[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I think this is debatable.

The more restrictions put on a pet store, the bigger the fight by the pet industry.

It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear. People want puppies. People are going to get puppies. If the bill works as intended to cease operations of small time breeders, there will be an unsupplied demand for puppies. If there is no convenience store in your neighborhood, the person who opens a convenience store can make a good profit. If there are no puppies, the person who begins mass producing puppies can do the same.

Most California milled puppies come from out of state, and those will certainly continue to arrive. (puppy millers don't care where their puppies go) However, the people who are breeding for profit in California already are not going to wish to lose that profit. If they're already breeding a few litters a year, it won't be too much harder to ramp up production, get a business license, and start operating a full fledged business. I agree, the state would hate to lose the sales tax.

Maybe it's just me wanting too much again. BTW, it's nice to have you back DA. I know Tamara has been looking for you.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.

I was at the shelter today trying to work with a 50 pound Black Lab-Pit mix, that I am training in our weekly training classes. She lived in a cage prior to being brought to our No-Kill shelter. The poor dog is terrified, and when I try to walk her in our wooded area, she will walk for maybe 15-30 feet and then lie down. Some moron that owned her, had her debarked, so nobody is interested in adopting her, and that is the reason that she has been with the shelter for over 2 years. As time goes on, she becomes more and more withdrawn. At one point, I sat down on one of the benches, and finally she came over and sat next to me and put her head in my lap and looked up at me, and I couldn't help tearing up looking at her. I realized that I was probably this dog's last hope of getting her to the point where she could be adopted by someone.

Then I thought of all the people on this thread whining and complaining about the fact that their world is coming to an end, because some community wants to enact a law to help with the pet overpopulation problem, and keep so many dogs from winding up like that poor dog that I am holding now. I then thought about the fact that the people that do this, will never learn. They are so self absorbed and only worried about their own agendas, that they can't even begin to empathize with the countless number of animals that suffer on a day to day basis.

I decided that I am wasting my time trying to explain how I feel about this pending law, and about helping to reduce the number of unwanted pets in our society. People either get it , or they don't, and for the one's that don't, I can only feel sorry for them. I am glad I am not one of them.....

[Laurelin]

Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.

I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that.

I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed.

This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.

[RonE]

It seems there are only two people in the entire world who care at all about the plight of shelter dogs: Vanbum and Captbob. Maybe three, counting Doggies4evers.

The rest of us should be deeply ashamed.

I wonder what happened to Vanbum. The last we heard from him he was congratulating the new moderators.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by RonE

I wonder what happened to Vanbum. The last we heard from him he was congratulating the new moderators.

He joined another forum I'm on but vanished from that one as well. Dunno what happened after that.

[lovemygreys]

Captbob - give me a freaking break. You think you are the only person who cares about dogs? You aren't. I certainly care about dogs. I give my time, energy, heart and soul to dogs...not just mine. Homeless dogs. Dogs who've been returned because their owners moved or had a baby or just don't want them anymore. I can drudge up stories that would make your soul crumble they are so sad and pathetic. A couple of those dogs never left my home because I couldn't bear the thought that they would ever have another unhappy or painful day in their life or ever be abandoned again.

You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Since some people can't be responsible, no one gets the chance to be responsible. It just doesn't make sense and it's bad legislation. Instead of taking away people's rights...why not give a tax break to dog owners who DO have their pets altered? I'm not saying that's an end-all-be-all solution, but I think it's a heck of a lot better than just passing inane legislation that won't do anything but punish the people who don't need to be punished to begin with.

I do agree with you on one thing. I'm tired of beating this dead horse. I don't think anyone's opinion is going to be swayed at this point...so, really, why waste my time anymore.

[Curbside Prophet]

Besides, who said this bill was about saving animals anyway? The intent of this law is to save taxpayers money, money that is spent on euthanizing dogs. Just because we can think of another means to an end does not mean we're whining or cold hearted. The plight of one mixed dog does not make this law the best solution to saving dogs. There are too many unanswered questions with this bill, and you bet for the benefit of dogs I'm going to point them out. You can turn a blind eye to the possible repurcussions of this law, but that would only negate your care. I personally don't doubt that you care, but that does not mean I have to agree with this law as it is written.

[tirluc]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.

I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that.

I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed.

This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.

ditto, on this.....the difference being, i don't show and i will breed my one bitch that i have.....she is a working dog...titled?...no...but she's great at what she does.....and she is certified.....i have homes for 5 of the pups (all on contracts) and plan on keeping one (maybe 2) for myself to train up for working and hopefully trialing.....this will most likely be the only litter i get out of this girl (she will be 4 when this litter is born and i don't believe in breeding after 6, and it's nearly impossible to find good, certified Borders around this area).....i have rescued, fostered, trained, rehab'd, etc....and i know that the problem lies in the irresponsible idiots out there.....but, unfortunately, as pointed out b/4, this law will not affect these people, it will affect the ones that are already being responsible, so where do we go from there?....the ones that need to be targeted are the puppy millers.....crack down on them, first then work on the rest......

[cshellenberger]

CaptBob,
Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I was at the shelter today trying to work with a 50 pound Black Lab-Pit mix, that I am training in our weekly training classes. She lived in a cage prior to being brought to our No-Kill shelter. The poor dog is terrified, and when I try to walk her in our wooded area, she will walk for maybe 15-30 feet and then lie down. Some moron that owned her, had her debarked, so nobody is interested in adopting her, and that is the reason that she has been with the shelter for over 2 years. As time goes on, she becomes more and more withdrawn. At one point, I sat down on one of the benches, and finally she came over and sat next to me and put her head in my lap and looked up at me, and I couldn't help tearing up looking at her. I realized that I was probably this dog's last hope of getting her to the point where she could be adopted by someone.

Then I thought of all the people on this thread whining and complaining about the fact that their world is coming to an end, because some community wants to enact a law to help with the pet overpopulation problem, and keep so many dogs from winding up like that poor dog that I am holding now. I then thought about the fact that the people that do this, will never learn. They are so self absorbed and only worried about their own agendas, that they can't even begin to empathize with the countless number of animals that suffer on a day to day basis.

I decided that I am wasting my time trying to explain how I feel about this pending law, and about helping to reduce the number of unwanted pets in our society. People either get it , or they don't, and for the one's that don't, I can only feel sorry for them. I am glad I am not one of them.....

I can't help thinking that this is such a powerful post, but then I'm in the choir, so maybe it's not as powerful to people outside the choir. It's hard to fathom that this doesn't change minds and hearts. Please don't stop talking - if only as an encouragement to the choir, so that we know that we aren't alone.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.

It's not as black and white as your last statement would suggest. What is important to me is that better dogs are placed in better homes. This points to education and contractual obligations at the point of purchase, not necessarily s/n. This law says that jurisdiction can commit to education after the bills are paid. That's nice, but what happens when jurisdictions fail to fund enforcement of the law? The short answer is licensing will drop dramatically, and there are examples in California (San Mateo comes to mind) where mandatory s/n failed miserably, and euthanasia totals actually increased 126%. This is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of this law actually diminishing the choice for life.

I'm of the opinion that we should learn from the lessons of successful breeders and do what they do to place good dogs in good homes. I'm of the opinion that excellent breeders keep pups in a home.

My brother recently purchased a yellow labrador. Frankly I would have preferred he adopted a dog from a shelter. However, his 9 week old puppy (now 12 weeks) has had zero potty accidents since being in his home...the dog even knows how to go to the door for elimination. Big whoop, right? But how many people would love to not go through housetraining? Well what the breeder did to rear this pup will keep her in his home forever. Not because my brother would ever surrender the dog for a few accidents, but many people would, and have because of housetraining issues. People surrender adoptable dog for many reasons, but I've seen first hand how commited a good breeder can be, and I wouldn't be so quick to minimize their effect on keeping dogs out of shelters.

This is not to say s/n programs, do not work. If the goal is simply to reduce shelter intake and deaths and not to ban most if not all breeding, there are successful s/n programs implemented by local governments throughout the U.S. These, however, are limited in scope and also rely on positive incentives including, in particular, government subsidies to help pet owners with the cost of s/n. I read about a study in Minnesota where taxpayers saved about $20 over ten years (per person) in low cost s/n alone. I think if this law did more to to target areas where low cost s/n would benefit dog owners in conjunction with education on dog ownership, I would be more for it. But in it's current state, I know of too many examples where this type of law has failed and had a reverse effect on its intention. This can't be overlooked.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

It's nothing more than Economics 101 logic of supply & demand. Where there is a demand, a supply will appear. People want puppies. People are going to get puppies. If the bill works as intended to cease operations of small time breeders, there will be an unsupplied demand for puppies. If there is no convenience store in your neighborhood, the person who opens a convenience store can make a good profit. If there are no puppies, the person who begins mass producing puppies can do the same.

Most California milled puppies come from out of state, and those will certainly continue to arrive. (puppy millers don't care where their puppies go) However, the people who are breeding for profit in California already are not going to wish to lose that profit. If they're already breeding a few litters a year, it won't be too much harder to ramp up production, get a business license, and start operating a full fledged business. I agree, the state would hate to lose the sales tax.

Maybe it's just me wanting too much again. BTW, it's nice to have you back DA. I know Tamara has been looking for you.

Thanks for the welcome, Curbside. I think that subsequent laws are going to have to cover puppymills, and I would guess that the best way to do that would be by addressing humane issues and consumer rights to be sold "products" that aren't dangerous to their families. Of course we'd still have misguided breeders, who claim to be responsible but fight against any legislation that would require other breeders to also be responsible - and that's a mystery to me.

But wouldn't it be easier to address consumer issues if the only people that were breeding were licensed breeders? With AB1634, puppymills may still exist and may even ramp up production, but at least the those puppymill dogs won't go on to produce more puppymill dogs by backyard breeders who are encouraged to recoup their purchase price by breeding their dog just once.

The question is, is it possible to develop a perfect law that no one will fight and that will cover every issue? I really doubt it. But I do know that education alone isn't solving the problem.

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Captbob, I'm not trying to undermine what you are saying, it's just VERY insulting that you seem to think we who are against this bill do not care or do not know what you are talking about.

I've worked in shelters and I will again this summer, I've rescued dogs, I've been around a breed specific rescue. I know what's going on. I know dogs are dying and it's tragic. Please don't insinuate that I don't. You've never met me, but obviously you have preconcieved notions about me and all show people at that.

I'm not self absorbed, nor does it do with my 'agenda' whatever that is. I don't breed.

This will not work to solve this problem. It is a poorly written, unenforcable law that isn't dealing with the cause itself. There is no quick fix, unfortunately.

How can you possibly know whether it will work unless it's tried? How many more dogs are you willing to see die while the public goes blithely along producing more dogs who will never have lifetime homes because they believe that there is nothing wrong with it because it's legal? I don't know if you have an agenda or not, but I do know what mine is -- to stop the killing of dogs that deserve more than they're getting.

[Laurelin]

LOL, my friends and I are still over here rolling about 'my agenda'. Not that the issues are funny, but the insinuations are rather ridiculous. Anyone who knows me knows I'm just a girl who loves dogs of all sorts and I involve them in all aspects of my life. Of course, I do show and not all of my dogs are rescues, which makes me the devil in many peoples' books apparently.

As for the law...

I know it will not work because of the loopholes regarding mills. I know it will not work because bans such as these never do. I know it will not work because supply and demand simply states people will get their dogs from other sources- most often non reputable ones. I know that it will not work because the people who do not care will still not care.

I also know that me arguing with you won't change your belief that it will work. I suppose if it's adopted one of us will be proven wrong. We'll see.

And Curbside Prophet brought up some wonderful points in the last post. I agree totally.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

CaptBob,
Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!

Count me out when you speak for "everyone." I can only speak for myself, but I fully understand why someone who daily works with animals who are not the cause of their homelessness, and who deals with the public daily who want quick fixes to their animal problems, and feels that those fighting against laws to change it all, just aren't getting it. It's hard not to feel like one is on a soapbox when the arguments most frequently heard are about rights to a hobby and AR paranoia. There is desperation in efforts to save animals that can't be saved because of people's selfishness. Yes, selfishness.

CaptBob, keep up the good work.

[Laurelin]

Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please.

This attitude has caused problems before both here and on other forums. It's sad, because I think Captbob has a lot to offer forums in the way of advice and experience.

[DogAdvocat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat
It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

It's not as black and white as your last statement would suggest. What is important to me is that better dogs are placed in better homes. This points to education and contractual obligations at the point of purchase, not necessarily s/n. This law says that jurisdiction can commit to education after the bills are paid. That's nice, but what happens when jurisdictions fail to fund enforcement of the law? The short answer is licensing will drop dramatically, and there are examples in California (San Mateo comes to mind) where mandatory s/n failed miserably, and euthanasia totals actually increased 126%. This is what I'm afraid of. I'm afraid of this law actually diminishing the choice for life.

I'm of the opinion that we should learn from the lessons of successful breeders and do what they do to place good dogs in good homes. I'm of the opinion that excellent breeders keep pups in a home.

My brother recently purchased a yellow labrador. Frankly I would have preferred he adopted a dog from a shelter. However, his 9 week old puppy (now 12 weeks) has had zero potty accidents since being in his home...the dog even knows how to go to the door for elimination. Big whoop, right? But how many people would love to not go through housetraining? Well what the breeder did to rear this pup will keep her in his home forever. Not because my brother would ever surrender the dog for a few accidents, but many people would, and have because of housetraining issues. People surrender adoptable dog for many reasons, but I've seen first hand how commited a good breeder can be, and I wouldn't be so quick to minimize their effect on keeping dogs out of shelters.

This is not to say s/n programs, do not work. If the goal is simply to reduce shelter intake and deaths and not to ban most if not all breeding, there are successful s/n programs implemented by local governments throughout the U.S. These, however, are limited in scope and also rely on positive incentives including, in particular, government subsidies to help pet owners with the cost of s/n. I read about a study in Minnesota where taxpayers saved about $20 over ten years (per person) in low cost s/n alone. I think if this law did more to to target areas where low cost s/n would benefit dog owners in conjunction with education on dog ownership, I would be more for it. But in it's current state, I know of too many examples where this type of law has failed and had a reverse effect on its intention. This can't be overlooked.

I have seen nothing in this law that stops responsible breeding. Part of responsible breeding is obtaining governing licenses and proving one's dog in whatever competitions pertain. Those that aren't doing this shouldn't be breeding, and their dogs should be altered.

You talk about government subsidies for s/n incentives. You also ask what happens when the government doesn't find the funds to enforce this law. Well what happens when the government doesn't find the funds for s/n incentives? If the government is inept at funding for one, why wouldn't they be just as inept in funding the other?

Your suggestion about s/n incentives, IMO, is a good one, to a point. At the heart of incentives though, is the idea that it's going to reach those people who now REFUSE to alter their dogs, and even those who object to their rights being taken away by mandatory s/n. No matter what the incentive, short of handing over the winning lottery, the moron down the street whose own manhood is bolstered by how many neighborhood dogs his own dog can impregnate, is not going to be influenced by either education or incentive. Any attempt at educating such a person is going to prompt him to say that it's his right, and there's nothing wrong with it because it's not against the law.

I've just heard too many excuses over the years for people that allowed their dogs to produce puppies instead of having them altered - and none of them were responsibly bred, and none of them was because a lack of financial incentive or aid in getting it done.

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please.

This attitude has caused problems before both here and on other forums. It's sad, because I think Captbob has a lot to offer forums in the way of advice and experience.

I think maybe I must be missing an important point. In my area there is a limitation on the number of dogs I can have. If, because my oldest dog has gone to Rainbow Bridge, I'm left with room for another dog - what would possibly convince me to buy a dog rather than rescue one that is going to die for lack of a home? I'm told that I can compete with a purchased dog, or use it in some other hobby that I may want to take part in -- but then there's that dog that will die if I do. It's hard enough to justify rescuing one and knowing that others will die, but if I can't even rescue the one because I'm buying one -- please, tell me how I could live with myself.

A dog doesn't need to be born. A dog DOES need a home.

[ChRotties]

I guess I'm in the same evil boat as Laurelin...so , tar and feather us for having unaltered dogs...that have never produced a litter, whoops or otherwise.

I've never adopted from a shelter. Does that make me evil? No, but to read the remarks made by Captbob and DA, those of us that choose to buy from a reputable breeder are responsible for a dog being killed in a shelter. BuLL!

Have I rescued? Yes, there are 3 dogs on my property that I took in. One is a Rottweiler, the other two are mutts.

Do I volunteer at a shelter? No, our county doesn't have a shelter/pound. But if it gains me brownie points, about 3.5 yrs ago, I tried to start one myself on my own property. Why did I give it up? B/c my hubby was diagnosed with a chronic illness and could no longer work...and no one else was willing to help. It was a matter of taking care of my own...which I have always done.

Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the self righteous attitude that if you don't rescue a dog from a shelter, you're scum. Or if you don't volunteer, you just don't understand.

I enjoy my purebred dogs that I've purchased from reputable breeders...and if that makes me have an agenda, or the devil encarnate, then so be it. I've been called a h*lluva lot worse.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by ChRotties

I guess I'm in the same evil boat as Laurelin...so , tar and feather us for having unaltered dogs...that have never produced a litter, whoops or otherwise.

I've never adopted from a shelter. Does that make me evil? No, but to read the remarks made by Captbob and DA, those of us that choose to buy from a reputable breeder are responsible for a dog being killed in a shelter. BuLL!

Have I rescued? Yes, there are 3 dogs on my property that I took in. One is a Rottweiler, the other two are mutts.

Do I volunteer at a shelter? No, our county doesn't have a shelter/pound. But if it gains me brownie points, about 3.5 yrs ago, I tried to start one myself on my own property. Why did I give it up? B/c my hubby was diagnosed with a chronic illness and could no longer work...and no one else was willing to help. It was a matter of taking care of my own...which I have always done.

Quite frankly, I'm sick to death of the self righteous attitude that if you don't rescue a dog from a shelter, you're scum. Or if you don't volunteer, you just don't understand.

I enjoy my purebred dogs that I've purchased from reputable breeders...and if that makes me have an agenda, or the devil encarnate, then so be it. I've been called a h*lluva lot worse.

A dog is in need of a home. A home has a legally available space. The home decides to fill that space with a dog from a breeder that is now encouraged to breed more. How is that not leaving the homeless dog homeless? Please explain your logic.

As for the rest, it's kind of amusing that CaptBob and I are being called names like arrogant and self righeous, with claims that we're the ones calling names. I haven't read all of CaptBob's posts, but I sure never called anyone evil, scum, the devil incarnate or anything else. Can't we discuss the issue without attacking? If you (generic) feel you are being called evil, I'd suggest you look within first, and figure out if maybe dying homeless dogs trigger the conscience.

[lurcherloopy]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

CaptBob,
Quite Frankly, I think everyone on this board is sick of your self righteous attitude If anyone disgrees with you they know nothing about or don't care about the issue. You take delight in putting people on the defensive and demeaning them for having a different opinion. It's not only in this discussion, but EVERY one that you take part in and quite frankly, I'm over it!

I must say it was attitudes like these that put me off these boards, just because someone disagrees then someone has to be board bully and drag everyone else into it. I really would like to know what gives you the right to speak for everyone on a forum?!?

Originally Posted by Laurelin

Captbob's attitude on this is really a turn off for many people trying to listen to the argument at hand. Snide remarks and insinuating only you and no one else could possibly understand the pet problems in this country to me is just plain rude and too self righteous. The idea that other people don't ever deal with dog homelessness simply because they bought a dog, compete with a dog or whatever reason is simply ignorant and unbecoming of you. Stick to your arguement and stop the personal attacks, please.

So calling someone snide, rude and self righteous are not personal attacks.

[ChRotties]

Ok, it's like this: I want a purebred Rottweiler that I can show...shelter/rescue dogs won't work for me. It's my choice. Just as it is a couple's right to have their own children vs adoption.

As has been implied on this forum, and others, unless you get your dog from a shelter/rescue, then you are less than human. Buying a dog from a reputable , responsible breeder does not take a home away from a shelter dog. Responsible breeders aren't the problem...byb and pm/petstores are!