[saveourdogs]

[quote=DogAdvocat;76778]You are making some assumptions that just don't hold water. First, you claim that those in favor of this bill are not open to the arguments of the opponents. That's not true. I've read the opponents arguments, and unless you think that being open to something means accepting it as gospel, then I've been open to it, and found it utter nonsense.

Read: My mind is closed and I refuse to research to see if they opposing points are correct.


The opponent's argument is based on fear that they will be limited in their breeding activities.

Read: That is actually correct. Why should we be limited? This is the USA. PERIOD. We live in this country to have personal freedoms.

And that fear of limitation is more important to them than the lives lost due to the overpopulation, which in part has been caused by breeders.

Read: I bought the AR line hook, line and sinker. Using the term overpopulatoin is the first clue. You want to outlaw breeding. You say in PART caused by breeders, so why not penalize the actual person (the owner) that is turning the dog in? The breeder is not the one dropping the dog off.

What amazes me is the gall they have in trying to convince the public that they shouldn't have to pay their fair share in taxes - something they should have been paying all along.

Read: I am not knowledgeable on the tax code. My one litter a year is not taxable.

But what bothers me even more is this attitude that education is sufficient,

Read: I refuse to see that education IS working.

when we can see by the number of shelter deaths that it is not,

Read: I refuse to see the facts that shelter deaths have gone down significantly and continue to do so each year.

and the rigid refusal to consider any legislation presented,

Read: I want to live in a nanny stae where I want legislation to cover every single aspect of my life.

and the refusal to propose any legislation of their own.

Read: Some believe that legislation is not needed.

This all adds up to a satisfaction with the status quo

Read: I want a nanny state.

that I just can't accept.

Read: I refuse to accept the facts that education IS working and continues to work each year. The shelter statistics that you like to spout tell that tale.
If you want to believe those statistics, that is what they say. Look at the year to year figures. They drop each and every year, and 75% in the past 10 years. Look up the figures.

So I do go into it with an open mind, but then I can also recognize a farce when I see it.

Read: I want to placate myself into believing I actually have an open mind.

Sorry, your refusal to look at the arguments of the opposing viewpoint indicate otherwise.

Dogadv, I know your closed mind makes this impossible for you to believe, but your hero Levine is bought and paid for by the ARs. he has a lot of campaign money contributed by AR organizations. And yes the transcripts of the committee hearings prove that he refuses to listen to the other side. He refuses to let the other side speak at the committee meetings . He and his AR buddy Gerimandered the committee to get a vote, by appointing someone they knew would vote for it.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I completely do not understand this obsession people have with blaming the breeder. The OWNER dropped the dog off at the shelter. The breeder had nothing to do with it. I just don't get it at all.

Which only proves that education doesn't work - you've been educated, but you refuse to get it. Once again, for the record, it's the breeder that chooses the irresponsible owner to care for the breeder's dog. If the breeder chooses an idiot, then why do you insist on solely blaming the idiot when things go wrong? Doing so only makes sense if you see dogs as inanimate objects where the seller feels no obligation once that object has left the place of business. A car dealer isn't going to care if the car is mistreated or dumped. A furniture salesman won't care if someone lets their kids jump on the couch and spill grape juice all over it. But most of us expect breeders to care about the dogs they are selling, especially when breeders tell us how much they love their breed, and love their dogs. And personally, as rescue, I just cannot understand a breeder who isn't invested in the puppies s/he sells. I still remember my very first rescue puppy, and if he hadn't long since died of old age, I would still be his safety net. If a breeder isn't willing to make that kind of a commitment, then they shouldn't be breeding at all. Dogs, by their very nature, are dependent on us, and no amount of $$$$ should absolve us from our responsibility to them, especially when we are the ones to bring them into this world in the first place.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You guys want a fascist state where the govenment micromanages every aspect of daily life. I want to live in the good old USofA where personal freedoms are forefront. This country was formed because of persecution. This is just AR and AR lite persecution of breeders. Are some breeders bad, of course. There are bad apples in every life. Should we outlaw teachers or shut down schools because a handful of teachers are child abusers? You would say that is just silly. I see this the same way.

Your analogy is a poor one. No, we shouldn't outlaw teachers or shut down schools, what we should do is set up rules that teachers have to follow, and set up a checks and balances system to make sure they really do. From your way of thinking, we should give teachers the freedom to continue to abuse. And I suspect that your desire for personal freedoms only goes as far as safeguarding your own interests, and not anyone else's. You, for instance object to paying an extra $200 per puppy, and I object to my tax money paying for the housing and killing of shelter dogs that I was not involved in putting them there - either directly, or by breeding.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The OWNER is responsible, solely, not the owner.

Assuming this is a typo, once again, the BREEDER chose the OWNER.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

You all have this obsession that the breeder is resonsible, NO they are NOT. Not in the legal system they are not. Those contracts requiring the owner to return the dog to the breeder are NOT legal. They do NOT hold up in court. So therefore you can not make the breeder responsible for the behaviour of others.

Now your a lawyer too? The contract is legally binding if both parties have agreed, in writing. This is the same kind of contract that many of us have in rescue, and those rescue contracts (at least some of them) have been drawn up by attorneys. They've also been proven in court.

But I'm wondering now if the problem hasn't been that you're hung up on the word "responsible." My belief is that a when a breeder chooses a buyer, the breeder is MORALLY responsible for what that buyer does with the dog. That doesn't absolve the buyer from responsibility, it just means that the choices that put that dog in that home were made by the breeder, and if there is a problem, that's where the problem began. I feel the same way about rescue. If I put a dog in the wrong home, that I feel it's my fault if it fails, because I made the wrong decision. Is the adopter free of blame? No, of course not, but if I hadn't placed in that home, there wouldn't be a problem. I ask no more or less of breeders. Holding this kind of ethics is what makes a breeder or rescue more careful in how they choose their potential buyers/adopters.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Some want a nanny state and want a law thrown at every perceived wrong behaviour.

Some want a nanny state where every thing is micromanaged by the government.

Simply because there is a perceived problem does not mean a new law is the answer.

No, I suppose we could go back to the olden days where we just met at high noon in the town square and shot it out. Is that what you're suggesting? The more complex that our society is, the more we need "rules of the road" to manage it. And to expect breeders to be the only ones that don't have to follow rules, is a bit self-serving, don't you think?

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Do you think the government should mandate which lightbulbs we should use? Well the originator of this legislation thinks it should. This person wants to micromanage our lives and will tell lies and half truths to make his case and not allow rebuttal of differing points of view. If I lived in CA, I would be ashamed that that is how my state legislature works. The committee hearings on this bill where a shame,crock and actually fraudulent.

If you live in CA and you are for this bill, you get what you deserve by electing these idiots. Their actions are shameful.

We've had "green" education for years, and though maybe it has helped some, there is an imminent crisis with global warming. If a law is needed to limit harmful things like certain lightbulbs, then so be it. Too bad something wasn't done when just a few radical activists were warning us years and years ago. Now we've waited until some scientists think it's too late, and most scientists think we have to act NOW.

I don't much like the idea of Big Brother either, but I think we need to remember that the government you fear is managing your life too much, is "we, the people." I have my own issues with government, and how our representatives are chosen, but you seem to think it's separate from us, and that we have no say. I can understand you feeling like that if you are in the minority, which of course breeders are, but I really think it's necessary to look at the bigger picture. Breeders produce and sell a product, and there is no reason why that product, and that production, should not be regulated like every other product and industry is. If it were done properly, it would help society by not subjecting the public to bad quality, sickly, temperamentally unsound animals that cost the public so much in money and heartbreak.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by RonE

Am I the only one who is getting confused?

Well, I was certian breeders were dog owners too, but now I don't know if who's still on first or what's on second.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Dog adv said :You have stated before that you don't think there is a problem. Those of us in rescue know that's not true. And while you would apparently prefer waiting around while you get statistics that you can agree with, dogs and cats are dying that would be adoptable if there was anyone to adopt them. Also, you seem to be willing to write off sick dogs, but some of those sick dogs that are dying in shelters have nothing more than kennel cough, an easily cured disease, but the shelters just don't have the time and resources to cure them because there are too many dogs/cats coming into the shelters.::

i didn't say there wasn't a problem. I said it was NOT an overpopulation problem but an owner relinquishement problem. You simply cann't seem to comprehend that.

Oh I have no problem comprehending that - it's your way of shifting blame. But what you are forgetting is that there is a surplus (overpopulation) because if it was just owner relinquishment, then there would still be enough homes to go around. In fact, you are indicting breeders even more because when that owner relinquishes his dog, the playing field would be level if he just adopted another dog, but instead, he goes and gets a puppy from a breeder, bringing one more dog into the equation.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

And no not all the dogs have simply kennel cough. I have been asked to foster dogs from the shelter that came in with kc, why can't all shelter do this? NO EXCUSE.

Once again you show you don't have a grasp on reality. There aren't enough foster homes to go around. If there were, no shelters would even be needed. You may have taken in a kc dog, but what about the other 100 that also had kc? Again, too many dogs. Not enough homes. Overpopulation.

And by the way, did you actually comply and take in the dog with kennel cough? That would be highly unusual for a breeder.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

And no you completely ignore my point that MANY people simply turn thier dogs in when they are dying because they are too cheap to do pay for it themselves.

I didn't ignore it at all. I just think the number is negligible, and the chances of actually getting those kind of statistics are improbable. And what I was saying was how do you know that the dogs were dying? One owner might give up on a dog that they feel are on it's last legs, where another might be able to get another quality year out of that same dog. So who judges on whether the dog was dying or not? Even vets will diagnose based on the probability of whether the owner will go to extremes in care, or not. I've had vets tell me, for instance, that a dog was dying of kidney failure and didn't have long to live, and I was able to provide the care the dog needed to live another year of quality time.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Kennel cough is because of improper shelter management, period. If they had properly set up facilities, including quarantine areas, there would be no kennel cough. ANY dog person would know that. I blame the shelter for kc. I have seen many shelters that are horribly run. With all kinds of contagious diseases, ticks, distemper, kennel cough. Bad management period.

Yes, some are horribly run, but some are just incapable of setting up quarantine areas because they are so overcrowded because of OVERPOPULATION. And many shelter control kennel cough, so there is no kennel cough, by killing dogs at the first sign of kennel cough. ANY dog person would know that too.

"But you are right about one thing, government does make it easy for irresponsible owners to drop off dogs, whether they need to be euthanized or not (and that is still a judgement call, since some people think old age is a reason to euthanize), because if it was not easy to drop dogs off, people would turn them loose on the streets and that would be an even bigger problem."

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I am NOT talking about euthanizing because of old age, but of terminal cancer, etc.

You just made my point, you said it was an owner relinquishment issue.

No I didn't. The fact that people are relinquishing their animals doesn't make it an owner relinquishment problem, as long as breeders are producing more animals to take the relinquished animals place. That makes it an overpopulation problem. TOO MANY.

As for terminal cancer - again, who is to decide when the time is right? I comfortably maintained a dog with an inoperable brain tumor that was deemed terminal, for 3 years. And I'd be willing to bet that if there wasn't such an overpopulation problem, and there were less dogs available, there would be more people that would be willing to adopt dogs with issues - but why should they when they can go get a brand new one, without any problems (supposedly), from a breeder?

"Your comment about it not being a breeder problem shows you still think this bill is about breeders, and it's not. "

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

If this is not a bill about breeders, why are breeders being penalized? This bill is 100% AR propoganda to wipe out dog breeding. Who do you think is the #! campaign contributore to this wackjob Levine? Um peta and hsus. if you want to check it out to see if what I am saying is the truth, be my guest.

Breeders aren't being penalized. They are being required to pay what they should have paid all along. Face it, they've gotten a free ride for way too long, and it's time for them to pay to play. But again, that's not what the bill is aimed at. The bill is aimed at the public to spay/neuter. If the bill was saying that ALL Californians had to spay/neuter, including breeders, you might have a case. But this bill makes provisions for breeders to legally breed, while the rest of us spay/neuter our pets. Now you may not like the cost of that, but if there were no cost, why wouldn't everyone apply? If the bill said that everyone needs to spay/neuter unless they want to breed, and no licensing was required, then everyone would breed and the overpopulation would explode that much more. Instead, breeders are being absolved from having to follow the law by simply being licensed as breeders, which is something they should have been anyway.

:Legitimate breeders are given a way to keep breeding legally."

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Actually that is simply not true. There are extremely expensive and practically impossible to comply with hoops to jump through.

Extremely expensive? You already said it was going to be $200 per puppy, and though I don't accept that as truth, if you're right, then how is that extremely expensive? As for hoops, breeders should be required to jump through a few hoops, or otherwise everyone would breed if they wanted to avoid spaying/neutering. If you can't jump through a few hoops for the breed you claim to love, you must not love it much. I doubt that this bill's hoops are anywhere near the number of hoops you need to jump through to be a responsible breeder, like health screenings, registrations, competitions, local zoning laws, TAX LAWS, etc.

"This bill is about the casual or negligent breeders - in other words - the general public who shouldn't be breeding at all."

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Really? then why are the serious hobby breeders being taxed exhorbitantly? They are being penalized for the actions of others.

Taxed? You mean made to pay the sales tax they should have been paying all along? I think you're darned lucky that's not retroactive.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

what does sales tax have to do with this? You think I'm a business so I should be taxed? Well buddy, I am NOT a business. So I thoroughly disagree with you.

I don't know what the rules are in your state, but in California, if you sell a product, you are a business. If you sell puppies, you are required to pay a sales tax. If you haven't been doing that, then you've been breaking the law. Maybe you should check into your own state laws, but please don't make statements like that about California breeders.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

And you are making some extremely bad assumptions of your own. You are ASSuming I have not been involved in shelters or rescue, well you are incorrect. That is why I can talk with experience and knowledge that this will simply not work. I certainly am aware of why dogs are given up. They ALL are owner relinquishment issues. NONE have to do with the breeder.

So if a breeder sells a puppy to a person who lives in an apartment and can't have pets, it's solely the buyer at fault? You don't even grant that the breeder should have asked if they rent and checked to see if the landlord approved, or asked to see a copy of the lease? We do that in rescue, why should a breeder be so lax? Again, you seem to treat dogs as if they were inanimate objects that the breeder has no responsibility for once they leave the breeders hands. That's a pretty cold attitude, IMO.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Again, it is NOT legal to blame someone for the actions of another.

If that were true, why are shelters and rescue deemed liable if the dog bites someone after adoption? Some shelters won't adopt/sell pit bulls, for instance, because of the liability issue of the dog biting while in the control of the new owners.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Boy am I glad I dont live in your state. It's shameful how your legislation acts. In my state, the few AR nut legislators are shot down in committee as they should be.

Ahhh, I knew we could agree on something - I'm glad you don't live here too. But I don't have much faith in your description of who gets shot down in your legislature since I suspect that anyone you disagree with, you label as AR.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Again, some want to live in a nanny state, some dont' I value my personal freedoms. That includes my dog breeding/showing hobby. I am not a business and should not be treated like one. Do I pay sales tax, no because I am not required to. Most states, a litter every so often is exempt from paying sales tax including CA. You might want to research the subject.

My research shows that under the California Sales and Use Tax Law, a sale occurs when title to, or possession of, tangible personal property is transferred to the purchaser or the purchaser's representative, for consideration.

Under the California Health and Safety Code, it appears that breeders who sell and/or give away less than 50 dogs a year are exempt.
http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/lemonlaw.html

However these laws would seem to be contradictory, and I know from rescue that as long as there is a set price, then sales tax applies. If breeders simply accepted donations for their dogs, then they would be in the clear. Of course they'd have to jump through the hoops of filing for non-profit status, and become a public benefit corporation.

[saveourdogs]

dogadv you are incorrect on quite a few things. First of all hobby breeders who sell only a few puppies a year are in fact exempt from sales tax. Do further research, I have. You are quoting about commercial businesses, not one time litters. And hobby breeders usually only have 1 or 2 litters per year.

And the IRS does not considers a hobby breeder, just that, a hobby. A hobby breeder can not deduct 'business' expenses on his income tax. but does need to declare sales income.

And you are also incorrect about the sales contract being upheld in a court of law. They will not be. Ask a lawyer. I have.

Also as far as a shelter being liable for a dog that they adopted out that bites, yes they are. That is why the dog should have been euthanized as not adoptable. But do gooders can't put down a dog that needs to be put down and instead foists it on an unsuspecting family. And not counted towards the inflated figure you quote about the number of dogs being euthanized in shelters. The number is inflated because that dog was not adoptable but is not included in the number you counted towards shelter overpopulation.

No that is the irresponsible owner and irresponsible shetler not handling the situation correctly. That does not indicate that breeders should be regulated.

And a breeder is liable for selling a dog they knew did not have a stable temperament.

And again, check with any lawyer, a person can not be held legally liable for another's actions. Thus I don't buy your argument that the breeder is liable.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

DogAdvocat:You are making some assumptions that just don't hold water. First, you claim that those in favor of this bill are not open to the arguments of the opponents. That's not true. I've read the opponents arguments, and unless you think that being open to something means accepting it as gospel, then I've been open to it, and found it utter nonsense.

Read: My mind is closed and I refuse to research to see if they opposing points are correct.

This from the person whose mind is so closed that he chalks everything up to AR influence. For the sake of argument, how does one research opinions about what might happen in the future? Claims that the bill won't work can't be researched. Claims that the bill will be the end of all dogs can't be researched.
-------------
The opponent's argument is based on fear that they will be limited in their breeding activities.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: That is actually correct. Why should we be limited? This is the USA. PERIOD. We live in this country to have personal freedoms.

Where do your personal freedoms infringe on my personal freedoms? That's where limitations are necessary. If your personal freedom to breed as you see fit infringes on me because I have to pay higher taxes to support shelters that house and kill the dogs that were produced by breeders, then why does your personal freedom have priority over mine?
-----------------

And that fear of limitation is more important to them than the lives lost due to the overpopulation, which in part has been caused by breeders.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I bought the AR line hook, line and sinker. Using the term overpopulatoin is the first clue. You want to outlaw breeding. You say in PART caused by breeders, so why not penalize the actual person (the owner) that is turning the dog in? The breeder is not the one dropping the dog off.

No, the breeder is the one that sold the dog to the @#$ dropping the dog off. Why is that breeder selling to @#$? $$$$$$$
--------------

What amazes me is the gall they have in trying to convince the public that they shouldn't have to pay their fair share in taxes - something they should have been paying all along.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I am not knowledgeable on the tax code. My one litter a year is not taxable.

Your one litter a year is not in California. Are you saying that all the breeders in California that this bill will affect, are only breeding one litter a year?

---------------
But what bothers me even more is this attitude that education is sufficient,

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I refuse to see that education IS working.

Sure it's working, or we wouldn't keep doing it. Is it going to solve the problem? NO.
----------
when we can see by the number of shelter deaths that it is not,

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I refuse to see the facts that shelter deaths have gone down significantly and continue to do so each year.

For someone that doesn't accept shelter statistics, you sure are happy to do so when you can use them to prove your contentions, right? Have you factored in that rescue groups have increased, thereby taking out more animals? But that's ok, right? As long as rescue is willing to devote their lives and money to save these animals, that's okay as long as breeders aren't inconvenienced.
---------------
and the rigid refusal to consider any legislation presented,

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I want to live in a nanny stae where I want legislation to cover every single aspect of my life.

and the refusal to propose any legislation of their own.

Read: Some believe that legislation is not needed.

This all adds up to a satisfaction with the status quo

Read: I want a nanny state.

If people can't play nice, then maybe a nanny is needed.
-----------

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Dogadv, I know your closed mind makes this impossible for you to believe, but your hero Levine is bought and paid for by the ARs. he has a lot of campaign money contributed by AR organizations. And yes the transcripts of the committee hearings prove that he refuses to listen to the other side. He refuses to let the other side speak at the committee meetings . He and his AR buddy Gerimandered the committee to get a vote, by appointing someone they knew would vote for it.

You mean he knows how politics work? Good for him. Good for the dogs. As for money, I don't really care who backs this bill, as long as it's passed. If there are some AR organizations among his supporters, their money is just as good as anyones, and I've seen the list of supporters, and most of them I recognize as hard-working rescue organizations that I was already familiar with, and most of them would strongly object to being considered AR.

So how many puppymillers are supporting the opposition? Bet you don't care as long as you win.

[saveourdogs]

I think i've made my points:

No hobby breeders are not required to pay sales tax depending on how many litters they breed, per CA state tax code.

Penalizing hobby breeders with exhorbitant fees IS a tax. Whatever term you want to use, it is still a tax. I certainly was NOT referring to sales tax.

By law a person can not be held liable for the actions of another so I am unclear why you keep insisting on doing so.

A breeder did NOT drop the dog off.

I completely disagree that breeders have gotten a 'free ride'. Free ride from what? Nothing. They simply are going about thier lives.


This legislation was bought and paid for by the HSUS and PETA. They contributed a lot of money to Levine's election campaign.

you say we need rules, Yes society needs rules, but realistic rules and not about every single thing.

Throwing a law at something is not necessarily the solution.

And when a law is the solution, the correctly written one is the solution, not one sided mumbo jumbo concoted by AR fanatics who refuse to listen to the other side.

You believe in a nanny state where every breeder should be regulated. I simply do not.

I see that the shelter population is going down each year. So I do not see a problem that is not being handled.

Education IS working. There is NO quick fix.

I understand how legislation REALLY works, you just want to throw a law at something, anything and hope it works.

I have made many points on how and why in the real world, what will happen if this passes. You simply refuse to believe me. That is your perogative. Doesn't make anything I say any less the truth.

You can believe what you want to believe. I am free to believe what I want.

I am just hoping that the majority of legislators in your state believe in the personal freedoms that this country was founded on and how this will negatively effect the majority of the state residents.

I know if it passes, I can come back in a while and say I told you so. I am certain my projections of the future if this passes will indeed come to fruition.

[RonE]

Two things are clear to me here.

1. We've got two very opinionated individuals carrying on a protracted discussion that will not change either one's mind about anything.
2. Nobody else is paying much attention.

Is there any particular reason why you can't just PM each other or, better still, exchange phone numbers?

Neither of you is presenting your case in a manner that refects well on your respective causes.

[xoxluvablexox]

saveourdogs, breeders are owners of the dogs they have. So they are responsable for every dog they have including the puppies their dogs bring into the world. They should make sure that every single puppy goes to the best home they can find. They should make sure that the future owner will be able to be responsable for the life of the puppy they are about to sell them. It is then the breeders fault if they give the puppy to a home that ends up being the death of that dog. They should have been more carefull about where they placed their dogs and should learn from those past mistakes. It's should not be about the money or giving away the dog to the first person that starts asking. It's about finding as good of a home as you can get for the life that you allowed to be brought into this world.

Is it not the fault of the mother that lets her teenage daughter go and throw her child into the trash?? She knew about it but failed to do anything about it. Thus she is responsable. No, you cannot control the actions of others. Yes, you should be responsable for allowing a life of an innocent into the hands of someone that doesn't care about that life and only looks at it as something to be had but not cared for.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

dogadv you are incorrect on quite a few things. First of all hobby breeders who sell only a few puppies a year are in fact exempt from sales tax. Do further research, I have. You are quoting about commercial businesses, not one time litters. And hobby breeders usually only have 1 or 2 litters per year.

And the IRS does not considers a hobby breeder, just that, a hobby. A hobby breeder can not deduct 'business' expenses on his income tax. but does need to declare sales income.

First, I'm not talking about the IRS. I'm talking about sales tax, and that's the state, not federal. And second, let's not downplay it for your own purposes. There are a lot of BYBs out there that are producing more than 1 or 2 litters a year, and those are the ones that we need to regulate. As for the balance that you speak of, what was it you were complaining about in regards to them being taxed? The taxes addressed by the authors of this bill have to do with sales tax, and if a breeder doesn't qualify (according to you), then they don't have to be worried about it, right? So what are the exhorbitant fees that you keep griping about?

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

And you are also incorrect about the sales contract being upheld in a court of law. They will not be. Ask a lawyer. I have.

This is the most ridiculous claim you've made. Oh wait, there was that one about vets being AR wackos, but this is a close second.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Also as far as a shelter being liable for a dog that they adopted out that bites, yes they are. That is why the dog should have been euthanized as not adoptable. But do gooders can't put down a dog that needs to be put down and instead foists it on an unsuspecting family.

Oh now this is a close third. Do you understand that all dogs can bite???? Are you suggesting that all shelter dogs should be euthanized??? That frankly wouldn't surprise me. So tell me, why should a shelter be responsible for what a dog does after it's sold, but a breeder shouldn't be responsible for what happens when they sell a dog?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by RonE

Two things are clear to me here.

1. We've got two very opinionated individuals carrying on a protracted discussion that will not change either one's mind about anything.
2. Nobody else is paying much attention.

Is there any particular reason why you can't just PM each other or, better still, exchange phone numbers?

Neither of you is presenting your case in a manner that refects well on your respective causes.

I started to respond to this thread to present the other side of the coin on this issue. He represented a biased one sided argument. Of course I am not going to change his mind. you can't change the mind of an AR. That is what he is whether he realizes it or not. I simply want to present an opposing viewpoint to those that might be interested in the topic.

I know that there are those that are doing yeoman's work contacting the state legislators and thier aides in the state to counteract the propoganda and give an opposing viewpoint and facts about how these this legislation as written will affect thier constituents including hobby breeders, police agencies, and the average pet owner of all ages.

most so far have had most of the same concerns I have expressed.

But dont' worry, I had already decided that I am wasting my time as i am simply rehashing the same points to a deaf ear.

Thanks

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by RonE

Two things are clear to me here.

1. We've got two very opinionated individuals carrying on a protracted discussion that will not change either one's mind about anything.
2. Nobody else is paying much attention.

Is there any particular reason why you can't just PM each other or, better still, exchange phone numbers?

Neither of you is presenting your case in a manner that refects well on your respective causes.

Does our discussion infringe on anyone? Does it cost you money? I really don't know how these forums work, but are we causing problems for anyone? I'm sorry you personally don't like the discussion, there's a lot of discussions that I don't much care for in this forum, but I find it easy to skip over them.

As for private messages, I think this is the kind of discussion that could quickly deteriorate to name calling if it wasn't in public, and I also think that those who are interested in the subject can read along and hear both sides of the issue.

Why is this a problem?

[xoxluvablexox]

oh wow... do you even know what an AR is?

hmmm... let's see... let me guess...anyone that has a different opinion on then your own when it comes to the way animals should be treated.
Please everyone, don't be ARs. Hang a cow by it's legs and rip it's neck open with a knife. It's oh so very unARish.



Do I sound about on the same page? I'm trying to go back to my years as a child and trying to remember how I would have talked so that I can better understand you.

[RonE]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

He represented a biased one sided argument.

Well of course. That's what people do when they argue. You're both doing it and it's not very instructive to anybody.

I have seen topics discussed here, but this is no discussion. It's a dog fight and I'm starting to think it's irresponsible to let it continue.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

oh wow... do you even know what an AR is?

hmmm... let's see... let me guess...anyone that has a different opinion on then your own when it comes to the way animals should be treated.
Please everyone, don't be ARs. Hang a cow by it's legs and rip it's neck open with a knife. It's oh so very unARish.



Do I sound about on the same page? I'm trying to go back to my years as a child and trying to remember how I would have talked so that I can better understand you.

Anyone who believes that animals are on the same level as humans is an AR. You seem to believe that also.

And you also believe that certain people should not be allowed to have children by your previous posts, That is any better than the nanny state saying who can and can not breed dogs?

Originally Posted by RonE

Well of course. That's what people do when they argue. You're both doing it and it's not very instructive to anybody.

I have seen topics discussed here, but this is no discussion. It's a dog fight and I'm starting to think it's irresponsible to let it continue.

Well I apologize then, I guess I have an entirely different perception to this debate. I don't see it as a fight at all. I think it is surprisingly civil. But that's me.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Does our discussion infringe on anyone? Does it cost you money? I really don't know how these forums work, but are we causing problems for anyone? I'm sorry you personally don't like the discussion, there's a lot of discussions that I don't much care for in this forum, but I find it easy to skip over them.

As for private messages, I think this is the kind of discussion that could quickly deteriorate to name calling if it wasn't in public, and I also think that those who are interested in the subject can read along and hear both sides of the issue.

Why is this a problem?

I frankly have no desire to converse privately with this individual. He has drunk the AR koolaid so we have nothing in common to discuss. I will concentrate my efforts in helping my CA friends defeat this legislation by contacting the state legislators and giving them realistic facts on how this will affect thier state.

[DogAdvocat]

[quote=saveourdogs;76828]I see that the shelter population is going down each year. So I do not see a problem that is not being handled.

Los Angeles City shelters alone send 200 TONS of dead animals to a rendering plant every MONTH. But you don't see a problem that is not being handled.

Rescue volunteers dedicate their lives and their personal money to saving as many shelter animals as they can, sometimes to the point of total burn out, but you don't see a problem that's not being handled.

Maybe if you were actually here, you would see it, but that would require you actually being willing to look.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I am just hoping that the majority of legislators in your state believe in the personal freedoms that this country was founded on and how this will negatively effect the majority of the state residents.

I hope that the majority of the state legislators will realize what a total waste of money it is to keep funding the housing and killing of thousands and thousands of pets each year while waiting for education to work. I hope they listen to the shelter personnel themselves who have had enough. I hope they listen to rescue who has had enough.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I know if it passes, I can come back in a while and say I told you so. I am certain my projections of the future if this passes will indeed come to fruition.

I look forward to you coming back to say congratulations when it passes and proves to be a success.

By the way, you mentioned earlier about the money the state would lose if the AKC (and whoever) boycotted the state. Would it be more than the almost 3 billion dollars California spends on housing and killing pets in a ten year period? Somehow I think that will mean more to the legislature than whether or not breeders had to up their puppy prices $200, assuming you're right, of course.

[xoxluvablexox]

I'm sorry is there something wrong with humans and other animals being considered equal? Some animals are about as smart as 3 year olds. So that makes 3 year olds lesser beings then the rest of us as well since there down there in smarts with the apes and stuff.

I didn't mean that they should enforce certain people to not breed. I just think it would be for the better of the world if some people realized that they just should not have children because not everyone is good at parenting. Just look at all the children that end up killing themselves at ages over 11 and even younger then that sometimes. I just heard from a friend about an 8 year old that has attemted killing herself. I wonder who made her hate life so much? Possibly her parents??

[saveourdogs]

[quote=DogAdvocat;76852]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I see that the shelter population is going down each year. So I do not see a problem that is not being handled.

Los Angeles City shelters alone send 200 TONS of dead animals to a rendering plant every MONTH. But you don't see a problem that is not being handled.


HUH? You've personally measured? or are you simply stating some statistic that your AR friend Levine or the other AR Bok made up?


Rescue volunteers dedicate their lives and their personal money to saving as many shelter animals as they can, sometimes to the point of total burn out, but you don't see a problem that's not being handled.

What makes you God?Your superior because you do rescue work? Amen to you. I bow down to you. Give me a break. Get over yourself. As I said, I do rescue work also and can see reality, not through AR tinted glasses.

Maybe if you were actually here, you would see it, but that would require you actually being willing to look.





I hope that the majority of the state legislators will realize what a total waste of money it is to keep funding the housing and killing of thousands and thousands of pets each year while waiting for education to work. I hope they listen to the shelter personnel themselves who have had enough. I hope they listen to rescue who