[Captbob]

Originally Posted by 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)......

.

That's like saying that if a speeding ticket costs $300, you are going to turn in your car, rather than obey the speed limit.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

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!

Who mentioned anything about seizing dogs. I was talking about an Animal Management Official doing their job in relation to dog matters, and where they might knock on a door and ask things like is that your dog and is it licensed.

On seeing the post prior to yours from Curbside Prophet regarding DogGoneCalifornia, it mentioned there "licensing data (10-20% compliance)", seeing such a very low compliance may provide justification in a State Wide Door Knock concerning licenses, and I feel that might provide sufficient funds for low cost spay neutering plus also might provide living costs where such a huge number of dogs might not have to be killed.

Isn't there something about Laws in the United States where Animal Control Officers would know things like right of entry such as in the power to enter upon and inspect any premises where any animal is kept or harbored when such entry is necessary, and regarding a search warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law.
.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

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

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.

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.

No I did not think about breaking the contract. And was I appreciative or turned off that I had a contract, well neither of these, and it doesn't matter to me if the dog was desexed as a young pup or after he finished being used at stud by the breeder. If ever need be I could easily get an exemption which wouldn't worry me at all. Also you mentioning $1200 for a breeding stock dog, for some breeds and who have impressive show wins and titles this can easily be thousands more than that.

Veterinarians could easily remove a microchip but they won't unless there is some medical reason to do so. Have you considered that a PuppyMiller might remove a microchip. I assume you might not have much experience removing splinters.

Did you know there are Puppy Mills that own Pet Shops, they tend to be very buisness orientated and where they cut out the third party so that they can make yet more profit, and just hire someone to work in their Pet Shop and where prices for some dogs can be rather high.
.

[lovemygreys]

Originally Posted by Captbob

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..."

To propose that choosing whether or not to spay/neuter a dog is remotely on the same level as wanting to be able to fight dogs is ridiculous

You made a statement earlier in the thread, which I ignored, to the effect that people who oppose AB1634 must not care about dogs. And, in my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I spend thousands of dollars and innumerable volunteer hours supporting dog adoption every year. My life revolves around dogs and adoption. I would appreciate if you would not presume to know what I would or would not support.

I guess if you can't argue on the basis of the merits of this bill (or lack thereof) you have nothing left but personal attacks. Sad.

FYI - in the eyes of the law, dogs ARE considered property. I have no problem with the government setting reasonable standards in the interest of public health and safety (vaccinations) or minimum standards of care (providing shelter, water, food and - though I would think this is obvious - not engaging in torture activities like dog fighting).

eta: I don't consider the ASPCA animal rights "whackos"...never once in this thread did I ever allude to that or state it outright. I don't know enough about the politics of that particular group to have an opinion one way or the other. PETA, on the other hand....well, as soon as THEY stop killing animals, maybe they'll get an iota of credibility back. Doubt it though.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by Captbob

That's like saying that if a speeding ticket costs $300, you are going to turn in your car, rather than obey the speed limit.

i'm not saying i would on anything.....but there is a vast amount of pet owners out there that would feel this way about it....to most people a car is a physical necessity, whereas a dog is not....it may be on an emotional basis, but then they just turn around and get another dog and do the same thing w/ it......and if they start taking away the rights of people to this extent i can see the vast majority of people doing just that...turning there dogs over to the AC and let them deal w/ the "problem" animals that most likely weren't a problem to begin w/......

and you know, if they were to drop the cost of s/n and make this one of the least cost of pet ownership, there might be more people out there getting their animals fixed.....this is one of the biggest problems people have.....i'm in a relatively small community (compared to others) and the cost is almost or more than $200......i know alot of families that just simply can't afford that but their animals are well cared for and are not producing puppies.......

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by tirluc

i'm not saying i would on anything.....but there is a vast amount of pet owners out there that would feel this way about it....to most people a car is a physical necessity, whereas a dog is not....it may be on an emotional basis, but then they just turn around and get another dog and do the same thing w/ it......and if they start taking away the rights of people to this extent i can see the vast majority of people doing just that...turning there dogs over to the AC and let them deal w/ the "problem" animals that most likely weren't a problem to begin w/......

and you know, if they were to drop the cost of s/n and make this one of the least cost of pet ownership, there might be more people out there getting their animals fixed.....this is one of the biggest problems people have.....i'm in a relatively small community (compared to others) and the cost is almost or more than $200......i know alot of families that just simply can't afford that but their animals are well cared for and are not producing puppies.......

If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?

[SFury]

Originally Posted by Captbob

If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?

Which means that would simply have an unlicensed animal. The law would be meaningless for them because of the difficulty enforcing it. Those folks are the ones causing the need for some type of animal care reform. Those are the ones that need to be affected by any legislation that gets passed. Not law abiding citizens like us.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

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..."

ROFL!

Seriously....

Keeping intact dogs does NOT equate to animal cruelty. Yes, my two intact dogs are no better treated than fighting dogs.

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

FYI - in the eyes of the law, dogs ARE considered property. I have no problem with the government setting reasonable standards in the interest of public health and safety (vaccinations) or minimum standards of care (providing shelter, water, food and - though I would think this is obvious - not engaging in torture activities like dog fighting).

Exactly, but when you're dealing with someone's dogs that aren't being remotely a problem, aren't adding to the overpopulation, and are forcing them to undergo surgery at a certain age, then yes I have a problem with that.

[Orange County Ca]

I certainly agree with reducing the surplus population and hate the thought of having to kill all those animals. But....
Will there be a mutt breeder? Will my mutt cost $1000?

The nanny state at work again. My advise to those thinking of moving to California is don't. Paradise is lost.

Spend the money on education, look what education did to smoking in the country. Down 50% since the education laws went into effect and actually 14% in my county. For every 20 people there are 3 smokers. We could do the same on any subject.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Captbob

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..."

Dog fighting is a completely different subject. We are talking about PET owners, not dog fighters. Yes, I support the bill in GA, though Cesar Milan could potentially be picked up as he owns training equipment (tread mills)

Originally Posted by Quincy

Who mentioned anything about seizing dogs. I was talking about an Animal Management Official doing their job in relation to dog matters, and where they might knock on a door and ask things like is that your dog and is it licensed.

On seeing the post prior to yours from Curbside Prophet regarding DogGoneCalifornia, it mentioned there "licensing data (10-20% compliance)", seeing such a very low compliance may provide justification in a State Wide Door Knock concerning licenses, and I feel that might provide sufficient funds for low cost spay neutering plus also might provide living costs where such a huge number of dogs might not have to be killed.

Isn't there something about Laws in the United States where Animal Control Officers would know things like right of entry such as in the power to enter upon and inspect any premises where any animal is kept or harbored when such entry is necessary, and regarding a search warrant shall be obtained whenever required by law.
.

There is no justification of illegal searches. The authorities in charge have to have PROBABLE cause to geta warrent. (they look in the window and see a dog that is starved or needs medical attention, then are required to leave notices) Door knocks like you are suggesting would be in CLEAR violation of the law and the constitution.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Orange County Ca

I certainly agree with reducing the surplus population and hate the thought of having to kill all those animals. But....
Will there be a mutt breeder? Will my mutt cost $1000?

The nanny state at work again. My advise to those thinking of moving to California is don't. Paradise is lost.

Spend the money on education, look what education did to smoking in the country. Down 50% since the education laws went into effect and actually 14% in my county. For every 20 people there are 3 smokers. We could do the same on any subject.

There were also a slew of anti-smoking laws inacted which reduced smoking. Naturally the smokers whined and screamed about their personal rights, and how they were being violated, because they wouldn't be able to blow smoke in your face in public places anymore. Sound familiar?

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Did you know there are Puppy Mills that own Pet Shops, they tend to be very buisness orientated and where they cut out the third party so that they can make yet more profit, and just hire someone to work in their Pet Shop and where prices for some dogs can be rather high.
.

That's why it's better to make the selling of pets in stores and swap meets illegal and pass legislation controlling the breeders. Also, cutting off subsidies to the puppy mills will help to deter the mass breeding going on inthe US.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by Captbob

If people can't afford to spend $200 to S/N their animals, how in the heck are they going to afford to take care of the litters of puppies that may occur?

not everyone that owns unaltered pets are irresponsible....i have had probably upwards of 30 dogs in my life and out of those only 6 have been altered........not one of my dogs has ever had a "mistake" litter or sired a "mistake" litter......i have had 4 litters of pups born to any of my dogs (out of working or showing dogs) and they were all planned and homed b/4 they were even created.....and the reason that mine have not been altered is b/c i couldn't afford the cost (for a part of the time i was a single parent, and thru most of my life we have lived pay check to pay check, but that doesn't mean that i shouldn't be able to own dogs altered or unaltered)......

but if the cost were more affordable to the low income families, they wouldn't have to worry about those litters they don't want.........

Originally Posted by Captbob

There were also a slew of anti-smoking laws inacted which reduced smoking. Naturally the smokers whined and screamed about their personal rights, and how they were being violated, because they wouldn't be able to blow smoke in your face in public places anymore. Sound familiar?

ok, so we start educating the kids in school.....show them the stats and the pictures just like they did w/ the smoking education.....then enact some laws to the effect that, if your unaltered dog is caught running loose, is a nuisance to the public b/c of being out in a pen while inseason (for the females) or allowing your male to hang around the home of a female in season that is kept "well guarded" (for the males), then stipulate fines for that along w/ laws such as, 1st offense is a fine, 2nd offense is required to s/n, 3rd offense (if #2 is not met), removal of the animal.....or something along those lines.....

my 6 yr old granddaughter is already learning what happens to these unwanted animals and she has talked to her other family members that have "mutts" and want to breed them about the overpopulation.....she learned this from me....and if a 6 yr old can learn it, so can the older kids that parents won't have such a problem w/ the stats and graphic pics being given to......

there are other ways........

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

There is no justification of illegal searches. The authorities in charge have to have PROBABLE cause to geta warrent. (they look in the window and see a dog that is starved or needs medical attention, then are required to leave notices) Door knocks like you are suggesting would be in CLEAR violation of the law and the constitution.

I feel that in an Animal Control Officers training it could be made quite clear NOT to go around looking through residential home windows. Anyway, a soft approach with a smile and pleasant nature has been proven to be quite effective in a number of places around the world.

It's incredible that it's estimated only 10 to 20 percent of dogs are licensed, and the total sum estimation of dogs within communities seems rather crude. Maybe Animal Control Officers could conduct "door knocks" in regards to this, and ask residents at their door if they have dogs and if so how many plus if they were licensed, and their assistant could input this information on their laptop.

Then before leaving to go to the next residence maybe they could leave a pamphlet which mentions the importance of dog licenses and that it's mandatory for several reasons and lists those reasons, also it maybe mentioned that in years to come there maybe more "door knocks" in the community.
.

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

cutting off subsidies to the puppy mills will help

I did not know that Puppy Mills got subsidies, what subsidies.
.

[RonE]

Originally Posted by lovemygreys

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

And yet, every time a discussion of the horrors of kill shelters and puppy mills comes up, somebody always suggests that the problems should be legislated away.

We can't expect big government to save us from ourselves and then complain that government is too big.

[Snowshoe]

I have a question:

If this law were enacted, how would it affect the puppy mill industry?

Would you get off the hook for spaying and neutering your animals if you had a government license to breed "livestock"?

And if puppy millers did get off the hook, what good do you think this law will do?

I think the gov. makes good money off of these mills, and I don't see them cutting the funding for these cruel places.

That really takes the teeth out of the law, and renders it useless.

So, CaptainBob, what have you to say to that?

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by tirluc

but if the cost were more affordable to the low income families, they wouldn't have to worry about those litters they don't want.........



.

That is exactly the point of the law. It makes people realize that money has to be spent to S/N their animals. If they can't afford to S/N , then goldfish might be a more appropriate pet for them. Not being able to S/N an animal, is certainly going to vreate a major problem when the litters of pups start arriving, unless you don't want to give the pups any vet care, or shots. It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

It's like having kids, but not being able to afford to take them to the doctor. If you are in that financial shape, don't have kids......

People have unwanted kids because they weren't educated enough to use protection. Seem like the solution really is education. And if the cost of s/n is too high, or is a deterent, seems like low cost s/n would be the solution. How about funding low cost s/n and education instead?

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

People have unwanted kids because they weren't educated enough to use protection. Seem like the solution really is education. And if the cost of s/n is too high, or is a deterent, seems like low cost s/n would be the solution. How about funding low cost s/n and education instead?

You have to be real, in this situation. This law is directed at people that for one reason or another, don't have their pets S/N. Most of those people couldn't care less about being educated about the problems of unwanted pups. The people that alreayd have their pets S/N are probably the type that are interested in finding out the benefits of S/N, and pet overpopulation They are already going to go down that road, with or without a law. Most places have low cost S/N programs, that one can find out about, if they will make the effort.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Quincy

I did not know that Puppy Mills got subsidies, what subsidies.
.

Yes, grants are given to help farmers buy stock to start them. Puppy Mills were started to help farmers post WWII and meet the demand for purebred dogs in the US. Puppy Mills are entitled to many of the same subsidies as other livestock producing farmers. They are overseen by the USDA, any person producing more that 8 litters per year MUST be inspected and licensed by them. Inspections are to the standards of private zoo's and other small livestock. That's why you see so many dogs raised in Rabbit Pens and chicken coops. Also, if you ever see the birth dates, they are often on a Monday, this is so they can get under the 8 weeks rule that applies to all USDA inspected mills and get the pups to market earlier.

That is why, in most Breed Club code of ethics it stipulates that you can't produce more than 8 litters per year. Most respectable breeders would never produce that many.

http://www.sff.net/people/eluki/puppymill.htm#2

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Most places have low cost S/N programs, that one can find out about, if they will make the effort.

If you've read any of the links I've left, from statistic gatherers to animal shelters, it's been suggested that MORE education and low cost S/N is necessary, and it's been working here in CA, yet I don't see enough of it. Misguided laws are not the answer.