[Xeph]

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.

Because the SELLER'S do a crap load as it is. It is not the seller's job to do ALL the homework for the buyer! The buyer needs to be held culpable as well! The people who are selling properly and screening homes aren't the issue. It's the lazy butts who don't want to be screened and don't want to pay more than $250 for a dog!

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by rpe

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.

But what you've said above isn't the truth. Mandatory s/n has worked in Santa Cruz whose law was the pattern for AB1634. And they can't show how it has increased costs, because it hasn't passed yet. Because it hasn't passed, it has nothing to do with puppies from Mexico.

Why are you suggesting they show studies about adverse affects of spay/neuter and not also show that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter? Much of all that can be said is conjecture about future developments because other than Santa Cruz, this bill hasn't been tried yet. So though you may state your opinion about what you think will happen, but giving them false facts is lying and unethical.

Originally Posted by Xeph

Because the SELLER'S do a crap load as it is. It is not the seller's job to do ALL the homework for the buyer! The buyer needs to be held culpable as well! The people who are selling properly and screening homes aren't the issue. It's the lazy butts who don't want to be screened and don't want to pay more than $250 for a dog!

How realistic is it though, to expect people to deny themselves a dog when they are properly screened and turned down? You expect them to think: "Gee, that responsible breeder thinks I'd be a bad owner, so I guess I will go dogless forever"? That's going to take a lot more than education, it's going to take a complete shift in the way society thinks and the way society views dogs.

As for price, think of the options they are given. I honestly don't know what a responsibly bred dog is going for these days. I see a lot of dogs from people claiming to be responsible who charge $300-$500 which is a whole lot less than the $1000+ pet shop dogs. So if you think the cheapskates should pay more for a good dog, what do those prices tell them?

I don't ever expect to see the education stop that will help the buyer become more aware, but if breeders were required to meet a minimum standard, I think the dog world would be a whole lot better off, and there would likely be a lot fewer dogs in the shelters.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

But what you've said above isn't the truth. Mandatory s/n has worked in Santa Cruz whose law was the pattern for AB1634.

Upon closer examination, no it hasn't. Also surrounding areas had better success and they didn't have it. What you're doing is just repeating something that isn't really true. Blind trust in the media is never good.

And they can't show how it has increased costs, because it hasn't passed yet. Because it hasn't passed, it has nothing to do with puppies from Mexico.

It has never worked anywhere else and other places have better results without it than Santa Cruz. All animal rightists do is keep saying "it works" in the face of facts that show otherwise.

In southern Calif. costs have skyrocketed as a result from anti-breeding and anti-pet laws. That has everything to do with puppies coming in from Mexico. The numbers surged after animal rightist backed laws passed. Fat lot of good they did. Like it or not people want puppies. This bill is a boon for puppymills.

Why are you suggesting they show studies about adverse affects of spay/neuter and not also show that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter?

Many vets don't. Just as many vets in CVMA think this bill is bad for animals. Animal rightists refuse to acknowledge studies that show it does have an adverse effect, especially that young. Ironic isn't it that the study was done by vets. It must also be noted that the AVMA, as the CVMA, does not speak for all.

Much of all that can be said is conjecture about future developments because other than Santa Cruz, this bill hasn't been tried yet. So though you may state your opinion about what you think will happen, but giving them false facts is lying and unethical.

I've no need to lie and telling the truth isn't unethical. Its never worked anywhere and I'll say it again. Other areas surrounding Santa Cruz kill fewer animals and they don't have mandatory spay/neuter. You have to think about why you don't want to emulate what they're doing and instead go for something that has been shown to have less success.

How realistic is it though, to expect people to deny themselves a dog when they are properly screened and turned down? You expect them to think: "Gee, that responsible breeder thinks I'd be a bad owner, so I guess I will go dogless forever"? That's going to take a lot more than education, it's going to take a complete shift in the way society thinks and the way society views dogs.

Its arrogant beyond belief for animal rightists to try and legislate their view of how people should think of dogs. Most pet owners give their animals good homes. Animal rightists treat everyone like they're a criminal (especially breeders) with bills like this.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by rpe

Upon closer examination, no it hasn't. Also surrounding areas had better success and they didn't have it. What you're doing is just repeating something that isn't really true. Blind trust in the media is never good.

Blind trust in NAIA isn't good either. I wish you'd stop making claims without proof. I understand if you want to make statements about something from history that is not longer available, but that's not what you're doing. You are making claims about "surrounding areas" without naming those areas and without showing the demographics of those areas or what type of programs they have.

Originally Posted by rpe

It has never worked anywhere else and other places have better results without it than Santa Cruz. All animal rightists do is keep saying "it works" in the face of facts that show otherwise.

In southern Calif. costs have skyrocketed as a result from anti-breeding and anti-pet laws. That has everything to do with puppies coming in from Mexico. The numbers surged after animal rightist backed laws passed. Fat lot of good they did. Like it or not people want puppies. This bill is a boon for puppymills.

Again, what "costs" are you talking about? And what anti-breeding laws and anti-pet laws are in So. Ca.? Also, is there any animal law that you don't consider to be about animal rights? Are you saying that the numbers of Mexican puppies surged after these undefined laws were passed? What do you base that opinion on?

As for puppymills, you might be right. More people who have been turned down by responsible breeders might go to pet stores for puppies because there won't be any backyard breeders. But are you saying you'd prefer that people buy from irresponsible backyard breeders than from pet stores? I'd rather put an end to backyard breeding and then continue to work on putting a stop to puppymills.

Originally Posted by rpe

Many vets don't. Just as many vets in CVMA think this bill is bad for animals. Animal rightists refuse to acknowledge studies that show it does have an adverse effect, especially that young. Ironic isn't it that the study was done by vets. It must also be noted that the AVMA, as the CVMA, does not speak for all.

I would imagine that there are a few vets that believe they've been abducted by aliens too. So what? You keep saying "many vets" which is an opinion and not a fact. On the other hand, it's a FACT that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter. Your wishful thinking dependent on unnamed and uncounted vets that might support your position is nothing but opinion.

Originally Posted by rpe

I've no need to lie and telling the truth isn't unethical. Its never worked anywhere and I'll say it again. Other areas surrounding Santa Cruz kill fewer animals and they don't have mandatory spay/neuter. You have to think about why you don't want to emulate what they're doing and instead go for something that has been shown to have less success.

I don't want to emulate something that doesn't exist. Once again, if you are going to make claims about surrounding areas, then you need to list those areas so we can examine what they are doing.

Originally Posted by rpe

Its arrogant beyond belief for animal rightists to try and legislate their view of how people should think of dogs. Most pet owners give their animals good homes. Animal rightists treat everyone like they're a criminal (especially breeders) with bills like this.

It is not arrogant to require breeders to be responsible, and that's what this bill requires. Why do you have such a problem with only responsible breeders being allowed to breed? Why do you support irresponsible backyard breeding?

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

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.

This is precisely my point, there should be a way to enforce breeding ethics/procedures. And I'm saying model it after what professional engineers do.

I have a license that says I can design mechanical systems in the state of California. Just because it says I can does not mean I can design these systems as I please. I must follow the code as set forth by the state. My documents must be reviewed by the state before a project can receive a permit to build. There is a system of checks and balances in place to insure that I'm not placing the public in jeopardy, regardless of how much knowledge I *think* I have. This type of system should be in place for breeders.

Too many times I've heard *we must follow the code of the AKC*...only to here later on a different issue that the AKC is *just* a registry. If the AKC is *just* a registry, why would I be concerned for their opinion on what my state does with my tax dollars?

On the other hand, if a board of professional breeders had it written in a code that breed x shouldn't be spayed or neutered until it's y months old, where's the argument for a 4 month s/n being too early? You want to control puppymills and byb's, make it a law for them to submit their planned breeding before the board for review and approval...just like I would need to do with a set of mechanical drawings. If all breeding must be reviewed by a board, where's the argument that any code is an AR issue? I'm sure we could write a breeders code that can address all breeds and all situations just like a building code do, and enforce it in a similar way city inspectors do. Breeders already need to submit a plan for their kennel to get a breeders license, why not also require permits for a planned breeding? No permit, you're fined.

Currently, breeders are self moderating, unorganized, and reaching for excuses when others are trying to solve problems breeders have no answers to. If breeders want to have any say in their state, they need to organize a way to make it clear as day what is and what is not a reputable breeder.

As it is, and as it should be, breeders are guilty of being irreputable until proven otherwise. I'm not saying this is something the AKC should be regulating, because they are *just* a registry. But breeders do neet to place themselves in position to have a say, and I think they can do this through a state board. Until them, the antics breeders are using on this issue will be nothing more than personal worry. I have enough to worry about with my tax dollars, I'm not going to care how breeders will suffer without my support. If they really care, they'll do more than just reach for excuses, try to divide the community, and try to change the subject. Maybe this bill isn't the best, but it's something more than what I'm hearing from the other side. I hear the concerns but it seems to me their answers to the problem is more of the same...which isn't good enough. I also hear the "ya but we could do this instead", yet there's no muscle behind it, or new imagination to make it stick.

So, get organized breeders, or sit back and whine when the laws are made for you. Your days of self moderation needs to end.

[Snowshoe]

I work for a bunch of engineers, but the kind that build over passes for the city rather then mechanical things. I must say, engineers are much easier to work for then attorneys!

My fear is that this bill is either going to be useless, or its going to go over the top. How are they going to regulate every breeder in California?

Or, will be be more like a leash law, where you only get fined if you are caught? I know that hasn't worked so well where I live.

I agree, breeders need to ban together. The problem is that breeders (the good ones anyway) spend most of their time with their dogs. What is left, they have to work and have a family.

Some of these people would have to agree to devote a large amount of time to fighting this bill, and their own programs would suffer.

Besides, breed clubs individually do what you have suggested. The members are policed, and are thusly banned if they behave in a way that the club finds detrimental to the breed. Some are more strict then others.

Another problem would be the blue prints. Every breeder wants something different out of a mating. Some what better heads, better fronts, etc. It would depend on how much power they as a board would have, and what they were looking for in a pedigree.


Then, there is again the time factor. Who is going to do all of this? Who is going to pay for all of these people to devote their time to reviewing pedigrees? The breed clubs rely on dues, which depending on the breed can either be alot or a little. Then, you would have to have members that again would be willing to give up their show/breeding/mentoring time to review these.

The government could subsidize this, but I really don't want the federal government trying to govern the breeding of dogs. I can't imagine that they'd be very knowledgeable.

So, we're back to square one and sadly we don't agree. I think people in general should be more responsible for the freedoms that they have. That freedom in turn causes dogs to suffer needlessly because there will inevitably be people who are not responsible.

[DogAdvocat]

Excellent post, CP. I agree with you a hundred percent. I don't really know much about engineering, but I often equate it with building construction. It's great to educate the public about what to look for, but to expect the public to know the finer details of engineering, construction, or breeding while allowing engineers, contractors, and breeders to be unregulated, uncontrolled, and producing any quality product they want, makes no sense to me. If we need to require quality control of one, we need it for all.

As for who would manage it -- who manages the oversight boards for contractors and engineers? Isn't it experts in the field? It could be the same with breeders, and that would prevent the fears of AR. What baffles me is why breeders aren't already doing this, and aren't already pushing to get this kind of public benefit law passed.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

My fear is that this bill is either going to be useless, or its going to go over the top. How are they going to regulate every breeder in California?

Or, will be be more like a leash law, where you only get fined if you are caught? I know that hasn't worked so well where I live.

One of the reasons that I have more hope for this law than common leash laws is that this one has become a rallying point that an unheard of number of rescues and animal control officers are backing and promoting, and because of that, I think it's more likely than ever that we're going to demand that it is enforced once passed. No longer will breeders be able to advertise in classified ads without the risk of being reported and required to show proof of being licensed, or getting fined for having unaltered dogs. No longer will we have to watch the guy down the street produce litter after litter of unwanted kittens without having the tool to stop him. There is a grass roots motivation to make this law work once passed, and the fact that it is state wide even helps that motivation because there is no question about whether it's legal in any particular jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

I agree, breeders need to ban together. The problem is that breeders (the good ones anyway) spend most of their time with their dogs. What is left, they have to work and have a family.

Some of these people would have to agree to devote a large amount of time to fighting this bill, and their own programs would suffer.

It seems to me that they are already fighting the bill, the question is, why aren't they developing something better? And we all have dogs, work, and family, but if we care about the dogs, and the cost to society, we make time. Dogs, work, and family sure doesn't stop rescue people from trying to make a difference to the dogs in trouble. In fact, we'd actually like more time for our own dogs, work, and family, which we might have a chance for if there weren't so many dying in the shelters.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Besides, breed clubs individually do what you have suggested. The members are policed, and are thusly banned if they behave in a way that the club finds detrimental to the breed. Some are more strict then others.

But what is the actual penalty of that? Does anyone outside of the club know that they've been banned? Does it really matter? Or does the banned breeder just explain it away as being a political move by over-zealous club board members, and go on doing what s/he always did? Being licensed by a city/county/state agency, comparable to engineers and contractors, would require showing that license, not only to the people they work for/sell to, but also I believe that contractors have to show such proof when taking out permits and being inspected. They also have to provide their license number when advertising. And the only thing that the public needs education on is to be sure they are using a licensed contractor - the public does not need education on how to wire an electrical box (analogous to knowing how to breed). And by the way, if breed clubs already police and ban their members, how do you explain Andrew Hunte being in the GSDA club?

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Another problem would be the blue prints. Every breeder wants something different out of a mating. Some what better heads, better fronts, etc. It would depend on how much power they as a board would have, and what they were looking for in a pedigree.

I don't think heads and fronts are the problem. The problem is whether the dog has proper housing (no stacked cages), proper health screenings, veterinary care, socialization, enforceable contracts, return policies, etc.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

Then, there is again the time factor. Who is going to do all of this? Who is going to pay for all of these people to devote their time to reviewing pedigrees? The breed clubs rely on dues, which depending on the breed can either be alot or a little. Then, you would have to have members that again would be willing to give up their show/breeding/mentoring time to review these.

The government could subsidize this, but I really don't want the federal government trying to govern the breeding of dogs. I can't imagine that they'd be very knowledgeable.

I don't think it should be government subsidized, though it might be wise to put it into government control so that it is fairly managed for the good of all. Contractors, for instance, could just be regulated by contractors, but the government is at least involved so that shoddy workmanship can be avoided as much as possible.

I think my question would be how can breeders NOT be willing to give up show/breeding/mentoring time to manage such a program if they really care about the dog world? Why don't breeders care more that so many people think they are scum based on the worst of them? I can't tell you the number of times I've had people come to rescue because they refuse to go to a breeder, and if you ask them why, its usually about the horror stories they've either experienced themselves or heard from a friend/relative. Most people are not dealing with responsible breeders because most breeders are not responsible, and it requires a "master's degree" in breeding to know the difference. So if responsible breeders are dedicated to improving the breed, why are they not improving the majority of the breed, which is produced by substandard breeders? Isn't allowing substandard breeding to continue on such a broad scale going to result in an inferior gene pool? I know there are breeds that have already been severely compromized with diseases such as CHD where there are no dogs that aren't affected.

Originally Posted by Snowshoe

So, we're back to square one and sadly we don't agree. I think people in general should be more responsible for the freedoms that they have. That freedom in turn causes dogs to suffer needlessly because there will inevitably be people who are not responsible.

So we should abolish all government protections and thusly require people to figure out for themselves if car manufacturers put their cars together properly, and if contractors built their homes secure enough that they won't fall down with the next breeze? Once again, why should the breeding industry be the only one that offers no quality control and no public accountability?

[SFury]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

One of the reasons that I have more hope for this law than common leash laws is that this one has become a rallying point that an unheard of number of rescues and animal control officers are backing and promoting, and because of that, I think it's more likely than ever that we're going to demand that it is enforced once passed. No longer will breeders be able to advertise in classified ads without the risk of being reported and required to show proof of being licensed, or getting fined for having unaltered dogs. No longer will we have to watch the guy down the street produce litter after litter of unwanted kittens without having the tool to stop him. There is a grass roots motivation to make this law work once passed, and the fact that it is state wide even helps that motivation because there is no question about whether it's legal in any particular jurisdiction.

Leash laws fail because there aren't enough law enforcement officers. A bill that won't add funding for nine to eighteen months to a program to allow the hiring of additional officers won't change that fact. Government funding is a strange thing. Money doesn't just show up out of nowhere unless a program, or company, gets money through an earmarked funds through a grant program. That money is allocated for a grant like all other government funding.

Once again, you are expecting people to report other people. This doesn't always work well. In fact it rarely ever works. This is why we have a military, and police forces. People don't like to tattle on others. In fact we teach them not to in public and private schools.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

It seems to me that they are already fighting the bill, the question is, why aren't they developing something better? And we all have dogs, work, and family, but if we care about the dogs, and the cost to society, we make time. Dogs, work, and family sure doesn't stop rescue people from trying to make a difference to the dogs in trouble. In fact, we'd actually like more time for our own dogs, work, and family, which we might have a chance for if there weren't so many dying in the shelters.

One possible answer comes from testing. Require that everyone who sells pups to do health testing that is related to the breed(s) of the pups before selling. This type of legislation could impose severe fines and potentially animal seizures, and would only affect those breaking the law. It would be a leash law, or a drunk driving law. No law will ever be perfect, but at least the law abiding won't be impacted more than those who ignore current laws.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

But what is the actual penalty of that? Does anyone outside of the club know that they've been banned? Does it really matter? Or does the banned breeder just explain it away as being a political move by over-zealous club board members, and go on doing what s/he always did? Being licensed by a city/county/state agency, comparable to engineers and contractors, would require showing that license, not only to the people they work for/sell to, but also I believe that contractors have to show such proof when taking out permits and being inspected. They also have to provide their license number when advertising. And the only thing that the public needs education on is to be sure they are using a licensed contractor - the public does not need education on how to wire an electrical box (analogous to knowing how to breed). And by the way, if breed clubs already police and ban their members, how do you explain Andrew Hunte being in the GSDA club?

What a club can do varies on their contract wording. Without kowing what Hunte and his lawyers said/did in the closed meeting who knows how he kept his GSDA membership. The hearing was done in a closed session which means that the details cannot be released.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I don't think heads and fronts are the problem. The problem is whether the dog has proper housing (no stacked cages), proper health screenings, veterinary care, socialization, enforceable contracts, return policies, etc.

You are looking at one side of the problem. There are two sides of the coin. Breeders breed dogs with certain standards in mind. That is one thing that breed clubs look at. Good breeders don't have substandard housing for their animals, and screen their buyers to make certain that their pups are going to good homes. They aren't BYBs, or more importantly, the millers who have caged animals. The millers that don't do health testing, and the ones who will most easily obtain intact permits if AB1634 passes into law.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I don't think it should be government subsidized, though it might be wise to put it into government control so that it is fairly managed for the good of all. Contractors, for instance, could just be regulated by contractors, but the government is at least involved so that shoddy workmanship can be avoided as much as possible.

There already is one oversight body for businesses. The Better Business Bureau. If dog breeders are treated like a business then they would be ultimately be under their watchful eye.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

I think my question would be how can breeders NOT be willing to give up show/breeding/mentoring time to manage such a program if they really care about the dog world? Why don't breeders care more that so many people think they are scum based on the worst of them? I can't tell you the number of times I've had people come to rescue because they refuse to go to a breeder, and if you ask them why, its usually about the horror stories they've either experienced themselves or heard from a friend/relative. Most people are not dealing with responsible breeders because most breeders are not responsible, and it requires a "master's degree" in breeding to know the difference. So if responsible breeders are dedicated to improving the breed, why are they not improving the majority of the breed, which is produced by substandard breeders? Isn't allowing substandard breeding to continue on such a broad scale going to result in an inferior gene pool? I know there are breeds that have already been severely compromized with diseases such as CHD where there are no dogs that aren't affected.

People who went to a bad breeder get what they deserve. Their lack of effort finding a reputable breeder means that they opened Pandora's box and got trouble. Pity should be given to those that deserve it. Not to those who cause their own problems. As with anything, the rule is caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

Also, have you worked with a good breeder? One who tests their animals, and does the background work to find good buyers for their pups? I have. They spend an inordinate amount of time with their animals, and their families. Not much time is left when a litter of pups is about to arrive, and once they have been born. For a good two months free time doesn't exist.

Are there people who would make the time to help provide an oversight body? I bet there are.

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

So we should abolish all government protections and thusly require people to figure out for themselves if car manufacturers put their cars together properly, and if contractors built their homes secure enough that they won't fall down with the next breeze? Once again, why should the breeding industry be the only one that offers no quality control and no public accountability?

There are laws in place that regulate the industries you mentioned. If breeders have laws passed that affect them in a positive manner then the oversight body, the BBB, can go after the law breaking folks.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Again, what "costs" are you talking about? And what anti-breeding laws and anti-pet laws are in So. Ca.?

Costs to the shelter for enforcement which of course comes from the taxpayers. LA County passed a mandatory castration and hysterectomy law not long ago. LA has onerous fees for having an intact dogs. I can't recall the others offhand. Too lazy to look it up right now or the numbers. lol

[quote]
Also, is there any animal law that you don't consider to be about animal rights?
[quote]

Yes there are some. But anything backed by PETA or the HSUS is designed only to make it harder to own animals. Its not about protecting animals.

Are you saying that the numbers of Mexican puppies surged after these undefined laws were passed? What do you base that opinion on?

Yes this surge started after those laws. I believe I already put up one source for that. The US Border patrol.

As for puppymills, you might be right. More people who have been turned down by responsible breeders might go to pet stores for puppies because there won't be any backyard breeders. But are you saying you'd prefer that people buy from irresponsible backyard breeders than from pet stores? I'd rather put an end to backyard breeding and then continue to work on putting a stop to puppymills.

My opinion - a lot of those people are trying to get a breed that isn't best suited for them. A lot of breeders will help steer them in the right direction. All of us would like to see an end to puppymills but this bill isn't the answer. There is no easy answer.

You keep saying "many vets" which is an opinion and not a fact. On the other hand, it's a FACT that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter. Your wishful thinking dependent on unnamed and uncounted vets that might support your position is nothing but opinion.

Its also a fact that not all vets are members of the AVMA nor does the AVMA reflect the belief of all its members. I've posted the link to where you can view the studies that show health and behavioral risks for yourself. The easiest places to find them (with additional references) are www.ab1634.com and www.saveourdogs.net. No I'm not the person who was posting as "saveourdogs".

Did you bother to read them? How many vets have you actually spoken to about it? Ever spoken to any holistic vets?

I don't want to emulate something that doesn't exist. Once again, if you are going to make claims about surrounding areas, then you need to list those areas so we can examine what they are doing.

You're being disengenuous. They DO exist. I've listed them before. One I may not have listed is No Kill Solutions. They're using that in San Francisco. SF has had great success with it to date and is used as a model for other cities.

In Santa Cruz its much easier to get a permit than the proposed statewide pet extinction bill. There are important fundamental differences.

San Mateo was the first to pass it. The ones that pushed for it - Peninsula Humane Society - is not endorsing this pet extinction bill. Their results were disappointing.

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=002&sc=595

"In neighboring Santa Clara County, per capita euthanasia rates for dogs
decreased by 93% between 1995 and 2002, without a mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance or other draconian restrictions. That's a lot better than the
46% Santa Cruz has seen."

"Neighboring Marin County, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco have
significantly lower per capita shelter euthanasia rates than Santa Cruz
County, and they did it without mandatory spay/neuter. If AB 1634 is
enacted it will lead to an increase in euthanasia rates in these and many
other jurisdictions."

"In California overall, state statistics show that per capita euthanasia
rates for dogs decreased by 65% between 1995 and 2002 without a mandatory spay/neuter law. This is a faster rate of improvement than the 46% Santa Cruz has seen. Santa Cruz shelter euthanasia rates are falling more slowly than the statewide average."

Here's yet another bit on why these laws fail -

http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

And more on why they're not the answer (ironically from an animal rights group) -

http://network.bestfriends.org/anima...news/4108.html

It is not arrogant to require breeders to be responsible, and that's what this bill requires. Why do you have such a problem with only responsible breeders being allowed to breed? Why do you support irresponsible backyard breeding?

Where have I or anyone else against the pet extinction bill said we supported irresponsible breeding? Do you really think there's a magic wand approach that will work?

Its arrogant for animal rightists, who know next to nothing about breeding, dictating whats responsible and what isn't. Most people want all breeders to be responsible but legislating it won't work and never has worked. Animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS don't know the first thing about breeding other than you need a male and a female. They're against it and demonize breeders. Thinking they have valuable input for breeding is like saying Osama bin Laden is an ambassador for peace.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by SFury

Leash laws fail because there aren't enough law enforcement officers. A bill that won't add funding for nine to eighteen months to a program to allow the hiring of additional officers won't change that fact. Government funding is a strange thing. Money doesn't just show up out of nowhere unless a program, or company, gets money through an earmarked funds through a grant program. That money is allocated for a grant like all other government funding.

Once again, you are expecting people to report other people. This doesn't always work well. In fact it rarely ever works. This is why we have a military, and police forces. People don't like to tattle on others. In fact we teach them not to in public and private schools.

You're right, normally people don't like to tattle on other people, but this is different. Rescue volunteers have a vested interest in "tattling" because if we don't, then we are the ones that have to clean up the resultant litters.

Originally Posted by SFury

One possible answer comes from testing. Require that everyone who sells pups to do health testing that is related to the breed(s) of the pups before selling. This type of legislation could impose severe fines and potentially animal seizures, and would only affect those breaking the law. It would be a leash law, or a drunk driving law. No law will ever be perfect, but at least the law abiding won't be impacted more than those who ignore current laws.

When will breeders be proposing this law? I look forward to it.

Originally Posted by SFury

What a club can do varies on their contract wording. Without kowing what Hunte and his lawyers said/did in the closed meeting who knows how he kept his GSDA membership. The hearing was done in a closed session which means that the details cannot be released.

That's not the point. The point is that there's at least one club who is not effective in policing their own if they allow the biggest puppymiller in the country to be one of it's members. How can we trust in the effectiveness of clubs on less obvious infractions?

Originally Posted by SFury

You are looking at one side of the problem. There are two sides of the coin. Breeders breed dogs with certain standards in mind. That is one thing that breed clubs look at. Good breeders don't have substandard housing for their animals, and screen their buyers to make certain that their pups are going to good homes. They aren't BYBs, or more importantly, the millers who have caged animals. The millers that don't do health testing, and the ones who will most easily obtain intact permits if AB1634 passes into law.

Breed clubs like the GSDA? You're right though, good breeders do all those things, but the majority of breeders are not good breeders, and what happened with the GSDA shows that even the breed club breeders are not immune to bad breeding with no consequences.

Originally Posted by SFury

There already is one oversight body for businesses. The Better Business Bureau. If dog breeders are treated like a business then they would be ultimately be under their watchful eye.

If the BBB was all we needed to keep businesses in line, there wouldn't be a need for contractor licensing boards, veterinary licensing boards, etc. etc. The BBB is practically worthless, and how would it even work with breeding anyway? People could complain to the BBB because the breeder asked them too many questions, or turned them down for a dog. There needs to be an entity that is knowledgeable about breeding to set rules and hand out real penalties for those that break the rules - penalties that would restrict future breeding.

Originally Posted by SFury

People who went to a bad breeder get what they deserve. Their lack of effort finding a reputable breeder means that they opened Pandora's box and got trouble. Pity should be given to those that deserve it. Not to those who cause their own problems. As with anything, the rule is caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

Oh nice. Once again, in every other industry, the buyer is protected to a certain extent by regulations that require the producer to meet a certain standard. To expect buyers to be as knowledgeable about breeding and genetics as a good breeder should be, is ridiculous, especially when you consider that even breeders can't come to a concensus about what constitutes good breeding. If I have to educate myself to know as much as a breeder does, what the hell do I need the breeder for? IMO, it truly shows the lack of ethics of breeders when they try to put the fault on the buyer for not knowing the breeder was a crook.

Originally Posted by SFury

Also, have you worked with a good breeder? One who tests their animals, and does the background work to find good buyers for their pups? I have. They spend an inordinate amount of time with their animals, and their families. Not much time is left when a litter of pups is about to arrive, and once they have been born. For a good two months free time doesn't exist.

No, I haven't worked with a good breeder - when I meet one, I'll let you know. But I've worked with loads of rescue people who find time outside of their animals and families, and are even caring for abandoned pregnant animals and the resultant litters -- and yet they still try to improve things for the animals and society.

Originally Posted by SFury

Are there people who would make the time to help provide an oversight body? I bet there are.

There are laws in place that regulate the industries you mentioned. If breeders have laws passed that affect them in a positive manner then the oversight body, the BBB, can go after the law breaking folks.

The BBB is not a policing agency. They will not be able to stop someone from breeding. Animal control can do that if they have the tools, in the form of laws, to do so. In this case, I have no doubt that rescue will aid them to do this, in any way we can, because it is in our benefit, and the animals benefit, to do so. Making sure the laws are enforced is our way of creating more time for our families by reducing the amount of unwanted animals born, and the amount of animals placed irresponsibly so they end up on shelters' death row. We aren't busy making excuses for irresponsibility, we're trying to stop that irresponsibility. If breeders refuse to propose the tools to police their own, then rescue and others that care about the animals are going to do it.

[Snowshoe]

*sigh*

You know, I wouldn't give a rat's a$$ about this bill if it didn't affect good breeders, but it does.

I suppose that in the end the bill will be passed anyway, and good and bad alike will be punished. The puppy mills will continue pumping out puppies as they always have with the government's blessing.

The pet store will continue selling sick and underaged puppies as it always has, because the government makes money off of them and won't regulate them.

These puppies will be easy come easy go, and will still end up in shelters whether they are spayed or not.

The guy down the street will continue having puppies with his bitch as he always has, because he doesn't care what this law says and no one will rat him out.

And the good breeders will buck up and do the right thing and pay to have x amount of unspayed bitches and dogs and get their special certificates so that they can continue bettering the breed.

Will it help the over population problem? After all of this, I certainly hope that something good would come from it.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by rpe

Costs to the shelter for enforcement which of course comes from the taxpayers. LA County passed a mandatory castration and hysterectomy law not long ago. LA has onerous fees for having an intact dogs. I can't recall the others offhand. Too lazy to look it up right now or the numbers. lol

So you're saying that shelter costs have skyrocketed, but you're also saying that shelter deaths have plummeted? Your comment was about areas around Santa Cruz, but in response to my asking what areas, you cite Los Angeles? Are you purposely trying to confuse the issue, or is it that your information comes from sources that really don't know California at all?

[quote]
Also, is there any animal law that you don't consider to be about animal rights?
[quote]

Yes there are some. But anything backed by PETA or the HSUS is designed only to make it harder to own animals. Its not about protecting animals.

[quote=rpe;85684] Please feel free to post any animal protection laws that would not have PETA or HSUS backing. No matter how radical they get, they're still going to back a sensible law that protects animals. After the Katrina debacle, there were laws passed that would protect animals in future disaster situations, so that if someone is being evacuated, they can take their pet with them. Surely you can't be against that. Are you aware that both PETA and HSUS backed it? Does that make it an AR law?

Originally Posted by rpe

Yes this surge started after those laws. I believe I already put up one source for that. The US Border patrol.

No, I don't believe you did put up a source for that, and the only thing I could find about puppymilled Mexican dogs and the US Border patrol was an article by Best Friends Animal Society, which does not back you up, and I believe in the past that you've indicated that they too are an AR group. So I'm sure that can't be it. Maybe you could explain why a law in Los Angeles would bring Mexican puppymilled dogs into San Diego? You do realize that Los Angeles does not rule all of So. California, right?

Originally Posted by rpe

My opinion - a lot of those people are trying to get a breed that isn't best suited for them. A lot of breeders will help steer them in the right direction. All of us would like to see an end to puppymills but this bill isn't the answer. There is no easy answer.

Its also a fact that not all vets are members of the AVMA nor does the AVMA reflect the belief of all its members. I've posted the link to where you can view the studies that show health and behavioral risks for yourself. The easiest places to find them (with additional references) are www.ab1634.com and www.saveourdogs.net. No I'm not the person who was posting as "saveourdogs".

I didn't say you were saveourdogs. It's against forum rules for me to discuss who you might have been before, or that your rhetoric and writing style might be the same, so I wouldn't dream of doing so. What I don't understand is why you keep repeating that not all vets agree, when I point out that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter. There will never be an issue that all of any group of people will agree. Why do you suppose the AVMA would support something that you say is detrimental to dogs? Could it be that the studies aren't all that conclusive after all? Reminds me of the studies you hear on the nightly news, that are contradicted the following week by other studies, ad nauseum. To drink coffee, to not drink coffee, that is the question. One day it's bad, the next it's good, and the next it's bad again. So being that these studies exist, how do you explain the AVMA's position?

Originally Posted by rpe

Did you bother to read them? How many vets have you actually spoken to about it? Ever spoken to any holistic vets?

I have a family member that has been in the veterinary profession for over 20 years. As such, I have not only heard the horror stories of not altering, but have gotten a fair cross section of beliefs stated by various vets. I've also been in rescue over 20 years and talked to a lot of vets used for rescue dogs. I still would not consider this to be proof of anything, but feel that if veterinary associations endorse a procedure, then it's a pretty safe bet. I certainly feel that their endorsement is safer than listening to rhetoric from some NAIA website, or the offshoots of NAIA.

Originally Posted by rpe

You're being disengenuous. They DO exist. I've listed them before. One I may not have listed is No Kill Solutions. They're using that in San Francisco. SF has had great success with it to date and is used as a model for other cities.

If SF is so successful, how do you explain the overpopulation problems in the surrounding cities? Why are they not emulating SF? If SF is so successful, why have they not written up a proposed bill that would make their success a statewide program? What you don't understand about no-kill is that it only means those animals considered adoptable. Shelters all over the country are using methods like the Sternberg method, that judges dogs by overly strict tests that very few animals can pass. Those animals are killed but not put in the statistics that would make the words "no-kill" meaningless. I've seen that kind of thing happen in various shelters, and sometimes rescue can save these unadoptable dogs at the 11th hour, and with a little rehab, can make them adoptable -- proving they weren't unadoptable all along.

Originally Posted by rpe

In Santa Cruz its much easier to get a permit than the proposed statewide pet extinction bill. There are important fundamental differences.

San Mateo was the first to pass it. The ones that pushed for it - Peninsula Humane Society - is not endorsing this pet extinction bill. Their results were disappointing.

From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...&sn=002&sc=595

"In neighboring Santa Clara County, per capita euthanasia rates for dogs
decreased by 93% between 1995 and 2002, without a mandatory spay/neuter
ordinance or other draconian restrictions. That's a lot better than the
46% Santa Cruz has seen."

"Neighboring Marin County, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco have
significantly lower per capita shelter euthanasia rates than Santa Cruz
County, and they did it without mandatory spay/neuter. If AB 1634 is
enacted it will lead to an increase in euthanasia rates in these and many
other jurisdictions."

"In California overall, state statistics show that per capita euthanasia
rates for dogs decreased by 65% between 1995 and 2002 without a mandatory spay/neuter law. This is a faster rate of improvement than the 46% Santa Cruz has seen. Santa Cruz shelter euthanasia rates are falling more slowly than the statewide average."

Here's yet another bit on why these laws fail -

http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

And more on why they're not the answer (ironically from an animal rights group) -

http://network.bestfriends.org/anima...news/4108.html

What's ironic is that you would quote an AR group when in the past you've been so adamant about anything they say being wrong. I guess it's all in whether or not they back your opinions or not, right? Hey, if you agree with an AR group, does that make you an AR wacko too?

You also better check the sources you're giving. The sfgate link above leads to a political cartoon that is definitely not opposing this bill. Also, did you happen to read the philosophy espoused by the No Kill Solutions advocacy site? They clearly state that only one small town has been able to emulate San Francisco in all this time. Don't you think that's an indication that we need something different? Here's their philosophy, but if you want to know more, you have to pay to attend their seminars, or pay to receive their literature: http://www.nokillsolutions.com/philosophy.htm

Originally Posted by rpe

Where have I or anyone else against the pet extinction bill said we supported irresponsible breeding? Do you really think there's a magic wand approach that will work?

You say you're for irresponsible breeding every time you support giving irresponsible breeders the freedom to breed. You say you're for BYBs when you don't want requirements for licensing breeders which include competing with their dogs. You say your for BYBs irresponsibility when you support no regulations and no licensing on breeders.

Originally Posted by rpe

Its arrogant for animal rightists, who know next to nothing about breeding, dictating whats responsible and what isn't. Most people want all breeders to be responsible but legislating it won't work and never has worked. Animal rights groups like PETA and HSUS don't know the first thing about breeding other than you need a male and a female. They're against it and demonize breeders. Thinking they have valuable input for breeding is like saying Osama bin Laden is an ambassador for peace.

It's not arrogance, it's desperation. Animal welfarists and animal rightists would not be dictating what's responsible in regards to breeding if the breeders would be doing it already. Once again, why aren't breeders pushing for laws requiring all breeders to be responsible? Face facts, if they don't do it, someone else will, and if they don't like the bill that's passed, it's their own fault for not proposing a better one in the first place. The arrogance is breeders that feel that their own hobbies are more important than irresponsible breeding and placement that leads to shelter deaths. If they won't police themselves, then it's going to be done for them.