[Quincy]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

DogA Quote:
But don't you understand that is the whole point here? No one is suggesting that there be an end to responsible breeding.

YES no one is suggesting that there will be an end to responsible breeding. Responsible breeders CAN EASILY OBTAIN AN EXEMPTION, and what they pay for an exemption they will do as other breeders do and pass the costs onto those who buy puppies, and say on a litter of 5 puppies that will be about $20 per puppy, and in effect this Bill will cost responsible breeders NOTHING and will not effect them at all.
.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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 to really start enforcing laws adequately, 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.

Things happened elsewhere in the world where local authorities in time were forced to enforce the law, and such as seen here with this community at this address:-
http://www.gleneira.vic.gov.au/Files/media070606.pdf
.

[DogAdvocat]

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.

The only thing AR about is it will hopefully give cats and dogs the right to a life where it's wanted since it was purposely brought into this world. Any legislation that would regulate breeders is considered AR by breeders. Paranoia abounds.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

Good grief, what nonsense. I have heard some try to put a spin on it and claim that there is no overpopulation, just not enough homes. If it wasn't so sad, that would be laughable. I've wondered if their suggestion would be that we need to breed more people to provide more homes. But to say that the death toll is a lie is just ludicrous. If anything, it's underreported, IMO. The death toll doesn't take into account the number euthanized by rescue because they couldn't be placed after being bailed out of the pound, for instance.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

Yes, I do believe the numbers have been going down, but that doesn't indicate there isn't a problem. How many of those dogs go to rescue, who is overwhelmed, sometimes to the point of having to shut down? But the increase in rescue doesn't mean there isn't an overpopulation problem. Rescue is only a halfway house, and those animals need to be factored right in with the shelter animals.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

You'll never adopt from a shelter? That says a whole lot. All but two of my dogs have been shelter dogs, and it physically hurts to think that if all people had your way of thinking, they wouldn't ever get a home.

You're right, not all dogs that come into shelters are adoptable. Some should have been taken to a vet to be euthanized because they are terminally ill and in unalterable pain, and their owners preferred to dump them in a strange shelter than to make their last moments as easy as possible. And yes, some dogs would not make good family dogs, but many shelters these days are using overly harsh temperament testing methods so that they can claim that they are only killing unadoptable dogs while also claiming that their death rate of adoptable dogs is going down. Another spin. Most of the dogs that are considered temperamentally unsound only need some training, but the shelter constrictions don't allow enough time to train them. It's not unusual for the shelter to deem a dog unadoptable and it's then taken by rescue who rehab it and place it in a lifetime home. Ideally if there were less dogs being born, the remaining ones wouldn't be overwhelming rescue and they could all be saved.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

That's odd, according to responsible breeders, since none of their dogs will ever end up in a shelter, the ONLY ones there have been bred by irresponsible breeders with no socialization or health testing or thought to genetic temperament - whether it's a Great Dane, a Chihuahua, or anything in between. But you're right, a shelter dog is not the right fit for every household, but that can be said about any of the breeds too. No dog is right for everyone.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

What's that? A Sue Sternberg quote? Extreme temperament testing could pretty much condemn any dog, whether well socialized or not. "Actually adoptable" is a relative term. After 200 chihuahuas were confiscated from a puppymiller in CA, and the pound decided that most of them were not adoptable, the court system upheld rescues request to take the dogs, and most of those dogs are now in lifetime homes. So much for "actually adoptable."

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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?

A responsible breeder would know the answer to that question. It's really quite simple. It's the breeder that chooses the owner. It's the breeder that should be following up on his/her dogs to make sure that if there is any reason why the owner would want to give up the dog, it would go back to the breeder. It's the breeder that should be microchipping his/her dogs so that if they do end up in the shelter, they can immediately go back to the breeder. The dogs in shelters certainly are due to breeders because it's breeders that make the decisions on the lifetime care of the dog.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

Nasty and rotten? No, but I don't think you're showing a lot of caring about the shelter dogs when you try to downplay their plight, and indicate that they aren't adoptable. I also question someone's commitment to their breed if they can say a shelter dog of their breed wouldn't fit in their household. And it's hard for me to believe that someone cares when they have the room, but would rather fill it with dog that doesn't need a home.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

You have "in season bitches all the time"? Hey - I can answer that one - it's what a puppymiller would say. But you're right, an unspayed dog might not have puppies, but a spayed dog definitely won't. And since most people don't have a clue about responsible breeding, much less than know how to responsibly care for a dog, then it's no wonder that there are so many dogs in need. And of course it's even worse for cats.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

Rude and crude? LOL. Killing unwanted offspring of unaltered pets IS cruel. But it's necessary because of failure to alter.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

You're right, it might die of pyometra first. As for your studies, could you explain why the AVMA endorses early s/n? Maybe the AVMA is really an AR organization that is out to harm out dogs????? LOL. Stunted growth? Since most of the dogs in this country are bred by irresponsible breeders that aren't breeding to standard, how would anyone even know that their dog's growth was stunted? If my dog's growth is stunted fractions of an inch by altering that will prevent his puppies from dying in a shelter, then I'll risk it.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

"A" law is necessary because what's happening now is not stopping the killing. If you don't like this law, where is your alternative? I hear a lot about what this law won't do, but I never hear any solutions to the problem, except to do more of what isn't working now.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

No, it will decrease the number of badly bred dogs that are available to the pet buying public. It will also decrease the number of random bred dogs needing homes. How could it not if it increases the number of spay/neuters?

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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

Actually I'd heard that it was more like a 30% compliance rate on licensing. And though that still leaves plenty of room for improvement, it's a whole lot easier to hide the fact that your dog isn't licensed than it is to hide the fact that your dog has puppies.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

What about puppy matches through breed clubs?

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

Hobby breeder? With bitches constantly in heat? I don't think it's the ARs that are lying.

Everyone you know is against it? I guess you don't know any of the following supporters then? I do. They're all people that deal with the problem on a daily basis. I guess they don't let their "hobby" distract them.

California Animal Control Directors Association (sponsor)
California Veterinary Medical Association (sponsor)
City of Los Angeles (sponsor)
Social Compassion in Legislation (sponsor)
State Humane Association of California (sponsor)

Ace of Hearts
Adopt-A-Chow Los Angeles
All Creatures Great & Small Animal Rescue
Alpha Canine Sanctuary
American Humane Association
American Tortoise Rescue
Animal Advocates
Animal Advocates Harbor City
Animal Alliance
Animal Assistance League of Orange County
Animal Avengers
Animal Friends Rescue Project
Animal Kind Rescue
Animal Kingdom Welfare
Animal Lovers of South Bay
Animal Match Rescue Team
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Protection & Rescue League
Animal Rescue of Fresno
Animal Rescue Volunteers Inc
Animal Rules Placement Foundation
Animal Switchboard
Animal Welfare Committee - Studio City
Animals Anonymous
Animals, People and Environment
Another Chance Animal Welfare League
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
Auburn Area Animal Rescue Foundation
Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls
Beagles and Buddies
Bellflower Veterinary Hospital
Bill Foundation
Boston Buddies
Boxer Rescue
Boxer Rescue Fund
Boxer Rescue Los Angeles
Bumper Foundation
Bunny Bunch
California Federation for Animal Legislation
California Lobby for Animal Welfare
Canine Communications
Canine Crusaders
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
Cat AdopTion Service
Cat Assistance Referral and Education
Cat Care Network of Colorado and New Mexico
Cat Connection
Cat Crossing
Cat House on the Kings Rescue
Cat/Canine Assistance Referral & Education
Catherine Fund
Cats At The Studio, Inc.
Center for Animal Protection and Education
Central Valley Coalition for Animals
Cesar and Ilusion Millan Foundation
Cesar Millan Inc.
Chateau DuMeow
Chateau DuMeow
Chico Boxer Rescue
Citizens for a Humane Los Angeles
City of Clovis Animal Services
City of Elk Grove, Animal Services
City of Fremont Animal Services Unit
City of Fremont Police Department, Animal Services Unit
City of Lathrop Animal Services
City of Long Beach Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga
City of Long Beach Councilmember Val Lerch
City of Los Angeles Animal Services
City of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
City of San Jose Animal Care Services
City of Stockton Animal Control
City of Turlock Animal Control
City of Yucaipa Mayor **** Riddell
Coalition for Cats and Dogs
Coalition for Pets & Public Safety
Coast Dematorology Medical Associates
Community Animal Network
County of Contra Costa Animal Services
County of Madera Department of Animal Control
County of Monterey SPCA
County of San Bernadino Animal Care and Control
Dana Point / San Clemente Animal Rescue
Daschshund Rescue
Dawnwatch
Death Row Dogs Rescue
Deborah's Rescues and Fosters
Dedicated Animal Welfare Group
Directors of Animal Welfare, Studio City Neighborhood Council
Dog Adoption and Welfare Group
Dog Land Spay & Neuter Hotline
Dog Psychology Center of Los Angeles
Dog's Life Rescue
Downtown Dog Rescue
East Bay SPCA
Echo Park Animal Alliance
Emmie's Animal Rescue - Fresno
Erika Brunson Design
Feral Cat Alliance
Feral Cat Coalition - San Diego
Fight for Animal Rights
Forte Animal Rescue
Foundation for the Care of Indigent Animals
Four Legged Friends Foundation
Fox Companion Care
Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter
Friends of Fred
Friends of Long Beach Animals
Friends of Madera Animal Shelter
German Shorthaired Pointer Rescue
Give a Dog a Home Rescue
Glendale Humane Society
Halt Overpopulation with Prevention and Education
Happy Tails Sanctuary
Heaven on Earth Society for Animals
Helping Out Pets Everyday
Herald Publications
High Desert Angels for Animals
HMB Catworks, Penn Valley
Home for Every Living Pet
Hopalong Animal Rescue
HOPE Animal Foundation
Humane Education Network
Humane Society of the United States
In Defense of Animals
Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA
INXS
It's The Pits
Jacqueline Green Public Relations Inc
K-9 Pals - Santa Barbara
K-9 Rescue
Karma Rescue
Katcep Associates
Kellen Rescue
Kinder4Rescue
Kitten Rescue
Kris Kelly Foundation
Lake Tahoe Humane Society
Lange Foundation
Last Chance for Animals
Last Chance for Animals - San Diego
League of Human Voters - California Chapter
Leg Up Rescue
Lhasa Happy Homes
Life 4 Paws
Linda Blair WorldHeart Foundation
Little Angels Pug Rescue
Little Company of Mary San Pedro
Los Angeles Directors of Animal Welfare
Love of Animals Inc
Ma Snak Superior Treats
Madera County Animal Control
Marley's Pit Stop Rescue
MaryJo and Hank Greenberg Animal Welfare Foundation
Matilija Canyon Wildlife Refuge
Milo Foundation
Miss Kitty's Rescue
Missing Pet Partnership
Much Love Animal Rescue
Network of Humane Organizations
New Beginnings for Animals
New Leash on Life
No Voice Unheard
Noah's Bark
NorCal Aussie Rescue
North Star Pet Assistance
Open Arms Network
Orange County People for Animals
Pacific Coast Dog Rescue
PAL Animal Sanctuary
PAL Humane Society
Pam's People Pals
Panzar, Inc.
Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA
Passion for Paws Rescue
Paw Project
Paws and Cues Dog Training
PAWS San Diego County, Inc.
PearlParadise.com
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
People and Cats Together
Pet Adoption Fund
Pet Adoption League
Pet Assistance Foundation
Pet Care Foundation
Pet Orphans of Southern California
Pet Press
Pet Project Foundation
Pet Save Foundation
Peter Zippi Fund for Animals
Pets 90210
Pit Bull Rescue - San Diego
Placer SPCA
Pooch Potty
Progressive Animal Welfare Society
Pryor's Planet
Purr-fect Solutions Feline Rescue
Rancho Coastal Humane Society
Rescue & Humane Alliance - Los Angeles
Rescue House
Rescue House - San Diego
Rescue Me Inc
Rescue Train
River City Cat Rescue
Robin and Friends Rescue
Rover Rescue
Roy Dunlap Spay/Neuter Foundation
Ruff Riders Animal Rescue
Sacramento Area Animal Coalition
Sacramento SPCA
San Clemente/Dana Point Animal Shelter
San Diego Animal Advocates
San Diego Special Needs Rescue
Santa Cruz SPCA
Santa Monica Boxer Rescue
Sara Ford Foundation Rescue Group
Second Chance Canine Rescue
Seeds for Change, Humane Education
Senior & Special Needs Animal Assistance
Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation and Education
Senior Dogs Project
Senior Special Needs Animal Assistance
Shelter Pet Alliance
Shelter Pet Partners
Shelter Watch Inc
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
Sisters Animal Sanctuary
Small Paws Rescue - Tulsa, Oklahoma
Social Compassion
Sounds of Silent Spirits Rescue and Sanctuary
Southeast Area Animal Control Authority
Southern California Labrador Retriever Rescue
Southern California Siamese Rescue
Southern California University People for Animal Welfare
Southland Collie Rescue
Southland Sheltie Rescue
Sparky & The Gang
Spay and Neuter Intermountain Pets and Pet Placement
Spay Neuter Action Program - San Diego
Spay Neuter Action Project
Stop Torture Abuse & Neglect of Dogs Foundation
Stray Cat Alliance
Streetsmarts Rescue
Take Me Home
Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment
Teaching Everyone Animals Matter
Tehachapi Humane Society
Tehama Wild Care
Thumping Tails Rescue
TopCats on the Ridge Inc.
Underdog Rescue
United Animal Nations
Victorville PAL Humane Society
Voice for Animals
Volunteers for Inter-Valley Animals
Weil Public Relations
Wendy's Pet Sitting Service
Westie Rescue
Westside German Shepard Rescue
Winogradsky Company
Wish For Animals

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

But since you are not knowledgeable about what the bill actually says or will do, you do NOT have a vested interest so are not speaking with knowledge. I have studied this very carefully. I am a member of a few email lists of serious knowledgeable people who HAVE studied this.
Just because you believe that there is a pet overpopulation issue does not mean that it actually exists.

This legislation will NOT work. Simple.

i am unclear why you think it will. The other legislation on the books already like license laws and leash laws don't work and are no enforced.

Why will this magically work? Simple, it won't.

This will simply cost the people of CA MORE money for more AC workers. That is what really will happen if this is passed and it is enforced.

You do realize that you are spouting opinion as fact? You cite email lists of serious knowledgeable people as being some sort of authority on the issue, but just because you choose to believe what they say doesn't mean what they say is right, or even honest. Much of what you say is rhetoric I've heard a thousand times from people who blame any legislation on AR factions, when in fact, it's mostly animal welfare activists, shelter personnel, and rescue volunteers who are the ones promoting this legislation. Don't you think they are more in a position to know the facts than a bunch of paranoid breeders who fight any legislation that they think might hamper their businesses and hobbies? Think about the motives behind each side. I can tell you one thing, the motive from the proponents is not a selfish one. Can you say the same thing about the motives of those objecting to the bill?

Have you ever noticed that your side seems to straddle the fence with the argument that it's an AR plot that will wipe out dogs/cats, while at the same time saying that it won't work because no one will obey the law?

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

There are no facts that this law will succeed or fail. Everyone, including you, should be looking for the best law possible. The best law possible translates into lives saved. Gamble and fail...what emotions will you appeal to then?

The best law possible will be fought by breeders just as strongly as this one is. Breeders don't want any laws. Breeders have traditionally, probably because of the already established breed clubs, been able to ban together to present a united front against any law. How many dogs/cats are going to suffer and die before that can be overcome?

Originally Posted by Laurelin

I've always heard that neutering increases the chances of bone cancer. So if you reduce the chance of testicular cancer, but increase the chance of bone cancer, isn't it still a risk?

Can you cite statistical information on how many cases of bone cancer post neutering there are, and how many cases of testicular cancer there are?

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

If I had a dollar for every time Bob told someone they had no idea what they were talking about, I could end the euthanasia problem tomorrow.

I don't know about the other times, but he sure is right this time. No overpopulation problem? Unless this person is buying into some spin doctor's reassessment of the problem, he just isn't making sense.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

No, there is an owner relinquishment problem. These are dogs that where purchased by owners and then given up to shelters. There are not dogs breeding willy nilly in the streets and litters of puppies being turned in. This is because the dogs are not trained, the owner is moving, the owners are getting divorced ,etc. Some legitimate reasons, some not so much.

Ahhh, I figured there might be a spin doctor at work. There is an owner relinquishment problem because:

1) Breeders put dogs in unqualified, inappropriate homes.
2) Dogs are disposable because there are so many of them that it's easier to dump a current problem and just get another dog.
3) Society doesn't put the onus on those that abandon their dogs that they should. Just think what would happen if people thought of dog/cat abandonment the way they do about child abandonment.

No matter what the reason for owner relinquishment, the fact is that there aren't enough homes to house the relinquished animals as well as the new puppies being born. THAT is an overpopulation problem. There's just TOO MANY.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The dogs in the shelters are NOT put there by breeders. They are put there by owners.

This is the mantra that breeders use to absolve themselves of all culpability for the problem, but the problem stems from breeders who choose homes that will ultimately dump their animals. A breeder should be prepared to be a dog's safety net for all of it's life. Those of us in rescue do that, and a breeder should do no less than rescue would. You produced it, it's yours to protect, no matter where it goes.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The solution is obvious and is working. EDUCATION.

Education is obviously not working if breeders like you think it's not your problem. Try manning a shelter intake desk for a week and then say that education is working.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Contrary to the AR fanatics lies and distortions, shelter population and euthanasia rates are going down each year. I saw one study that said 75% in the last 10 years.

If shelter populations are going down each year, why are more shelters being built? Los Angeles, for instance, has a new shelter pending. The call went out today that the East Valley shelter is seriously overcrowded. As for euth rates going down, I don't think that's been an issue, even with ARs. The numbers have decreased, but it's just not fast enough. Adoptable dogs are dying, and with all the education out there, that's just not acceptable. Something else needs to be done. As long as adoptable dogs are dying, they should have priority over future breedings.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The inflated, distorted and incorrect figures spouted are first of all lies. The exact number of dogs in shelters is not known. No one keeps that figure accurately. Nor the number of dogs euthanized. No it is not millions as the ARs spout.

And the number of dogs euthanised includes dogs that have health problems, are old with terminal diseases, and those with temperament problems. Once that figure is subtracted, it is a totally different picture.

The number of dogs that are actually adoptable is not as high as the number of dogs turned in to shelters.

The numbers are questionable, you're right about that. Not because of any AR plot, but because shelters aren't always up-to-date on their statistical information, and it's difficult to break down some of the information into useful information - like the differential between mixed and purebred dogs in the shelter. Some shelters classify a dog as pure as long as it predominately looks like a given breed. Some won't classify anything as pure that doesn't come in with papers proving it's pure. I've seen some gorgeous purebred dogs that were marked as mixes. And adoptable vs. unadoptable is questionable as well, since the temperament testing used is not objective. Even the older animals aren't unadoptable. There are many rescue groups that specialize in rescuing and placing the older dogs. I know of several groups that consider themselves "11th hour" rescues who practically take dogs out of the euthanasia room and then rehab and find good homes for. But that still leaves the problem of more dogs in need than homes to accommodate them. And that's overpopulation, clear and simple.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The 'big lie' is the site you are quoting. HSUS is an ANIMAL RIGHTS organization that wants to extinguish pets. The numbers they quote are LIES. if you choose to not believe that, does'nt make it any less true.

And your choice to believe it doesn't make it true either.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

right, but unadoptable animals and cats are included in those numbers.
That scews the number of those that actually where adoptable. Those are the ones that are homeless. Not the old dogs turned into the shelter because the owner did not have the responsibility to bring them to thier vet and pay to have it humanely euthanized.

The total number of those euthanized is not an indication of the number of dogs that are adoptable. The number of dogs that are old, sick, infirm, bad tempered does not matter. This is about a perceived overpopulation issue. Those animals are included in these figures to scew the data to show that there is an 'overpopulation' issue. I don't understand why you can't see that?

Maybe we can't see it because you are counting adoptable animals as unadoptable. Age shouldn't be a death sentence. The only reason it is, is because there are too many dogs and not enough homes, in other words, an overpopulation. If there weren't so many dogs available, people would be more likely to adopt older dogs. Do you realize that because of the demands of the public, and the number of available homeless dogs, some rescue groups won't take dogs that are over 3 years of age because they can't place them? What don't you understand about the phrase "TOO MANY"?

Originally Posted by ChRotties

I agree with Saveourdogs: statistics can be manipulated ...for the true numbers to be known, you have to take out the ones that were euth bc of old age, temperament, illness..those aren't adoptable...

Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.

Originally Posted by Cheetah

I'm also pretty sure that if there ever was an "oops" with a responsible (key word here) owner, they would not even allow the puppies to be born.

I think you'd find debate about that, since there are a lot of people that think abortion is wrong, even with their pets. I've run into quite a bit of resistance when suggesting that to people whose pets are in unplanned pregnancies. And somehow I doubt that becoming a responsible breeder automatically changes one's mind about abortion. But then I think that's one of the problems with breeding, there is no standardized criteria for what is considered responsible, and what is not.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.

Hum, I'm not talking about a dog that is up in years. I'm talking about a dog that is up in years and is about to die from old age, disease. But the owner refuses to take him to his vet and pay to euthanize him humanely, but instead drops him off at the shelter. This happens a lot and skews the number of dogs that a shelter takes in.

Yes some older dogs can be adopted.

I also do not believe in spending thousands of dollars on saving a rescue/shelter dog. You have to be realistic. That thousand of dollars can go to treat 10 other dogs. I would much rather help the 10 than just 1.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Yes they are adoptable, or would be if there were enough available homes. Old dogs need love too. Illness can often be cured. Temperament problems are often just a matter of training and/or inappropriately applied testing. I've seen enough cases of rescue saving dogs with all those problems, and putting them in forever homes to believe that those problems should result in an automatic death sentence.

A dog that is dying of old age, cancer, ie on its last legs, can NOT be saved and are routinely turned in to shelters.

Illness in old dogs most often can NOT be cured. They need to be humanely euthanized by thier owners, not turned in so that you and I have to pay for thier responsibility.

And in my town, someone last week adopted a dog from the shelter and it ripped her face off. She has had 4 surgeries so far and needs more. I can put a link to the article. I saw this on the local news. They showed her all bandaged up and purple. It was awful. No not all dogs can be rehabilitated. They are a danger to the public and need to be euthanized.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

And your choice to believe it doesn't make it true either.

Anyone that uses simple logic skills knows the numbers are not true. They can't be. The numbers of dogs in shelters and killed in shelters all over the US are NOT kept by anyone. Each shelter, though skewed as unadoptable animals are included, probably does keep that number. No where is that figure from each shelter collected. The numbere that the ARs spout is made up. You dont have to be a math major to understand the term 'interpolation' or 'estimate' ie guess. That number is an inaccurate guess. If you choose to believe in the tooth fairy or the easter bunny, feel free. I believe in actual figures that can be proven, not an incorrect guess.

[RonE]

I hope those of you that think you can win this fight through sheer volume of posts (all two of you) realize that you left almost everyone else behind about 28 pages ago.

[saveourdogs]

"[quote=DogAdvocat;66829]Ahhh, I figured there might be a spin doctor at work. There is an owner relinquishment problem because:

1) Breeders put dogs in unqualified, inappropriate homes.
2) Dogs are disposable because there are so many of them that it's easier to dump a current problem and just get another dog."



"3) Society doesn't put the onus on those that abandon their dogs that they should. Just think what would happen if people thought of dog/cat abandonment the way they do about child abandonment."
"

"No matter what the reason for owner relinquishment, the fact is that there aren't enough homes to house the relinquished animals as well as the new puppies being born. THAT is an overpopulation problem. There's just TOO MANY."

"

"This is the mantra that breeders use to absolve themselves of all culpability for the problem, but the problem stems from breeders who choose homes that will ultimately dump their animals. A breeder should be prepared to be a dog's safety net for all of it's life. Those of us in rescue do that, and a breeder should do no less than rescue would. You produced it, it's yours to protect, no matter where it goes."

"Absolve of culpability? Breeders are not turning these dogs in. Therefore they are not the reason for the problem. Simple logic. i agree that breeders should take thier dogs back. I do. I have it in my sales contract that they are required to contact me if they can't keep the dog. I also screen buyers and don't sell a dog to someone that does not seem to be a responsible owner. But that still doesn't make me responsible if that person does turn it into shelter or rescue. Not everyone contacts the breeder. "


"Education is obviously not working if breeders like you think it's not your problem. Try manning a shelter intake desk for a week and then say that education is working. "


"If shelter populations are going down each year, why are more shelters being built? Los Angeles, for instance, has a new shelter pending. The call went out today that the East Valley shelter is seriously overcrowded. As for euth rates going down, I don't think that's been an issue, even with ARs. The numbers have decreased, but it's just not fast enough. Adoptable dogs are dying, and with all the education out there, that's just not acceptable. Something else needs to be done. As long as adoptable dogs are dying, they should have priority over future breedings."

That is irresponsible ownership, nothing to do with the breeder.


"So than the onus should be on the breeder? That makes NO sense.

That is your opinion, not fact. Just because not everyone doesn't want to rescue a shelter dog and the baggage that goes along with it, ie former abuse, lack of training, possible temperament problems due to poor breeding, possible health problems due to poor breeding, the breeds/mixes that are available and the fit with that family does not mean that there are too many dogs.
It means there are too many irresponsible owners turning thier dogs in. The fact that not everyone wants to clean that up ie adopt them is another issue. "



Good question. Very good question. if this law is supposed to be the panacea, why are there new shelters in CA costing millions and millions of dollars in the works? I thought they won't be needed?

"Education is certainly working. The number of dogs in shelters goes down each year. And has gone down dramatically each year. Now cats, that's another kettle of fish."


Again, shelter dogs are not a fit for every household. The person that I sell my quality bred and raised puppy with socialization, housebreaking, health testing, health tested and pedigree researched parents of a specific breed is different than the lab mixes and pit bull mixes that are in my shelter with thier unknown history and temperaments and size and coat type that differ drastically from my breed.

There are different breeds. Each own has a unique size, coat type (some require more grooming, some shed, some don't), body style, temperament. Not everyone wants a pit bull or lab. That is 90% of the dogs in shelters, in my shelter anyways and I understand in the majority of shelters in the US.

Originally Posted by RonE

I hope those of you that think you can win this fight through sheer volume of posts (all two of you) realize that you left almost everyone else behind about 28 pages ago.

Hey, if you are referring to me? You never know who reads these posts. Maybe I can talk reality and sense into someone. Certainly not these 2 characters who refuse to see reality and think that morals and ethics can be legislated and that this legislation might actually work. No logic there since the laws already on the books, such as leash laws and abuse laws don't work. and are not enforced. Why would this be any different .

If I can make just one person realize the lies of the AR shelter figues, my work here is done .

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Even if that were true, which I don't believe it is, don't you realize that most of the shelter animals are mixed breeds, and most of the dogs dying are mixed breeds, and other than the designer breeds, that means that most of the dogs that are at risk are the ones being produced by irresponsible and neglegent owners that are not breeding for profit or for hobby. Those are the people that are targetted most by this law. And by not backing this law, you are enabling them.

No it is the hobby breeder who sells on non-breeding contracts, takes dogs back, does health testing that will be most affected. They are the ones that are out there in public and can be found by the ACs to come barging into thier home to see if they have dogs and if they have permits. The average person who lets thier dog wander and get pregnant, will not be affected what so ever. Leash laws being enforced would have prevented that dog from getting pregnant. So how do you think this will work?

The good breeders will stop breeding because of the exhorbitant taxes imposed, hundreds of dollars per dog. And if you dont think that the municipalities will see this as a gold mine and charge hundreds of dollars per 'permit' per dog plus a fee to breed the litter as LA charges, I have some swamp land for sale.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Hum, I'm not talking about a dog that is up in years. I'm talking about a dog that is up in years and is about to die from old age, disease. But the owner refuses to take him to his vet and pay to euthanize him humanely, but instead drops him off at the shelter. This happens a lot and skews the number of dogs that a shelter takes in.

Yes some older dogs can be adopted.

I also do not believe in spending thousands of dollars on saving a rescue/shelter dog. You have to be realistic. That thousand of dollars can go to treat 10 other dogs. I would much rather help the 10 than just 1.

Everyone is different in their approach to rescue. Some don't believe it is a true rescue unless the dog is truly in desperate need. Some rescue believe their calling is to help those that no one else wants. Some feel the way that you do and want their money to help the most dogs possible. I value all points of view on this, as long as it's helping the dogs.

And where you would rather help 10 than just 1, I would rather help one than breed ten. With the number of dogs that need homes right now, none need to be bred, but plenty need to be rescued.

Your point about inaccurate numbers is being heard, but I think you think it's more important than I do. Yes, the statistics are not broken down in a way that we can know exactly what's happening, but you seem to think that means we don't need changes because we don't know that exact breakdown. While you are bemoaning the statistical analysis, dogs are dying - many of which are young and adoptable. And as long as that is happening to any of them, the status quo is not acceptable to me.

There is a big movement in this country to embrace the no-kill concept. Don't you think that if it was possible for shelters to claim high numbers of unadoptable dogs, they would do so and call themselves no-kill? Many have. They figure anything they can't adopt out is unadoptable, and therefore their killing isn't really killing adoptable dogs. But most shelters aren't using this ploy, and it's really to their detriment because they would get a lot more approval from the public.

Please, stop listening to the AR obsessed paranoics and go spend some time at an urban shelter and watch the type of dogs that come in. I think you'll find that the majority are young (approx. 1.5 years) that are full of nonsense and untrained, but perfectly sweet and adoptable. A good percentage of them will probably be large and black and that will condemn them right there, because people don't want BBDs, and there are soooo many of them. Then follow their progress, and note how many become depressed, stressed, and even come down with kennel cough, which may condemn them because it's easier for a shelter to euthanize than to let the disease spread. Do you want to claim that among the sick dogs that you don't want to count? Kennel cough is an easily cured disease, and in no way should make a dog unadoptable, but between the shelters limited resources, and the public seeing a snotty, coughing BBD - it quickly becomes unadoptable - unless, of course, there is a rescue that isn't already so overwhelmed with dogs that s/he can take him and give him that extra time to recover and be put in a new home -- see? He was adoptable after all. So where does he go on these statistics that you think are a must?

Screw the statistics, dogs are dying, and it has to stop.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

YES no one is suggesting that there will be an end to responsible breeding. Responsible breeders CAN EASILY OBTAIN AN EXEMPTION, and what they pay for an exemption they will do as other breeders do and pass the costs onto those who buy puppies, and say on a litter of 5 puppies that will be about $20 per puppy, and in effect this Bill will cost responsible breeders NOTHING and will not effect them at all.
.

Easily obtain an exemption? That is simply not true. It is practically impossible to do so. They have to have thier CH by 2 years of age. Some dogs are not even shown by then, they aren't totally mature. And if they dont get it they have to be altered. If they receive a Ch, they have to be spayed. They can't be bred, they aren't being shown anymore so they can't get an intact permit. They have to be being shown to get an intact permit. They can't be shown when they are bred. And they have to continue to be shown. Their career can never end or they will not be eligible for a permit. That cost of shows needs to be added into the price of a puppy. This permit will be hundreds of dollars yearly per dog, if they qualify, which very very few will qualify.

And if the dog is not shown it has to be altered by 4 months. Well you can't show a dog until it's 6 months.

No it is practically impossible to get an intact permit. Read the law.

[DogAdvocat]

"Absolve of culpability? Breeders are not turning these dogs in. Therefore they are not the reason for the problem. Simple logic. i agree that breeders should take thier dogs back. I do. I have it in my sales contract that they are required to contact me if they can't keep the dog. I also screen buyers and don't sell a dog to someone that does not seem to be a responsible owner. But that still doesn't make me responsible if that person does turn it into shelter or rescue. Not everyone contacts the breeder. "

That is irresponsible ownership, nothing to do with the breeder.

No, the simple logic you seem to have missed is that YOU (the breeder) picks the owner. If you pick an irresponsible owner, then YOU are the one that put that dog in danger. If you choose a good home, then the dog is safe. YOU are the common factor. That common factor is there for every dog in the shelter, because all of them were bred (intentionally or unintentionally) by someone who chose the home they would go into.

Good question. Very good question. if this law is supposed to be the panacea, why are there new shelters in CA costing millions and millions of dollars in the works? I thought they won't be needed?

Because the law hasn't passed yet !!!! If the pending law had been passed before the shelter was approved, it probably wouldn't have been approved. Remember logic?

Again, shelter dogs are not a fit for every household. The person that I sell my quality bred and raised puppy with socialization, housebreaking, health testing, health tested and pedigree researched parents of a specific breed is different than the lab mixes and pit bull mixes that are in my shelter with thier unknown history and temperaments and size and coat type that differ drastically from my breed.

There are different breeds. Each own has a unique size, coat type (some require more grooming, some shed, some don't), body style, temperament. Not everyone wants a pit bull or lab. That is 90% of the dogs in shelters, in my shelter anyways and I understand in the majority of shelters in the US.

Ok, let's take this from another angle. Let's choose one breed. It's a fairly popular breed, which means that way too many unscrupulous breeders are trying to make a buck off of it. It's still a fairly healthy breed, and though it has developed a few problems from being irresponsibly bred, it's still pretty healthy in comparison to some of the other breeds. It's a small breed, and people melt at how adorable it is. It's pretty easy to get along with, so temperament problems are rare. Now here's the problem. Rescue can't keep up with the number of this breed that shows up in the shelters. Today, one breed rescue has 625 of them listed on petfinders - all ages. Desperate pleas go out from other rescues for foster homes to try to prevent this breed from dying in the pounds. Many are lost because the foster homes are all full. And anyone that truly loves this breed isn't sitting there condemning shelter dogs as being inferior, like you've been doing.

So how many of those have to die before you get your itch scratched about statistical information?

[RonE]

This is going to sound ironic coming from a guy with a gazillion posts, but do either of you work for a living? Do you have dogs or families?

I'm teasing, but only a little. This is really out of control.

I'm going to go play with the dog and then go to work.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by RonE

This is going to sound ironic coming from a guy with a gazillion posts, but do either of you work for a living? Do you have dogs or families?

I'm teasing, but only a little. This is really out of control.

I'm going to go play with the dog and then go to work.

I know I've posted a lot tonight, but while I was off doing doggie things this afternoon and evening, everyone else was posting. Now it looks like I'm the only one doing anything. I'm just trying to play catchup. Sorry.