[DogAdvocat]

I just finished watching two videos on the California Healthy Pet bill that is pending. I think they're well worth the time and cover a lot of important points.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVZInUxNr1c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hf99USHiuRY

In a ten year period:

* California shelters intake 8.9 million animals
* California shelters kill 5.3 million animals
* California spends 2.75 billion dollars on housing and killing animals

For every dollar spent on spay/neuter, California save $18 on shelter costs

[Quincy]

Thanks DogAdvocat for the links to the videos, shall have a look later when I get time. Meanwhile I was busy reading this news article, and it looks like the Salinas Police Department rather than relying on what some are saying that they instead took the time and effort to read the Bill, where they then realised that their law enforcement dogs were exempted from spay neutering and could easily obtain Intact Permits and so could the breeders of their dogs. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the Bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals. The Salinas Police Department announced they are now endorseing the Bill, and below is what they mentioned to the media and from this address:-
http://thecalifornian.com/apps/pbcs..../70523023/1002

The Salinas Californian
Salinas PD endorse Healthy Pets Act
Staff report

The Salinas Police Department today announced its endorsement of the California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634), a bill that would make communities safer and save taxpayers millions by requiring most pets to be spayed or neutered.

“This bill will be a much-needed tool to aid in the fight to reduce pet overpopulation in California and, more specifically, in the City of Salinas,” wrote Salinas Police Chief Daniel Ortega in a letter to the bill’s author, Assembly Member Lloyd Levine.

Chief Ortega also noted that Salinas Animal Services takes in nearly 4,000 unwanted animals every year.

“California has more dog bite injuries than any other state and most victims are children," Levine said. "In addition to reducing the number of unwanted dogs roaming the streets, the California Healthy Pets Act would help make communities safer because dogs that have been neutered are three times less likely to attack than unaltered dogs."

Every year, more than 800,000 pets are abandoned in California. California taxpayers spend $250 million to house these abandoned cats and dogs in shelters and then euthanize the majority of them.

Last week, more than 250 supporters from across California -- including veterinarians and law enforcement officers -- traveled to the State Capitol for the bill’s hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The bill passed the Committee on with a 10-6 vote, with Assembly Member Anna Caballero (D-Salinas) not voting.

Sponsors of the California Healthy Pets Act include the California Veterinary Medical Association, California Animal Control Directors Association, and the State Humane Association of California, which represents local SPCAs and Humane Societies across the state.

“The overpopulation of dogs and cats is not only a fiscal and ethical issue for our communities, it also threatens public safety,” said Judie Mancuso, Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition. “The California Healthy Pets Act will help protect more children and families from devastating attacks by unaltered, aggressive dogs.”

The California Healthy Pets Act would enact a universal spay/neuter law for California. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals. The bill is largely modeled on a successful universal spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995. By 2005, although the county’s human population had grown by 15 percent, its shelter’s intake numbers had plummeted by more than half. This success has inspired other jurisdictions, including the City of Sacramento and City of San Bernardino, to adopt similar measures.

Dog or cat owners found to be in violation of AB 1634 would be given a ticket and would not pay a fine if they had their animals spayed or neutered. All funds from permits will be used to pay for the administration, enforcement and outreach efforts of the program as well as free or low-cost spay and neuter efforts.

The California Healthy Pets Act will be voted on by the full Assembly before June 8, the legislative deadline for Assembly bills to pass out of the Assembly. For more information, visit www.cahealthypets.com
.

Also just read this which sounds interesting, and from this address:-
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release...ease_id=256600

Market Wire's services
General Manager of Los Angeles Animal Services Speaks to Town Hall

LOS ANGELES, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- May 23, 2007 --

Ed Boks, General Manager, Los Angeles Animal Services, will speak with Town Hall Los Angeles on Wednesday, June 6, 2007. Angelenos will have the opportunity to ask Boks about his goal to make Los Angeles the first major metropolis with a 'No Kill' policy.

Since April 2006, Los Angeles Animal Services has taken in more than 46,000 cats and dogs. With regard to the California Healthy Pet Bill (AB 1634), Boks said, "Mahatma Gandhi told us that the best way to evaluate the morality of a community is to look at how we treat our animals. Our City Council has risen to the occasion again by accepting our collective responsibility for a tenacious problem."

Since January 2006, Boks has been serving as General Manager for Los Angeles Animal Services. Prior to his current position, he was Executive Director of Maricopa County Animal Care and Control and New York City Animal Care and Control, the two largest animal care and control programs in the country.

Lisa Specht, Town Hall Los Angeles Board Member, and Partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, hosts the event. Specht's expertise involves land use entitlements, and related transportation and environmental issues. Manatt provides legal and consulting services to a global client base from offices in cities including Los Angeles, New York, and Washington, DC.

Animal rights are a recurring theme at Town Hall. In 1971, Chester Hogan, Director of the Los Angeles Zoo, delivered the address "But Don't Feed the Animals." Last year, Carter Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of the World Wildlife Fund, delivered the speech "Our Country's Greatest Test: Confronting the Threat of Resource Depletion."

For 70 years, Town Hall Los Angeles has promoted civic participation, pride, and awareness. As a nonpartisan and nonprofit forum, we encourage a public discussion on issues of regional, national, and international significance. To be informed on changes afoot in Los Angeles, join Town Hall.

All members of the media are invited to cover this event.

**Please credit Town Hall Los Angeles in your coverage.

When: Wednesday June 6, 2007 Noon Briefing

Where: Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
11355 W. Olympic Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90064

For more information, visit www.townhall-la.org ; Cost: $18.

Note to reporters and editors: The organization identifies as Town Hall Los Angeles. Please don't make generic as in 'town hall.'

Contact:
Deborah Weinberg
Director, Media Relations
213.312.9307
Email Contact

SOURCE: Town Hall Los Angeles
.

[Dogstar]

Have ya'll noticed all the exemptions (for working/show/etc) expire in 2009?

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Dogstar

Have ya'll noticed all the exemptions (for working/show/etc) expire in 2009?

Do you mean something like my dog licence and driver licence expire in 2009 and where I just renew them.
.

[saveourdogs]

Thanks for the one sided propoganda with inflated figures and half the story. many of the number of those that are euthanized yearly are not adoptable. They are either sick or have a bad temperament. Using the number of those dogs thus inflates the number to make it look like there is more of a problem. It is an expense to the tax payer to euthanize those dogs but it is the owners responsibility to pay for that imho. The local governments are paying for this simply because they make it easy for the irresponsible owner to drop his dog off that needs to be euthanized rather than pay for it and handle it themselves. All taxpayer pay for that. But that is an irresponsible owner issue, nothing to do with breeders.

I do not understand why you feel breeders should be penalized for the actions of another person. By law I can not be responsible for your actions. This bill is pure AR rubbish simply a big step towards eliminating dog breeding.
its called one generation and out. Most well meaning folks who really have the good of animals at heart do not realize the true HSUS/PETA agenda which is the elimination of all animals. Good old Wayne Pacelle (HSUS head and PETA member) was skewered for his radical views on farming when he spoke to a Congressional Committee on Capital Hill a few weeks ago. I am glad that some are finally listening to reason and logic and not the money and voices of the radicals. It is not the place of a state or federal legislature to legislate issues that they are not knowledgeable on by listening to one sided propoganda. Legislators need to listen to facts from both sides , not emotional tirades using inflated figures like the pro side of those issue is doing.

Your arguments are that 'something' needs to be done about the perceived pet overpopulation problem. Well, why not do something that will actually work? This will just ADD to the shelter populations as people abandon thier pets because they can't afford to spay/neuter them. The vet costs in most of the state of CA is quite expensive compared to many places in the US.

All purebred dog breeding except for commercial kennels will end in 2009 as that when all intact permits expire. There is nothing in there that says what will happen after that.

Eliminating serious hobby breeders who screen buyers, take dogs back, do health testing and pedigree research is not the way to solve this perceived problem. It will only make it worse. More people will buy sick imported puppies from Mexican puppymills (that is already happening and iwll only get worse). More people will buy from people who don't screen buyers as that will be all there is.

Studies have been done that early spaying is harmful to a dogs development, especially large breeds and in some breeds causes cancer. I am all for altering non-breeding animals and require that when I sell a pet quality puppy, but the age is a decision between the owner and a qualifiied medical specialist, not a state legislature that has no medical knowledge or has not seen studies on the harm that early spaying causes. Do the pups survive the surgery? Sure. But now that it being done more, studies have come out on the later issues it causes such as cancer, incontinence, improper bone developement. These things are all medical facts supported by studies due ot lack of hormones.

The reason there are dogs in shelters is because of irresponsible owners, not breeders.

There is much education and many have learned but many more still need to be educated. it is up to all of us to educate.

This legislation is illconceived, ill planned, based on incorrect and one sided information and will not solve the issue.

Since the shelters have made it so easy to dispose of dogs by irresponsible owners, this is what happens. They know they dont have to be responsible and try to find a home for thier dog that they can not keep themselves.

There is no quick fix, including this. It will not solve the problem but simply make it worse.

Originally Posted by Quincy

Do you mean something like my dog licence and driver licence expire in 2009 and where I just renew them.
.

No is nothing about renewal in there. Please read it.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

No is nothing about renewal in there. Please read it.

The Bill mentions "This act shall become operative on April 1, 2008", so from then some people will have Intact Permits from that date. The expires January 1, 2009 sounds like all those who have been issued so far are being "lined-up" so that all new Intact Permits will be for the whole year starting January 1.

This Californian Bill is based on Santa Cruz County and since 1995 have had a mandatory spay neuter laws, but they also issue UNaltered certificated (Intact Permits). The system is fuctioning very well and why it is still in effect today. I think if we went there we would see people with their doggies including breeders with their doggies, and I feel we would see the same throughout California after this Bill comes in to effect.
.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

The Bill mentions "This act shall become operative on April 1, 2008", so from then some people will have Intact Permits from that date. The expires January 1, 2009 sounds like all those who have been issued so far are being "lined-up" so that all new Intact Permits will be for the whole year starting January 1.

This Californian Bill is based on Santa Cruz County and since 1995 have had a mandatory spay neuter laws, but they also issue UNaltered certificated (Intact Permits). The system is fuctioning very well and why it is still in effect today. I think if we went there we would see people with their doggies including breeders with their doggies, and I feel we would see the same throughout California after this Bill comes in to effect.
.

Now you are making assumptions. With laws there are no assumptions. There is no provision for permits after that date written in the law as present. So therefore, there are none. Laws are not based on assumptions. They can only be based on the written words that are there, not how you think it might be or should be interpreted.

What is happening in Santa Cruz can not be compared to what will happen in the entire state. First of all, Santa Cruz's standards are much much lower than this fascist piece of legislation that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting residents of CA. The standards to get an unaltered permit are practically impossible to meet. Since you don't show and breed seriously, you can't see how this would work in real life. for example what age a dog is first shown, what age a dog is physically mature enough to win (varies by breed), at what age the dog finishes his championship. There are a lot of factors that are not being considered in these guidelines.

And last point is cost. The cost of an unaltered permit in Santa Cruz is mininal. But in other places it will be hundreds of dollars. That is a guarantee. If you don't believe that the towns will see this as a money maker, i have some swampland to sell you. then there are increased license fees per dog per year. Then there will be litter permits as there are in LA county and Long Beach. It will cost a serious breeder with just 5 or 6 dogs and maybe 2 litters per year ,about $1000 per year. That is ridiculous. And it is also ridiculous to think that that won't happen. It will for sure. That cost will be passed on to the cost of the puppy, which will approximately $200 per puppy considering the litter size in my breed. The general public does not realize the consequences. They do not realize that the puppies from serious breeders will either cease to exist in the state or they cost will increase dramatically. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not being realistic. Laws are about what will actually happen once something is passed, how it will actually work, not some pie in the sky unrealistic hope. This bill will NOT reduce shelter populations.

[piglet]

OK, fellow board members, I went through the lengthy discussions on AB-1634 posted here previously. I fully agree with Saveourdogs regarding teaching pet owners to be responsible – we shouldn’t have so many pets placed in shelters because their owners refuse to be responsible.
Spending money on educating people how to be responsible pet owners is a fantastic idea.

But here is the reality. In our little neighborhood (40-50 houses) about only 1/3 of us have pets. All of us are taxpayers though. Question really is how to convince those, not having pets that spending money on those who already have pets (or intend to have pets) is actually beneficial for all of us. I honestly don’t know how. The only thing that comes to my mind is to tell them that too many pets get killed in the shelters. But do my fellow neighbors that don’t have pets care about this? I don’t think so. Would they care if you tell them that if a law that requires pets to be s/n would save taxpayers money, which can be used for let’s say child education purposes or drug abuse prevention education? I think so.

Also, who is this pet owner (even the poorest one) that would not expect any vet costs? S/n costs are not equivalent to cancer treatment costs for example. Not to mention the fact that there are so many low cost, even free, or simply very affordable places one can go to do this.

I assume that people on this board, not only do support the rescue orgs but are actually rescuers who work hard, use their own resources and time to save lives of pets that are adoptable. I personally admire these people and when the time permits, I will join them in their efforts. I actually took the time to see how many rescue orgs support the bill and how many oppose the bill. It turns out 184 rescue orgs support the bill and only 10 oppose the bill. (Ref: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/AB1...RS-5-20-07.pdf and http://www.ab1634.com/index.htm#)

What I really don’t understand is why breeders are opposing the bill if they would be in the exempt category? If the age of the pet is a concern for s/n, then people will be able to get a letter from their vet, which would delay the mandatory s/n, then why is this an argument for those who oppose the bill?
If I am wrong by agreeing with DogAdvocate, then please somebody enlighten me on this issue...
Thanks.

[ritabooker]

Piglet ~ you're not wrong. Lots of taxpayers participate in a system where we are paying for things that do not directly effect us. I think it will be the same for good breeders. I don't believe good breeders are being punished, but only expected to participate in an attempt to solve a problem. Everyone who is involved in caring for dogs is being asked to participate in an effort to find a solution. Alot of organizations and vets, etc. think this bill may be part of the solution, and I am willing to participate and give it a try.

P.S. I am not a breeder, did not want to imply that.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by ritabooker

Piglet ~ you're not wrong. Lots of taxpayers participate in a system where we are paying for things that do not directly effect us. I think it will be the same for good breeders. I don't believe good breeders are being punished, but only expected to participate in an attempt to solve a problem. Everyone who is involved in caring for dogs is being asked to participate in an effort to find a solution. Alot of organizations and vets, etc. think this bill may be part of the solution, and I am willing to participate and give it a try.

YES, it is an attempt to solve a problem where everyone who is involved in caring for dogs is being asked to participate in an effort to find a solution, and they also want any suggestions for ammendments to the Bill to make things easier and with the view to helping solve a problem.
.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Now you are making assumptions. With laws there are no assumptions. There is no provision for permits after that date written in the law as present. So therefore, there are none. Laws are not based on assumptions. They can only be based on the written words that are there, not how you think it might be or should be interpreted.

No I'm not making assumptions. The written words for the provision of permits does mention in the Bill, "A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if any of the following conditions are met:", and all of us certainly can read all the written words where Intact Permits certainly shall be issued. Now are you assuming that will not apply after January 1 2009.
.

[saveourdogs]

"YES, it is an attempt to solve a problem where everyone who is involved in caring for dogs is being asked to participate in an effort to find a solution, and they also want any suggestions for ammendments to the Bill to make things easier and with the view to helping solve a problem."

It is one thing to attempt to solve a pervieve problem. it is another to want to start a fascist state and micromanage everyone's lives. The worst part is this legislation will only add to the problem not solve it. There is no possible way harming the good breeders by taxing them out of existance will solve the problem. You will get rid of some breeders because the taxes will be too high. And yes if it quacks like a duck, its a duck. The taxes on breeders will be on average $1000 per year. The localities will charge hundreds of dollars for these permits. This will increase the price of puppies of those breeders that can and want to jump through the hoops to get an intact permit plus litter fees, plus exhorbitant licenses. It will increase the cost and many will no longer be able to afford puppies for the hobby breeders. They will only afford from commercial sources who do not screen buyers. It will increase the number of dogs in shelters becasue more irresponsible owners will buy puppies.

The first thing to do to solve a problem is to figure out what the problem actually is. why are the dogs in the shelters? The answer is because of irresponsible owners. So why not do something to stop the irresponsible owners? Eliminating hobby breeders does not do that. Penalizing and taxing the 'good' guys does nothing to solve this problem. The problem is an owner relinquishment problem, not an overpopulation problem. These dogs had a home. overpopulation means not enough homes. These dogs had homes. The question is why do they no longer have homes.

Does this do anything to have low cost altering clinics? Absolutely not. It should be mandated in this law but it is not. It says something vague like IF we have money left over, we will have low cost clinics. How many of you think there actually will be money left over? I have some swamp land to sell you.

We need realistic honest thought provked, researched ideas, not fanatical, emotional rants based on incorrect information and assumptions and refusing to see the facts of those that are opposed.

Those that are opposed refuse to see how this will affect the good breeders. They dont care. But you sure would be the first to scream and yell if your hobby was being micromanaged due to unknowledgeable fanatics that refuse to see both sides of the issue.

Long story short, it will make the problem worse, not better. Dog shows will cease to exist in the state along with the millions in revenue it brings the community. See what happened in Louisville when everyone boycotted the town. The entry was WAY down, thousands less than the year before, and the hotels across the street where emply. Everyone stayed in a nearby town that had not passed such fascist legislation. This WILL happen in CA. Along with the AKC taking its national show out of the state and all the money and publicity it brings to the local comminity.

This will cost the communties much more money for enforcement. There is no way that the cost of the fines will cover the cost of enforcement. The figures just dont add up. Anyone who believes otherwise, again, I have some swampland for sale.
.

[xoxluvablexox]

The way you make it seem is that the only reason dogs are in shelters are because of owners. That's not true. The dogs are in shelters because of people that let there dogs breed without taking the responsability to make sure the puppies have good homes. It all comes back to the breeder. A breeder gives away there puppies to anyone that manages to see their newspaper add. Thus, the puppies end up in a home that could possibly end up being fatal to the dog. Like no fence so the dog goes out and gets killed by a car. Or the the family ends up being allergic so they get rid of the dog. The breeders, as well as owners, need to become more responsable for the dogs. It doesn't all come back to the owner.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Thanks for the one sided propoganda with inflated figures and half the story. many of the number of those that are euthanized yearly are not adoptable. They are either sick or have a bad temperament. Using the number of those dogs thus inflates the number to make it look like there is more of a problem. It is an expense to the tax payer to euthanize those dogs but it is the owners responsibility to pay for that imho. The local governments are paying for this simply because they make it easy for the irresponsible owner to drop his dog off that needs to be euthanized rather than pay for it and handle it themselves. All taxpayer pay for that. But that is an irresponsible owner issue, nothing to do with breeders.

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.

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.

Your comment about it not being a breeder problem shows you still think this bill is about breeders, and it's not. Legitimate breeders are given a way to keep breeding legally. 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

I do not understand why you feel breeders should be penalized for the actions of another person. By law I can not be responsible for your actions.

Why do you keep saying they are being penalized? Why shouldn't they be licensed just like any other business? Why shouldn't breeders be compliant with prevailing law? How many breeders do you know that pay sales tax? After all, they are selling a product. Why are they getting a free pass?

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

This bill is pure AR rubbish simply a big step towards eliminating dog breeding. its called one generation and out. Most well meaning folks who really have the good of animals at heart do not realize the true HSUS/PETA agenda which is the elimination of all animals. Good old Wayne Pacelle (HSUS head and PETA member) was skewered for his radical views on farming when he spoke to a Congressional Committee on Capital Hill a few weeks ago. I am glad that some are finally listening to reason and logic and not the money and voices of the radicals. It is not the place of a state or federal legislature to legislate issues that they are not knowledgeable on by listening to one sided propoganda. Legislators need to listen to facts from both sides , not emotional tirades using inflated figures like the pro side of those issue is doing.

Do you not realize that when you go on an anti-AR tirade, you are the one that looks radical and out of control? Especially when you've already stated you think vets that disagree with cropping are AR wackos. Paranoia does not help your case.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Your arguments are that 'something' needs to be done about the perceived pet overpopulation problem. Well, why not do something that will actually work? This will just ADD to the shelter populations as people abandon thier pets because they can't afford to spay/neuter them. The vet costs in most of the state of CA is quite expensive compared to many places in the US.

Don't you think it's a bit simplistic to say "why not do something that will actually work?" while offering no solutions? We have been trying education for decades, and it helped, but it hasn't solved the problem. The opposition to this bill, mostly breeders who unreasonably fear the loss of their hobbies or the loss of their profits, have consistently fought all legislation and yet offer no solutions except to suggest more education. If they believed so strongly in education, why haven't they dedicated part of their puppy sales to a fund that would bring spay/neuter education to prime time media?

And your claim about vet costs totally ignores the spay/neuter funding, free clinics, low-cost clinics, that we already have, and the increase in funding we will have when this bill passes.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

All purebred dog breeding except for commercial kennels will end in 2009 as that when all intact permits expire. There is nothing in there that says what will happen after that.

Even if true, and I think you're wrong, weren't you the one that felt there was nothing wrong with commercial kennels?

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Eliminating serious hobby breeders who screen buyers, take dogs back, do health testing and pedigree research is not the way to solve this perceived problem. It will only make it worse. More people will buy sick imported puppies from Mexican puppymills (that is already happening and iwll only get worse). More people will buy from people who don't screen buyers as that will be all there is.

I doubt it would be a lot more because that's basically what we have now - most breeders do not screen, do not take dogs back, do not do health testing and wouldn't even know how to begin to do a pedigree search. Importing puppies from Mexico is already illegal here. But I find your argument interesting, because I've often been told by breeders claiming to be responsible, that their puppy buyers don't want shelter dogs, and if the breeder doesn't have a puppy for them, they would rather go without. But now you're saying that those that would have gone to a responsible breeder would instead go to a Mexican puppymill? Someone is not being honest.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Studies have been done that early spaying is harmful to a dogs development, especially large breeds and in some breeds causes cancer. I am all for altering non-breeding animals and require that when I sell a pet quality puppy, but the age is a decision between the owner and a qualifiied medical specialist, not a state legislature that has no medical knowledge or has not seen studies on the harm that early spaying causes. Do the pups survive the surgery? Sure. But now that it being done more, studies have come out on the later issues it causes such as cancer, incontinence, improper bone developement. These things are all medical facts supported by studies due ot lack of hormones.

And yet the AVMA still endorses early spay/neuter. Maybe you should show them your studies? I'm sure you're more knowledgeable about it than they are.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The reason there are dogs in shelters is because of irresponsible owners, not breeders.

Irresponsible breeders sell to irresponsible owners. If a breeder chooses an irresponsible owner to sell puppies to, it's the breeders fault because if they had made a better choice, the dog wouldn't be in the hands of an irresponsible owner.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

There is much education and many have learned but many more still need to be educated. it is up to all of us to educate.

You can't educate those that refuse to be educated. You can't educate the guy who validates his manhood by how many puppies his dog can produce. And you apparently can't educate the breeder who thinks that he should be absolved of all responsibility once the puppy is sold.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

This legislation is illconceived, ill planned, based on incorrect and one sided information and will not solve the issue.

Offer better legislation.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Since the shelters have made it so easy to dispose of dogs by irresponsible owners, this is what happens. They know they dont have to be responsible and try to find a home for thier dog that they can not keep themselves.

So you really believe if the shelter made it harder to dispose of dogs, the public would take responsibility for their own problems? Do you not realize that there are some areas where there are no shelters, and what happens there is that dogs are just abandoned to the wilds, or the streets? That even happens when there are shelters, but much more so when there are not. The ultimate outcome, especially with dogs, is that the ones that survive form packs and menace the public, at which time law enforcement is forced to shoot them. Yes the current system makes it easy for people, but what is the alternative? People want quick fixes to their problems. This is a throw-away society. And all the education in the world isn't going to make someone tolerate an untrained dog, that they have no time to train, and have 0 tolerance with. They want it out yesterday, and they don't care if that means dumping it at the pound, or dumping it on the freeway.

Please, volunteer for rescue, man a shelter intake desk, learn first hand what it's like to deal with the public when they want to give up their animal - most of which are perfectly wonderful pets in the hands of someone else - if there were someone else available.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

There is no quick fix, including this. It will not solve the problem but simply make it worse.

When you show that you have a better grasp of the problem, then your opinion on whether this will work or not, might have more validity.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

The way you make it seem is that the only reason dogs are in shelters are because of owners. That's not true. The dogs are in shelters because of people that let there dogs breed without taking the responsability to make sure the puppies have good homes. It all comes back to the breeder. A breeder gives away there puppies to anyone that manages to see their newspaper add. Thus, the puppies end up in a home that could possibly end up being fatal to the dog. Like no fence so the dog goes out and gets killed by a car. Or the the family ends up being allergic so they get rid of the dog. The breeders, as well as owners, need to become more responsable for the dogs. It doesn't all come back to the owner.

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.

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.

The OWNER is responsible, solely, not the owner.

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.

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.

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.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Now you are making assumptions. With laws there are no assumptions. There is no provision for permits after that date written in the law as present. So therefore, there are none. Laws are not based on assumptions. They can only be based on the written words that are there, not how you think it might be or should be interpreted.

What is happening in Santa Cruz can not be compared to what will happen in the entire state. First of all, Santa Cruz's standards are much much lower than this fascist piece of legislation that is being hoisted on the unsuspecting residents of CA. The standards to get an unaltered permit are practically impossible to meet. Since you don't show and breed seriously, you can't see how this would work in real life. for example what age a dog is first shown, what age a dog is physically mature enough to win (varies by breed), at what age the dog finishes his championship. There are a lot of factors that are not being considered in these guidelines.

And last point is cost. The cost of an unaltered permit in Santa Cruz is mininal. But in other places it will be hundreds of dollars. That is a guarantee. If you don't believe that the towns will see this as a money maker, i have some swampland to sell you. then there are increased license fees per dog per year. Then there will be litter permits as there are in LA county and Long Beach. It will cost a serious breeder with just 5 or 6 dogs and maybe 2 litters per year ,about $1000 per year. That is ridiculous. And it is also ridiculous to think that that won't happen. It will for sure. That cost will be passed on to the cost of the puppy, which will approximately $200 per puppy considering the litter size in my breed. The general public does not realize the consequences. They do not realize that the puppies from serious breeders will either cease to exist in the state or they cost will increase dramatically. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not being realistic. Laws are about what will actually happen once something is passed, how it will actually work, not some pie in the sky unrealistic hope. This bill will NOT reduce shelter populations.

You start with telling Quincy that he is making assumptions, and you end with an assumption of your own. What's up with that?

Even if you are right about it costing $200 per puppy, so what? I've had people pay $1000 for a pet shop puppy, and then bring it to me in rescue 3 days later because they weren't prepared for living with a puppy -- and now they have no $1000 and no puppy. An extra $200 wouldn't mean squat to them. There are purebred puppies selling in the newspaper classifieds for half of what you'd pay in a pet store, but people still buy from petstores.

I don't know if you're right or not about the fees, but I do know that breeders have gotten a free ride for far too long. When you sell something in this state, you have to pay sales tax. The seller collects it from the buyer, or the seller pays it himself, but it legally has to be paid. Most breeders don't do this at all. They get a free ride. It's time that ended. It's time for breeders to either be legal or get out of the business.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

"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."

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.

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

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.

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

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


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

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

[RonE]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

The OWNER is responsible, solely, not the owner.

Am I the only one who is getting confused?

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

You start with telling Quincy that he is making assumptions, and you end with an assumption of your own. What's up with that?

Even if you are right about it costing $200 per puppy, so what? I've had people pay $1000 for a pet shop puppy, and then bring it to me in rescue 3 days later because they weren't prepared for living with a puppy -- and now they have no $1000 and no puppy. An extra $200 wouldn't mean squat to them. There are purebred puppies selling in the newspaper classifieds for half of what you'd pay in a pet store, but people still buy from petstores.

I don't know if you're right or not about the fees, but I do know that breeders have gotten a free ride for far too long. When you sell something in this state, you have to pay sales tax. The seller collects it from the buyer, or the seller pays it himself, but it legally has to be paid. Most breeders don't do this at all. They get a free ride. It's time that ended. It's time for breeders to either be legal or get out of the business.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The OWNER is responsible, solely, not the owner.

Am I the only one who is getting confused?


sorry, you are smart enough to know perfectly well that that was a typo and I meant breeder.

[xoxluvablexox]

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.

It's not against personal freedoms or even about that. It's not about taking away peoples right to breed just to spite us and take away are rights. It's about trying to save lives. Sometimes laws need to be made to make things happen and sometimes certain peoples rights are invovled. If it was all about rights then there would be no way we could have any laws. There are laws out there that take away peoples rights to smoke plants that should be for everyone to use. There are laws out there against peoples rights to bring cell phones into places. It is against the law to have a cell phone in the highschool I went to. If I got caught with one it would have been taken and brought to the police station. Yet people use cell phones to take pictures of people and to cause harm so it was something that is needed. Not all laws will make sense to certain people but they have a better purpose in mind. I guess you just on of the people that fails to see behind your own selfishness. That's the way things work. Not everyone is going to be happy about certain laws and you need to learn to deel with it. No one is going to allow the breeding of dogs to stop completely. People aren't going to allow the dog to die off as a species so that's something you don't need to worry about. Stop worrying that ARs are going to destroy the USA as we know it.

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.

IMHO, I think they should stop making the older lightbolbs and just make the ones that save energy and are better for the enviroment... There's really no need to mandate the use of a certain lightbulb just the need to stop making the ones that are obviously outdated.