[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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

No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.

[Laurelin]

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.

Lol, really. I went to bed and woke up with 5 more pages of the same two people saying the same two things.

[Cheetah]

The whole point of me posting on this god forsaken thread was not to argue over what "responsible" means. It was to point out that I know for a FACT that Laurelin is a responsible dog owner, and that it's uncalled for to tell her that she's abusing her SHOW dog, simply by having him intact. It's pointless to argue the word "responsible" on a heated thread such as this.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.

Ok, I can agree with that. But s/n is the only 100% sure way of insuring responsibility and preventing unwanted puppies. Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Cheetah

The whole point of me posting on this god forsaken thread was not to argue over what "responsible" means. It was to point out that I know for a FACT that Laurelin is a responsible dog owner, and that it's uncalled for to tell her that she's abusing her SHOW dog, simply by having him intact. It's pointless to argue the word "responsible" on a heated thread such as this.

How can it be pointless when there is no meeting of the minds about what responsible means? If we can't even agree on that, how can we ever agree on anything else?

[RonE]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?

As a matter of fact . . .

Does anybody else remember that post a few months ago?

Of course, there's no way to verify it, just like there's no way to very most of what we read on an Internet forum.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by RonE

As a matter of fact . . .

Does anybody else remember that post a few months ago?

Of course, there's no way to verify it, just like there's no way to very most of what we read on an Internet forum.

No but that sounds interesting.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

No, this is where you're 100% wrong. Failure to alter is NOT why dogs die. Dogs die because the owner fails to be responsible about them. If an unwanted litter is born, there was a lack in responsiblity somewhere. Not every dog that is unaltered is out having puppies. People who are uneducated, neglectful, or simply don't care are the ones whose dogs are having the unwanted puppies. It is not simply because their dog was intact that these things happen. There's more than one factor involved here.

Every dog that is having puppies is unaltered, if the dog is not intact, no puppies. You can't count on people to make surethat their pets don't have litters, because by this time, it is prettty clear that many of them couldn't care less about it, hence the millions of dogs destroyed every year just in the US. . So who suffers, the dogs that are born everyday into a world where they are no wanted, because their parent's owners were too dumb to have their arents S/N. That is why you need a law, to force people to S/N their pets.

[Cheetah]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Ok, I can agree with that. But s/n is the only 100% sure way of insuring responsibility and preventing unwanted puppies. Have you ever heard of anyone having an oops breeding with an altered dog?

I sure haven't, and I do agree that if properly contained, there will be no oops either. This is why mine are all fixed... I would never want to deal with this kind of thing (had to deal with it when my grandmother brought over her INTACT, IN HEAT pekingese when Shippo had just reached sexual maturity, and it was a NIGHTMARE).

Just because I argued with you doesn't mean I'm against spay and neuter. Look at the back of my car for god's sake. You're preaching to the choir with that one:


But I don't have show dogs. And I don't believe it's abuse to have an intact show dog, if the person is actively showing, keeps the dog away from intact dogs of the opposite sex, and plans on bettering a breed, and isn't leaving the dog intact for the hell of it.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Every dog that is having puppies is unaltered, if the dog is not intact, no puppies. You can't count on people to make surethat their pets don't have litters, because by this time, it is prettty clear that many of them couldn't care less about it, hence the millions of dogs destroyed every year just in the US. . So who suffers, the dogs that are born everyday into a world where they are no wanted, because their parent's owners were too dumb to have their arents S/N. That is why you need a law, to force people to S/N their pets.

Please stop using the words 'too dumb to have neutered'. There are many reasons a person wouldn't neuter their dogs- financial reasons, performance reasons, not being educated - whatever. Not all are stupid reasons, many are. It is not a 'dumb' decision on my part to keep Beau intact. Some people actually have legitimate reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

You can't cause people to be intelligent or responsible- it's a 'quick fix' to a bigger problem. People just don't care. They don't see their dogs as a commitment and something they are 100% responsible for. You can neuter the dogs, yes the dog won't have puppies, but these same people that do this over and over from my experience are the ones that dump their dogs more often than not. They just don't care. You can stop a part of it by forcing an operation on their animal, but it won't stop the problem. Industrial breeders keep on breeding, these people that shouldn't have dogs keep on getting dogs and dumping them only to get another.

The group of owners that keep dogs intact is a big group of people. Some of these people just don't care. Some of these people are among the MOST responsible of pet owners. You're generalizing everyone to try to find a 'one shoe fits all' solution to a problem that's really much more complicated. People don't value dogs at very much- they're disposable. Bad breeders don't value dogs because they keep cranking them out with no concern. Yes, this helps the problem, but if the owners weren't the same way, it'd slow down. Owners don't care either. They want a dog when they want it and no longer. People repeatedly dumping dogs then buying more is to me the most guilty party. The problem isn't dogs being intact, the problem is people being careless. By making people spay/neuter you can't force them to care, you can't force tem to start taking better care of their dogs. The people who will spay/neuter thier unaltered dogs are the ones that are already not causing a problem. The ones that allow their dogs to help with the overpopulation to me fall into two categories- the uneducated and the uncaring. The uneducated can be educated- I see it all the time. Unfortunately most people just don't care. There's not much you can do with them. I'm around these people all the time- actually I'm related to many of them. New dog here, dump it a year later, get a new dog, breed it to the neighbor's dog, dump it, etc... Those people could care less no matter what. They skirt the laws already in many other things. They just don't get it, and I'm not sure how they ever will.

If you can find a piece of legislation that can force people into caring and to treat their dogs the way they should, then I'd be all for it. AB1634 just seems so pointless.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Please stop using the words 'too dumb to have neutered'. There are many reasons a person wouldn't neuter their dogs- financial reasons, performance reasons, not being educated - whatever. Not all are stupid reasons, many are. It is not a 'dumb' decision on my part to keep Beau intact. Some people actually have legitimate reasons, whether you agree with them or not.

You can't cause people to be intelligent or responsible- it's a 'quick fix' to a bigger problem. People just don't care. They don't see their dogs as a commitment and something they are 100% responsible for. You can neuter the dogs, yes the dog won't have puppies, but these same people that do this over and over from my experience are the ones that dump their dogs more often than not. They just don't care. You can stop a part of it by forcing an operation on their animal, but it won't stop the problem. Industrial breeders keep on breeding, these people that shouldn't have dogs keep on getting dogs and dumping them only to get another.

The group of owners that keep dogs intact is a big group of people. Some of these people just don't care. Some of these people are among the MOST responsible of pet owners. You're generalizing everyone to try to find a 'one shoe fits all' solution to a problem that's really much more complicated. People don't value dogs at very much- they're disposable. Bad breeders don't value dogs because they keep cranking them out with no concern. Yes, this helps the problem, but if the owners weren't the same way, it'd slow down. Owners don't care either. They want a dog when they want it and no longer. People repeatedly dumping dogs then buying more is to me the most guilty party. The problem isn't dogs being intact, the problem is people being careless. By making people spay/neuter you can't force them to care, you can't force tem to start taking better care of their dogs. The people who will spay/neuter thier unaltered dogs are the ones that are already not causing a problem. The ones that allow their dogs to help with the overpopulation to me fall into two categories- the uneducated and the uncaring. The uneducated can be educated- I see it all the time. Unfortunately most people just don't care. There's not much you can do with them. I'm around these people all the time- actually I'm related to many of them. New dog here, dump it a year later, get a new dog, breed it to the neighbor's dog, dump it, etc... Those people could care less no matter what. They skirt the laws already in many other things. They just don't get it, and I'm not sure how they ever will.

If you can find a piece of legislation that can force people into caring and to treat their dogs the way they should, then I'd be all for it. AB1634 just seems so pointless.

I have met quite a few people in the last couple of years that refuse to have their dogs S/N. Most of these people I have met don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. First of all, if someone can't afford to S/N their pet, they shouldn't get a dog or cat. They can get gerbils, or fish, or turtles , or something else more affordable. What the heck are they going to do, when their dog gets sick, have it put down cause they can't afford to bring it to a vet? You can never force people to care. You have to make the penalty for breaking the law, enough of a hassle, that people will just not bother to get a dog at all. Then the market will slow down, and the breeders will stop breeding animals and selling them to people. Nothing wrong with any of that, and most importantly, it saves dogs from being destroyed and mistreated. In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I have met quite a few people in the last couple of years that refuse to have their dogs S/N. Most of these people I have met don't seem to be the brightest bulbs on the tree. First of all, if someone can't afford to S/N their pet, they shouldn't get a dog or cat. They can get gerbils, or fish, or turtles , or something else more affordable. What the heck are they going to do, when their dog gets sick, have it put down cause they can't afford to bring it to a vet? You can never force people to care. You have to make the penalty for breaking the law, enough of a hassle, that people will just not bother to get a dog at all. Then the market will slow down, and the breeders will stop breeding animals and selling them to people. Nothing wrong with any of that, and most importantly, it saves dogs from being destroyed and mistreated. In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?

Thank you for insinuating that I have no concern for the health and well being of dogs. It's very kind of you.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

In all these many threads on this topic, I find that the only people that seem concerned about the health and well being of the dogs and articulate that in their posts, are the people that are for enacting this law. Strange, isn't it?

It's not strange that you would have this view. I know I'm concerned, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with this bill, or deam it logical at face value because it argees with my humanity. It's not that simple.

[Cheetah]

If this thread turns toward personal attacks, it's going to be locked. >-\/-<

[JUDY@TODDSANDLER.COM]

certainly we are all concerned about pet overpopulation, however...lets be honest here it is all about the bucks!!!
there is nothing inexpensive about eutanizing animals.
i have greater issues with the lack of law enforcement in the area of pet cruelty.
if we can oulaw irresponsible pet reproduction, perhaps we can enact laws to prevent irresponsible human reproduction. prevention of cruelty to children is a more pressing issue... how about outlawing childbearing of crack addicts, alcoholics and people who have serious mental health problems, retardation, or even can't or won't support the children they produce. seems both humane & economically advisable.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by JUDY@TODDSANDLER.COM

certainly we are all concerned about pet overpopulation, however...lets be honest here it is all about the bucks!!!
there is nothing inexpensive about eutanizing animals.
i have greater issues with the lack of law enforcement in the area of pet cruelty.
if we can oulaw irresponsible pet reproduction, perhaps we can enact laws to prevent irresponsible human reproduction. prevention of cruelty to children is a more pressing issue... how about outlawing childbearing of crack addicts, alcoholics and people who have serious mental health problems, retardation, or even can't or won't support the children they produce. seems both humane & economically advisable.

I believe the Chinese sterilize people that have over one or two children....

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I believe the Chinese sterilize people that have over one or two children....

They allowed them to have 1 child. And that backfired. They where euthanizing/aborting female children. now there are not enough girls for the boys to marry. Another law that had unintended consequences, just like this one.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

They allowed them to have 1 child. And that backfired. They where euthanizing/aborting female children. now there are not enough girls for the boys to marry. Another law that had unintended consequences, just like this one.

You mean like the unintended consequences of breeding dogs -- dogs dying in shelters for lack of homes?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

You mean like the unintended consequences of breeding dogs -- dogs dying in shelters for lack of homes?

No like the unintended consequences of this law which will only increase the numbers in shelters and increase the number of sick dogs sold in the state. The good breeders will go out of business or have to drive up thier prices so high that no one can afford them. I estimate from the increased dog license fee, intact fee, litter fee would drive my puppy price up at least $200 per puppy considering the amount of puppies I average each year. If I lived in CA. I would quit breeding or move if this passes.

These taxes will go up each year and be hundreds of dollars. No doubt about it.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

If I lived in CA. I would quit breeding or move if this passes.

.

That would probably be a good thing, for multiple reasons.