[cshellenberger]

That would be MY response!

[Amaya-Mazie-Marley]

My response exactly. The vet my mom works for as a tech, and where all my animals go, go by age and also by weight. They won't spay or nueter under a certain age or weight.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

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.

Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Yes I have purchased a dog with a contract.

And did you ever think to break the contract? Were you appreciative or turned off that you had 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.

The first thing I would do is call my microchip company. And if this dog should turn up at a vet or shelter, guess what? I'm one step closer to catching that loser. At best your example is anecdotal, and would not be prevented by this law. Law breakers are law breakers, and this is a weak example to prove mandatory s/n is necessary.

Where do you think some backyard breeders and some puppy mills get their breeding stock from.

Hmmm, let me see... Pay $1200 for a breeding stock dog, or buy a pup from a broker in Missouri for $100. Since the motive is profit, they get their dogs from states that treat pets as livestock.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...

In short, the AKC listened to their constituents and decided not to go forward with the contract. I hope the same happens with this silly bill.

AKC's David Roberts Response Regarding Its' Petland Contract and Ron Menaker, Dennis Sprung, and the Board Come to a Conclusi...

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

In short, the AKC listened to their constituents and decided not to go forward with the contract. I hope the same happens with this silly bill.

AKC's David Roberts Response Regarding Its' Petland Contract and Ron Menaker, Dennis Sprung, and the Board Come to a Conclusi...

This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...

Yes, and the Breed Clubs, rescues and membership banded together and got them to retract the Petland contract. The AKC realized that if they got the membership mad enough they could be hurt by such a contract.

Originally Posted by Captbob

This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.

Petitions are already being drawn up to bring this to a vote by the PEOPLE of California. As with other unpopular legislation, the people will have their say and it will be repealed if signed into law.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.

If this is true, I feel sorry for the taxpayers, and they'll not have my vote.

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Didn't I just read a few months ago, about the AKC having a big push to start registering dogs sold in pet shops? Seems they would do anything for a buck...

What does that have to do with anything in this thread? The AKC is a private organization and can do whatever they choose.

Originally Posted by Captbob

This bill will be signed into law, you can count on it.

And laws are overturned all the time by the courts.


This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group. First you alter all the dogs and then they get their "one generation and out" dream come true. They count on non-thinking sheeple to take the easiest way out and support crap legislation.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

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

In years to come you might have to actually say that if this Bill does not go through and if the problems still exist, for then I feel alternative proposals will be pushed for and where door knocks maybe included. Many people are starting to get really fed up with the quantity of dogs and cats in pounds/shelters and the killings of so many and this going on for years, something needs to be done soon be it this or that.
.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group.

I've been trying to deny this in my head, and I'm reading this too. However, I'm also starting to sense by what I've read from the defense, that if this law is passed, it will be used as a stepping stone for jurisdictions to set up breed bans...I see this laced within thie law as it is currently written. I'm sure it will start out with pits, and will probably end with all black dogs. Let me clarify this by saying this isn't a racial comment. Black dogs are hard to adopt out of some shelters, so why not ban black dogs too since they can also have an image problem? Imagine if this law passed and spread accross the country. It sounds rediculous until you actually read the law.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Quincy

something needs to be done soon be it this or that.

Yes, education, low cost spay/neuter, and law binding contracts.

[Snowshoe]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

This entire bill reeks of PETA or some other whacked out "animal rights" group. First you alter all the dogs and then they get their "one generation and out" dream come true. They count on non-thinking sheeple to take the easiest way out and support crap legislation.

That really struck me as being on the right idea, ilmgs...

It would not surprise me. PETA has some friends in high places *excuse the song*

Captn- if all dogs were spayed and neutered, we'd not have pets any more. That's what PETA wants. It sounds like its also where your arguments dead end.

Good, responsible breeding would ensure that there were no dogs in pounds. Any good breeder would A) keep tabs on all puppies and B) make sure that none of their lines ended up in a pound.

If you can't see the different between someone who pays thousands of dollars out of pocket to produce an excellent quality litter contrasted with a money grubbing puppy mill, then you need to reconsider your thought process.

Breeding dogs isn't evil. Puppymills are.

[Curbside Prophet]

DogGoneCalifornia

[ChRotties]

As someone famous once stated, "It ain't over til it's over!"

Concerned pet owners, breeders, show enthusiasts from all avenues....WAKE UP! THIS IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTS DRIVEN LAW! This law is part of making their ultimate dream come true: "NO ANIMAL OWNERSHIP BY HUMANS!"

They have been planning their war for the past 20+ years, yet WE have ignored them. They weaved their way into Washington, into towns(Denver, Louisville, Albequerque, etc...) now statewide! Unfortunately for us, the lawmakers are all too eager to listen!

It will be a cold day in h*ll before I allow the government (and that includes police and animal control) to harass me, or to search my property .......THERE ARE THREE WORDS EVERY DOG OWNER AND CAT OWNER NEEDS TO REMEMBER: "GET A WARRANT!"

Quincy, I don't know where you are from, but here in the United States, it is ILLEGAL for the government (IN ANY FORM), to search, or seize, without a WARRANT TO DO SO!

Please, those that are interested in helping to fight this AR driven law, read the following. It doesn't matter where you live, another state, country, etc...PLEASE WRITE THE POWERS THAT BE IN CALI! For those that don't know, Jackie Hungerland is a respected AKC judge and has many, many years experience in dogs.
Forwarded w/permission:
************************************************** ****
from Jacklyn Hungerland:

Feeling the need to face this serious threat to us, some of us have formed a PAC with two divisions: North and South. I will be the contact point/President of the Northern division and will focus on getting grass roots support. Our observations as we visited legislators today was that stacks of letters are there and are making an impression. So the old saying "Keep those cards and letters coming in" still holds.
Please advise people that the web site should be up tomorrow or next day. Please visit CDOCalifornia. org. (That is Concerned Dog Owners of California.) Contributions to the effort can be made through Pay Pal. Our first order of business is to get AB1634 defeated, then hire a lobbyist, then educate, educate, educate. To pull this off we need ALL parties to step up to the plate.
There were actually 350-400 people there from all over California this morning: breeders, judges, Jack Bradshaw, photographers, current and former AKC reps, service and guide dog people, several handlers, kennel club reps and on and on. It was very gratifying but we need continued support and with your help we'll get this done!
************************************************** ******

[Captbob]

The Sky is falling again, The sky is falling again

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

DogGoneCalifornia

I'm very pleased to see some attorney's on their "who we are" page Great site, thanks for posting!

"Animal rights" whackos will never stop trying to shove their agenda down people's throats. And that includes ending pet ownership. This is simply a foot in the door technique that will, hopefully, fail.

[tirluc]

first, something just occured to me in reading alot of these post (again), and that is....if they are talking a $500 fine for you animal not being s/n by 4 mo and you get caught, and there's the possibility of "door to door checks" and them fining the people, isn't that going to open up a whole new slew of things?....i can see it now....pet owner has 3 dog and 4 cats and the animal police come and say that they now have a $3500 fine for their animals be unaltered....so, what do you think will happen in alot of cases? "Well, here...have the damn animals and you deal w/ the spaying/neutering." so, where do these animals end up? ....hmmmm...let's think for a minute....shelters, rescues, or PTS.....i don't think that this will end the problem, b/c i can see alot of people doing this just to fight back....they can always go get another animal from another "licensed puppy maker" (aka, puppymill)......


and, second, i just want to comment on this....

Quincy, I don't know where you are from, but here in the United States, it is ILLEGAL for the government (IN ANY FORM), to search, or seize, without a WARRANT TO DO SO!

don't be so sure about this....it has been put into "law" that if the government has any reason to think that someone is a terrorist or has commited some form of treason (in their eyes), they have the right to come in and search your house, take you computer for checks, etc., etc., and there isn't squat you can do about it (this i was told by a friend in the legal field).....so what's to stop them from taking it to the next level.....

[lovemygreys]

don't be so sure about this....it has been put into "law" that if the government has any reason to think that someone is a terrorist or has commited some form of treason (in their eyes), they have the right to come in and search your house, take you computer for checks, etc., etc., and there isn't squat you can do about it (this i was told by a friend in the legal field).....so what's to stop them from taking it to the next level.....

Well...that's not exactly accurate. FBI/police still need a warrant from a judge in a special court. From the Patriot Act:
An investigation can "not be conducted of a United States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment." And every 6 months the attorney general has to report to Congress how many warrants have been requested and granted....The "sneak and peak" searches still require a FISC warrant and still require notification of the search, but that notification can be delayed (as has been done in the case of wire taps for many, many years). Delayed notification must be authorized by the judge and can be granted in certain conditions exist:
endangering the life or physical safety of an individual;
flight from prosecution;
destruction of or tampering with evidence;
intimidation of potential witnesses; or
otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial.

The Patriot Act has not turned out to be the anti-Bill of Rights it was originally made out to be. Am I suspicious of it, yep. I say it's dancing on a very fine line...


.....now, back the regularly scheduled topic: AB1634

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

I'm very pleased to see some attorney's on their "who we are" page Great site, thanks for posting!

"Animal rights" whackos will never stop trying to shove their agenda down people's throats. And that includes ending pet ownership. This is simply a foot in the door technique that will, hopefully, fail.

I suppose you think that a bill banning dog fighting in Georgia is also being done by animal rights whackos?

Or how about the ASPCA Whackos breaking up this dog fighthing ring http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer...yy5t7.app26b#1

I suppose you think that these dog fighting people are being unfairly picked on, and should be allowed to do what they want with the dogs they own, because it is their "personnal property..."