[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Oh it can't work, so let's just do what we have been doing" and have animals killed by the thousands in Shelters.....

It's not about being a nay sayer Bob. Poorly written laws, and laws that don't reach the worst offenders should never be passed. This law isn't about animals being euthanized. It's about making money to offset costs for euthanizing dogs. If the money's there, the jusridiction won't have any complaints about euthanizing more dogs. But in the King County example I provided, clearly if it doesn't work the State will be in a larger debt than it is now...and we're not talking the few millions King County saw.

I also don't believe the nay sayers are saying no to reform...just better reform than this law. It does little to target the worst offenders, but the yay sayers tend to overlook that and think s/n is the solution regardless.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

So now veterinarians are being turned into the s/n police? Hopefully vets and their assorted associations will protest and/or refuse to be an enforcement arm of the government. If you support this bill, then YOU pay for the enforcement.

This law is wrong on so many levels, it's just sickening. Another example of good intentions implemented through bad legislation. If it passes, I'm sure it will be challenged in court. Thank doG we still have that little document called the United States Constitution which still protects <some> of our privacy and property rights from those who would wish to erode them...or just get rid of them all together.

...off to thank my lucky stars that I don't live in California.

I am sure that vets are not happy with animals that are not S/N having to be destroyed every day, or being abandoned all of the country. I guess you didn't read my post carefully, so I will restate what I said. The government will save so much money that they are now having to spend because of urresponsible people that don't have their pets S/N, that they could afford to hire people to enforce this law, with no problem. Besides, I think the average person in this country is law abiding. They get Rabies shots for their pets, licenses, etc., so this is something that I feel most people would want to do, to help the overpopulation of pets.

As far as privacy and the constitution, with the Executive Branch of the Government that reads your emails, listens to your phone calls, and throws people in jail with no right to a trial, I think you are worried about the wrong thing.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

It's not about being a nay sayer Bob. Poorly written laws, and laws that don't reach the worst offenders should never be passed. This law isn't about animals being euthanized. It's about making money to offset costs for euthanizing dogs. If the money's there, the jusridiction won't have any complaints about euthanizing more dogs. But in the King County example I provided, clearly if it doesn't work the State will be in a larger debt than it is now...and we're not talking the few millions King County saw.

I also don't believe the nay sayers are saying no to reform...just better reform than this law. It does little to target the worst offenders, but the yay sayers tend to overlook that and think s/n is the solution regardless.

If this passes, there won't be as many dogs and cats that have to be killed by the government. ( I think killed is more realistic than euthanized, in many cases where gas and electrocution are still used. ) That is not rocket science. I think if this works in California, and other states find out about it and realize the money they can save, it will be adopted by more and more states in a few years.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

That is not rocket science.

No, it's not, which makes me wonder how these law writers can be so misguided.

[lovemygreys]

The government will save so much money that they are now having to spend because of urresponsible people that don't have their pets S/N, that they could afford to hire people to enforce this law, with no problem. Besides, I think the average person in this country is law abiding. They get Rabies shots for their pets, licenses, etc., so this is something that I feel most people would want to do, to help the overpopulation of pets.

If "most people would want to do" this, they already WOULD be doing it (and ARE doing it). It's not about "this law" or nothing...It's that this law is not the solution. It's simply the easiest for the simple minded...er, I mean legislators.

As for "saving money"...how much do various human welfare benefits cost taxpayers every year? Maybe California's next step is to legislate mandatory "spay/neuter" requirements for their human residents? After all, look how many human children are abused and abandoned every year...born to parents who can't provide health care or even food every day or a roof over their heads. Perhaps only those that registered themselves and were approved as "human breeders" would help prevent all that abuse, neglect and sadness....and save taxpayers a bundle at the same time!! No more welfare, reduced education costs...the money saving possiblities are amazing!

[Snowshoe]

Wow...a little too socialistic for my tastes.

Punish all for the deeds of a few?

I think that it will add a least $100 to the purchase of a well bred puppy for the potential pet buyers.

Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

If "most people would want to do" this, they already WOULD be doing it (and ARE doing it). It's not about "this law" or nothing...It's that this law is not the solution. It's simply the easiest for the simple minded...er, I mean legislators.

As for "saving money"...how much do various human welfare benefits cost taxpayers every year? Maybe California's next step is to legislate mandatory "spay/neuter" requirements for their human residents? After all, look how many human children are abused and abandoned every year...born to parents who can't provide health care or even food every day or a roof over their heads. Perhaps only those that registered themselves and were approved as "human breeders" would help prevent all that abuse, neglect and sadness....and save taxpayers a bundle at the same time!! No more welfare, reduced education costs...the money saving possiblities are amazing!

Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Wow...a little too socialistic for my tastes.

Punish all for the deeds of a few?

I think that it will add a least $100 to the purchase of a well bred puppy for the potential pet buyers.

Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.

I think someone that can spend 1-2 thousand dollars for a dog, can afford another $100 , and if they can't, maybe they should adopt a dog.

[Snowshoe]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I think someone that can spend 1-2 thousand dollars for a dog, can afford another $100 , and if they can't, maybe they should adopt a dog.

Bob, calm down. Not everyone wants to adopt a dog from the pound. And, if a person can't afford to spend $1000 on a dog, then how will they pay for emergency vet visits?

No one wants to have to plan for that stuff, but sh*t happens. You can't control life, and bad things happen to good dogs, etc.

For example, if your dog gets hit by a car, it will cost just as much for the pound puppy to have surgery then it would for a show dog. So, I guess your argument makes no sense to me...

And, my POINT was that it hurts the people who actually care enough to do right by their breeds. The good are punished, and the bad won't listen or care about this stupid law anyway.

I know how you feel about adoption, and I agree that something needs to be done about these poor animals. I volunteer in my local shelter when I can, so I KNOW how tough it is seeing them in cages waiting for their people to return to them.

I just don't think this law is going to do anyone any good. Plus, I don't like big government, and that's exactly what this boils down to for me.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone

nope, i don't think it is....i agree w/ lovemygreys.....where does it end, this taking away the rights and freedoms of our people.....let's get real here, our freedom of speech has already been stepped on....sure you can say what you feel, but you better be d#@* careful that it has nothing to do w/ the president, the government, the "minorities", etc....or is said to the wrong person, by the "wrong" person.....because if it does you may just find yourself sitting in Leven (if it has to do w/ anything against the government) or slapped w/ a fine if it "steps on the toes" of the "minorities"....

so tell me, where will it end......if we, the people, don't start fighting back and standing up for our rights we'll be seeing the same trend in people....maybe not in our time, but what about our kids, etc.......this is just another stepping stone.....

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone

Really?

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller


What will you do when the next bill infringes on a right that's important to YOU? I don't have any unaltered dogs...don't really plan to have any in the near future. If I ever do have an unaltered dog, I won't breed them. It's not what I'm "into"...but, I DO have a problem with government deciding what I can and can't do with my life, my property, etc....I'm a mature, responsible tax payer. I can make the appropriate medical decisions for MY dogs. So if a bill of this sort ever came to my state, you can bet your @$$ I'd be fighting against it. It's the principle of what they are doing that is offensive.

When will people learn that you can't legislate social change.

[Snowshoe]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

When will people learn that you can't legislate social change.

Well, that statement is true, and it's not true at the same time.

Sometimes, the public doesn't always have good intentions. Segregation, for example.

I digress, and for the most part I do agree with you. I don't think that this law is going to do what they think it will.

The people who don't care and let their dogs breed willy-nilly will just ignore it. The people who care enough to get those stupid certifications will just be out of pocket.

It's a silly law.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Well, that statement is true, and it's not true at the same time.

Sometimes, the public doesn't always have good intentions. Segregation, for example.

I digress, and for the most part I do agree with you. I don't think that this law is going to do what they think it will.

The people who don't care and let their dogs breed willy-nilly will just ignore it. The people who care enough to get those stupid certifications will just be out of pocket.

It's a silly law.

That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Honestly, this legislation does more to protect mass breeders while taking away the choices of responsible owners.

Exactly my problem with it, and I'm surprised how many peole can't see what this is really going to do.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by Captbob

That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.

no, see....the people that are getting all wound up about their right DO care about the rights of the dogs.....all dogs....and see that what will happen here is the ones that don't care will keep right on breeding the "crap" that cause alot of the problems to begin w/.....dogs w/ mental/physical/aggression problems being sold to people that don't give a rats arse about the dog to begin w/ and won't do the right things by it so they end up in the shelters w/ litters of pups to be euthanized.....i the people that care don't stand up for this than the ones that just throw out anything will be the undoing of the canine species.....b/c what we'll end up w/ is a whole mess of genetic problems

the ones that are getting "all wound up here" are the ones that care but know that this is not the answer to the problem......cracking down on the puppymills/BYB is what it is going to take to stop the death of millions of homeless pets......

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

That silly law will keep alot of dogs from having to be killed. I notice that the people that get all wound up about their rights, seem to not care at all about the rights of the dogs that are killed every day at a rate of about 1 every 9 seconds, mostly due to animals that are not S/N.

But it won't keep dogs from being killed. The way I see it and the way it is written will only change WHO is breeding the dogs and it is not for the better. Like everyone's said, the most logical first step to me is to target pet stores and make it illegal to sell dogs and cats there. Target the puppy mills, not people who have intact dogs.

I'm not against it just because I have intact dogs, but it would make life a huge hassle for me. I just think it is a poorly written piece of.... legistlation... that will not have the 'desired' consequences. (And I don't think the desired consequences are to prevent unwanted litters, it's about money) It infringes on our property rights as well, and under law dogs are property. That's the only way we have any rights to or dogs- as our property. You take away your property rights and then what can they do to your dog? Think about that.

You can find medical studies going either way to argue spaying and neutering is beneficial to health or to argue that it harms the dog. You can find all sorts of studies debating the age wen it is appropriate to s/n. Some people do this before the first heat, some after, some when the dog is fully mature. I would like to have the right to research all the known data and decide when and if this operation is going to happen for my dogs. Anaesthesia can also be very tough on certain breeds. It's not a light risk in some cases.

I also don't like the idea that the government can tell me I HAVE to compete with my dog for so long to keep him intact. Many show dogs only show a few months of their life. Why should the government get to say that my retired dog has to go to shows if he wants to keep intact? He hasn't shown in months, and he probably won't be bred for a couple of years. (We're taking our time going about things in a responsible manner, getting health clearances, learning from mentors, etc, yet this law would punish us for waiting) Yeah, he's doing obedience, but still, it's my job to decide what titles and shows he goes into and when he stops competing.

Very glad I don't live in California.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Now this "discussion" is talking on a silly tone

Why do you feel that's silly? Because it involves human reproduction? I honestly do feel that it could come to that as it has in China. The bigger and more involved with our lives government gets, the bigger and more involved it wants to be. There are better ways to control pet populations.

1.The USDA needs to cut off funding (subsidsies) of Puppy Mills.

2. Stopping the sale of dogs and cats in stores and swap meets, but allowing said stores to adopt out spayed neutered animals from rescues and animal shelters.

3. Set up stricter rules, based on breed club code of ethics for those who do breed. Breeders who fail to comply face seizure of their animals and fines.

It's much easier to regulate breeding and selling than it is to regulate pet owners.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Why do you feel that's silly? Because it involves human reproduction? I honestly do feel that it could come to that as it has in China. The bigger and more involved with our lives government gets, the bigger and more involved it wants to be. There are better ways to control pet populations.

1.The USDA needs to cut off funding (subsidsies) of Puppy Mills.

2. Stopping the sale of dogs and cats in stores and swap meets, but allowing said stores to adopt out spayed neutered animals from rescues and animal shelters.

3. Set up stricter rules, based on breed club code of ethics for those who do breed. Breeders who fail to comply face seizure of their animals and fines.

It's much easier to regulate breeding and selling than it is to regulate pet owners.

the one thing on this that i would disagree w/ is in #3......set up the stricter rules, yes, but instead of seizure of the animals, just ban them and any offspring from registry.....if they seize them then they have to rehome them and we're back to square one......

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Captbob

If you consider the millions of dollars that the taxpayers will save in caring for the pet overpopulation, they can certainly hire some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws. They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also..

They just might consider hiring some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws, and who just may do Door Knock Checks. Who knows maybe someone just might propose this, and if not now as things are quite busy with this Bill then maybe in the future.

Door Knock Checks are another tool that can also help address problems, and using this tool there is absolutely no need for veterinarians to be "spay neuter police".

Door Knock Checks have been proven in many cases around the world to be very effective in checking to see if dogs are licensed, microchipped and even if spay neutered, and particularly effective when conducted at every residence in the community including even those on rural zoned properties. Other things could be included to be checked by Door Knocking Officials, and who just might even be empowered with search warrants under certain circumstances where Laws are being broken.

The American Kennel Club even does Door Knock Checks and which are orientated to help address their problems, such as mentioned here in this copy and paste:-

In 2006, the fourteen Executive Field Staff Inspectors conducted approximately 4800 inspections. The Field Staff's approach to inspections is to educate AKC customers to improve compliance. During inspections, the inspector assists the customer in understanding the rules and regulations regarding record keeping, identification and maintaining proper care of the dogs and kennel conditions. In addition, the inspectors collect DNA samples to verify the parentage of AKC registrable litters through the DNA Compliance Audit Program.

When major deficiencies are detected in record keeping, identification or dog or kennel conditions, the customer's AKC registration privileges are immediately stopped until the customer is re-inspected and determined to be in compliance. A $250.00 fee is required prior to re-inspection. Customers who fail to correct deficiencies and maintain compliance are subject to discipline ranging from letters of reprimand to 10-year suspensions coupled with $2,000 fines. Investigators also work with local authorities to assure proper care of dogs. Fines and suspensions are published monthly in the AKC Gazette and on the AKC Web site in the Board minutes. Any person convicted of animal cruelty involving dogs is suspended from all AKC privileges, and their name is also published in the Board minutes.
.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Most good breeders have a mandatory spay/neuter clause in their contracts, anyway.

Contracts are meaningless to some smart people who intend to disappear, then later they could breed heaps of UNregistered dogs or "oodles of doodles". The only way to stop this from ever happening is to spay neuter before you hand over any dog.
.