[sheltiemom]

Door to door checks? *shudder*

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by sheltiemom

Door to door checks? *shudder*

Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.
.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Quincy

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.
.

Not really. Have you ever purchased a dog with a contract? Heck, have you ever rescued a dog with a contract? I think you're making assumptions only for your favor instead of looking at the bigger picture.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by sheltiemom

Door to door checks? *shudder*

Ditto that!

A little too Big Brother for me.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by tirluc

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......

Experts in geneology state that the genetic problems are due to the inbreeding that happens with pedigreed dogs and that is why when you look at articles on pedigrees, there is always a list of common disorders for that breed, which is less likely to happen in a crossbreeds.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Experts in geneology state that the genetic problems are due to the inbreeding that happens with pedigreed dogs and that is why when you look at articles on pedigrees, there is always a list of common disorders for that breed, which is less likely to happen in a crossbreeds.

Genetic problems can be enhanced (where they crop up more often) due to inbreeding yes, they aren't caused by inbreeding. They can also be kept out of lines by inbreeding. All depends on who is doing the breeding and how knowledgeable they are.

But I'm really confused as to what that has to do with mandatory spay/neuter.

The fact of the matter is this: The less reputable people breeding concerned with health and temperament and overall quality in dogs, the more problems that will arise.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

But I'm really confused as to what that has to do with mandatory spay/neuter.

The fact of the matter is this: The less reputable people breeding concerned with health and temperament and overall quality in dogs, the more problems that will arise.

You answered your own question. However, I'm afraid you're at risk for being called a snob. Not because you're wrong, but because these same expert geneologists would say the same thing as you, and the animal right people don't have any other argument than to call you a snob.

Again, if you're going to consider the reasons why dogs are surrendered and euthanized, you can't claim dogs being surrendered to rescues, due to age or illness, as being part of the problem. That's a separate issue than the one being claimed by this law. Many of the dogs surrendered are adoptable and perfectly good dogs. But the owner for whatever lame reason decided to surrender the dog, when they shouldn't have owned the dog in the first place. Owners and poor breeders surrender dogs, not reputable breeders.

To include reputable breeders as being a part of the genetic problems facing dogs is to not know the problem.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

You answered your own question. However, I'm afraid you're at risk for being called a snob. Not because you're wrong, but because these same expert geneologists would say the same thing as you, and the animal right people don't have any other argument than to call you a snob.

Eh, I've been called a purebred snob on many a dog forum before. I just laugh in response.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Not really. Have you ever purchased a dog with a contract? Heck, have you ever rescued a dog with a contract? I think you're making assumptions only for your favor instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Yes I have purchased a dog with a contract.

I've answered a question now you answer this question:-
What would you do if you happened to find out a puppy you sold had not been spay neutered and there was a contract regarding this, and on checking their home address they no longer lived there and nobody knew where they had gone, now what are you going to do about enforceing your spay neuter contract and consider they may have used a false name and had false IDs.

Where do you think some backyard breeders and some puppy mills get their breeding stock from, and some would emply some smart ways to obtain what they want and where they couldn't care less if there were contracts as that was already considered in their plan, also their plan at the time included obtaining more breeding stock from other breeders. Also consider that most breeders if they happened to realise that they were in such a situation, most might not want others to know and where they might tend to keep it to themselves.
.

[lovemygreys]

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.

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:-

Quincy...the difference between the AKC doing door checks on breeders and the GOVERNMENT knocking on my door to take inventory of what I have in my house and whether or not everyone or everything has it's balls is that I can CHOOSE to belong to the AKC or not. If they show up at my door, I don't have to let them in. I may face repercussions per my agreement to be a part of their organization, but that's my CHOICE.

When the government comes banging on my door demanding entry to inventory my family and it's reproductive organs, I have some serious issues with that. EVERYONE should have some serious issues with that. Heck, I believe there may have even been a war fought over this sort of thing in this very country. The government wants to come into THIS house, they better have probable cause or a court ordered search warrant....and feeling up my pups should NOT constitute probable cause in any FREE country.

[georgygirl]

According to this "law", I would have been fined just listening to my vet's advice. He wouldn't even consider neutering my dog until he was 6 months old. Boston Terrier's are known to have problems with anesthesia to begin with, so I wanted to be sure my dog wouldn't have any unnecessary problems during sugery. I know it's possible to neuter a dog early, but I don't think it was worth the risk to my dog when waiting a few months wouldn't hurt anything. Does that make me a bad owner? According to this bill it does.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

When the government comes banging on my door demanding entry to inventory my family and it's reproductive organs, I have some serious issues with that. EVERYONE should have some serious issues with that. Heck, I believe there may have even been a war fought over this sort of thing in this very country. The government wants to come into THIS house, they better have probable cause or a court ordered search warrant....and feeling up my pups should NOT constitute probable cause in any FREE country.

There are ways and means without even entering into people's homes. Say neighbours who maybe rather upset with roaming or barking dogs or the crying of male cats wanting to get at a female cat, and where they maybe prepared to sign documents or even appear in court where the matter maybe best dealt with in court and where a court summons might be issued.
.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by georgygirl

According to this "law", I would have been fined just listening to my vet's advice. He wouldn't even consider neutering my dog until he was 6 months old. Boston Terrier's are known to have problems with anesthesia to begin with, so I wanted to be sure my dog wouldn't have any unnecessary problems during sugery. I know it's possible to neuter a dog early, but I don't think it was worth the risk to my dog when waiting a few months wouldn't hurt anything. Does that make me a bad owner? According to this bill it does.

If there are any medical reasons as to why a dog should not be spay neutered according to this Bill, for an exemption simply provide a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating the reasons.
.

[georgygirl]

but there weren't any specific health reasons. My vet didn't feel comfortable doing the surgery early, and neither did I. The possibility of complications was lessened by waiting a couple months. Is that enough of a reason for the almighty powers that be who apparently want to control my right to make choices on behalf of my dog's health? In fact, most vets that I've talked to aren't comfortable speutering a dog that early.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by georgygirl

but there weren't any specific health reasons. My vet didn't feel comfortable doing the surgery early, and neither did I. The possibility of complications was lessened by waiting a couple months. Is that enough of a reason for the almighty powers that be who apparently want to control my right to make choices on behalf of my dog's health? In fact, most vets that I've talked to aren't comfortable speutering a dog that early.

You mentioned that your dog is "known to have problems with anesthesia" and "possibility of complications", they are both medical reasons. And as I mentioned before, for an exemption to this Californian Bill simply obtain something to that effect in a letter from a California licensed veterinarian.
.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.
.

Sorry, but next is illegal searches and door knocks to see if you own guns, have your kids in school, Communism and dictatorship at it's finest. It's not the role of law enforcment in this country to go door to door to enforce laws. What you are supporting amounts to illegal search and seizure. Obviously that's what you support, I won't let it happen in this country. I think this is one time the ACLU may come in handy, though I personally despise them.

[georgygirl]

Boston Terriers in general are known to have complications with anesthesia as I assume most short muzzled breeds do. I guess I don't understand why they chose 4 months. Most vets I've been to would only neuter at six months. I can understand the pediatric spay/neuter for shelter animals, but I should have the freedom of chosing when I put my dog under for surgery, which always has its risks.

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Quincy

There are ways and means without even entering into people's homes. Say neighbours who maybe rather upset with roaming or barking dogs or the crying of male cats wanting to get at a female cat, and where they maybe prepared to sign documents or even appear in court where the matter maybe best dealt with in court and where a court summons might be issued.
.

Owning animals who are creating a public disturbance or other hazards by running at large (both things that are already prohibited by existing noise and leash laws in many/most jurisdictions) are completely different scenarios than someone knocking on my door to make sure my animals are altered. If you can't see that difference then I don't know what to tell you. I know many, many, many unaltered dogs who live in peaceful co-existance with neighbors and never contribute to the shelter or abandoned dog population.

In fact, I'd say there's a bigger problem in our area with ALTERED dogs running wild and barking at all hours. Would you advocate requiring all owners to debark their dogs "for the greater good?"

[cshellenberger]

Next the government wil tell us we aren't allowed to make medical decisions for our children

[lovemygreys]

Many doggies do go to check who is knocking at the door and some may even bark, and imagine a uniformed animal management official then asking you is that your dog and is it licensed, microchipped and spay neutered.

Oh wait...let me imagine that for a second.......oh, I imagine my response would be "Get the h*ll off my PRIVATE property."