing I’ve come to realize is that those on this list that are for this legislation are not realistic at all. It is one thing to have a law. It is quite another to see how it actually works.
I invite you all to join the pet-law yahoo email list. It has taught me a lot about animal legislation and how it really works.

To refute a few points:
1) There is NO pet overpopulation crisis. This is propagated by AR fanatics with distorted facts and other outright lies. The figures quoted about the number of animals that are euthanized is exaggerated, i.e. a big fat lie. There are not millions of animals killed in shelters each year.

2) The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. Each and every year. Some shelters import dogs from other states and foreign countries

3) Not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some have temperament problems. I will NEVER EVER adopt a dog at a shelter. There was an incidence in my town where someone adopted a dog and it ripped her face off a few days later. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. Not all dogs have good temperaments. Many are turned in because the owners would not responsibly bring them to their own vet to euthanize them when they are sick and/or old.

4) The majority of dogs in shelters are pit bull crosses and lab crosses. Bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament. A shelter dog is not the right fit for every household.

5) The actual numbers of dogs in shelters that are actually adoptable are a small percentage of those that actually is turned in.

6) The dogs in shelters are not due to breeders but owner irresponsibility. The breeder did not drop them off, the owner did. How is the breeder responsible for that?

7) I am NOT a nasty, rotten person like some of you would like you to believe since I don’t feel a shelter dog is the right fit in my household. It is rude and crude of you to judge people like that.

8) Just because a dog is not spayed does not mean it will have puppies. It takes owner responsibility. I have in season bitches all the time. They have puppies when I decide.

9) It is NOT cruel to not alter your pet. That is rude and crude to think that or say that.

10) There are many studies that show that early altering is harmful to the dog. It stunts growth. The dogs are healthier actually not altered. That is what recent studies have shown. A dog will NOT automatically get cancer if not spayed.

11) This law is not necessary and will NOT end the problem of the number of dogs in shelters.

12) It will decrease the number of well bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public.

13) There is only a 10% rate of licensing. Why would you think that these people will automatically obey this law?

Where did you hatch this stuff from??

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.

Recent studies refute this claim.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I don't think medical records are kept on Wolves and Dingos and Coyotes, so what their life expectancy is and what they die from, is probably a mystery. We have very clear statistics on domestic animals and the far higher cancer rate for animals that are not S/N. Despite how hard one tries, arguing against documented facts, is pretty difficult.

You can find just as many articles going the other way, just depends on where you look, who funded them, and what the intent of the study was to promote.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Recent studies refute this claim.

Show us some proof. I work in a shelter, and much of what you say is ridiculous.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Where did you hatch this stuff from??

Sorry you can't understand facts and logic. And why are you so rude?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Show us some proof. I work in a shelter, and much of what you say is ridiculous.

No, ALL of what I say is the absolute truth. You just can't see the truth and the obvious.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

You can find just as many articles going the other way, just depends on where you look, who funded them, and what the intent of the study was to promote.

Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

No, ALL of what I say is the absolute truth. You just can't see the truth and the obvious.

Could you explain that in a different way, I can't quite get what your point is..

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Sorry you can't understand facts and logic. And why are you so rude?

I am not rude, I am just making a statement that much of what you posted is bunk. If you say it isn't, prove it.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Most of the stuff I see against S/N laws are from the people that are making money breeding dogs. They don't want it to cut into their profit margin, and the countless number of dogs that have to face certain death because of the overpopulation, are just a annoyance to them in my opinion. If I were breeding dogs for profit ( which I would never do), I would probably feel the same way.

Really, EVERYONE I KNOW is AGAINST this legislation. some don't even breed dogs. And I am not friends with commercial breeders. I am a hobby breeder, not for the money. I make no money. I lose much more money on my hobby than I make in puppy sales. So no profit margin is involved. We just do not see the reasoning behind this. Again, there is NO overpopulation of dogs. If you choose to believe the lies of the ARs. then that is your business.

And the NRA is breeding dogs for profit? They have come out against this.