[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

The people that bash shelters, groups like the Humane Society, and ASPCA to name a few. remind me of the big businesses that defend buying their products from child labor sweatshops in China and Mexico , and tell us that the conditions at those shops are fine. All these business people are really worried about is their bottom line, and they will do almost anything to insure that they make more and more money. I think many breeders that share your views, feel exactly the same way. You don't give a hoot about the welfare of animals in this country, just as long as you can sell your dogs and rake in the money. I sure am glad that I never had to do anything like that, in order to make money. If I had, I would have problems sleeping at night.

Hum, nice and judgemental. I DO care about animals, I also have the intelligence to see that this legislation will not work nor is it constitutional.
If you choose to close your mind and paint everyone that can see that as money hungry and uncaring, well then it's a sad thing to be so unhappy as you are. You might want to open up your mind. There are lots of wonderful things in this world. You only see the bad and want to see everyone but yourself punished.

Everyone but yourself is evil. Breeders are evil. People who buy from breeders are evil. Anyone who doesn't want to adopt a dog from a shelter is evil.

all you can do is make up generalizations that are incorrect and insult people.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Jen D

When I looked into getting a French Mastiff I had to fill out an application which included my experience with large breeds and permission to contact my vet. The breeder did and after a month of talking to her on the phone, calling my references, and checking with the vet she was going to let me purchase a pup. After lots of thinking and all the rescue work I have done I had to back out seeing all the dogs that need homes. I will say that I thought she was great and I had a great feeling towards some breeders after that experience. Their are some that care deeply about their dogs and do want them in a good home. This one breeder would not fly the dog either which I thought was great. I feel if I can't see where the pups are kept and meet the mother I wouldn't want to pay the price for a purebred dog. So as much as I love the French Mastiff I won't have one unless one ends up in rescue.

I am glad at least one person on this forum has an open mind. That is your CHOICE on what dog or where to purchase from. And yes it is a purchase even from a shetler, money changes hands. But you don't think someone is evil that they don't want a dog from rescue. Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Many scientific studies have shown your statement to be incorrect. Neonate puppies are quite different than human babies, quite different. They dont have thier eyes or ears open for the first 2 weeks, they can't regulate thier own temperature for the first 2 weeks either. These are among many things. A puppy is born much much less developed than a human baby. This includes the nerves not being generated in the tail yet. I've witnessed tail docking, obviously you have not. if you had you would know that they don't cry. They only cry when they are held still. As soon as they are put down, not a peep.

I've witnessed it too, and you're wrong. When they are put down, they are put back with their mother to nurse, and their cries fade off into whimpers as they start the suckling process. Also, instinctively dogs tend to minimize any sounds that would make them prey to other animals, and the mama dog will often start licking/grooming them which conveys a sense of comfort and helps to stop them from crying. Lack of screams doesn't mean lack of pain.

Besides, even if you were right - what possible sense does it make to take the chance and risk causing pain for a puppy for purely cosmetic reasons? This isn't something where there lives are at risk if they don't have it done. And making it part of the standard just encourages amateurs to perform home docking on the puppies they've bred. Puppymillers are a prime example of this. I've even seen pups that had their tails sutured with dental floss. Tails are often cut too short. And none of that would happen if breed clubs didn't endorse it. Here again is an example of breeders not having the dogs' best interests in mind. It's all about their own selfish interests.

[Jen D]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I am glad at least one person on this forum has an open mind. That is your CHOICE on what dog or where to purchase from. And yes it is a purchase even from a shetler, money changes hands. But you don't think someone is evil that they don't want a dog from rescue. Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.

You do have to admit it is less at the shelter! I also have to say that I have not met to many people that were nasty/mean who owned a dog.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I guess you don't care about a little thing called the constitution?

What part of the constitution are you speaking of?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

What part of the constitution are you speaking of?

The Bill of Rights.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I've witnessed it too, and you're wrong. When they are put down, they are put back with their mother to nurse, and their cries fade off into whimpers as they start the suckling process. Also, instinctively dogs tend to minimize any sounds that would make them prey to other animals, and the mama dog will often start licking/grooming them which conveys a sense of comfort and helps to stop them from crying. Lack of screams doesn't mean lack of pain.

Besides, even if you were right - what possible sense does it make to take the chance and risk causing pain for a puppy for purely cosmetic reasons? This isn't something where there lives are at risk if they don't have it done. And making it part of the standard just encourages amateurs to perform home docking on the puppies they've bred. Puppymillers are a prime example of this. I've even seen pups that had their tails sutured with dental floss. Tails are often cut too short. And none of that would happen if breed clubs didn't endorse it. Here again is an example of breeders not having the dogs' best interests in mind. It's all about their own selfish interests.

well then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Purebred dog breeding is about preserving the breed as it was developed. it has nothing to do with 'selfish interests'. You are allowed to think that. But doesn't make it true. just because you don't care about purebreds doesn't make those that do evil.

You have just insulted all people that are serious breeders of purebred dogs that are docked.

[DogAdvocat]

[quote=saveourdogs;67678]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?

SOP: Because they will be the only ones that can get unaltered permits easily. no one else will be able to qualify. The hoops are just way too much. That was intentional. The person who wrote this knows exactly what he is doing. You all think he is so wonderful, nope the only way to get puppies if this passes is though illegitimate means (ie smuggled mexican puppymill dogs who are sick, which is happening already in SOcal.) or from pet stores. <<<

That doesn't explain it. Let's try again. By what process will puppymills be able to get "unaltered" permits more easily than any other breeder. Why will they be able to qualify when other breeders can't?

DA: Are you aware that responsible breeding also increases puppymill sales?

That statement makes no logical sense. You are the one that spouts that if you buy a dog from a good breeder that a dog in a shelter is killed. How is this any different. Buy a dog from a good breeder and they don't buy it from a pet store. You can't have it both ways.

It's logical if you understand responsible breeding. A responsible breeder does not breed to meet a demand. They breed to preserve and improve the breed, and usually only when they want a dog for themselves that they can campaign and use to carry on the line, only the best. A responsible breeder also heavily screens their puppy buyers to make sure the pup is going into a good home. Follow so far?

Ok, now, since responsible breeding is self-limiting, and few puppies will be available from a responsible breeder, and for those few puppies, many people will be turned away because they don't qualify as good enough home, and since there are so few responsible breeders out there, what do you think happens to all the people that the responsible breeder rejects? They go elsewhere, often in anger because they were turned down - so they head to the pet shop where no one asks any questions and they can quickly walk out with the dog of their choice. Follow so far?

This is even something that rescue has been accused of, especially by the NAIA-phytes that think there should be no screening because the person's right to have a dog trumps the dogs right to have a good home. And I can't even imagine any truly responsible breeder putting his puppies into a home less qualified than rescue/adoption would require. After all, one of the things that a responsible breeder MUST do to insure not only the welfare of the pup, but also the quality of his line, is to screen well enough that he can feel confident (a pipe dream IMO) that the buyer will honor the spay/neuter contract or limited registration, and won't go on to breed that pet quality puppy. Because if that responsible breeder isn't careful, his kennel name is going to end up on some puppymillers pedigree. You know the ones where there is only one champion on the whole pedigree, which thrills the buyer, but makes responsible breeders cringe that one of their ilk actually allowed their dogs to be used by puppymillers?

So anyway, the people you turn down are now headed for the pet shop. This is directly related to your actions, because if you weren't a responsible breeder, you would have given them a dog. Now the obvious answer to this is to promote more responsible breeding and shut down puppymills, but this has to be done legally, because just expecting people to remedy this situation through education just isn't going to work.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Why is a new law needed?

To solve existing problems and to let the public know that dog breeding is a privilege and not a right. Where have you been?

[SFury]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Tell you what, why don't you write a new law, and then post it here , so we can see what you consider "good"........

That isn't my job. Any legal language I have helped get written was done so in the presence of legal counsel, and done with a group.

If I were to sponsor a law, it would require some type of funding, and a specified way to enforce any said legislation. Two things that are lacking. Unfunded mandates are never good to deal with.

Look at the horrible mess that NCLB, No Child Left Behind, has created. It also has terrible wording, and no set way to guage success. Different states have different standards for NCLB certification, and the pass/fail system only punishes the schools that have been doing a good job by saying that they aren't making the needed "progress" to improve each year. Schools are losing faith from the public at large who don't understand the complexity of NCLB, and good schools are losing funding and starting to slide backwards because of it.

Originally Posted by Jen D

I start to really not like some stuff you add and how you sound mean to me but then you say just the right thing at the right time!

I'm not certain that Bob understands the ambiguity with the "exceptions" portion allowing people to obtain S/N exemptions. That ambiguity allows for a wide range of responses, and an inabilty for uniformity with dealing with good owners. That means that language will be changed, and who knows what the changes will be? Not us at any rate.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Could you please explain how it gives millers more legitimacy?

Are you aware that responsible breeding also increases puppymill sales?

Reading the bill it is very apparent that large scale owners will have a much easier time to meet the requirements set forth to obtain a breeding permit.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Jen D

When I looked into getting a French Mastiff I had to fill out an application which included my experience with large breeds and permission to contact my vet. The breeder did and after a month of talking to her on the phone, calling my references, and checking with the vet she was going to let me purchase a pup. After lots of thinking and all the rescue work I have done I had to back out seeing all the dogs that need homes. I will say that I thought she was great and I had a great feeling towards some breeders after that experience. Their are some that care deeply about their dogs and do want them in a good home. This one breeder would not fly the dog either which I thought was great. I feel if I can't see where the pups are kept and meet the mother I wouldn't want to pay the price for a purebred dog. So as much as I love the French Mastiff I won't have one unless one ends up in rescue.

I'm glad you made the decision you did. But I also agree that there are some responsible breeders, like the one you talked to, that really are ethical - and those are the ones that usually take part in rescue too. Often because they do see the rescue world, they end up ending their breeding career because they see how many dogs there are in need. But even if they continue, they are doing so as ethically as possible with the dog's welfare in mind. Wouldn't it be nice if that could be said of all breeders? The dog world would be a different place if all breeders were responsible. And that's why I don't understand why responsible breeders aren't doing everything possible, including supporting laws, that would make their fellow breeders just as responsible as they are.

I guess one thing to be considered is that according to the AKC, only an approximate 10% of breeders can be considered responsible. The AKC came up with that number by only including those AKC breeders who are involved in competing with their dogs, and those that had produced more than one litter. Producing more than one litter would show some proof that the breeder was dedicated to improving the breed. The AKC's criteria on this is probably debatable, but when you consider all the other things that go into responsible breeding, I question that the number is even as much as 10%.

So given that the number of responsible breeders out there are so few, maybe the problem with getting legislation passed is that the opposition consists of mostly irresponsible breeders that are more concerned with themselves than with the dogs. Maybe responsible breeders are just overwhelmed by the majority of their inferiors who don't aspire to be responsible at all.

Sad.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Hum, nice and judgemental. I DO care about animals, I also have the intelligence to see that this legislation will not work nor is it constitutional.
If you choose to close your mind and paint everyone that can see that as money hungry and uncaring, well then it's a sad thing to be so unhappy as you are. You might want to open up your mind. There are lots of wonderful things in this world. You only see the bad and want to see everyone but yourself punished.

Everyone but yourself is evil. Breeders are evil. People who buy from breeders are evil. Anyone who doesn't want to adopt a dog from a shelter is evil.

all you can do is make up generalizations that are incorrect and insult people.

Wow, do you ever look in the mirror? You dare to call others judgemental when you keep spewing your "AR whakjob" rhetoric? You even assume that vets that are against tail docking are AR whakjobs. How judgemental and generalizing is that???? Not to mention insulting.

By the way, did you notice that the "AR whakjobs" as you described the HSUS were instrumental in getting the law just signed by the President, putting a stop to fighting animals, like dog fighting, cock fighting, etc? My question to you is do you congratulate them for that, or do you feel that the rights of the people involved with these blood sports have wrongly taken from them?

This should be good - It should be interesting to see if you are a supporter of dogfighting, or will put credit where credit is due. LOL

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Certain closed minded members of this forum with way too much time on their hands certainly do.

ROFLMAO !!!!!!!!! Pot...kettle....black.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The Bill of Rights.

No, what part of it are you speaking of? Please cite what is unconstitutional about this law. Unless of course, you're just spouting the NAIA line and have no idea how it is unconstitutional.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

well then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Purebred dog breeding is about preserving the breed as it was developed. it has nothing to do with 'selfish interests'. You are allowed to think that. But doesn't make it true. just because you don't care about purebreds doesn't make those that do evil.

Preserving the breed as it was developed, even though most of the dogs of that breed won't be used for what the breed was developed for, makes no sense when balanced against suffering of the dog, even momentary suffering. It's also messing with the natural dog and it's need to use it's tail as a means of communication - and why? It serves no purpose now.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

You have just insulted all people that are serious breeders of purebred dogs that are docked.

Well drat. I insulted people that are hurting dogs? Shame on me. Is this anywhere near as bad as you redundantly insulting those that are trying to help dogs?

How's the weather under that bridge?

[Tamara]

As far as tail docking. I do know breeders/showers that are against it. Hound breeders - the oldest breed have always had (and do correct me if I am wrong - I can't be bothered to look it up) ears and tails intact. It is important to have the ears for a scent hound to fan the smell and it is important for them to express with their tails to tell if they are on a scent. Greyhounds and all the sight hounds thave their tails to navigate the speed.
I know a cocker breeder/shower who was pleased with the ban -quite pragmatically said it cuts down on vet bills.
To me Save Our Dogs you want to tar everyone that believes in protecting our dogs as that dirty word AR. Is he ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society, WSPCA etc... all AR? Well I think it's important that we look after our dogs or is that unconstitutional?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Preserving the breed as it was developed, even though most of the dogs of that breed won't be used for what the breed was developed for, makes no sense when balanced against suffering of the dog, even momentary suffering. It's also messing with the natural dog and it's need to use it's tail as a means of communication - and why? It serves no purpose now.



Well drat. I insulted people that are hurting dogs? Shame on me. Is this anywhere near as bad as you redundantly insulting those that are trying to help dogs?

How's the weather under that bridge?

Simply because YOU can't see why someone would want to preserve a purebreed does NOT make it cruelty.

And no tail docking does NOT curtail a dog's communication. That is just spouting more AR gibberish.

And yes HSUS IS AR!! They HSUS and PETA are synonymous and want to end all animal ownership. do the research. There are plenty of quotes by the heads of HSUS and PETA stating that exact thing.

You simply amaze me. You just keep on insulting people. You don't care who you offend do you? Than you wonder why the GOOD breeders won't work with you. Why would they when you think they are evil and you simply keep insulting them.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Tamara

As far as tail docking. I do know breeders/showers that are against it. Hound breeders - the oldest breed have always had (and do correct me if I am wrong - I can't be bothered to look it up) ears and tails intact. It is important to have the ears for a scent hound to fan the smell and it is important for them to express with their tails to tell if they are on a scent. Greyhounds and all the sight hounds thave their tails to navigate the speed.
I know a cocker breeder/shower who was pleased with the ban -quite pragmatically said it cuts down on vet bills.
To me Save Our Dogs you want to tar everyone that believes in protecting our dogs as that dirty word AR. Is he ASPCA, RSPCA, Humane Society, WSPCA etc... all AR? Well I think it's important that we look after our dogs or is that unconstitutional?

yes anyone that wants to take away someone's rights and to tell them and their vet how to practice veterinary medice is AR doublespeak. You have bought into the AR agenda. Congrats. You are contributing to the end of animal ownership by helping them by spouting thier buzzwords. Congratulations and thanks a lot from the rest of us who love our dogs and don't want the end of purebred dog breeding.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

yes anyone that wants to take away someone's rights and to tell them and their vet how to practice veterinary medice is AR doublespeak. You have bought into the AR agenda. Congrats. You are contributing to the end of animal ownership by helping them by spouting thier buzzwords. Congratulations and thanks a lot from the rest of us who love our dogs and don't want the end of purebred dog breeding.

Some rights or the dog's rights? We made dogs in all their breeds- surely they should have some rights as far as being treated properly - oh sh*t am I being AR?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Tamara

Some rights or the dog's rights? We made dogs in all their breeds- surely they should have some rights as far as being treated properly - oh sh*t am I being AR?

No they should not, they are NOT humans. They are property in the eyes of the law. That is how it is. Sorry. Do I love my dogs. Yes, do I love my breed, of course. I work very very hard for it. I study pedigrees very carefully in reference to conformation, and health issues. I do the requisite health testing. But that doesn't mean they are being abused if they are in their crate or in a kennel. Some good breeders have kennels and the dogs live in kennels. That is not abuse. Many think it is and they should be a law against it.

There are laws against animal cruelty. Commercial breeding is not animal cruelty in itself. Keeping dogs in bad conditions, in filth, no health care, no grooming, etc is abuse. But keeping dogs in a kennel situation is not abuse.

just because the dog isn't sleeping in your bed is not abuse.

Who's standards do we go by? Everyone has a different opinion on what is abuse and what is acceptable ways to keep the dogs.