[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Oh no, there has been this problem for years. The only way to reduce the problem would be to make it illeagal to sell dogs and cats at the swap meets or on the 'street' (which would include parking lots ect). That bill needs to written along with the abolition of dog and cat sales in stores, with provisions for non profit adoptions as done in PetsMart and Petco. I think I've mentioned that such laws should be made before.

May I assume that you are just talking about something that needs to be changed, and not suggesting that AB1634 be the vehicle to change it?

If so, though I'd love to see those changes too, how would you get around the "restraint of trade" issue? As long as animals are classified as property, by what legal theory do you prevent people from buying and selling that property anywhere they see fit? In my city, animals are restricted from swap meets for several reasons - humane issues, health code issues, liability issues - but that includes adoptions too. If a non-profit agency can display live animals for adoption, why can't for-profit businesses sell them as well? Remember, when you are contemplating a law, you have to consider the probable opposition to that law, because the legislators are sure going to have to consider them.

Originally Posted by Cassie Nova

May I interrupt to ask a few questions?

I finally sat down and read this- on the link to the bill that DogAdvocat posted (I think it was he/she anyway) http://www.cahealthypets.com/billtext.htm, it says that purebred dogs are exempt and dogs with conformation in certain things, service dogs, etc. are exempt....is this true? If so, why is this a problem? I really don't understand the law fully and I am quite confused at this point.

The problem arises when breeders object to being regulated in any way. They don't want to have to meet any mandated criteria regarding their so-called hobbies.

[cshellenberger]

I don't know the legalese well enough to write up a differential on the Petstore issue. As far as the Swap meets, they are dirty, underaged, unvaccinated, and exposed to health hazards and possible disease by being in a public place. Selling on the street or in Parking lots, they generally are in boxes, don't have proper food or water and again, the health risk factor for young pups without enough immuntiy being exposed to possible disease.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

I'm not aware of any large scale puppy mills in California, certainly none like you find in other states, nor do I see this as a puppy mill law.

I'm not sure how you define "large scale" but there's quite a few puppymills in rural areas. Periodically there's report of a bust where several hundred dogs have been confiscated. There was a chihuahua miller busted in Palmdale a couple of years ago that had 200 dogs. I helped close down one in Agoura several years ago that had 300 dogs consisting of Old English, Yorkies, Poodles, and a couple of breeds they were just getting started with. I know of one commercial poodle kennel in Lancaster that could be considered a puppymill by some. There was one busted not long ago with a lot of collies, but I don't remember the count, and am thinking it was around Bakersfield. The further out of the city you go, the more chance that you're going to find commercial breeders with hundreds of dogs.

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

I don't know the legalese well enough to write up a differential on the Petstore issue. As far as the Swap meets, they are dirty, underaged, unvaccinated, and exposed to health hazards and possible disease by being in a public place. Selling on the street or in Parking lots, they generally are in boxes, don't have proper food or water and again, the health risk factor for young pups without enough immuntiy being exposed to possible disease.

But there's already humane laws against that. All you need to do is to force the authorities to enforce those laws. I haven't seen what you're talking about, though I have no doubt it exists, but what I'd do would be to research what the laws are for that jurisdiction, and then go to Animal Control, or the local Humane Society, or the Police (whoever had jurisdiction) and complain and ask for action. Just be sure you get all your ducks in a row, so they can't shine you on by telling you they can't do anything. If it requires proof, then take a camera, or find out information on the seller and the site operator (swap meet owner). You don't want to be too obvious or the seller may just move his location before the authorities arrive.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

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?

You haven't read anything have you. I did cite other areas. In particular San Francisco and San Mateo.

Originally Posted by rpe

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?

I'm more concerned about putting the priority on getting people out first. If pets can be taken without that getting in the way of people being saved then I'm for it. However, the H$U$ and PETA don't care about people.

Did you know the HSUS was under investigation for mishandling money it received after hurricane Katrina? That rescue complained most of what the HSUS did was stand around and get in the way while collecting money.

Do you really think organizations that want "total animal liberation" are about protection? Its a naive viewpoint. That means NO PETS. Or why would you back anything PETA has to say when they make little effort to find pets homes? They kill them instead.

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

Here it is again. One anyway -
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2...er/puppies.xml

Maybe you could explain why a law in Los Angeles would bring Mexican puppymilled dogs into San Diego?

People want puppies. With anti-breeding laws and outrageous fees for an intact animal that opens the door for puppymills. Thats why there's been a surge from Mexico. The pet extinction act is a benefit to puppymills.

I didn't say you were saveourdogs.

It was someone else that thought I was.

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.

You mistakenly believe that the AVMA represents all vets. FAR from it. And you continually refuse to accept that studies (by vets) show spay/neuter can be harmful especially at a young age. Any vet I've discussed it with says it can cause problems. I did not see that the AVMA statement says there is no possibility of adverse effects. Its a mistake to have blind faith in any institution.

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.

One vet is hardly conclusive wouldn't you agree? I've known several vets for quite a while and spoken to many others. Many won't speak out against animal rightists for fear of harassment. Some of what they've seen including incontinence from spaying very young to increased aggression are in line with the studies.

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.

What you seem to be doing is picking what bolsters your opinion rather than looking at the actual studies. The vets who did the studies aren't associated with the NAIA. Animal rightists generally don't like the NAIA because that is one organization that exposes their true agenda.

If SF is so successful, how do you explain the overpopulation problems in the surrounding cities? Why are they not emulating SF?

That SF is successful is not my opinion. Please make the effort to do some research. I have no idea why more cities don't try what they're doing. Politics perhaps.

why have they not written up a proposed bill that would make their success a statewide program?

The goal of animal rightists is pet extinction. The HSUS and PETA are against No Kill Solutions and both those organizations are pushing hard for the pet extinction bill.

What you don't understand about no-kill is that it only means those animals considered adoptable.

I know that. However euthanasia has still gone down which you refuse to acknowledge. The pet extinction bill is a particularly hateful bill when one realizes it treats everyone as if they're too stupid to care for their own pet.

There will never be zero animals in shelters unless there are no pets.

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?

Your answer is like killing everyone with AIDS so the disease is eradicated. Yes that is certainly an apt analogy. Its sad you are for a bill that will benefit puppymills and unhealthy pets and instead focus on solutions that work but are not implemented correctly.

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

I have some of their literature. lol I certainly don't agree with all of it.

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.

*Sigh* Thats a typical animal rightist tactic. No facts just pointing an accusatory finger when shown facts don't support their position.

It's not arrogance, it's desperation.

What a load of bovine feces. Animal rightists don't care about healthy pets. This bill just proves it again. Also I note the typical demonizing of breeders most of which actually lose money breeding. Those who think the typical breeder is just greedy has no knowledge of the subject.

Face facts, if they don't do it, someone else will

Ah, the "do it our way or we'll force you to" even when shown their "way" doesn't work. A sad state of affairs.


Animal rightists...working hard to make us all petless vegans.

[cshellenberger]

Ok, I think we've beaten this dead horse enough. Time for this thread to die.