[tirluc]

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?

i agree w/ Laurelin.....thank you, very little, for insinuating i don't care about my dogs.....they are all well cared for and even my vet will attest to that.....but you know what?....it costs to have a gerbil, hamster, or whatever else, to take it into the vet....and guess what else?....i am one that does/has taken my rats (when i had them) into the vet....b/c, just like my dogs, i care about them......but, unfortunately, you can't do the same things w/ rats, gerbils, birds, etc....you can't do agility, flyball, herding, etc w/ a goldfish....and this is why i prefer to have my dogs...for the companionship that they give me....and the love and so on and so on......and again, 3 of my 4 are altered, and my 4th one will have pups only if and when i determine it B/C I'M A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER.....and there are many of us out here.......

i quit looking at this topic at about the 26th page, and just came back on to check it out last night and guess what....it's just like a soap opera...you can go away for a while and come back and nothing has changed.....the posts just keep repeating themselves over and over and over (sounds like a broken record)

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

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.

When I think of all the money spent on rescuing dogs from shelters and from homes who find their dogs too inconvenient to honor their commitment to give them a lifetime home, I find your $200 per puppy to be paltry. There are many ads in the newspapers for puppies being sold for $300 to $500, and yet people go to pet stores and pay $1000 for worse quality puppies. Do you really think that $200 hike is going to stop puppy sales? And frankly, what if it did? First, if people don't want one of your puppies bad enough to pay the extra money, what happens the first time a vet charges them $1000 for a medical procedure? Aren't they worth an extra $200? Aren't the lives of the pound dogs worth $200 if it reduces the amount of irresponsible breeders and random bred dogs in California? If you can't absorb and/or pass on $200 extra, then frankly I think you should get out of the business. I wouldn't even blink at that amount when it comes to doing rescue.

Your statement about moving out of California if you lived here, says a whole lot. You obviously have no first hand information of the troubles we are seeing here. This is just another case of breeders who are outside agitators, and who want to dictate what goes on in our state, but when the dust settles, will not be here to pick up the pieces if this bill fails. If the bill passes, on the other hand, I WILL be here, and I will continue to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to aid California dogs to survive and be treasured by caring families, even if they come from puppymillers in your state. Have you ever even been in a California shelter? Have you ever been in any municipal shelter at all?

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Your statement about moving out of California if you lived here, says a whole lot. You obviously have no first hand information of the troubles we are seeing here. This is just another case of breeders who are outside agitators, and who want to dictate what goes on in our state, but when the dust settles, will not be here to pick up the pieces if this bill fails. If the bill passes, on the other hand, I WILL be here, and I will continue to be involved in doing whatever is necessary to aid California dogs to survive and be treasured by caring families, even if they come from puppymillers in your state. Have you ever even been in a California shelter? Have you ever been in any municipal shelter at all?

I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.

The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by tirluc

i agree w/ Laurelin.....thank you, very little, for insinuating i don't care about my dogs.....they are all well cared for and even my vet will attest to that.....but you know what?....it costs to have a gerbil, hamster, or whatever else, to take it into the vet....and guess what else?....i am one that does/has taken my rats (when i had them) into the vet....b/c, just like my dogs, i care about them......but, unfortunately, you can't do the same things w/ rats, gerbils, birds, etc....you can't do agility, flyball, herding, etc w/ a goldfish....and this is why i prefer to have my dogs...for the companionship that they give me....and the love and so on and so on......and again, 3 of my 4 are altered, and my 4th one will have pups only if and when i determine it B/C I'M A RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNER.....and there are many of us out here.......

i quit looking at this topic at about the 26th page, and just came back on to check it out last night and guess what....it's just like a soap opera...you can go away for a while and come back and nothing has changed.....the posts just keep repeating themselves over and over and over (sounds like a broken record)

And your record isn't cracked a bit? You keep saying the same things over and over too. You keep being offended that anyone might think you aren't responsible, though you profess to not care what anyone thinks of you. You keep protesting how responsible you are, as if you cared what we thought. When we discuss the philosophy of responsibility and how many people there are who aren't responsible - there you pop up, acting as if it's all about you.

And speaking of "all about you" - I think there is a basic philosophical difference between some of us in how we perceive dogs and our desire to live with them. On one side is the philosophy that a dog should satisfy some sort of desire of the owner, that it should be all about what the owner wants to do with the dog. You want a dog that can do this, that, or the other thing, and you don't want a dog that can't satisfy those desires, most of which are apparently recreational.

On the other side, there's those of us who feel it's about the dog - what does the dog need. My dog doesn't have to fulfill my recreational desires. When it comes to recreation, I do what he wants to do. If he wants to dig in the garden, then we dig in the garden. He's not here to entertain me, though I do find him entertaining. He isn't here to give me a hobby. He's here because he needed a home and he deserves it just by being here. To me, he's a gift from God, and so are the other dogs I have, and have had, and not one of them had to be something beyond what they naturally were.

It's about them and their needs and desires, not about me and my whims. And I feel blessed every day that they're in my life. And that's why, when I look at my pound dogs and realize how close they came to dying, and realize that they might have died because someone preferred to buy a dog that would satisfy some recreational whim, I find it hard to comprehend that's done out of any sort of love for dogs. It's kind of like having a best friend around because you have a bond between you, and having a maid to serve you. You could even try to convince people that you loved your maid, but how long lasting will that relationship be if the maid can't dog the job you require of her?

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.

The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.

CaptBob, you too our obviously outside of our state, but I want to thank you for your interest in trying to help us solve our problems, unlike those that are fighting what we're trying to do to remedy the situation. Thank you for the support.

A few years ago California passed the Haydn law that has done a lot to help the animals. It's mainly been aimed at cleaning up shelters, requiring them to spay/neuter, and requiring them to let rescue have a chance at dogs that aren't readily suitable for the public, and it requires various waiting periods, including a waiting period when people bring in their dog to be euthanized. Of course with that last one, I believe that there is a vet evaluation, and if the vet deems the animal to be terminally ill or in unalterable pain, then the waiting period is waived. These waiting periods, and the other parts of the law, have saved a lot of lives. But it's also caused some problems that we continue to work on. One, of course, is if they are required to wait longer, then there is a bigger risk of overcrowding, which can also lead to disease and injury. It's sooo much better than it used to be, but I think there is a major disconnect with the public. The public needs to see that their support of a law that included longer waiting periods means that the public needs to do more to prevent that overcrowding - either by reducing the birth rate, or adopting more, or fixing more of their own problems so that dogs don't end up in the shelter at all.

But it's all a work in progress, and I marvel at those who complain that a law won't immediately fix a problem. It never does, but it sets things going in the right direction, and it lets people know what is acceptable and what is not. No longer should California residents be able to say that they can let their cat or dog have all the litters they want to because it's legal. I don't talk much about the cat situation here, mainly because my thing is dogs, but it's even worse for cats here. Not only do we have a huge feral cat problem, but it's more common for people to let their unaltered cats roam, and "kitten season" just explodes here.

Speaking of kitten season, there's another issue that is frequently seen here with dogs. And this is something that AB1634 would address. It's common here for people to dump their pregnant dogs in the shelter. They don't alter the dog, and when the "slut" (and I have heard that said) gets pregnant, then she's too much trouble to keep around. So they dump her on the pound, sometimes in the process of giving birth, and the shelters have to cope with her and her new litter. Now here's the main problem - she can't stay the eight weeks that it would take for her to raise her puppies, and people don't want to adopt a mama dog and her eight puppies. The shelter won't let her be adopted and just leave the puppies motherless - they don't usually even have the manpower to bottlefeed. Some shelters do have volunteer foster homes for this kind of thing, but there aren't nearly enough to go around. And of course there's also the disease factor of having infant puppies in a shelter that copes with kennel cough and occasional outbreaks of distemper or parvo. So, what they end up doing is euthanizing the puppies almost immediately. My hope is that this law would prevent a lot of that. What possible sense is there in letting people negligently produce puppies to only live a few days? "Welcome to the world, you're slated to die in 4 days." But this is the reality that most people don't even know about, and it happens to cats even more than to dogs.

Can you blame me for fighting back when someone is more concerned that he would have to raise the cost of his puppies $200, than he is about those puppies that won't even live for a week? Their puppy breath is just as sweet as his puppies. But I know, it's not about the dogs, it's about him and his rights to use dogs any way he sees fit.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I would bet all the tea in China, that He has never been in a shelter in his life, unless it was to drop a dog off. You can tell by the statements that he makes, that he has almost no regard for any animal that is not a pedigree and that he can profit from. He also realizes that if this law in CA passes, and people in other areas of the country realize it is a good thing, that it will spread from one State to another. He is probably worried about his future shrinking income more than anything, certainly more than dogs with no homes.

The money that is spent everyday at just the shelter where I volunteer, makes the small fee for S/N, pale in comparison. Shelters all over the country are spending millions and millions of dollars. I was talking to two volunteers at a Humane Society Shelter this morning at the dog park. They said that the County Shelter is so overcrowded, that when animal control brings a dog in that they found on the street, the average length of time that they can keep the dog before they euthanize it is 2-3 days, no matter what the health and age and adoptability of the dog is.

You know, I am tired of your lies, ignorance and insults. You have no business making these insintuations about someone else. Especially when they aren't even close to being true. Frankly I am surprised you are not banned from this forum for such nasty remarks.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

CaptBob, you too our obviously outside of our state, but I want to thank you for your interest in trying to help us solve our problems, unlike those that are fighting what we're trying to do to remedy the situation. Thank you for the support.

A few years ago California passed the Haydn law that has done a lot to help the animals. It's mainly been aimed at cleaning up shelters, requiring them to spay/neuter, and requiring them to let rescue have a chance at dogs that aren't readily suitable for the public, and it requires various waiting periods, including a waiting period when people bring in their dog to be euthanized. Of course with that last one, I believe that there is a vet evaluation, and if the vet deems the animal to be terminally ill or in unalterable pain, then the waiting period is waived. These waiting periods, and the other parts of the law, have saved a lot of lives. But it's also caused some problems that we continue to work on. One, of course, is if they are required to wait longer, then there is a bigger risk of overcrowding, which can also lead to disease and injury. It's sooo much better than it used to be, but I think there is a major disconnect with the public. The public needs to see that their support of a law that included longer waiting periods means that the public needs to do more to prevent that overcrowding - either by reducing the birth rate, or adopting more, or fixing more of their own problems so that dogs don't end up in the shelter at all.

But it's all a work in progress, and I marvel at those who complain that a law won't immediately fix a problem. It never does, but it sets things going in the right direction, and it lets people know what is acceptable and what is not. No longer should California residents be able to say that they can let their cat or dog have all the litters they want to because it's legal. I don't talk much about the cat situation here, mainly because my thing is dogs, but it's even worse for cats here. Not only do we have a huge feral cat problem, but it's more common for people to let their unaltered cats roam, and "kitten season" just explodes here.

Speaking of kitten season, there's another issue that is frequently seen here with dogs. And this is something that AB1634 would address. It's common here for people to dump their pregnant dogs in the shelter. They don't alter the dog, and when the "slut" (and I have heard that said) gets pregnant, then she's too much trouble to keep around. So they dump her on the pound, sometimes in the process of giving birth, and the shelters have to cope with her and her new litter. Now here's the main problem - she can't stay the eight weeks that it would take for her to raise her puppies, and people don't want to adopt a mama dog and her eight puppies. The shelter won't let her be adopted and just leave the puppies motherless - they don't usually even have the manpower to bottlefeed. Some shelters do have volunteer foster homes for this kind of thing, but there aren't nearly enough to go around. And of course there's also the disease factor of having infant puppies in a shelter that copes with kennel cough and occasional outbreaks of distemper or parvo. So, what they end up doing is euthanizing the puppies almost immediately. My hope is that this law would prevent a lot of that. What possible sense is there in letting people negligently produce puppies to only live a few days? "Welcome to the world, you're slated to die in 4 days." But this is the reality that most people don't even know about, and it happens to cats even more than to dogs.

Can you blame me for fighting back when someone is more concerned that he would have to raise the cost of his puppies $200, than he is about those puppies that won't even live for a week? Their puppy breath is just as sweet as his puppies. But I know, it's not about the dogs, it's about him and his rights to use dogs any way he sees fit.

Your heart is in the right place even if your brain is closed. No one says there are NO dogs in shelters. Why not just enforce the laws already on the books? Then no strays, no sluts getting pregant. How easy is that? The answer to a problem is not always to throw a law at it. And even if it was, you have to make sure it actually will solve the problem and affect those that are causing the problem. It is an owner relinquishment problem. NOT an overpopulation problem.

The animals in your shelter are due to lack of enforcement of existing laws and lack or responsibility of the owners. Why punish the breeders? They are NOT the ones letting thier dog roam the neighborhood or turning it into the shelter.

The problem will not be solved while so many are so closed minded.

[Cheetah]

I did warn you guys. >u.u< CLOSED.