[sillylilykitty]

Ha! Sorry cant help you kick the habbit if I cant do it myself! I guess where doomed to be dog forum addicts for life, or at least I am

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Wow Carla, I didn't realize that people were actually withholding puppies from those that live in the state of CA.

Don't you all worry about people in CA buying more puppy mill/ petstore puppies if they can't get them from a reputable breeder or rescue?

I realize that there are many in CA who do breed and rescue reputably. I suppose CA residents will have to look harder to find a quality/rescue pup.

I suppose that it's all for the love of the puppies you all rescue and have, though. I know that its not healthy for large breeds to be speutered before they are around a year and a half for growth purposes. I would rather see the pups you have grow and live and be healthy, as would you.

I just feel terribly for those in CA. I think that this bill is ignorant.

It's not all rescues, but many of the breed specific large breed rescues may be doing so. My instructions come from the national level, it's sad, however, if any of this litter are still available for adoption, they will be adopted to CA residents.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

So... Biscuits Against AB1634 was born.

Dog biscuits... Ever a popular symbol of this country's obsession with our
dogs. How about sending some to California State Senators with a tag
attached simply saying "Vote NO on AB1634". Think of the boxes and boxes we
could pester them with? The space we could take up? The annoyance of
receiving pounds and pounds of dog biscuits at your office.

Gee, what a wonderful idea. Please DO "pester" those senators. Annoy the heck out of them. Great plan.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Do you mean the law? Because it is ONLY bad. This law is the beginning of the end for purebred dogs, and pets in general. This is a huge accomplishment for PETA in reaching their goal of "no domestic slavery" for animals.

There is no way I would send ANY puppy to California, nor attend any dog show, nor visit there for any reason, nor buy anything that comes from that state, nor spend one red cent of my money there.

There is a lot of work going on to move dog shows OUT of the state of CA because of the money this generates. The Eukaneuba will almost certainly be moved from Long Beach, a notoriously anti-dog environment.

This is something you can ALL DO. You can do it for ONE DOLLAR.

Get busy. Send a message.

Since you say you wouldn't "send" puppies to CA, or visit here, or buy things coming from here, I'm going to assume you don't live here. When I contacted state assemblypersons outside of my district, I was told that they only listen to, and respond to citizens within their district. So I contacted the assemblyperson that does represent my district. Now I'm wondering why you think you should influence those governing California if you don't live here? I even saw an AB1634 opposition advisory be passed around telling people to lie about living in California. Nice ethics.

Since one of your complaints, and the reason you won't send puppies here is because of the early s/n, I'm wondering if you have been boycotting Los Angeles because of all the early spay/neuter they do on shelter animals? If not, then I question that your concern is the dogs.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

What the State of California is going to realize is how much money the responsible dog owning public is putting in their pockets when multiple millions of dollars are removed from their economy.

It will be balanced by the multi-millions that we won't have to continue to pay in taxes to house and kill unwanted pets. I also think there is a good chance that rescue people might actually have a life outside of putting all their money into rescue - so maybe we'll be able to spend more on eating out, theater, who knows what? Somehow I doubt your economic boycott will have much of an effect.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

What the rest of the US is going to realize if this law ultimately stands is how fast their own states will attempt to pass such legislation and how fast purebred dogs will disappear or become so exhorbitantly expensive because of the permits required to breed AT ALL that ONLY commercial facilities will be able to afford to breed (and commercially farm) purebred dogs.

You just contradicted yourself. You say purebreds will disappear, but commercial facilities will continue to breed them. You assume that permits will be cost prohibitive, but Los Angeles has already vowed to keep the cost low, and you are only wildly conjecturing what other jurisdictions within California are going to do. As for outside of California, I expect that other states will be watching us with interest, and if it works, then why would you object to everyone emulating us?

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

The next step (the ARs ultimate goal) will be very few or no more companion animals. Yep, the shelters will be empty. So will homes and laps.

The sky is not falling - honest. This is not an AR issue, but even ARs can see that it's a humane issue and will back it. I think it's sad that the AKC can't also see it's a humane issue, but what can one expect from an entity that is in bed with puppymillers? This bill comes right from animal control officers that are tired of killing adoptable animals for lack of homes. The head of Los Angeles Animal Services who was an originator of this bill operates a department that has long been an opponent of AR, so I don't know where your information comes from (except AKC and NAIA), but you're dead wrong.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

I hope on Monday morning the CA legislature is so overwhelmed with biscuits and biscuit boxes that they are unable to conduct normal business.

Yea, me too, then they will know the ethics of the people they are dealing with on the oppositions side.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

The US Gov't has no business trying to tell me what breed of dog I can own, and whether or not I can breed it if I choose to. None whatsoever.

Where has your righteous indignation been when dogs were dying in shelters here? Where have you been while Rottweiler rescue here has been getting as many as 30 give ups a week? Where have you been when the AKC continues to support puppymillers? Breeding yet more AKC Rottweilers?

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't touch puppy mills. That is a misconception. Many puppy mills are subsidized by the gov't and have been since the great depression.

Actually, I think this bill will affect puppymills, at least indirectly. Since dogs will have to be spayed/neutered by 4 months, pet shops that don't sell puppies right away will be forced to spay/neuter prior to sale, which will reduce their profits. Also, pet shop puppies that are sold will be altered in greater numbers after sale, reducing the number of offspring produced by those puppies when adult. The more restrictions put on pet shops, the less likely they will continue to sell puppies, which will reduce puppymill sales as well.

This bill also does not preclude future legislation that can further hamper pet shops, though I doubt we'll ever have a law completely abolishing pet shop sales of animals because of restraint of trade.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Can you tell me where breeding limits of less than 5 litters in a lifetime are in effect?

How does this help purebred dogs if the excellent dogs and breeders cannot breed good dogs?

When a purebred dog costs upwards of 10K, no one will have them except the super rich. Dogs on the black market will cost even more. No one except large commercial millers (like Hunte) will be able to afford to breed dogs. There won't be any dog shows either.

I have been watching this unfold for thirty years. People who love dogs, and showing and breeding them as a hobby, should be scared.

Very scared.

I know I am.

As scared as the dogs are that are being dragged into the euthanasia room???? The bill restricts fees to be only what's needed to operate the program. In Los Angeles, it will be no added cost. What paranoid fantasy are you getting 10K out of?

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

You have been VERY mislead, this bill will only affect the hobby breeder, those who breed for show and breed less than 8 littlers per year. It allows puppy mills to continue. It has NO provisions against fighting dogs and still allows dogs to be sold like bedsheets in petstores. Even the Police and seeing eye dog breeders will be affected.

It will also affect the guy down the street whose dog gets pregnant every time she comes into heat simply because he doesn't give a damn. Because most of the dogs out there do not come from hobby breeders, they will be affected the least. What baffles me is why hobby breeders aren't willing to pay the small permit fee in order to make sure that they are the only ones outside of pet stores that are producing puppies. This bill would require breeders to be dedicated enough to their breed to compete with their dogs. Just think of all the undedicated people that won't measure up and won't be allowed to breed. Responsible breeders should be cheering this as a way to get rid of the irresponsible breeders, but instead they are only worried about their own pockets and their own hobbies. It's disgusting.

And you're right, this bill has no provisions about fighting dogs, but this bill, when it becomes law, can be used to stop the breeding of fighting dogs.

Police and assistance dogs will not be affected. They are exempt.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Wow Carla, I didn't realize that people were actually withholding puppies from those that live in the state of CA.

Don't you all worry about people in CA buying more puppy mill/ petstore puppies if they can't get them from a reputable breeder or rescue?

I realize that there are many in CA who do breed and rescue reputably. I suppose CA residents will have to look harder to find a quality/rescue pup.

I suppose that it's all for the love of the puppies you all rescue and have, though. I know that its not healthy for large breeds to be speutered before they are around a year and a half for growth purposes. I would rather see the pups you have grow and live and be healthy, as would you.

I just feel terribly for those in CA. I think that this bill is ignorant.

I think a few less mastiff puppies in CA is a small price to pay if this bill has it's desired effect by reducing the number of dogs (cats, and rabbits) dying in the shelters here, as well as the cost to tax payers of housing and killing them. Maybe we Californians will just have to adopt older mastiffs.

[skelaki]

If anyone thinks this bill will solve the pet overpopulation problem, I have some beautiful land to sell them. It's in the W. UT desert, btw and is a lovely shade of white all year round.

This bill will do nothing to stop puppy mills or bybs. The only people affected will be responsible breeders who breed for the betterment of their chosen breed and law abiding pet owners.

In the first place, you don't start showing a dog until it's 6 months of age and this bill requires spay neuter by 4 months of age. Also, working dogs such as police k9s are not neutered, if at all, until physically mature, not when they are puppies. The same is true of military dogs and protection dogs. Thus this bill is an obvious ploy to end dog sports, working dogs, and eventually all dog ownership including dogs that help us stay safe, protect their owners persons and property, provide services such as leading the blind, assisting the handicapped and the hearing impaired.

But, I agree that everyone needs to work together to produce enforceable laws to protect out pets as well as our right to own them responsibly. Encouraging breeders to spay/neuter pets before they go to new homes, using the limited registration option more often, having non-breed specific dangerous dog legislation, offering spay/neuter assistance and education, offering low cost or in some cases no cost obedience instruction and giving a one time break on licensing cost if the course is completed and passed (the dog could earn a CGC certificate for passing). I'm sure there are many other things that could be done short of a law that is unenforceable and most likely unconstitutional.

Frankly, I'd rather have my law enforcement people looking for murderers and rapists and the animal control branch looking for illegal dog fighters and rescuing animals that are being abused and neglected than going around checking 4 month old puppies to see if they've been fixed.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by skelaki

If anyone thinks this bill will solve the pet overpopulation problem, I have some beautiful land to sell them. It's in the W. UT desert, btw and is a lovely shade of white all year round.

Why did you buy it in the first place?

T

Originally Posted by skelaki

his bill will do nothing to stop puppy mills or bybs. The only people affected will be responsible breeders who breed for the betterment of their chosen breed and law abiding pet owners.

Not true, people are already starting to s/n in order to be in compliance with the law when it passes. Those are each people whose dogs will not be producing unwanted puppies to end up in shelters, and who were not responsible enough to do it on their own.

Originally Posted by skelaki

In the first place, you don't start showing a dog until it's 6 months of age and this bill requires spay neuter by 4 months of age.

The law requires that they be in training for competition by 4 months.

Originally Posted by skelaki

Also, working dogs such as police k9s are not neutered, if at all, until physically mature, not when they are puppies. The same is true of military dogs and protection dogs.

Police dogs are exempt.

Originally Posted by skelaki

Thus this bill is an obvious ploy to end dog sports, working dogs, and eventually all dog ownership including dogs that help us stay safe, protect their owners persons and property, provide services such as leading the blind, assisting the handicapped and the hearing impaired.

Assistance dogs are exempt. Maybe you should actually read the bill before advocating against it. http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm Click on Bill Text.

Originally Posted by skelaki

But, I agree that everyone needs to work together to produce enforceable laws to protect out pets as well as our right to own them responsibly. Encouraging breeders to spay/neuter pets before they go to new homes, using the limited registration option more often, having non-breed specific dangerous dog legislation, offering spay/neuter assistance and education, offering low cost or in some cases no cost obedience instruction and giving a one time break on licensing cost if the course is completed and passed (the dog could earn a CGC certificate for passing). I'm sure there are many other things that could be done short of a law that is unenforceable and most likely unconstitutional.

And if all that is being done? What then? Also, when you suggest encouraging breeders to spay/neuter pets before they go to new homes, does that include the mastiff breeders who won't even sell puppies to Californians because they might spay/neuter them early? How are we to encourage breeders to do anything when they think they know it all and think that their dogs are NEVER part of the problem?

Originally Posted by skelaki

Frankly, I'd rather have my law enforcement people looking for murderers and rapists and the animal control branch looking for illegal dog fighters and rescuing animals that are being abused and neglected than going around checking 4 month old puppies to see if they've been fixed.

You mean those illegal dog fighters that are breeding puppies over and over for the fights? All they have to say is they aren't involved in fighting, but with a law like this, it still gives a tool to ACOs to stop them from breeding. Police will still be looking for murderers and rapists, unless of course, some moron convinces them that they can't legislate morality and take away the laws against rape and murder.

[RonE]

The hundreds of pages written on this forum for and against AB1634 have convinced me of only one thing: Nobody really knows what the affect of this law will be if passed.

Quite a few of you THINK you know and are clearly passionate about it, but you all are speculating.

Speculation is fine, but I'm pretty tired of havng it presented as fact.

(Just so there's no confusion, I'm talking about BOTH sides.)

[LassiesDad]

Originally Posted by RonE

The hundreds of pages written on this forum for and against AB1634 have convinced me of only one thing: Nobody really knows what the affect of this law will be if passed.

Quite a few of you THINK you know and are clearly passionate about it, but you all are speculating.

Speculation is fine, but I'm pretty tired of havng it presented as fact.

(Just so there's no confusion, I'm talking about BOTH sides.)

We will all get to see how well it works, once it is signed by the governor and becomes law.

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by RonE

Quite a few of you THINK you know and are clearly passionate about it, but you all are speculating.

What people seem to forget is that their local jurisdiction will determine how this law will be applied. To assume this is a breeder issue without knowing which jurisdiction you're speaking of, really is speculation...especially of the motivation.

My speculation is, as it should be, on breeder ethics. The disconnect from the problem that I see from this group, and on this issue, should make everyone wonder why, and ask the question what has your organization done to help remedy the problem?

Whether the state loses money from breeder exhibitions or large numbers of animals are being euthanized, the money is still lost...not to mention the life attached to it.

In the end, I think my vote will be with those who've made an effort to find solutions...and not with those that care only to divide the community.

[cshellenberger]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I think a few less mastiff puppies in CA is a small price to pay if this bill has it's desired effect by reducing the number of dogs (cats, and rabbits) dying in the shelters here, as well as the cost to tax payers of housing and killing them. Maybe we Californians will just have to adopt older mastiffs.

Dear,
I'm talking about a litter of pups born to a mom IN THE SHELTER that is in RESCUE. It's pretty pathetic when a rescue has to decide not to place puppies in otherwise qualified homes because of a law that affects them in an unhealthy way. Spaying a Mastiff (or any large/giant) too early causes Spay Incontinence, which means a lifetime of medication for the adopters.

Oh BTW, the Eukanuba Nationals show in Long Beach CA generates MILLIONS tax dollars for that city. If you think losing that money won't affect the city, you're dead wrong. Long Beach is going to need every penny to enforce this law.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by RonE

The hundreds of pages written on this forum for and against AB1634 have convinced me of only one thing: Nobody really knows what the affect of this law will be if passed.

Quite a few of you THINK you know and are clearly passionate about it, but you all are speculating.

Speculation is fine, but I'm pretty tired of havng it presented as fact.

(Just so there's no confusion, I'm talking about BOTH sides.)

It took that long, huh? Since no one can predict the future with complete certainty, anything said about the future is going to simply be opinion. But some of the things being said by the opposition are about what we already know. For instance, to claim that service and assistance dogs will be affected when it's already in the bill that they are exempt, is either a lie or an inability to read/understand the bill itself. To say it only affects hobby breeders is ridiculous when most of the citizens of CA are not breeders at all, but simply allow their animals to be unaltered with the result of innumerable cats and dogs being born. And when the opposition makes claims about the high price of s/n in CA, especially when they are typing from outside of CA, while completely ignoring the low-cost spay/neuter we already have, then it's not opinion to point out that they are wrong.

And I really think that it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, in regards to the posting about this bill. What I don't understand is why that bothers you. This bill has a long way to go, and if what I've read is correct, it will have it's last chance to be signed by the Governor in October, and then it will be law. So I suspect that not only will we be talking about in until October, but long after that, because as it's implimented and we begin to see results, it will also be a hot topic of conversation. Most bills go through our legislature and we never even hear about it until shortly before it takes affect. But with this bill, even those that aren't interested in politics are hearing about it and have an opinion. And whereas you may prefer redundant threads about what someone should name their dog, or what kind of dog someone should get, this bill is really a hot issue and because of it, people want to discuss it. What is this message board for if not to discuss issues that affect all of us in the dog world? I understand if you feel that California is monopolizing the focus of the discussion, but I have no doubt that as other states realize the cost to society for a pet population gone wild, they too will enact their own legislation - some good, some bad.

So I beg of you, please don't shut down these controversial discussion threads. Anyone who is not interested has many, many other puppy naming threads and 'what kind of dog is this' threads, that they can click to, bypassing the ones they have no interest in. If the problem is that you have to read it, against your will, because it gets too hot, then I'm sorry about that but isn't that just part of the "job"? I'm not suggesting that you ignore rules for these threads - name calling should still be verboten, and posts that engage in that should be removed. I think the reader is at a disadvantage at times because you guys do such a good job that we don't see the bad stuff you remove, and I think we as posters have to remember that when we do see it, as you've stated - report it, but don't reply to it, and don't quote it.

So I thank you for what you do, but please let us use this message board for what I assume it was intended for - posting messages - of all types, within the rules. And frankly a lot more animosity will surface if controversial subjects remain that favor one side and not the other. To shut down a thread advocating a bill, for instance, while leaving one that condemns that same bill, is just not fair and IMO is biased monitoring.

With all due respect, of course.

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Dear,
I'm talking about a litter of pups born to a mom IN THE SHELTER that is in RESCUE. It's pretty pathetic when a rescue has to decide not to place puppies in otherwise qualified homes because of a law that affects them in an unhealthy way. Spaying a Mastiff (or any large/giant) too early causes Spay Incontinence, which means a lifetime of medication for the adopters.

Built into the bill is an exemption with vet certification that spay/neuter is unhealthy for that animal. Assuming your vet agrees with you that it's not healthy to alter your animal at an early age, then what's the problem? All one has to do is screen for that, and in fact, since most of us in rescue ask for a vet reference, then we can ask the potential adopters vet how s/he feels about early s/n. The fact that breed club rescues even make this an issue shows to me that they are trying to be punitive, and frankly, if that's their motive, I really don't care if they restrict dogs from CA or not -- there are plenty of homeless dogs dying for lack of homes. And as I said before, if someone wants a mastiff, they can get an older one.

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Oh BTW, the Eukanuba Nationals show in Long Beach CA generates MILLIONS tax dollars for that city. If you think losing that money won't affect the city, you're dead wrong. Long Beach is going to need every penny to enforce this law.

Once again, I don't care. My concern is not for a bunch of out-of-state breeders trying to hold California hostage with their threats. My concern is about the shelter animals, and the animals released on the streets every day because someone was too ignorant or too uncaring, or simply too selfish to alter their animals.

What is so incredibly stupid about this threat is that no one is stopping breeders from breeding. The bill provides for dedicated breeders to keep on breeding with a permit. If the concern is over early spay/neuter, then that permit would allow the dog to stay intact. So in effect, what the breeders are threatening a boycott over is having to pay-to-play. Apparently they don't mind paying millions of dollars to attend dog shows, but they don't want to pay for permits in order to help stop the public from producing unwanted dogs to die in shelters.

Tell you what - when this law takes affect, and all us rescues pay less out of our own pockets to save dogs, I'll put the word out that we should all visit Long Beach to put money back into their economy. Ok?

[sillylilykitty]

I have one question. Why do you guys have to post such super long posts? Im not talking about everyone, obviously some of you can post short posts on this topic. But why the long post? You think your getting out all that information for people when really more than half the people probably dont even read it, because its too long. Sure I am willing to read one long post but if you keep doing it its not going to be read.

And all this information....its just being repeated!

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by sillylilykitty

I have one question. Why do you guys have to post such super long posts? Im not talking about everyone, obviously some of you can post short posts on this topic. But why the long post? You think your getting out all that information for people when really more than half the people probably dont even read it, because its too long. Sure I am willing to read one long post but if you keep doing it its not going to be read.

And all this information....its just being repeated!

Sorry, that's mostly me. I came on last night to find this new thread which had already reached 3 pages, and in responding to some of the posts, because I was the only one doing so at that time of night, it smooshed them altogether. The posts I'm actually doing are a lot shorter, but when it automerges it, it's longer than I intend. If you know of a way to prevent that, I'd be happy to try it.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

My speculation is, as it should be, on breeder ethics. The disconnect from the problem that I see from this group, and on this issue, should make everyone wonder why, and ask the question what has your organization done to help remedy the problem?

Well the organisation the American Kennel Club mentions the following that can be helpfull towards remedying the problem, and there are many AKC breeders who certainly do "stipulate" and this even where they "impose by contract mandatory requirements" that pet owners who have their pet dogs must spay neuter by this age or that, anyway the following from the AKC website and at this link address:-
http://www.akc.org/breeders/resp_bre...uldi_breed.cfm

Spay/Neuter: As a responsible owner, you may consider spaying or neutering your dog

What exactly is spaying and neutering?

Spaying is the surgical removal of a female dog's uterus and ovaries. Neutering refers to the surgical removal of the male's testicles and spermatic cords.

Many breeders offer puppies for sale with the stipulation that the dogs be neutered or spayed when they reach the appropriate age. This is one way for breeders to ensure breed improvement by only allowing dogs they determine to be of breeding quality to reproduce.

If you decide that breeding is not for you or your dog, please consider having your dog spayed or neutered to prevent accidental breedings that result in unwanted litters. Here are some other considerations:

# Spaying a female or neutering a male is not dangerous and does not change a dog's temperament or cause weight gain.

# Spayed females are often healthier and live longer than unspayed females.

# Neutered males cannot develop testicular cancer and have a lower risk of developing prostate cancer.

# The AKC welcomes spayed and neutered dogs to participate in all phases of obedience, tracking, herding, lure coursing, earthdog, agility, Canine Good Citizen testing and junior showmanship, as well as most field work.
.

[DogAdvocat]

Thanks Quincy. It's nice to see that the AKC advocates s/n for health. I hope this doesn't mean that they are AR and are trying to cause the extinction of dogs.

[Quincy]

You will also find Breed Clubs who advocate spay neutering of "pet/companions". Take for example the following and which is in this Breed Club's Code of Ethics in the Sales part, and from this link address:-
http://clubs.akc.org/gpca/gcode.html

7. Any animal sold under the designation "pet/companion" shall be sold without full registration papers and on a mandatory spay/neuter contract. A breeder may supply full registration papers upon proof of sterilization or upon the breeders reassessment of the animal as being of "show/breeding" quality.
.

[Curbside Prophet]

Quincy, I wouldn't expect anything less from a reputable breeder. What I was trying to ask originally is, what have breeders done to put pressure on breeders who are not as responsible (a solution)? I know in my practice if an engineer deviates from the code of ethics they are penalized. I'm pretty sure the profession of dog breeding has been around a lot longer than the profession of engineering, yet there isn't a true professional code for breeding like you would see in engineering. Why? How can the AKC even have a position on this issue if they aren't organized enough to influence the practice of all breeding? As far as I'm concerned anything they say is nothing more than a suggestion...and one that doesn't explain how they are going to save my tax dollars.

What breeders need is a board for professional breeders in every state to have any influence on issues like this. Until them their opinion is minimized in my book.

[Snowshoe]

Curb- I know that the national breed clubs often have board meetings with in a certain breed. I'm not sure how this would work, but perhaps one or two representatives from each breed could have a round table meeting of all breeds to discuss appropriate guidelines for dog breeding, perhaps that would be helpful.

However, what breeds would be included? Only those in the AKC? What about those in the UKC who have foundation stock in the AKC like the Finnish Lapphund?

Many cockapoo breeders would tell you that they deserved a place in that meeting, although I PERSONALLY don't consider the production of mixed breeds reputable.

However, the Alaskan Husky, the Silken Windhound, those labradoodle breeders who are breeding to produce an allergy free guide dog SHOULD be included because they are doing things the right way. However, none of these breeds are yet recognized...

Obviously, every breed is different. Keeshonden won't have ALL of the same genetic problems as a Golden Retriever, but there are some things in breeding that are universal. For example, genetic testing, the certification of eyes, heart, hips, elbows and knees, thyroid testing, etc.

That would help eliminate the production of unhealthy sub standard dogs.

Also, there seems to be a difference from breeder to breeder in what their expectations are for potential owners. For example, some breeders won't sell to people with out a fenced in yard. Some won't sell to people who are in certain professions, etc.

Again, it is different from breed to breed. Some people wouldn't have let me have Orchid, because at the time I first got her, I lived in an apartment.

However, there have to be some universal stipulations that could be applied across the board. I am not even sure what those would be, as different breeds need different things.

My bigger question is how would they accomplish anything with out creating a new law against breeders, such as this one we're discussing? I mean, who is going to do the inspections of each breeder or puppy mill?

There is really no way to enforce these things. Breed clubs can't do THAT much. People who only want to make money usually aren't a part of breed clubs anyway.

Maybe I have misunderstood. I definately don't want to offend anyone, I just am not sure what else could be done.

[Dogstar]

What are reputable breeders (and dog fanciers- not all of us breed) doing?

Let's see. We educate the public, through demos, meet-the-breed days, putting ads for breeder referral and against puppy mills and BYBs in newspapers. Many clubs (particularly performance clubs) hold obedience and agility classes and do out-reach work that way. We network to make sure dogs of our breed (and mixes, when there's room) don't end up being put down in shelters, and we foster them until they find homes, even if they have expensive medical problems that the shelters can't afford to treat. We finnance health research for health conditions that may be specific to our breed (but that research usually has wider applications.)

We make sure that the dogs we place- puppies we (dog fanciers as a whole- I don't breed myself) place are on spay neuter contracts, and we follow up to make sure that's done. We screen owners to make sure we aren't selling to future or current BYBs or millers, and we have the flexibility to make once-off decisions- that THIS family with a 4 year old and a toddler IS ready to add a dog to their family, even though demographically a lot of families with small children aren't a good bet for a puppy; that THIS person in an apartment can do right by a large, active dog; that THIS senior citizen is not too old to raise one last puppy. We network to make sure that as many dogs of our breed as possible, and dogs as a whole in general- whether or not they were bred by us- are in permanent, responsible, LOVING homes.

Reputable breeders are NOT the problem. A public that doesn't CARE where their puppies come from is the problem, but has to have a puppy and have it NOW, that is the problem. It's not the reputable breeders that are churning out thousands of dogs each year and selling them to anyone who wants a cute puppy but who will get tired of it in 6 months. The only way to solve this problem is change public perception- that pets are NOT disposable, that they are a lifetime commitment, and that 'Aunt Susie's Neighbor's Poodle who got out and we think the dad's a poodle too so we registered them with her other dog listed as the sire and they're only $100" isn't a good breeder, because while she may love her dogs, is she going to take back that puppy in 7 months? Of course not. But her puppies cost a LOT less than that $700, health-tested puppy, and Jane Q Public can pick one out of the litter today, and doesn't have to get the third degree from a breeder who wants to know everything about her life and her family. Jane Q Public needs to learn and CARE about the difference- not just fall for the first cute poodley face she sees and the cheaper price tag.

THAT is what we have to change.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Dogstar

Reputable breeders are NOT the problem. A public that doesn't CARE where their puppies come from is the problem, but has to have a puppy and have it NOW, that is the problem. It's not the reputable breeders that are churning out thousands of dogs each year and selling them to anyone who wants a cute puppy but who will get tired of it in 6 months. The only way to solve this problem is change public perception- that pets are NOT disposable, that they are a lifetime commitment, and that 'Aunt Susie's Neighbor's Poodle who got out and we think the dad's a poodle too so we registered them with her other dog listed as the sire and they're only $100" isn't a good breeder, because while she may love her dogs, is she going to take back that puppy in 7 months? Of course not. But her puppies cost a LOT less than that $700, health-tested puppy, and Jane Q Public can pick one out of the litter today, and doesn't have to get the third degree from a breeder who wants to know everything about her life and her family. Jane Q Public needs to learn and CARE about the difference- not just fall for the first cute poodley face she sees and the cheaper price tag.

THAT is what we have to change.

I don't understand why so many breeders and supporters of breeders are so convinced that the solution is to change the buyer rather than the seller. Though it's always good to educate the buyer, in every other industry there are regulations to protect the buyer. We don't, for instance, educate buyers to get cars with seat belts - we make it mandatory that the car companies sell cars with seat belts. We don't simply educate car drivers that they contribute to the pollution, it's mandated that car companies reduce emissions that would pollute our air. So why should breeders get off scot-free, especially when they produce a product that can injure the buyer physically, and cost them in unexpected vet bills? What sense does it make to try to reach 10 potential puppy buyers instead of reaching 1 breeder?

All the things you mentioned are things that a responsible breeder should do, but very few breeders are responsible, and THAT is what we have to change.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

To go along with the faxes and letters everyone is encouraged to send to
State Senate members and even to Arnold, we've come up with an idea to
garner some attention.

Biscuits Against AB1634

IMO this isn't a good idea. Much better to get people to go visit their representative with facts in hand. Show how animal rightists are deceiving the public about this bill and back it up with facts. Show how mandatory s/n hasn't worked, how euthanasia rates have dramatically dropped without it, show how its increased costs, show how its had an adverse effect on animal health (ie, puppies coming in from Mexico now and from other puppymills later). If you're a breeder or are familiar with good breeding practices show them how this bill discourages responsible breeding and really doesn't provide easy exemptions as some claim.

Show them the studies on adverse effects of spay/neuter. Some can be printed off from www.ab1634.com. There's also a lot of good information on www.saveourdogs.net. For an overview of what animal rightists are doing, how they operate and their agenda there is also www.pet-law.com.

Use the truth and treat them with respect. Don't annoy them with biscuits.